If people aren't owning homes how will the country afford care for the elderly?

[liltingleaf]

Saw on the news that less and less young people are getting on the housing ladder because of rising house prices.

However, I was thinking, at the same time a large proportion of people release assets from their home to be able to afford nursing care in their old age. If this cannot happen, how will people/the country afford nursing care for an increasing number of people without an asset to fund this?

It’s worth remembering that if one half of the couple remains living in the family home then the value of the property can’t be taken into account when calculating income for care charges. The average stay in a residential home is relatively short - approx 2.5 years - so assuming a mortgage is paid there is potential for there to be equity left in the property even after care is paid for. Which seems fair enough.

No idea what impact the rental situation will have. The care sector will look completely different by then no doubt.

Not everyone gets an illness that requires expensive medical treatment. Yet as a nation we all pay into a health service that means we will have our treatment paid for if we get ill. Likewise not everyone in their last few years of life need paid care at home or to go into a nursing or care home. I would welcome Labour's suggestion in the past of every person paying 5 to 10% on their estate towards a national care fund, so everyone pools the risk of needing care at the end of their life.

I think people paid tax all their lives in the knowledge that the state would care for them in old age. Not fair for the govt to change the terms on them. If they'd known their houses would not benefit their kids, maybe more old people would not have bothered buying and would have blown it all on holidays when they were able to enjoy them!

This is my parents point of view and fair enough really.

People are still getting on the housing ladder, just at an older age than they used to (perhaps 35 now whereas it was 25 in the past).

Someone 35yo today in FT employment still has 25-30 yrs to become mortgage free, if they retire at a traditional 65yo. Plenty of people still working in their 70s now, though.

kursk I agree with your parents. Many older people saw buying a home as helping family. They can compare their income to others who chose to spend differently. For instance our car was always old, our holidays mainly visits to relatives, we had few luxuries. If we'd rented a council house, we'd have had far more disposable income, so our family would have benefited growing up.

We thought by being thrifty we'd pass on a bit of help to our DC or DGC just like the affluent had always done. But if we are unfortunate enough to need care, we are penalised for that decision. No account is taken of our lifetime earnings, just what we've ended up with.

My parents are planning on doing the same thing. Dads words were “ I worked hard to look after my family not to give it to the government”
*
I dont think what he is doing is immoral, I think he is doing the right thing, the goal posts have been moved since he started work.*

The flaw in this argument is, of course, that your father is assuming that if he and his wife do need long term care, after he has given away his assets, that same government, aka taxpayers, will have no choice but to look after him and his wife

It's not about morality, it's just not a sustainable model.

It’s not a given that having money gives you a better experience in a care home

But it can smooth the experience of entering a care home

My dear father decided he needed the support of a care home, after a medical appointment on a Thursday morning. He picked a local care home, went for a viewing on the next day (Friday) and moved in on the Saturday. No wait for referrals to social services, no intrusive questions, no waiting for decisions which get snarled up in the system. It was a very difficult time made as easy as possible.

We can argue the toss about whether a family home should be inherited by the 'kids' or used for care, but of course that can be got round - simply sell it and hand the money over to the kids tax free, it takes seven years or so, you can't pop your clogs before then.

All those who spent their money acquiring and renting out properties have a nicer old age to look forward to than the rest of us.

You also have a situation where if the parent is penniless and the son or daughter went on to make a mint, said offspring is not pressed to pay a penny towards care, the parent can sponge off the state, not unreasonably you might say, but the adult son could be a millionaire.

As for the whole euthanasia thing, erm, maybe wake up and smell the coffee. It's not 'euthanasia' if drugs aren't used, and it's not 'murder' if the resident is deemed to have lost mental capacity, see how those poor kids at Great Ormond Street are deemed to be brain dead, and life support is switched off - it's legal and you may say, quite right too in that case, or not, I'm just setting things out. Now, you try getting the care home to give your parent a drink when they've got past a certain point, or if they are deemed to have 'severe dementia' on the medical notes that you are only allowed to read after they've died. And, when you notice it aint happening with regards to the drink, see how the care home call in social services to fit you up when you press them on this point. Have you barred, and finish the job unimpeded.

I think we will return to families living with each other and helping each other out and providing care for different generations. Children and parents clubbing together to buy a house, grandparents will look after grandchildren and children will look after parents when they become old.

Social care has only really been a thing for the last 20 years or so. My married MIL had the above set up when she got married though we don't live with her now.

No it's not hatgirl. Don't scaremonger. It might be if care was foreseeable now eg if one of her parents had had a stroke or was immobile. Nothing wrong with passing in your assets at all and it is definitely not illegal. I suspect that the pps parents are early to mid 60's and in fair health. That is not deprivation of assets.

Er, where is hatgirl in all this? I haven't seen a post from her.

Somebody has to pay for care. If you jettison all your assets, that somebody is everyone else.

We need higher taxes. We won't vote for them as proved last year. Be warned.

I think people paid tax all their lives in the knowledge that the state would care for them in old age. Not fair for the govt to change the terms on them. If they'd known their houses would not benefit their kids, maybe more old people would not have bothered buying and would have blown it all on holidays when they were able to enjoy them!

This is nonsense, I'm sorry. We pay tax for all sorts of excellent reasons, including medical care in old age - which we will all get regardless of how much money we have.

If you are 30 and cannot afford a home, the state will (in theory) help you get one, eventually, either by putting you on a council house waiting list for affordable accomodation, and/or by paying housing benefit for you to privately rent. It isn't perfect, and plenty of people do fall through the cracks, and it has been deliberately gutted by the Tories since the time of Thatcher's council house sell-off, but the system is there. If you already have a house you own, you would not complain that the state was cheating you by not giving you a council house every time you wanted or needed to move house. You'd be expected to sell what you had to pay for the next home.

So, when you are 70, and you already have a house, but it doesn't suit your needs any more, and you have to move into a different kind of accommodation, why should you claim that the state is stealing your home, when it requires you to pay for your next home, if you can? It doesn't make any sense at all.

As someone who had to choose a care home, I saw massive differences in them. Some of them were dingy, understaffed and smelt of wee. Others were like boutique hotels, with loving staff and one literally smelt of roses. Have a guess which ones took local authority funded residents and which didn't. Also guess which one I chose for my parents who'd saved all their lives.

No way would I divest myself of all my assets to avoid care home fees. I want somewhere decent to live if I end up with dementia, not to be stuck in a smelly tip where I'm likely to be ill treated. A lot of people were horrified that my parents paid £1k a week each for their care. I wasn't, they'd saved for a rainy day and when it came the umbrella went up.

If they'd known their houses would not benefit their kids, maybe more old people would not have bothered buying and would have blown it all on holidays when they were able to enjoy them!
Agreed.

So, when you are 70, and you already have a house, but it doesn't suit your needs any more, and you have to move into a different kind of accommodation, why should you claim that the state is stealing your home, when it requires you to pay for your next home, if you can? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Probably because people don't see care "homes" as their homes. I certainly wouldn't.

Maybe you wouldn't. A lot of people do regard their care home as their home.

If they'd known their houses would not benefit their kids

But the houses are benefiting their kids - they are providing the parents of those kids with a home, and those kids will not have to provide 24 hour care for their ailing parents, and can spend what time they have available in social visits, not mopping up wee or standing in line in Boots to buy adult nappies. (I've done this. It's not fun.)

Probably because people don't see care "homes" as their homes. I certainly wouldn't.

That doesn't change the fact that it is their home.

Absolutely, Annie. And no 4am phone calls. Just getting a decent night's sleep was worth every penny. And it wasn't even my money!

To balance blueladys post, there was not a chance I'd have put my relative in the local, 5* resort type care home we could have had. It was beautiful looking ,no obvious smells, (that's because everywhere is tiled or lino flooring)but oh my, history of residents escaping, meds being mixed up, meals not very good at all, personal belongings going missing......versus the 28 room, converted mansion we chose, LA fully funded, carpeted, decorated just like back in the good old days, so important for some dementia patients, really evoked a homely feeling, smelt of urine yea, I'd have been wary if it hadn't tbh, would have shown the staff are potentially too quick with the incontinence pads for 'ease' (a sw told me to look out for this). We saw a good mix and ime the ones people think are dingy, old fashioned, are the very best of the best.

There is only one Ch in the area suited for emi patients, another hotel style one, I pray they never need to go into that one. Give me a bit of urine smell and old fashioned decor over business and profit mentality any day of the week.

Up to you Lovesagin. I wasn't putting mine in that kind of set up, they deserved better. None of the things you describe in the more expensive one applied in the one I chose. And the end of life care my mum got was faultless - and I'm the most critical person on the planet. Like I say, I want to pay for my care so I can have the best - or at least what I want.

I wasnt about to put my relative in a substandard place either. Can't polish a turd even if it is covered in tiles and plastic flooring!

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that money automatically means a better standard of care, it may help sure, but it absolutely doesn't guarantee it. It sets up potentially false hopes and can be misleading. It all depends on if there is a place with spaces, if you want it local (so choice reduced straight away), if it even has the right care provision etc etc.

Money gives you choice. With LA funding you do as you're told. I'd rather choose.

Similar experience with DGM Loves, council run home in not the nicest part of town, beautiful old building with old fashioned furniture and carpets. DGM had had a series of strokes and wasn't even really conscious/responsive but she had better care there than she ever did in hospital. She was always clean, the turning schedule was strictly adhered to so she didn't get any new bedsores/the ones she'd developed in hospital improved and we often arrived for visiting to find a carer just sitting reading to her. The staff were amazing with us as well, especially when she died, I'll never forget how kind they were. I don't doubt some homes (private and council run) are not so good but the perception that all council homes are sub standard (or that all private ones are superior) is just not true.

Not always! There needs to be a space available, it has to be suited to your needs.......with la funded you still get a choice, we certainly did, had about 15 great ones to choose from in the area, we were lucky that the one we wanted had a space.

I guess like most things health related it's a postcode lottery if my/your experiences are anything to go by.

Have a look on carersuk or talking point forum, plenty of posts on there from people surprised that money doesn't actually talk when it comes to care homes.

It's really not helpful hiding is it? Scaremongering that money = choice when the reality is, more often than not, it just gets you a seat next to Mrs Bloggs who is la funded.
I'd hate for people in a stressful situation to read this thread and be angry that their parents decided to splash their money and enjoy it while they could, having money really really doesn't guarantee a better standard of care. It just doesn't. It might, but it doesn't guarantee it. That is a fact.

It's definitely a postcode lottery. Where I live the council will only fund £350 a week. There are enough self funders that no provider will take la funded residents so there's no choice for them whatsoever. The piss scented home where staff were ignoring distressed residents was £800 a week. Round here you definitely get what you pay for.