I wonder if you get a refund if you don't go into a care home

seeker · 14/07/2009 22:12

I am so baffled by this. If you've got the money, why should the taxpayer (ie everyone else) pay for your care when you're old?

expatinscotland · 14/07/2009 23:30

Exactly, seeker.

Firepile · 14/07/2009 23:47

Err, because we pay for people's care if they have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, schizophrenia, pre-eclampsia but not if you happen to get a diagnosis of dementia (or no diagnosis at all). It's a lottery based on diagnosis - and the fact that this society does not value or respect older people.

(Having said that - it's not just older people who have to pay for thier care - younger people whose needs are defined as "social" rather than "health" also have to self fund their care if they have the means.

1dilemma · 15/07/2009 00:04

except firepile it was set up as the national health service not the national social service and was never designed to cover this or funded appropriately.

(not taking away from the unfairness of postcode lottery etc)

why should the dwindling numbers of young people pay for the care of those living in 1,000,000 pound houses? there is a feeling that a certain generation have had a 'good ride' peace, resources, pensions, NHS, educational opportunities property inflation etc etc

kimanaaaaaaaaaaan · 15/07/2009 00:06

So its best to not own your home or have savings?

I would think the best thing in this situation is to rent and make yoour spend your money as you earn it.

Firepile · 15/07/2009 00:09

Which rather suggests that it was a gap in the model (especially as the designation of "health" and "social" care needs is so arbitrary).

I'd much rather that my taxes paid for older people to get the care they need than on bailing out bankers - whose million pound homes look pretty safe from here.

AppleandMosesMummy · 15/07/2009 11:49

Nobody ever expect so many to live so long.
In USA you can buy long term health care insurance or you sell or your assets, or god forbid your family takes care of you.
I'd rather have my mum and mil under my roof than in a home and keep the £20k

morningpaper · 15/07/2009 11:53

I don't understand this desire to keep your house - surely the POINT of having a house is that you can 'cash it in' if needed - for care, or for drugs and gin... Not to HOARD it.

Either inheritance tax should be set at 100% or you will need to pay for your own care if you are able to...

AppleandMosesMummy · 15/07/2009 11:57

Hmmm that's how the rich stay rich MP by passing money down through generations, the poor start from scratch the day they are born.
I actually think the answer is that we shouldn't be living so long, I may change my mind when I'm 85 but it strikes me keeping somebody alive until they are 90 is not good for the planets resources.

MrsTittleMouse · 15/07/2009 11:57

That's the whole point though, isn't it? I always think that people have a strange attitude to insurance generally - it's money that I hope that we'll never need to use.

It's just the same as the NHS, we all pay in tax money for it, and hope that we won't be the ones that will need the expensive care.

seeker · 15/07/2009 12:00

I do wonder if the people objecting so strongly to people having to sell their houses to pay for their care are upset because they were expecting to inherit......

DracoDormiensNunquamTitilandus · 15/07/2009 12:02

"If you've got the money, why should the taxpayer (ie everyone else) pay for your care when you're old?"

Er, because you've been a tax payer and paid for other people's care?

I think the inequity is that you are seen as being penalised for having saved money or scrimped to own your own home whereas there will be some who spent all their money who get the care free of charge. Obviously there will also be some who didn't have enough money in the first place.

DracoDormiensNunquamTitilandus · 15/07/2009 12:03

FWIW, I don't want to inherit any of my parents' money. I want them to enjoy it.

AppleandMosesMummy · 15/07/2009 12:05

Seeker - well yes they probably are, I know a lot of people who only bought their houses on the basis that they expected to pay interest only until their parents died leaving them enough mnoey to be able to afford to pay their own mortgage off.
We've been sucked into a pyramid scheme and goodness knows who they winners will be because it all just looks like a bloody mess right now for young and old.

HecatesTwopenceworth · 15/07/2009 12:05

I am torn. Part of me thinks that you are supposed to provide for yourself through life - pay your own bills, feed and clothe yourself, meet your own needs through your wages and taxation, (which also pays for those times in your pre-oap days when you might need state support) so why shouldn't you meet your own needs in old age like you have your whole life?

On the other hand, it's not fair that if you do save for your old age, you give everything over while those who didn't save a penny get the same care for free.

Perhaps the answer is to increase taxation. An additional NI charge to cater for old age and then it is all free when you get there? Same way we pay for nhs? I mean, you pay for it but you don't know how much (or if) you will need it, so it would be the same thing.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 15/07/2009 12:09

One of the options though isn't a straight forward, bean for bean approach; it's paying a lump sum on retirement whether one will use the social care system or not.

DracoDormiensNunquamTitilandus · 15/07/2009 12:12

If you increase taxation now, do you then defer free care until the higher tax payers reach an age at which they need it? If not, what happens when the current tax payers reach old age and there's not enough money in the pot? Do they have to pay again?

I don't know what is right, I can see both sides. When today's elderly were tax payers, their expectation would have been that they would be looked after, having paid their taxes. It has turned out not to be the case.

bronze · 15/07/2009 12:12

My parents have what they have partly because they were left an inheritence by their parents and them their parents. My Dad has been very careful with his money partly so they can retire comfortably and partly because he wants to be able to leave us something just as they were left something.

All that will happen is that people will choose to be lavish with their money while they are younger as why should they pay when other people don't. It's already happening with the babyboomer generation anyway.

I'm with Hecate. Seems fairest

bronze · 15/07/2009 12:13

Draco they get more than we will get and we pay those same taxes.

Scary really what are people going to live off

shonaspurtle · 15/07/2009 12:22

My grandparents lived into their 90s and spent the last 3 years of their lives in a nursing home.

They worked and paid taxes their whole lives, enjoyed the NHS when their children were born, were paid a state pension for 30 years (plus my grandfather's state occupational pension, he was a teacher), lived in a lovely house until they sold it to go into a nursing home.

Social services took most of their money to pay for their care. The alternative could have been my mother & father giving up work and moving to care for them.

If my grandfather was here now he'd have told you he got a very good deal. He was more than happy to pay and my mum & dad were very grateful that someone else was looking after them when they couldn't - they think they got a good deal too.

There would have been more money to inherit if my grandparents had dropped down dead at 60 like many people, but I was glad for the 30 extra years I got too.

LaurieFairyCake · 15/07/2009 12:22

It is complete idiocy to think 'oh well, I've paid my taxes all my life, now I expect to keep all my assets and pass it on'.

No one has ever paid enough 'tax' to keep them in a care home at 500 quid a week for 15 years

I don't believe in inherited wealth and I'm completely happy for my home and all the stuff in it to go to fund my care in old age.

We come in with nowt and go out with nowt - that's how it should be.

And it's only in the ridiculously affluent West that we have we luxury of bothering with this. And it's only at this period in history too.

My dh's gran has 500k of assets as she was lucky enough to buy a house in Surrey (which by the way was onlty 3 times yearly salary) - she is happy for that to go to fund her care when she needs it - she too thinks it's ludicrous that her and her minor civil servant husband managed to accumulate so much 'wealth' in so short a time.

morningpaper · 15/07/2009 12:25

hear hear LaurieFairyCake

TheCrackFox · 15/07/2009 12:29

But we are in the situation where the official retirement age is 65 but lots of people retire at 55. They then spend the next 30+ years not working. The system, as it is, is unworkable and completely unaffordable. The sensible approach, now, would be to move the retirement age to 70.

CarGirl · 15/07/2009 12:32

I'm with LaurieFairyCake, only the rich & wealthy used to inherit but because of a blip in economy we now have generations of "working class" (as I am!) who seem to expect inheritence!

There are advantages to owning a home (no being moved on etc) even if it means you have to sell it to fund your care.

LaurieFairyCake · 15/07/2009 12:39

I definitely can't see people on mass deciding they won't buy a house, will spend it all on rent and piss the rest up the wall before they retire.

Most people just wouldn't do that.