Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

so what's yr take on having to sell yr house when old to fund yr care home?

183 replies

herjazz · 03/10/2009 09:53

so in light of this what dyou reckon?

Whilst I think care for the elderly is pretty shoddy and needs looking into, I'm not against folk with reasonable assets paying towards it. Why do they need to own a house they are not living in? Why should inheritance be seen as an automatic right?

I could be due to inherit loads off my folks - but if they end up having to cash in their assets to pay for more appropriate housing and care requirements then surely that's just them using THEIR money as they should? I shouldn't be moaning their assets stay intact and untouched so I can cream off them once they are dead?

OP posts:
LaTrucha · 03/10/2009 15:33

Sorry, I haven't read everything, but Labour have announced funding for free personal care at home so more can stay at home. Has someone already said that?

Ivykaty44 · 03/10/2009 15:35

Rather than the 8k at 65 - I would rather pay through to my own fund all my working life - so say £2 per week to a private company that will then care for me when I am old and cant wipe my own nose.

I dont want it to be a tax - I dont want to pay now and the gov spend it on other old people and there is nothing lueft when I get old. I dont want to pay a large lump sum when I get to 67/65

I want it to be affordable for lots of people to pay so most will pay and have a far more comfortable old age.

But I dont then want to see the porr not get council funds and sit in squalor and councils cut spending in aged related policies.

piscesmoon · 03/10/2009 15:37

Your situation shows what is wrong with the system, Squitch.
I just don't think people are going to have enough money in the pot, in future. They end up in debt after further education, they then need to support a family and at the end of life are supposed to have enough savings to fund what might be more than 20yr in care.
The sums don't add up.

alwayslookingforanswers · 03/10/2009 15:37

and aBetaDad - I take it you have 5 children?

Ivykaty44 · 03/10/2009 15:43

or even having to sell and move somewhere smaller to pay for dp's care

You do not have that choice though - you will be made to sell your home and use all the money to pay for your dp care - leaving you in council accomidation and who knows which estate or plase they will put you - could be miles from your dp care and two bus journey's and your old and cant drive....

ABetaDad · 03/10/2009 17:07

alwayslooking - no not yet

But then again neither did the developer who bought our house from the 90 yr old woman and then found he could not sell it or get the planning permission he wanted so is stuck with it. He had to rent it to us. We intend to buy a 2/3 bed house as soon as DSs leave home.

The entire thread is really about the UK obsession with property. It has ruined our country financially and torn apart the fabric of our society.

I went to a franchise exhibition / conference in Birmingham yesterday and there were lots of couples there looking to buy franchise businesses even quiet a few motehrs with babies. The banks there were all looking to lend to people looking to buy a franchise but all they really wanted to know was whether people had a home to secure even yet more lending on.

3littlefrogs · 03/10/2009 17:14

Those of you who say you would never put your parent into a care home: When you get to the stage of being unable to leave the house unless you pay someone to sit with her while you rush to school or the shops, you can never have a holiday unless you can pay £500 per week respite, you have to watch her all the time in case she set the house on fire, or leaves all the taps on, locks all the doors and hides the keys, you have to give up your job, your kids can't invite friends home.....you get up six or seven times a night because she is shouting etc. You reach a point where it is impossible to carry on.

Then you are grieving for the person you loved, under pressure to clear out their home to sell it, dispose of treasured belongings etc etc. The care home fees have to be paid no matter what else is happening.

sarah293 · 03/10/2009 17:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

alwayslookingforanswers · 03/10/2009 17:22

so you think that people should move somewhee smaller once their children are at home yet you're thinking of buying a 3 bedroom house when yours have gone? Surely you only need one bedroom if the kids are no longer at home .

The majority of eldery people I know (both from when I was working with them - and at church) live in "normal" 2 or 3 bedroom "family" homes.

Of course there are those living it up in 10 bedroom mansions (ok slight exaggeration maybe) - but then you could say the same about city slickers with no partner let alone children living it up in their huge homes that they've paid premium prices for, which would have been better suited for a family.......

3littlefrogs · 03/10/2009 17:32

When you ask for help to access any kind of service for your elderly relative, the very first question you are asked is whether they have any property or savings. Even if you only want a bath attendant once a week, and are prepared to pay for it, you have to consent to a financial assessment and means test. A lot of old people are mortified and extremely worried by this and will struggle on with no help, because they are so afraid of being forced to sell their home.

scarletlilybug · 03/10/2009 17:34

All this talk about old people having bigger homes than they need...

are we saying that people shouldn't be able to spend their money on whatever thay wish? Some new law decreeing that once you hit a certain age you have to move to a one-bedroom bungalow?

If you're looking for someone to "blame" for the shortage of affordable property, blame buy-to-let investors for saturating the market. Still, many of them are using their property investments as a way of funding a pension...

wicked · 03/10/2009 17:50

Are you suggesting that once someone stops working they should dress in sack-cloth and ashes, always looking? Not even benefits scroungers have to do that.

Let those who earned their possessions with legally earned income keep them.

Why is there an obsession with taking everything away from those who work/have worked? I don't get it.

sarah293 · 03/10/2009 18:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

alwayslookingforanswers · 03/10/2009 18:14

erm wicked.........I think you must have mis read my posts

wicked · 03/10/2009 18:21

No, Riven, we have too many laws as it is. What we need is a moral framework - something this governmnent has completely destroyed.

sarah293 · 03/10/2009 18:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

bigstripeytiger · 03/10/2009 18:26

What is wrong with occupying a larger house than you need. They are for sale, and if people want to buy them than they can. What next? Laws against having a better car than you 'need', nicer clothes than you need, more food than you need?

BonsoirAnna · 03/10/2009 18:30

Agree with violethill.

sarah293 · 03/10/2009 18:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Kathyis12feethighandbites · 03/10/2009 18:41

I'd rather it was done through taxation rather than laws though. Eg you could tax larger properties more than they do already but have rebates if you had more children living in them.

wicked · 03/10/2009 18:42

Are you a net contributor to this sharing or a net taker?

Easy words, eh?

sarah293 · 03/10/2009 18:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

violethill · 03/10/2009 18:44

But riven, who's to decide what's 'fair'? People have different concepts. Some people only have two children when perhaps they'd like four, but they can't afford the space or the childcare fees. Is that 'fair'? Some people can afford a two bed house, some a four bed house. Some people can't afford to buy a house at all.

People have different desires. Mrs A might want to blow all her earnings on nice clothes and holidays, and rents a flat, while Mrs B saves it all up to buy a house. Why is it 'fair' to take away what Mrs B has chosen to spend her earnings on, while Mrs A gets to keep what she chooses?

BonsoirAnna · 03/10/2009 18:45

Why do you think resources should be shared, Riven? Don't you think people should be allowed to keep what they earned through their own hard graft, rather than "sharing" it with people who don't contribute as much?

scaryteacher · 03/10/2009 18:45

You might need a larger house Riven if you may have to have parents living with you.

My pils live in a 5 bedroom house with a large garden and huge veg garden, barn and garaging. They don't receive any state benefits and are actively involved in charities, school governorships and helping their local communities. The house they bought just after they married 50 years ago, and they love it and don't want to leave it. Whilst they are in good health and can stay there, why shouldn't they?