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

[herjazz]

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?

Riven

If someone wants to work to earn the money to buy a house that is 'much too large' they why shouldnt they?

it is their home

You're being far too simplistic riven. How do you know those elderly people have benefited from good pensions? How do you know they've had 'good and cheap jobs'?

As I said before, what one person thinks is 'fortunate' or 'good' isn't necessarily what another person thinks.

I could look at large families and think 'Wow, how lucky are they to be able to afford 4/5/6 children!' We had to stop at 3, 4 would have pushed us under. Well, 3 almost did - had to remortgage to be able to pay childcosts til they were in school due to our, erm, lack of careful planning and ending up having two at nursery simultaneously!!

But I'm sure there would be people who look at me, and think, wow, 3 kids, how lucky to be able to afford them! If you have given up work and live on one income, you probably feel you're struggling. If you can't afford to do that, it would feel like a luxury.

See? It's all relative. You can't tell what struggles other people have been through.

No one can say it's 'selfish' to be living in a 3 bed house as a single person when you don't know their circumstances or their history.

I do agree with Riven that if a single person is in a 4 bed council house that they should transfer to a much smaller house, however don't agree that people who've bought their house through their own hard graft should somehow be compelled to downsize if they don't want to.

In theory the house we own now (6 beds, 3 people) is far too big but so what? We're contributing massively through taxation, council tax, etc etc and even if we put it on the market very few young families would be able to pay the market price for it.

Council tax isn't actually very closely related to the size of your investment/asset once you get towards the top rates.

And yes of course people are free to buy a jolly big house and live in it for decades. But then they can hardly be surprised when the government says taxpayers don't have to support you.

just to clarify - i agree that people in a position to do so should fund their own care if they need residential care. this includes selling a house to fund residential care.

what i don't agree with is the attitude that it is 'selfish' of older people to live in their own homes - i.e. not to downsize to a smaller house/flat/whatever.

The discussions around council houses is interesting - there are lots of issues around council housing that should be sorted, for instance a single mum who got a council house then starts a relationship, there are potentially 2 decent wages going into the household - should she be then forced to move from the house and start paying rent at market value as her circumstances have clearly changed and she wouldn't get a council house if she applied in her current circumstances. And many people late 50's early 60's pension funds have suffered greatly during the recession. I don't get the argument about people living in too big houses being forced to sell, why should they?

People can occupy a house that is generously sized because this is still, despite the efforts of this government, still a free country.

"and even if we put it on the market very few young families would be able to pay the market price for it."

That sums up everything that is wrong with our society.

It's as if we are living upside down.

Isnt that fine though? People should be able to afford more as time goes on. I wouldnt be very impressed if my salary decreased as I gained more responsabilities and experience.

bigstripey - If we get serious deflation in wages - which is already happening in some cases then houses will look very seriously overvalued and prices will collapse.

Yes, I expect that you are right. Though I dont think that it is unreasonable to be able to afford more when you are older than when you are at the beginning of your career. Anything else wouldnt give people much motivation to progress.

i'm going to stay in my home and let my daugters in law look after me.

BST I agree. When we were in our twenties the most we could afford was a 3 bed terrace. It wasn't till we were in our mid thirties and earning good money that we could get a crippling mortgage big detached house.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feeling_depressed/827950-Coping-with-parent-39-s-Dementia-Alzheimer-39-s-does

Wasn't sure if the link would work. I would strongly advise reading what this says about social services taking control of all finances.

It is absolutely spot on.

Beta - a house price collapse will help no-one - if people end up in negative equity (which they inevitably will) then they can't just sell up.

and a family living in a tiny 2 bedroom house won't suddenly find the money to buy a nice sized 4 bedroom if their house value has also gone down.

you don't have to sell your home and children don't need to lose their inheritence.

if getting cash when your parent dies is so important then look after your parent yourself.

Mamazon - that sounds so simple " look after them yourself" - that's no always possible.

There is no way I could look after my mum once she needs care - I couldn't do it now and her needs are less (and I've worked in a care home so know the level of care she'll require - it'll be nursing care not care home) . This house is totally unsuitable for her needs and to get it modified would cost £10,000's.

My dad always vowed that he would care for her and she wouldn't have to come into a home in the future - now he's realised that he's simply going to be unable to do that.

'I remember when we were thinking of starting a family working out all our finances - what we needed to save to cover the maternity leave, the cost of a childminder etc.

We entered into parenthood responsible for ourselves.'

So did we. But things don't always come out so simlpe- 2 disabled children and a redundancy later we are no longer net givers, but claimants on WTC.

Life's like that: it doesn't always work out to plan, that's the whole point. It doesn't matter how many sums you do- there are some things and some bills that you cannot prepare for.

The house transfer idea is great- my parents are in social housing and were all up for it (they'd planned to buy a bungalow but suffered the complete loss of their pension plan).
Thing is, the only housing they are eligible for is out of town on estates (neither drive, they suffer bouts of poor mobility) with little access to shops, no access to my Grandad who Mum cares for, and away from everyone they know.

If builders were forced to make a certain % of housing suitable for older people- and not crapy suitable either if we're wanting to persuade people into it,accessible with a small garden for those who cannot go far on a daily basis- maybe that issue would be aprtly solved.

Thre will never be 100% home ownership even amongst the waged, and so there have to be a variety of solutions. Its all very well saying 'we had to work for it'- but in manya reas two people slogging 50 hour weeks on minimum wage, ie putting thier backs into it with real effort, still won't ever be able to look at buying. And a society that advocates dual worker famillies will have to accept the inevitable decline in numbers of people able to act as a carer (esp.when carers are paid so poorly, counted as being on benefits (something I find far harder than being poor tbh- the inclusion in the oft-slated 'benefit claimant' culture). I don't know what the solution is, but having worked in elderly care at hoth ends of the income spectrum I dread the day when I may need state care, it was an awful thing 9whereas private looked rather fanciable tbh). I don't think the insurance system is the solution, it simply adds to the dual tier system.

I had to FFS about the comment abiout feckless single aprents btw. When will some people get it into their heads that there are a wealth of reasons one might become a single aprents, and that unless we are married to Mr Perfect-and-immortal it can happen to any of us. Single aprents does not automatically equate choice in the matter or being a teenager- it covers widows / widowers, thsoe who are abandoned or who were abused.

'and a family living in a tiny 2 bedroom house won't suddenly find the money to buy a nice sized 4 bedroom if their house value has also gone down.

True but if there is one house of a decent size in a road for sale then it stands to logic that they will able to get far more than if there were six the same.

radio 4 now

sorry i didn't direct my last post at anyone. it was more a general statement.

I get a bit annoyed that people assume that their parents care should be paid for by the state so that they can get their money grabbing hands on their parents house.

Mamazon - have you any idea of how hard it is to look after a frail elderly parent yourself?

You have to reduce your hours or even give up your job. You have to be on-call 24/7. You are entitled to up to 6 weeks respite care a year, for which you are expected to pay between £400 - £600 per week - if your parent has a home of any description or savings. By the time you have paid that there isn't much left for a holiday somewhere with your children in school holidays.

If your parent has a home (even a tiny one bedroom bungalow)and a pension/savings you have to pay for everything. Any modifications such as stair rail, grab rail, bath seat - you have to pay.

A ten minute visit from a carer costs £12.50 (on the days you have to go to work). Then they write things like "Mrs....did not want any breakfast/did not want to get dressed" in the record book. Then you have to spend an hour on the phone to social services explaining that you are not actually getting your money's worth.

Then there are the hospital appointments, GP appointments, chiropodist appointments, hearing aid appointments, opticians, dentist, assessments for care appointments, financial assessment appointments, the list is endless.

The forms to claim attendance allowance are 3 pages long and extremely complicated. social services want to know all your parents assets down to the last penny. It is difficult to find out all the details, especially if your parent is a bit forgetful or confused.

We did it for about 10 years before mum got so confused she was a danger to herself and others.

I am just embarking on the same road with my MIL and TBH I am already feeling ill at the thought of it. Social Services won't even arrange a visit to assess her needs without full financial disclosure, including a valuation of her tiny flat. She is very stubborn, and doesn't want a stranger going through all her private business. It is very difficult.

So it really isn't as straighforward as saying we should all look after our parents ourselves. Or that we will just expect our children to look after us. I wouldn't want to put my dd through it.