Is it right that some must sell their homes to pay care home costs?

My opinion is not there. We should not be living long enough to need care. The houses and the jobs should be left to the younger generations. Too many abandoned houses with no one living in them because they are 'in a home'.

personally i dont believe its as simple as the options make it here as there are several levels of care and several types of home. the basic care home cost should be covered from central funds and any health care costs funded from either n.h.s or other sources. but anything over and above that should be paid for by the individuals themselves.

In an ideal world everyone would have their care paid for by the state. We'd also all earn a million pounds a year and live in mansions.

Given the current limitations I think the current system is best. I can see the opposite sides view but similarly why should a child inherit a house they've done nothing to work for while the state supports their parents? In the current system a child can still inherit the house, it just means they will need to support their parents in their old age. Few are willing to do this however.

My ideal solution would be that the state wouldn't fund anyone but I think while we live in the UK this wont happen anyway.

My grandfather was forced to sell his home of 25 years, the home he had shared with his late wife, in order to pay for any kind of care - not just to live in residential care. He was refused any kind of NHS nurse to visit him at home at all, and he used all of his savings paying for someone private. In the end, it came down to the last thing he had left - his home. He didn't have to leave it, he could quite easily have stayed living there but with regular home care workers visiting him daily. As a family, we lost a lot of memories from our childhood and a place where we all congregated regularly. Granddad passed away not long after leaving his home - having to move into a box room (which is essentially what they are) and leave all his familiar surroundings and possessions, and memories of his wife, ultimately killed him faster. Now as a family we don't have that central hub we used to gather together in, we've started to break apart. Of course I recognise there are other options and causes of this - but my granddad worked hard his whole life. He never claimed any benefits, never claimed job seekers, was never a burden on the NHS and never asked the state for anything. He worked hard to support his family, and to provide a good home for his children and grandchildren, paid his taxes and some. It was not fair for him to have to give everything up at the end, when if he had had nothing all along and been on benefits all his life he would have had all the care he needed for free.

If our Government are trying to encourage society to work hard, to aim high and to move away from claiming benefits etc - then the best way to go surely is to change how this care is paid for and assessed. The current system acts as a deterrent to owning your own home in retirement, or making any effort to invest or make sure you are comfortable. Making it so that only other assets are included, or allowing people to get the NHS care they need and sell the property later to pay for it, or having a more realistic means test threshold. Let's face it, the majority of properties in this country cost well over £250,000 which will include the majority of home-owners by the time my generation comes to retirement. Someone who owns a £250k home is NOT wealthy. Look at the South East or London, you're lucky to get a flipping studio for that. Someone who has a home worth £1m is probably someone who has other assets - so go after the other assets. Liquidate the yacht, the cars, the investments, the bullion, the jewellery - whatever. The home is the most fundamental element of anybody's life - and nobody should be forced to give up their home in this way.

And what is wrong with having something to hand over to your children? Most of us these days have no hope in hell of getting on the property ladder without our parents' financial help. The remainder of the money from my granddad's house was distributed in the will, and I got enough to have a small deposit on a property. Without it I'd still be saving in my 40s. So many other people I talk to who have just bought a property were in the same position - inherited funds. Whilst those who are not lucky enough to have this may think we have a sense of entitlement about it - we don't, we know how lucky we are, and we certainly would prefer to have come by the money another way, but the property market is out of control as it is - increasing property inheritance is potentially a way to calm things down and ensure more people can get on to the ladder in future generations.

I think that it's necessary to consider the alternative before deciding this. Suppose someone has assets in a house of £200000. They go into a nursing home and the cost comes to £150000 over the rest of their life They leave £50000.

Now say that the Government pays £50000 of the care fees. That person now leaves £100000. BUT effectively the Government (i.e. taxpayers) is giving £50000 of that money to the inheritors. Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay that person's inheritors £50000? Where is the fairness in that?