how can you avoid house u own paying for nursing home fees

Oldernotwiser

marklv wrote: »

In the 19th century care was not an issue, because only a tiny proportion of the population lived long enough to need it.

And because people's "heirs" kept their elderly parents and provided for them as no one else would.

Nowadays middle aged, supposedly independent people believe that the state should fund their parents' care so that they can receive the equivalent of a lottery win for no reason other than an accident of birth!

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And because people's "heirs" kept their elderly parents and provided for them as no one else would.

Nowadays middle aged, supposedly independent people believe that the state should fund their parents' care so that they can receive the equivalent of a lottery win for no reason other than an accident of birth!

I don't think it's as much that they think that, ONW, more that they see people who have to pay nothing being treated the same as they are when they are expected to spend their life savings, and don't think it is fair. Quite often self-funders have to pay a higher fee than the State-funded in the same home, to subside their places.

Don't know what the answer is though, because the State can't support everyone, and we can't just leave those who can't pay without care. So I suppose in the end, they have to be subsidised by those who can afford to pay.

A very unhappy story all round.

ipri

Can someone clear a couple of points up?

1. If a wife needs to go into care....does the husband have to sell up and leave the family home to pay for the care?

2. If the couple change from joint home ownership to tenants in common,does this ,in effect,act as a sort of evasion of the fees?....can this be challenged later?...in which case ..why bother..

BTW I am taking no sides in the above argument!! just asking!

seven-day-weekend

1. No

2. I think it depends upon when it was made TIC. If sometime before the care was needed, then I don't think it would be challenged.

marklv

1. No.
2. No.

ipri

Since the answer to Q1 is no....is the house taken into account in any way?...if the person in care acctually owns part of the property..

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't think it's as much that they think that, ONW, more that they see people who have to pay nothing being treated the same as they are when they are expected to spend their life savings, and don't think it is fair. Quite often self-funders have to pay a higher fee than the State-funded in the same home, to subside their places.

.

I agree that the parents themselves are more like to see it that way; it's the adult children who are waiting to inherit that I had in mind.

After all, they have done nothing to receive this money in a similar way to those whose care is funded by the state.

TMFTP

bumpoowee wrote: »

In short the current younger half of the working generation cannot afford to pay out for nursing fees for the ever increasing elderly part of the population. Particularly when the elderly part of the population in general have benefitted massively from huge undeserved increases in the value of their houses.

Absurd.

Those people worked for their houses, and made the decision to purchase - therefore deserve what they get. Don't forget that for many there will have been the spectre of negative equity in their lives. It wasn't all plain sailing.

What you seem to be suggesting is that people who, increasingly through CHOICE decide not to work & live off benefits, are entitled to free care, despite having contributed nothing in their careers towards NI. But those who HAVE contributed down the years should shoulder all of the burden.

I hope, in time, that care is tiered so that those who choose to pay get the comfort they deserve. And those who have sponged their lives away get the appropriate returns on their investments.

I would happily sign my parents house & belongings away to buy them years of happiness in their old age.

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree that the parents themselves are more like to see it that way; it's the adult children who are waiting to inherit that I had in mind.

After all, they have done nothing to receive this money in a similar way to those whose care is funded by the state.

Ah right, I saw a different slant on your post.

I agree with what you have said (although I personally only know one person who wants to hang on to their parents' home for that reason, , only in his case it was an aunt.).

Oldernotwiser

TMFTP wrote: »

Absurd.

Those people worked for their houses, and made the decision to purchase - therefore deserve what they get. Don't forget that for many there will have been the spectre of negative equity in their lives. It wasn't all plain sailing.
.

They will have worked for their homes but so will working people in rented accommodation who will have nothing to show for it at the end. It's not as clear cut as saying working people own houses, non workers rent.

One might have bought a property 30 years ago for £10,000 which today is worth £250,000; there's nothing particularly due to hard work about seeing an asset rise that much - it's just sheer luck.

If people stopped seeing it as being the equity in their properties being taken away from them but saw it as buying something, they might put a different gloss on the question.