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

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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.

That is an interesting point, we don't look upon the money we spend on care as 'buying something' - well I don't anyway.

Although I'm not sure it makes things any better - it could in some ways make things worse. For example people might see it like 'why do I have to draw upon my life savings to buy something which is given to others for free?'

I appreciate that many people may not have had the wherewithall to save much for their old age/buy a house, even though they worked hard all their life or could not work for genuine reasons. My parents were in this category. I don't think many people would disagree with these people being helped. It's the people who have been irresponsible and just spent all their money on cr£p or by choice lived on benefits all their life that people resent.

Seems as though we need to go back to the old-fashioned concept of deserving and undeserving poor.

Hugbubble

For the record, us "children" are not all sitting around waiting for Mum & Dad to pop off at minimum cost so that we might get their hard-earned dosh/ house.

My mum, approaching retirement age, has survived on a mix of benefits & low wage jobs for the last few years (currently on incapacity benefits), and doesn't even (through having kids etc) have enough "stamp" to draw a state pension. She lives in a HA house.

I expect that as she gets older the State would, given her circumstances, pay for any nursing care she should need but personally I'd rather pay to ensure that she has the very best care. Fingers crossed she'll never need it, but spare a thought for those for whom the roles are reversed.

Personally I think kids owe their parents, not the other way around

[Deleted User]

jammiev wrote: »

hi, my mum and dad currently live at home but as they are getting on a bit and are both retired and own there own home have asked me is there a way of them avoiding having to pay the nursing home themselves ie; it coming out of the house?

they have read somewere you can go to a solicters who can sort it for about £1000 but it takes 8 years before it comes into effect!

anyone help?

thanks

My Dad was in the same sort of position and we went to see a solicitor to see if there was anything we could do legally. Basically, the answer is no.

I think the 7/8 year thing is a myth as well. Basically, if they think you've done anything to try and avoid this, they can take this into account.

bumpoowee

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.

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.

Not quite sure why you chose the word 'absurd' to describe my post, as you essentially repeated my suggestion - better standard of care for those who pay and a basic standard of care for those who don't (for whatever reason).

The house price thing is another discussion really but I can only imagine you haven't really looked at the figures if you are suggesting the situation young people face today is fair in comparision to that previously faced by those who are somewhat older.

Oldernotwiser

Hugbubble wrote: »

Personally I think kids owe their parents, not the other way around

I agree with you totally but I think that we're a tiny minority if the opinions expressed on several MSE boards are anything to go by.

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Although I'm not sure it makes things any better - it could in some ways make things worse. For example people might see it like 'why do I have to draw upon my life savings to buy something which is given to others for free?'

But if you bought a house for £10,000 which is now worth £250,000, is it really your life savings or is it akin to a lucky win?

EdInvestor

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But if you bought a house for £10,000 which is now worth £250,000, is it really your life savings or is it akin to a lucky win?

Most of it is probably just a reflection of the inflation rate over the years..

Errata

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But if you bought a house for £10,000 which is now worth £250,000, is it really your life savings or is it akin to a lucky win?

Although the figures are less than you quote, my stepdad happily uses the profit from the sale of his property to pay his care home fees. He says the vast profit is 'free money' and I agree with him.

bumpoowee

EdInvestor wrote: »

Most of it is probably just a reflection of the inflation rate over the years..

I think not. According to nationwide the average real house price in 1979 was £77k. It is now £156k. So on averge this section of society has obtained £79k each without any effort on their part. I'd say it's fair that a portion of this enormous profit is used to fund the beneficiaries care.

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But if you bought a house for £10,000 which is now worth £250,000, is it really your life savings or is it akin to a lucky win?

In a way it is a bit like a lucky win, but you have to be in the race before you can win. You have spent your money on buying a (usually) rising asset and the winnings are yours as a result of your wise investment.

So is it any different to investing it in stocks and shares and making a profit?