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

margaretclare

Errata wrote: »

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.

I agree with your stepdad and I would take the same view.

When we first put a hesitant toe into the housing market, in the case of my late husband and me it was 1962, few people that we knew were buying their own, most were on council waiting lists and that was their ambition - to have a council house, one of the new-built ones around at that time. There was no such concept as 'must get on the property ladder'.

Neither did any of the people we knew talk about 'an inheritance', either leaving one or getting one. That wasn't in most people's minds.

EdInvestor

bumpoowee wrote: »

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.

Do you have any idea how much care costs? I'm afraid the 'enormous profit' you detect will not go very far at all - especially if it's expected to cover 2 people's fees.

marklv

EdInvestor wrote: »

Do you have any idea how much care costs? I'm afraid the 'enormous profit' you detect will not go very far at all - especially if it's expected to cover 2 people's fees.

There is no 'enormous profit' - this is just nonsense. House prices reflect affordability and increases in disposable income, which has gone up sharply since 1979. It's all dictated by market forces.

Care costs are astoundingly expensive - expect to pay £600 a week, with possibly around £120 a week of that being contributed by the state, depending on any medical conditions. This is why nursing home care should only be considered as a very last resort.

TMFTP

bumpoowee wrote: »

Not quite sure why you chose the word 'absurd' to describe my post,...
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.

Really? Long term average house price:average wage ratio is c. 3.5. Mortgage payments as proportion of wage roughly the same now as 2005, and 1991, and so on through the peaks and troughs backwards. Choosing to buy a house is an investment choice. Everyone chooses if, when and how they want to invest.

Do you say to people who chose to invest otherwise, faced other risks, and made similar size gains that their profit is "undeserved"? That's absurd - in my opinion.

TMFTP

bumpoowee wrote: »

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.

That's either silly or deliberately obtuse.

If they took on £77000 of debt in 1979 what do you think that was as a multiplier of their wage? How much do you think that £77000 cost them in real terms - i.e. paying their mortgage interest?

How do you suggest they should have invested the money to "deserve" it?

marklv

TMFTP wrote: »

That's either silly or deliberately obtuse.

If they took on £77000 of debt in 1979 what do you think that was as a multiplier of their wage? How much do you think that £77000 cost them in real terms - i.e. paying their mortgage interest?

How do you suggest they should have invested the money to "deserve" it?

You're missing the point - it's not a question of deserving anything, it's merely an investment return.

bumpoowee

marklv wrote: »

There is no 'enormous profit' - this is just nonsense. House prices reflect affordability and increases in disposable income, which has gone up sharply since 1979. It's all dictated by market forces.

Care costs are astoundingly expensive - expect to pay £600 a week, with possibly around £120 a week of that being contributed by the state, depending on any medical conditions. This is why nursing home care should only be considered as a very last resort.

prof⋅it 
1.Often, profits. a.pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction. b.the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.c.returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments.2.the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.: The company works on a small margin of profit. 3.advantage; benefit; gain.

bumpoowee

TMFTP wrote: »

Really? Long term average house price:average wage ratio is c. 3.5. Mortgage payments as proportion of wage roughly the same now as 2005, and 1991, and so on through the peaks and troughs backwards. Choosing to buy a house is an investment choice. Everyone chooses if, when and how they want to invest.

Do you say to people who chose to invest otherwise, faced other risks, and made similar size gains that their profit is "undeserved"? That's absurd - in my opinion.

Ok, but in my opinion, the implication that an entire generation with few exceptions are all financial geniuses simply because they bought a home at a particular point in time when they needed one is absurd.

bumpoowee

EdInvestor wrote: »

Do you have any idea how much care costs? I'm afraid the 'enormous profit' you detect will not go very far at all - especially if it's expected to cover 2 people's fees.

I do, I know several people who work in care homes. So is your suggestion that because care is expensive, people shouldn't have to pay or even contribute to the cost it, and the kids get to aquire all their parents assets?

Besides according to the figures people have given the average life expectancy in a care home is 2 years, it costs £600 a week which comes to a total of £62k (for 2 people). Still enough left over for the spoiled brats to get a couple of porsches.

marklv

bumpoowee wrote: »

I do, I know several people who work in care homes. So is your suggestion that because care is expensive, people shouldn't have to pay or even contribute to the cost it, and the kids get to aquire all their parents assets?

Besides according to the figures people have given the average life expectancy in a care home is 2 years, it costs £600 a week which comes to a total of £62k (for 2 people). Still enough left over for the spoiled brats to get a couple of porsches.

Spoiled brats? Most people who inherit are already in their 50s or 60s. Why are you so opposed to people inheriting? Is it some kind of class envy thing? Middle class people have passed wealth from generation to generation since the times of the Romans, why should this be wrong?