take your house away to pay for your care in the uk

Gorgeous_George

My kids will have a choice. Look after me in my old age or watch me spend MY money on MY care.

Simples.

I don't like spongers - not even if they are family.

GG

seven-day-weekend

We would like our son to have our house. We have choices.

For a start, neither of us may have to go into care. This would be the best-case scenario. Even if only one of us does, if the other is still living in the house, then its value is not counted.


We have a choice. If we DO have to go into care, then we can either fund it ourselves and have a choice of care homes.

OR, we can try by various ways (there are legal ways to protect the house) to hang onto it for him and just have the basic care that social services will pay for.

However, there are more choices than that. We are fortunate enough to have a house in Spain as well as one in the UK. That one will provide the initial funding, so maybe the family home won't have to be touched.

There are also moves afoot by the Tories that everyone who wishes can pay £8k when they are 65 and that will guarantee them decent care if they have to take this route. If they don't go into care, it just remains in the pot to help others. I will probably do that if it ever comes into being.

My husband is another one who would not go into a care home under any circumstances, so will not be paying his £8k.

I certainly don't think other taxpayers should have to fund our son's inheritance, that is our responsibility, and hopefully we will be able to do it.

Ladywriter1968

poppy10 wrote: »

Unfortunately that's true - opening your own care home is one of the easiest ways to make big money, I know of several doctors who have left the profession to do this full-time.

Because their main motive is money rather than patient care, they drive down costs mercilessly, so you end up with the home being staffed by cheap eastern european or african labour, who can hardly understand or communicate with the patients. Plus there is no provision for any kind of occupational therapy/therapeutic entertainment for the clients, they all just follow the same routine: get woken in the morning, dumped in an armchair in the lounge, have meals put in front of them, and then taken away half an hour later even if they haven't managed to eat them, and then put to bed at 6pm. It's no life at all, and incredibly cruel.

The government thought that privatizing the sector would drive down costs, increase quality and increase efficiency. In fact costs have soared, care quality is non-existent, and the efficiency gains are only achieved through neglecting clients and providing substandard care.

There are some exceptions to the rule, obviously, but like arfullodger above, I'd rather top myself than live in most of the care homes I have visited.

The care home my dad is not at the moment is very good and the staff are very nice and helpful, they have activities there and animals as well visits. They sit and chat with the elderly as well and get them involved in things. Or they can sit in their room and watch tv. They have a garden as well to sit in, but with all this rain not much chance of that.

happywarmgun

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

There are also moves afoot by the Tories that everyone who wishes can pay £8k when they are 65 and that will guarantee them decent care if they have to take this route. If they don't go into care, it just remains in the pot to help others. I will probably do that if it ever comes into being.

This is one of the better policies to come out of either party on this issue. I for one would certainly consider taking this insurance out when the time comes.

There is still some tweaking to be done on the idea I suspect - it becomes a no-brainer for those with large estates over the Inheritance Tax Threshold as the £16k for a couple out of-the-pot now would be taxed at 40% before being passed on to kids if the couple took a gamble and did not take out the insurance and didn't need care, therefore making it 'cheaper' for the richer.

Also for those in the middle - the chances are that 16K at 65 is a heck of whack from your pension lump sum an many will be put off. The pension industry needs to be innovative from day one to find ways to market as parts of pensions the provision for those 'keep your home' insurance funds.

This proposal isn't perfect, but at least one party is taking the issue seriously and has something on the table to start with. This is just one reason why there actually *is* a difference between the parties at the next election and, if you need one, a reason to vote Conservative.

mazza111

The way the free care is working atm in Scotland is weird.

My aunt got care in her home free for the past 4 years, after having several strokes, mini and major, crohns disease, and several other ailments. She weighs about 5 stone. She took an ulcer on her throat and while she was in hospital, they cut her care package, because they have made this change they can now charge her for it as she is under the age of 65 (she's 62) and has been receiving free care for 4 yrs.

I think it's really unfair to take the care off her now after receiving it for so long, but also believe that new claimants should be contributing something to their care. After all isn't this what they get the care component of DLA for? Am gonna take cover for this one... and hide.. from the flaming...

Well as it turns out it wasn't an ulcer on her throat but cancer of the esophagus (sp) so her care package is more important than ever for her.

pineapple123

People should continue to pay for there care if needed.
This goverment or any other would never be able to cover the amount of money required for everyone to recieve free good quality nursing care in there old age, also there are not enough care homes to provide this care.

However I think the goverment should significantly raise the amount of money you can keep before having to pay for care.

benjo

mazza111 wrote: »

...............

I think it's really unfair to take the care off her now after receiving it for so long, but also believe that new claimants should be contributing something to their care. After all isn't this what they get the care component of DLA for? Am gonna take cover for this one... and hide.. from the flaming...
.

People in residential and nursing home care who pay cash out of their own pocket are entitled to do as they wish with their DLA award wouldnt you say?

People who do not pay cash out of their own pocket for nursing/residential care ie they get it *free* via social services etc have their benefits/state pensions/DLA used to form part of the weekly payment for that care. They are then given a nominal sum - around £11 pw which they can use how they like - but many nursing homes insist that residents buy their own toiletries, clothes, tv licence etc. Perhaps it is different in Scotland, but thats roughly how it works in England.

Also worth note, you cannot make a first claim for DLA after the age of 65, so if you become disabled and in need of care after your 65th birthday... you dont get it.

*free social care*.....

it isnt free, social services do NOT pay for it. The government do NOT pay for it. YOU pay for it, I pay for it, WE pay for it. The government/social services collects OUR money each week and shuffles it to either banks, armed services, NHS, Education, nursinghome/residential care, MP's expenses, whatever the government do - they do NOT give away free money.

seven-day-weekend

Quite right Benjo,; my mum had no property or savings when she went into care, but had to give up her Pension plus other Benefits that she received to pay towards her care. It wasn't free and as you say she had to buy her own clothes and toiletries out of her 'pocket money'. Yes, the 'Government' provided the money but that had come, as you say, from you and me.

EdInvestor

It seems weird that despite the angst we constantly see over this issue, nobody seems to know that there is already an insurance product covering care fees which can avoid loss of the property.

Immediate needs annuities


For anyone with savings as well as a house - or a mid priced house - this product will normally do the business perfectly adequately, leaving funds over for an inheritance.And the income is even tax free.

benjo

EdInvestor wrote: »

It seems weird that despite the angst we constantly see over this issue, nobody seems to know that there is already an insurance product covering care fees which can avoid loss of the property.

Immediate needs annuities


For anyone with savings as well as a house - or a mid priced house - this product will normally do the business perfectly adequately, leaving funds over for an inheritance.And the income is even tax free.

An option indeed - but one preclusive to many people, still, you cant have your cake and have your offspring eat it so to speak.