'Should you be forced to sell your home to pay for long term care?' poll

Gavin83

iberian wrote: »

3. There should be much more control over residential/nursing home costs. To me, many seem extortionate. I am uneasy over the privatisation of this sector. It seems wrong to profit from someone else's vulnerability.

Local Authorities have a major say, they set the rates they pay the providers. If the home wishes to charge more they are free to do so but then alienate a portion of their potential clients in doing so. I don't actually think this is an area where someone should be making a profit though so I don't agree with privatisation either.

nutty_girl_2001 wrote: »

It's a question of what is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, not what we'd like to have happen. There is no way on EARTH we can afford to provide everyone with free care without raising everyone's taxes to an astronomical level.

Far too many of us are living to too old an age - the NHS cannot handle this any more. It's a question of mathematics, not what we'd LIKE to have happen.

I agree with this. Whatever anyone thinks funding the care of all simply isn't possible in this current climate without a large increase to taxes. Frankly I'd resent paying an increased tax charge to fund the care of a person who has plenty of their own assets they could use to contribute. I believe people should fund their own care and the current system is almost right, what else are they going to do with their house if they require a residential home placement?

The grey area is of course those who couldn't afford the fees themselves. Currently as you all well know the Government provides the majority of the funding for these residents and I think this is the cause of most of the resentment surrounding elderly care. However there are only two options, either fund it for these people or leave them to die in their homes in a horrific way because they can't look after themselves. Unlike many countries, we live in a state where the poor are supported and therefore this method will never change.

JodyBPM

Surely if you have sufficient means to pay your own way in life, you should do exactly that, and not rely on tax payers to subsidize you?

Ultimately, in a care home, you are provided with somewhere to live, someone to cook for you, clean for you, food on the table, heating paid for, lighting paid for etc why would there be the expectation that someone else should pick up the tab so that you can sit on a pile of money or a huge asset? These are all things that surely we would reasonably expect to pay for ourselves.

IMO, there is no right for people to expect an inheritance (and I say that as the daughter of parents with assets running into millions). My parents' money is their money, that they earned and it should be spend on their needs. It's not my money and I don't feel I have a right to it.

I appreciate that it must be galling that some people get the care for free, whilst others are paying, but what is the alternative? That we leave those who have been foolish with money/unable to save etc to die in the streets? Of course not. But some people getting for free what others are paying for is the way of the welfare state, a system based on need, and need alone. Its exactly the same with benefits - some families on benefits will take home just as much as a working family without ever lifting a finger. Its just the way it is, and I would rather that system than one where people were left without homes or food or care.

I do think that there should be better regulation of fees, and perhaps fee capping. I struggle to believe that care costs anything like the hundreds of pounds a week that some care homes charge. I do believe that owners of care homes turn a fat profit, and there is definitely something distasteful about people profiting from others' misfortunes. Perhaps state run and operated care homes that were charged at cost may be the way forward, eliminating the profiteering and bringing fee levels down.

But at the end of the day, I think that it is an individual's responsibility to pay their own costs where they have the means to do so, and I cannot see any reason why this should change just because you are elderly. Those that are unable to pay will be looked after by the welfare state, because that is how it operates.

Cranny44

Dont shoot me......but i do this for a living!!!!!!

And more people are able to fund the cost of care (granted i live in a cheaper area than most) on income alone than i have seen before.

If you have a reasonable pension/state pension/rental income/high rate attendance allowance then we dont need to include the property in the assessment.

I think one of the things that should be addressed is the cost the homes charge - this can vary massively in the area i live in and more money doesnt mean better care. We have homes that if you are on a council contract charge say £400 but soon as they know you are a private client or you have money in the bank above the £23,250 then they charge £600 for the same room and service.

Many homes charge extra for a room with a view, when there is no real view or the room has an en suite - yet in other homes this may be standard for less money, or more because it is a ground floor or has a flat screen TV that the client is unable to watch anyway...

My advice would be to keep on a council contract if possible as this means a cheaper rate and perhaps more manageable cost so the property isnt sold to fund care charges.

Likewise we only place a charge i dont go round with an estate agent putting up for sale signs...

brizey47

I am within a few weeks of being 65 so this may well apply to me though hopefully not for another 20 years or so. I feel the argument for not funding this through selling your home and liquidising your assets is more from the generations below who want that money for themselves, if in 20 years time I need residential care i hope I get the best I can afford and if that includes selling my house then so be it that is assuming my wife is not still around or is also inthe same need. If I die before then and my children have a good p**s up on me then good for them too but what i have I have worked for and supported my children as best I can during that time I shouldn't need to support them still when I'm dead.

roddydogs

Its a stupid poll anyway, as daft as saying "Lets have a poll on wether Incom Tax should be abolished" which would get 99.999% approval.
Of couse if you ask, basically "Would you like something for free" so the Taxpayer will pay for it, you will get most saying "Yes".

Badger_Lady

roddydogs wrote: »

Of couse if you ask, basically "Would you like something for free" so the Taxpayer will pay for it, you will get most saying "Yes".

Are we not also taxpayers?

russjacks

I look at it this way. i, like many others, have worked all my life from the day i left school at 16 im now 50, i have payed taxes all that time never been in trouble with the police brought up my daughter and helped her though university. i have bought my own house (still buying it) in the hope my daughter can have it easier than me when im not here.i have worked many many extra hours when money was short. and to think i could lose my home and not pass it on to my daughter in my old age, if i have to go into a home, to be honest is quite frightening.

To think someone who could have never worked a day in there life, had the state bring up there kids, go cap in hand when money got tight and maybe had also spent time in prison. could be in the room next to me in a home being payed for by the state yet again, and me having to sell one of the things i worked for all my life. i think is so wrong. at some point in your life you should be rewarded for living a good life, not have everthing taken away just because you have it. you should not be penalised all your life to the day you take your last breath just because you worked and payed your taxes.

MSE_Martin

roddydogs wrote: »

Its a stupid poll anyway, as daft as saying "Lets have a poll on wether Incom Tax should be abolished" which would get 99.999% approval.
Of couse if you ask, basically "Would you like something for free" so the Taxpayer will pay for it, you will get most saying "Yes".

Well the vote is currently 75% - 25%. And the poll deliberately explains that it is taxpayers who need foot the bill if the individual doesn't. So many people are taxpayers and not close to long term care - im not sure its as 'stupid' as you make out.

*Chattie*

russjacks wrote: »

I look at it this way. i, like many others, have worked all my life from the day i left school at 16 im now 50, i have payed taxes all that time never been in trouble with the police brought up my daughter and helped her though university. i have bought my own house (still buying it) in the hope my daughter can have it easier than me when im not here.i have worked many many extra hours when money was short. and to think i could lose my home and not pass it on to my daughter in my old age, if i have to go into a home, to be honest is quite frightening.

To think someone who could have never worked a day in there life, had the state bring up there kids, go cap in hand when money got tight and maybe had also spent time in prison. could be in the room next to me in a home being payed for by the state yet again, and me having to sell one of the things i worked for all my life. i think is so wrong. at some point in your life you should be rewarded for living a good life, not have everthing taken away just because you have it. you should not be penalised all your life to the day you take your last breath just because you worked and payed your taxes.

you see I simply don't understand this, I bought my house to be my home to live in and enjoy and not as an asset to pass on to any offspring. Up to the offspring to do as I did and thats work and get a mortgage should they wish.

2sides2everystory

Cranny44 wrote: »

Dont shoot me......but i do this for a living!!!!!!

And more people are able to fund the cost of care (granted i live in a cheaper area than most) on income alone than i have seen before.

If you have a reasonable pension/state pension/rental income/high rate attendance allowance then we dont need to include the property in the assessment...

Cranny, I take it that your job is to make assessments which includes decisions as to whether those moved into care homes should have their properties included in the assessments? You seem to be saying that those with sufficient pension and attendance allowance entitlements can hand those over instead? You mention figures of £400 a room and £600 a room - aren't those per week ? If so, what proportion of your clientele really receives those kind of sums as pension/attendance allowance ? If it were possible for care home residency to be purchased for £400 per month then I see where you are coming from, but it just doesn't add up for the vast majority so surely it is only in very rare cases you are able to omit assessing the property ?