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

russjacks

chattie wrote: »

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. .

I understand what you are saying, but i had nothing growing up, and have worked hard all my life and would like to make it easier for my daughter. the way it stands now it doe's not matter how hard you work, if you end up in a home, my daughter gets nothing, and all my hard work has been in vain. to me that is wrong. if you work hard all your life you should be able to pass things on to your family if thats what you wish to do

Badger_Lady

russjacks wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, but i had nothing growing up, and have worked hard all my life and would like to make it easier for my daughter. the way it stands now it doe's not matter how hard you work, if you end up in a home, my daughter gets nothing, and all my hard work has been in vain. to me that is wrong. if you work hard all your life you should be able to pass things on to your family if thats what you wish to do

Whilst I can see your point of view, that's just not how the world works... we can't just leave each future generation richer and richer until they're all born with silver spoons in their mouths. And certainly not whilst also charging expensive healthcare to society as a whole.

You worked hard and did OK out of it, right? And your daughter can follow in your footsteps, also working hard and also seeing the benefit from doing so.

I'm paying off a mortgage and when I do it, I'll be in a strong, secure position for my old age. I don't expect to get my parents' house, and I don't expect anyone else to get mine. I wouldn't see any children I had committed to poverty but would neither choose to claim money from the state purely so I could pass things on to them.

In summary, I'm all about independence - to keep my house and go into care, I would have to depend on the welfare system and would allow my children to depend on their inheritence.

And yes I've paid into the system... the system is not for me, it's for those who need assistance because they're incapable of working or ill or just struck by misfortune. My payments into the system are effectively charitable donations... ones that I could benefit from myself if I were ever to get into trouble. And needing care but owning a house doesn't count as 'in trouble'.

kaya

Anybody who is happy to give their inheritance to the government because their elderly relative is unwell needs their head testing , we are forced to pay into a healthcare system by the government all our lives to ensure we are looked after like it or not as are all our relatives, it would be different if the governbent refunded all that money were we to avoid using the health service, but they don't, this is yet another way of ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor , maintaining your elevated status in life is as much about ensuring the poor stay poor as it is about making more money than other people and i would rather burn my home to the ground than hand it over just so i can spend my dying years being mistreated in some out of date institution and im afraid anybody who thinks differently has clearly never experienced poverty other than on a tv advert or charity leaflet!

PasturesNew

It'd help a lot if interest rates were "more normal" - for many, while the house would be sold, the interest on the savings would cover all/a lot of the ongoing fees, meaning they'd not end up with the taxpayer paying in X years' time. For many the house is no longer required as if you're in a home you're usually well past any stage where you could ever live in your own home again.

Raise interest rates ......

russjacks

Badger_Lady wrote: »

And yes I've paid into the system... the system is not for me, it's for those who need assistance because they're incapable of working or ill or just struck by misfortune. My payments into the system are effectively charitable donations... ones that I could benefit from myself if I were ever to get into trouble. And needing care but owning a house doesn't count as 'in trouble'.

Thats a wonderfull way of looking at it as a charitable donation. Me i see it as a tax everytime i get my wage slip. i see some of the people on the council estate i used to live on, taking drugs, drinking with no desire to get a job and do anything else, and the last thing on there minds is to pay in a charitable donation, but are quite happy to spend your donation on drugs and beer. these people will get the same room as me. sorry but Charity starts at home.
Me i would rather give it to my daughter to make her life and hopefully my grandchildrens life better .

roddydogs

So we get the "Taxpayer" to pay for all care home fees, this will mean a massive increase in Taxes now, let alone as the ageing population increases.
So someone who is perhaps a low wage earner, and can never hope to inherit (ie Parents are renting) will have a massive extra tax burden, so the lucky few can "Inherit" their parents home without having to worry about care home fees. Really?

Badger_Lady

MSE_Martin wrote: »

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.

True but the title is a little emotionally loaded... "Should you be forced to sell your home to pay for care?" could also be phrased as, "Should you pay for your own care if you have the assets to do so?"

meher

As a first, I don't think anyone should be in a position to leave their home for care. The state should find the resources to look after people in their own homes and not treat them like invalids, stripping them of everything that's rightfully theirs. Many people have painfully built and looked after their houses. It would also presumably hold lots of sentiments that keep people sane and secure. I've always said that it has nagged my conscience that people are moved from their homes. Without adressing that, this dicussion would be hollow for me. However, if people cannot be bothered to look after their elderly or whoever needs long term care, and they are moved from their homes, it should continue to be theirs till the end of their lives and then paid off. Whist it could be hearbreaking for the person to realise that it wouldn't be easily passed on to the successors, it is sad that family values weren't instilled in them. Some price to pay but the tax payer shouldn't have to pay whilst saving assets for a dysfunctional family. More to the point, Fifer sums it up for me.

(ps: there's something seriously wrong with the site. I can see lines and marks in the box and also some fonts are awkward)

jamesd

MSE_Martin wrote: »

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.

It's not stupid as a poll on the desire to be helpful; it's useful for that.

It is a bit hard to use it a a policy argument because it's completely lacking in the financial cost context that a taxpayer would need to have decide whether they wish to fund it. For a policy opinion it'd be nice to have cost as say percent of GDP compared to the whole NHS at around 8-9%. Combine that with the number of pennies on income tax or VAT that it'd take to raise that amount of money and then there would be a good funding context.

Another step might be adding a poll on insurance to cover the cost, since I'd hope that a fair number of people might wish to purchase the insurance to cover an uncommon but costly option. But I think that insurance of this type is a very hard sell. I haven't looked at the cost and investment return numbers but do wonder how many Pounds a month it'd take to fund a suitable lump sum from pension contributions was permitted for the purchase of immediate needs annuities. That would be my own preferred way of funding it, since the capital is doing double duty, providing a pension income in drawdown but available for a moderately low probability contingency.

Torry_Quine

2sides2everystory wrote: »

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 ?

Those figures are per week but you'd be hard pressed to get somewhere that only cost £600 per week far less £400!!:eek: