can we avoid care home charges

tonycottee

spaniel_dog wrote: »

I was actually thinking there are more than one troll commenting on my post, I was led to believe this site was to seek advice not to be insulted some of you should stick to twitter and not join in a serious site like this

spaniel_dog wrote: »

what the heck is troll Im amazed how rude some of you are

I would suggest remembering what you've written. It will lead to much more successful trolling in the future.

SueC_2

Sorry, should also have said - the welfare state is there to look after those who, for whatever reason, can't look after themselves. Which to my mind makes it even more important that those of us who can look after ourselves do so. There simply isn't enough in the pot for all of us to demand our share of the state regardless of whether or not we need it.

seven-day-weekend

SueC wrote: »

As I see it, what we need from our home changes throughout the path of our lives.

When we are young and first setting out we quite likely rent a room in a shared house.

As we get older and more financially stable we are likely to buy our own home; it is likely to be small, just large enough to accommodate us and perhaps a partner or friend.

As our careers develop and we have more disposable income, we are likely to sell our home so that we can fund a bigger or nicer one, perhaps in a better area.

If/when we start to have children, we need a bigger home still, perhaps somewhere with a garden. So we sell our existing home and find one that is more suitable for our current needs.

As our family continues to grow, we may move again. Each time selling our existing home in order to fund the new one that meets our developing needs.

Then, later, as our children fly the nest, our existing home perhaps becomes too large. So again, we sell our home so that we can move into something more suitable, potentially downsizing to something that is easier to maintain and doesn't have empty unused rooms.

As we become older, and less physically able, perhaps we decide a bungalow would suit us better. So the old home gets sold, and a new one bought.

Possibly living alone then becomes too much, so we sell up and buy somewhere in a sheltered or warden patrolled area so there is the presence of someone to 'watch over' us, while we still retain our independence as far as is possible.

Regardless of our individual circumstances and which of the above life stages we do or don't go through, all of our lives we sell our homes in order to facilitate the next, more appropriate home.

Why should this be any different just because the next type of home required happens to have 'care' involved. It's our home, why shouldn't we pay for it?

That's a good way of putting it, you are funding a home to suit your needs and requirements at a particular stage of life.

FatVonD

Errata wrote: »

I'm always amazed when someone who probably bought their house for a few thousand and then sees it increase in value over the decades thinks that increase was of their doing. It wasn't, all they had to do was sit in it and wait for the price to go up.

You could say that about any investment though, couldn't you? Savings. Pensions. They all work the same.

Would you think it fair if you paid into a private pension for many years to supplement your state pension while you peers spent their money on, for instance, foreign holidays instead only to find that when you reached pensionable age you were told, 'sorry, you have a private pension that will provide you with exactly the same amount as the state pension so we won't be giving you a state pension at all, even though you have contributed to the system. We will however give it to anyone without a private pension.' ?

That is effectively the same as what has happened with care home fees (and yes, I'm aware that isn't what happens with pensions - yet!) and while I don't agree with doing anything illegal to get round it I will do my utmost to attempt to legally leave some kind of legacy to my son (my plans are discussed earlier on the thread) and I think it's a shame that people aren't allowed to even discuss the matter without the hordes on here jumping on them.

maman

FatVonD wrote: »

....(and yes, I'm aware that isn't what happens with pensions - yet!) and while I don't agree with doing anything illegal to get round it I will do my utmost to attempt to legally leave some kind of legacy to my son (my plans are discussed earlier on the thread) and I think it's a shame that people aren't allowed to even discuss the matter without the hordes on here jumping on them.

I know you're right and it does seem unfair. There's no way we can separate those who haven't made provision for old age through 'no fault of their own' such as illness or disability and those who are deliberately in that position due an irresponsible attitude to money during their working lives. Maybe in time the system will get tightened up and things will change but that's not where we're at now.

BUT, I don't agree that you can't discuss it. The OP has had pages and pages of discussion it's just that virtually no-one agrees with her original premise of asking if she can avoid care home charges and she doesn't like what she's hearing.

I do appreciate that OP might well be a troll but I'm heartened to know that there are so many honest people around. prepared to make their views heard.

Person_one

Even if you could be absolutely sure that someone had deliberately frittered away all their money, well, so what?

Does that mean it would be ok to leave them abandoned, or with substandard care?

If you're lucky and/or savvy enough to have decent means at your disposal in your old age it means you have the luxury of choice, of control, and you aren't at the whim of governments/councils/heartless private companies.

seven-day-weekend

Of course I wish that we were all cared for free of charge (to us) in our old age and could give all our assets to our children without them even having to be considered.

But the country can't afford it. It's not fair to ask younger people, with their zero-hour, temporary contracts and expensive housing and childcare to fund it. And if they don't fund it, who will? What we paid in when we were working went towards looking after the Pensioners who were alive then. There's no pot with 'Seven-Day-Weekend' or 'Spaniel Dog' written on it. And even if there was, there would not be enough in it. So where is the shortfall to come from? If we have a 'pot' elsewhere with our name on, in the form of property and/or savings,then we will have to use it. If we haven't then those hardworking youngsters will have to pay for it.

Another way of looking at it is that it is like saying 'I have a house already. But I want to give that to my children, so will the State give me another one free of charge please? Oh, and throw in a full-time carer and someone to cook my food and clean my room and pay all the bills. '

It can't be done, no matter how much we would like it.

Nicki

FatVonD wrote: »

That is effectively the same as what has happened with care home fees (and yes, I'm aware that isn't what happens with pensions - yet!) and while I don't agree with doing anything illegal to get round it I will do my utmost to attempt to legally leave some kind of legacy to my son (my plans are discussed earlier on the thread) and I think it's a shame that people aren't allowed to even discuss the matter without the hordes on here jumping on them.

Of course people are allowed to discuss whether or not it is fair that care in old age should not be free at the point of use. Just as we can debate the fairness of the tax system, bankers bonuses, tv licenses, etc. But equally people are allowed to disagree that not requiring the old to use their assets a good idea without being jumped on.

Where the hordes jump, as you describe it, is when a poster appears to be asking for advice on how to avoid what is currently a legal obligation to pay. Just as they would jump on anyone asking how to fraudulently claim benefits or evade tax.

FatVonD

Person_one wrote: »

Even if you could be absolutely sure that someone had deliberately frittered away all their money, well, so what?

Does that mean it would be ok to leave them abandoned, or with substandard care?

That's absolutely not the same thing as saying that all should be entitled to the same care and not what I was saying but I think you know that How about we apply that to schooling, (which probably costs more over a child's schooldays than a couple of years in a care home), should the children of those that *could* afford to send their children to private school not be allowed a place at a state school?

The care home ruling is relatively recent and many of us may have made different choices had it always been the case. Perhaps we might have taken on an interest only mortgage and had a nicer and cheaper house knowing that any profit wasn't ours at the end of the day?

Bean83

FatVonD wrote: »

The care home ruling is relatively recent and many of us may have made different choices had it always been the case. Perhaps we might have taken on an interest only mortgage and had a nicer and cheaper house knowing that any profit wasn't ours at the end of the day?

But the profit IS yours, it is going to pay for you to be clothed, housed and fed, just as your money has done all your life. Why do people think this should suddenly be free of charge, just because you're old?