Mum having to go into care, what should we do with house

stoneman

AdrianC wrote: »

Good for your sister. But the ONLY difference between your mother's care being paid for by the taxpayer or from her own resources is whether that money then gets passed down to the next generation.



That looks very like a threat of physical violence.

Yes I am sorry for that last bit. Just having someone assume that what I am after is to secure an inheritance while not being privy to my mums conversations with myself before this horrible illness took hold, well...

It seems as though I am having to go with my sisters wishes and rent the place out. I was supposed to be going down to Devon with a new kitchen on board to revamp the place but she is having none of it, not even a lick of paint. She doesn't see spending £1,500 to bring the place up to scratch will attract more potential renters or buyers.

I am in the building game and have rented , bought and sold, and leased properties before. But she is the older sis, and doesn't want a penny spent more than has to .
Thank you all for your kind thoughts, and your stories, you don't realize how many people are in the same situation as yourself.

shireknight

At costs of £3000 a month would it not make more sense to take time out from work, become a full time carer to her in your house and use money gained from her assets to fund your costs.

It will work out a lot cheaper plus you won't be eroding your own inheritance plus you'll know how good the care your mother will be getting is because you'll be the one providing the care.

Old_Git

shireknight wrote: »

At costs of £3000 a month would it not make more sense to take time out from work, become a full time carer to her in your house and use money gained from her assets to fund your costs.

It will work out a lot cheaper plus you won't be eroding your own inheritance plus you'll know how good the care your mother will be getting is because you'll be the one providing the care.

not if she needs round the clock care .Thats a lot for a family to do

seven-day-weekend

I understand that people want their children to inherit their houses and they see having to sell it to fund care as depriving them of that.

But look at it this way. Wherever you live, you have to pay if you have the means to do so. The elderly person no longer lives in their family home, they live in a place where they can be looked after 24/7, have all their meals cooked, the place cleaned, all services provided.

Now how much do you think that would cost if you were to employ people directly? An awful lot of money, especially with added costs such as Tax and NI for the employees.

The family house is no longer their home, the care home is. So in effect, if they keep their family home, they have two homes. Is it fair that they should have two homes and then expect the State to pay for them to live in one of them whilst keeping the other for their children? Of course if the fees can be raised without selling it, then that is no-one else's business. But if public funds are involved, then they should use their assets first.

Of course if people have no assets, then they have no choice but to rely on the State. This does not mean they have been lazy all their lives, they might have been caring or sick or in low-paid work like the cleaners, cooks and carers in the care home.

Just my thoughts.

Eviesmummy

shireknight wrote: »

At costs of £3000 a month would it not make more sense to take time out from work, become a full time carer to her in your house and use money gained from her assets to fund your costs.

It will work out a lot cheaper plus you won't be eroding your own inheritance plus you'll know how good the care your mother will be getting is because you'll be the one providing the care.

That is assuming that SS allow this. They can step in and override a families wishes to care for their relative if they feel that 4 visits from carers a day isn't enough, regardless of whether there is someone at home with that person 24/7

cavework

shireknight wrote: »

At costs of £3000 a month would it not make more sense to take time out from work, become a full time carer to her in your house and use money gained from her assets to fund your costs.

It will work out a lot cheaper plus you won't be eroding your own inheritance plus you'll know how good the care your mother will be getting is because you'll be the one providing the care.

Have you EVER been a full time carer? Do you have any idea what this entails?
Take time out from work??
So how long do you suggest? 1 month , 1 year .. 10 years?
Do you even understand how moving an elderly parent into your home affects your life?..
and finally do you understand that people who decide to to do this have pathetic financial back up from the very establishment that they are paying into and saving money for?
Check it out and then come back with your moralising attitude
People are just so darned quick to judge until they are faced with this situation..

mgarl10024

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I understand that people want their children to inherit their houses and they see having to sell it to fund care as depriving them of that.

But look at it this way. Wherever you live, you have to pay if you have the means to do so.
...
Of course if people have no assets, then they have no choice but to rely on the State.

I think the argument here is that:
- Person A and Person B both work hard all their lives and earn well.
- Person A makes sacrifices and saves all their money as they want to be financially independent; don't want to be a burden on the state of their family; and take responsibility for themselves.
- Person B spends all their money. They probably have a great time doing so, as they are making no sacrifices. The result is they end up with no assets, savings or retirement provision.
- Person A and Person B will get the same care in old age. Person A's will be funded by their assets and Person B's will be funded by the state.

Of course there are people who earn little for whatever reason and so don't accrue assets and I'm not thinking of these people here. I'm thinking of those with the means throughout their working lives, who conducted their financial affairs very differently.

I'm no expert but in general people are saving very inadequately for their retirement and many have no savings at all. When faced with this example, it is hard to argue the case against them.

paddyz

I think people who own houses or have saved a load of money already ease the burden of elderly care as they are sitting in homes they own or paying full rent for a long period of time without costing the goverment thousands every year.

It seems loads of non private pension pensioners get all the rent paid for many years Possibly 10-30 years even before any thoughts of care homes comes into the equation, cost must be huge just with that factor without thinking care home costs.

But The goverment see a huge bill and try to reclaim it as they see fit and the easy way is to put the massive care bill into the lap of the one needing care that have a home or savings. who ever decided that was a good idea needs shot. Im just wondering what's next!

My personal view is I think care for elderly should be free in all care homes for everyone all over the uk regardless of what money they have its not the persons choice to live in a care home its a serious need after all. but the accomadation side should be paid for if you have the money, seems much more reasonable.

Family inheritance doesn't really come into it its whats fair and whats unfair and its totally unfair to pay massive costs for these homes.

AdrianC

A quick google finds that about 60% of the roughly 400,000 residents in care homes in England alone (Wales & Scotland would be down to the devolved regional governments) are wholly or privately funded. So that's around a quarter of a million people. Let's assume £2k per month. So that's an extra £6bn per year. Where's that money going to come from...? Income tax raises about £150bn/year, so that'd be a 4% increase. Council tax raises about £26bn/year, which'd mean a 24% increase.

And of course inheritance comes into it - if somebody pays for their own care from their own assets, the ONLY "losers" out of it are those whose inheritance is reduced. It's not as if the care home resident is somehow being deprived of the use of the property they no longer live in.

Should there be any means-testing for having your care home paid for? Should multi-millionaires be funded at the taxpayer's expense, too? Or just "normal people"?

Should there be a minimum health requirement for moving into this funded care home? Or would it be possible for somebody to say "Oh, sod this. I can't be bothered paying for my own bed and board, even though I can easily afford to. I'll move into a care home and get it all free..."?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Sorry to hear about your stressful situation, OP. Renting a property is a business; you'll need to familiarise yourself with housing law, deal with letting agents if you're far away (remember they cheerfully rip off both tenant and LL) and approach the house as a business asset, without sentiment. You and your sister need to have realistic expectations about the revenue and ongoing costs.

We have an ever-aging population and a cultural obsession with making money out of property. Not a combination with easy answers.