Being put in a home then told to sell your house to pay for it

baby_boomer

droopsnout wrote: »

if they paid their dues, they would be looked after in old age

Oh please.

Past NI contributions, if they had been rolled up into a fund, wouldn't come remotely close to funding what you want.

What you want would have to be paid for by the extra taxes of graduates the government is letting out of university with £35K debts (in 2010).

And Gordon earmarked one recent NI increase for the NHS. If you want a free personal care for all us baby_boomers, as well as NHS expansion & state education at private school rates, you are going to have to vote for huge tax increases and wait for a disastrous economic slowdown.

The idea that someone's home should be theirs for life is quaint but totally unrealistic given the arrangements we have had in place for decades and the scary baby_boomer population bubble about to hit social services.

The state has to draw the line somewhere.

[Deleted User]

and that is why this baby boomer has saved for as many years as possible. We do not expect the state and the younger generation to support us. Why on earth should they? We haven`t had the foreign holidays and the flash cars but we chose to save so that we could choose whatever care we might need in our old age.

Chickens are coming home to roost for many and they don`t like it

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Why exactly should the government and other tax payers etc have to support people who have money to do so just so their families/heirs can benefit more financially?

I have to agree with the governments position here, if you have the savings you should be expected to cover your own care, not for them to do it just so your families can inherit more

Its a sad fact of life that some people need serious care as they age but if they have the money to do so I do feel its fair they should be liable for the costs involved,

webhamster

the op is so right , his/her parents should have partied like its 1899 while smoking , drinking , gambling , and spending every penny before someone else does.Its wrong morally perceptually , but whats happening with this system it would be the next generation footing the bill out their own pockets anyway.Ah , a socialist idealogy to keep a state healthy for war was the real priority of the health care system in the uk.

It depends on the care really though , do you want to give up working for say your own family to look after parents full time....no neither would I , but lets remember thats the way it is elsewhere around the world ie famly take care of family and not the state.It was that way here too until recently.

Is it realistic to expect ones ni contributions to be able to fund everything , no.The contributions have already paid for other things within that persons lifetime , including the health of their children that rightfully complain of lost inheritance.Not everyone will have ended up in a home , not everyone will have to foot the care bill , or should that be part of it.

Its not perfect , but its all we have before the reintroduction of pillows over faces , church homes , and the long walk over the icecaps of the innuits.The french have a similar sytem to us but still choose to look after parents until they cannot anymore , even then they are adjusting their system towards our way and restrictions are now being imposed.

End of the day -: We cant choose to be well enough to die in our own bed peacefully in our sleep without being a drain on society or family , but someone has to pay for care if its not supplied by immeadiatte family later in life.NI contributions today dont even take care of health care real life bills for us and our children today without more inpout from other taxes.

If healthcare in the uk was a person of old age it too would be in a nursing home , sad fact.

custardy

yup its a hard one though im sure in scotland they have(or plan to) changed the ruling so people didnt have to sell their houses to pay for care.
though im sure theres a ton of strings on it.
each case is individual however given the population is getting top heavy i dont see it improving greatly for the older generation ,im sad to say

rheme

I watched a tv documentary on care homes some months ago and it showed that many care homes had a mix of residents some of which had their places funded by the state whilst others had to pay for their places.

All well and good. However, there was no difference in the level of care received (and why should there be) but the level of charges was something else. The places funded by the state were at a much cheaper rate than the fees being paid by private individuals.

This is like being smacked in the face twice!!

lifeisgood

Beate wrote: »

The real killer was that they said there was no way they could find them a state run home which could care for them both. So they had to go for a private carehome

Your parents were very fortunate that they were able to spend their last few years together in a home of their choice. I agree with others that if they hadblown all their cash, they would not have been able to enjoy their last few years together. And from your OP it seems that they hadn't run out of money.

So it seems it is only their beneficiaries who lose financially. Maybe all those of us that took some pleasure in seeing our parents have the care of their choosing at the end of their lives should sue the government for compensation for our reduced inheritance.

Sorry, Beate, but your parents had good care, why do YOU need to be compensated?

seven-day-weekend

I did think that, too, that if they had not had the means to pay they would not have been able to be together.

At least they did not have to spend their final years living apart.

jem16

custardy wrote: »

yup its a hard one though im sure in scotland they have(or plan to) changed the ruling so people didnt have to sell their houses to pay for care.

If one person is still living in the family home it does not need to be sold.

No such rule or plan otherwise.

EdInvestor

As announced the Government is going to do a review of the whole issue and bring in a better system.

For people who need nursing care, it already contributes about 8,500 a year (incl full rate attendance allowance.) Average nursing home costs are now 30,000 a year and the average pension 14,000 a year.Let's assume you could get 5000 a year for renting ought the oldies' house. That makes a total of 27,000 , leaving a shortfal of 2500 a year, which you could meet with an immediate needs annuity costing 10-15,000 upfront.

For many individual oldies, that's not an insurmountable situation, no need to sell the house or spend the inheritance. It's more problematic for couples as the house can't be let out, but the gap is not as big as you might think now, it might not cost the Government that much the bridge it.They have at least now shown willing to sort out that other related bugbear, inheritance tax

IMHO there's a great need to sort out a proper plan for dementia cases, as this disease often strikes at a fairly young age, and the victim can go on to live for many years.This does drain the family funds and as the disease strikes completely randomly and is so devasting, IMHO it should be covered fully under the NHS.