Grandparent going into home (keeping savings)

maman

Cakeguts wrote: »

I can never understand about having to pay for a care home either. The money is no good to the person who owns it when they are dead. So why can't they use it to live in comfort in a nice home where they are looked after and safe without relatives worrying about it disappearing. The money belongs to the person going into the home it isn't part of an inheritance until the person is dead and until then it is there for spending by the owner on whatever they have left in life to spend it on.

I think the answer to some pay and some don't is to make sure that more people spend the kids inheritance on luxuries while they can still enjoy them rather than saving for a rainy day. The rainy day arrives when you retire.

maman wrote: »

I don't blame them although often the question seems to be about wanting to bypass the rules as they currently stand.

The problem lies IMO in that we separate health from social care. Then it becomes a lottery as to how the old person's need is defined. There's also the issue that people who've behaved responsibly and saved for their old age are asked to pay whereas those who've spent all their disposable income are not. The sooner we get some joined up thinking the better.

I think the problem people have is that they see others having care and not paying so the system seems unfair. It's a very similar argument to the problems with the benefit system. I don't think any taxpayer minds contributing for those in genuine need but there are still too many taking the p*ss and using the benefit system as a lifestyle choice and that includes employers who don't pay enough to their workers so they have to claim in-work benefits. That is as unfair to those in genuine need as it is to the taxpayer.

ska_lover

maman wrote: »

Istill too many taking the p*ss and using the benefit system as a lifestyle choice .

Oh come on..seriously

onlyroz

However if people make any suggestion along the lines of lowering the inheritance tax threshold to a point where most people will have to pay something, and funnelling the money into adult social care, then you all get up in arms about at too. Cake and eat it, etc etc.

PS - I speak as someone who has already "lost" one inheritance to pay for care home fees, and it is likely that I'll "lose" a second as well. Personally I'm not against paying in principle but I do see the discrepancy between someone eg dying of cancer and someone dying of Alzheimer's. The socialist in me would prefer for "my inheritance" to go into a large pot to cover social care for everyone, rather than to fund one specific person.

onomatopoeia99

Gavin83 wrote: »

I don't really understand why people are so funny about paying for care. We live in a country where the relatively well off pay for services and the poor get the same services for free.

We live in a country where the NHS is the most expensive service the country provides and is free at the point of delivery, no matter how much you earn and how much you have in assets. It's funded by taxation.

Attlee promised a welfare state "from cradle to grave". Not "from cradle until you're old, then the council will take your house to pay for your welfare". Pay your taxes all your working life and we'll still take your house, unless you live in social housing and frittered away your wages away so never bought a house, just paid subsidised rent until you retired then got housing benefit to pay it.

The message seems to be if you're financially prudent during your working life then the council will come and take it all away when you're old.

If you genuinely cannot see why people feel hard done by when this happens, why they resent the council punishing them financially for being prudent, then I can't explain.

Marvel1

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

The message seems to be if you're financially prudent during your working life then the council will come and take it all away when you're old.

If you genuinely cannot see why people feel hard done by when this happens, why they resent the council punishing them financially for being prudent, then I can't explain.

If they pass away say a month into care home, already paid £2000 (I don't know how it much costs). They have £40,000 left, what happens to it?

JimmyTheWig

onlyroz wrote: »

suggestion along the lines of lowering the inheritance tax threshold to a point where most people will have to pay something, and funnelling the money into adult social care

I think this has got to be the answer.
Care homes free to everyone who needs them. 80% IHT.
Everyone knows where they stand. Eliminates the lottery of whether you'll need care or not.

The bonus would be that if people _knew_ that their children wouldn't be inheriting much of what they have left then they'd be happier to spend it on themselves. Which they should do, as it's their own money. (And would also be a stimulus for the economy.)

[This might also raise the need of a state-owned equity release scheme, but that may be going past the remit of this thread...]

svain

People are too quick to jump on the relatives asking the question. Its not unusual for a grandparent to begrudge the care costs themselves and want any assets/saving to be passed on when possible.

Gavin83

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

We live in a country where the NHS is the most expensive service the country provides and is free at the point of delivery, no matter how much you earn and how much you have in assets. It's funded by taxation.

Attlee promised a welfare state "from cradle to grave". Not "from cradle until you're old, then the council will take your house to pay for your welfare". Pay your taxes all your working life and we'll still take your house, unless you live in social housing and frittered away your wages away so never bought a house, just paid subsidised rent until you retired then got housing benefit to pay it.

The message seems to be if you're financially prudent during your working life then the council will come and take it all away when you're old.

If you genuinely cannot see why people feel hard done by when this happens, why they resent the council punishing them financially for being prudent, then I can't explain.

People should be aware that a PM, who is only in power for a set number of years hasn't the right to guarantee something for longer than their term.

I actually don't think the NHS helps. People get medical care their entire life for 'free' and therefore have the belief they should receive residential care in their final years for free, despite it being an entirely different thing.

There's a big difference between the two as well. If you charge for the NHS they'll likely be people who die as they can't afford the medical bills and quite rightly, as a country we deem this unacceptable. The individual is losing out. In terms of residential care the individual isn't losing out. They'll no longer need their home as they won't be returning and won't need money as the majority of their needs are arranged by the home. The only people who lose out are the relatives who lose an inheritance which they've no right to. Of course, if they want this inheritance they can still get it, they just need to care for their relative but most aren't willing to do this.

Besides, if care was fully funded where would the money come from? As a taxpayer I'd resent paying more tax (which would be the route to funding free care) not to benefit the resident themselves but to line their relatives pockets. I'd have no issue with restructuring care fees in principle as long as it didn't involve increased taxation.

As I said before we live in a country where those able to pay and those that can't don't. The only alternative is to make everyone pay more which isn't great or let the poorer elderly die from a lack of care, which also isn't great. However like in most areas those that pay their own way through life generally get better options in life and the same applies for care. Generally speaking and assuming you're selective in where you live a person self funding should be in a better care home than those that are council funded.

So I guess I can understand why people don't like the charge, I just don't think they're valid in this opinion. I'm speaking as someone who could well lose a significant inheritance (a 7 figure sum after IHT) due to care needs so at least I'm not a hypocrite.

Mojisola

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Attlee promised a welfare state "from cradle to grave".

Not "from cradle until you're old, then the council will take your house to pay for your welfare".

We could still provide the same if we went back to those days when most people didn't own their own home and didn't have savings to pay for private care anyway, many women were housewives and available to provide 24/7 care for live-in older relatives and, for those who had no one to care for them, an institutional life in a bed in an open ward with just enough staff to keep them clean and fed.

margaretclare

Fireflyaway wrote: »

In general I just don't understand why people feel it wrong to have to use savings/ sell a house to pay for care fees. If you move to a care home, that is your new home. Since when can you live somewhere for free?! A care home has to pay staff, provide heat, light, food , laundry, water etc.
What is wrong is some people having to pay and some not. Should be the same for everyone.
I don't mean to appear uncaring but I'm not sure why you want to 'protect' what in the scheme of things is a small sum. Why should it go to use on something other than care?

I couldn't agree more.

You can only live in one place at a time. Wherever you live, you have to pay for it. Heating, lighting, laundry, cleaning etc, and we haven't even got on to personal care and safety.

PS: Clothing has to be washable at 60 degrees? Not a stitch of my clothing would stand up to this rough treatment.