Protecting a house against long-term care money grab

[Deleted User]

My mother had a stroke which left her quite incapacitated and she used savings to help towards good quality care at home so that she could stay in her own house. She had another stroke which left her in a wheel chair so we looked for a fantastic care home for her, which was paid for from the value of her property ( 3 bed semi probably worth about 170k today) ). She had a lovely room and lovely carers. She then had a massive stroke and was left in a coma and the staff in her chosen care home were magnificent towards her and towards us. At no time did any of us want her to be left at the mercy of the state. The one time she was in a state stroke ward, after the first stroke, was so horrifying that we decided never again. A strong smell of urine, food placed where she could not reach it etc. No thanks, not for our mum

I have to agree with those that suggest the OPs `money grab` heading shows the opposite consideration towards his mother

treliac

I guess the next phase of the evolution is going to be "home care" - the provision of subsidised facilities (showers/stairlifts/mobility scooters etc) and visiting carers to the home so that people can stay in it for much longer, combined with "assisted living/sheltered accommodation" for those who need a bit more help.

This is current practice. Unfortunately, shortage of government funding means that paid carers only have the minimum of time to spare, some visits only allowing 15 minutes, for people who are housebound, isolated and with heavy personal care needs.

Loneliness is one of the most common experiences in today's society.

codger

Sorry, but there've been far too many simplistic "diagnoses" of the OP's state of mind re the phrasing of the opening post -- as if any reference to "money" or "inheritance" in this context somehow bespeaks of downright greed.

What utter baloney.

We're currently living -- lest posters here hadn't actually noticed -- in a country whose underlying economy has been so wrecked by corporate greed and governmental mismanagement that entire generations risk being dispossessed: they can't get on the proverbial "housing ladder" UNLESS some estate is left to them by their parents.

The ideal world viewed through the rose-tinted spectacles of so many posters here -- one in which any consideration of inheritance should go no further than a ready decision to allow it to be expended on care services a significant proportion of which should be funded via the NHS -- does not exist.

Thank Gawd, then, for Monkeyspanner's posts, the most valuable here because they're informed and informative.

Our family is not unique in having children whose future depends to large extent on what we can provide for them now (which isn't much) and what we can leave them when we've gone.

Not so long ago, that may not have mattered: kids grew up, left home, got a job, got a house; the life-patterm they followed was the same as that followed by their parents.

As that's all gone now, the OP's first post made eminent sense because yes, we too would like to make sure that the State into which we've pumped so much money over these past four decades of working life actually does fulfil its side of the bargain when the time comes -- and doesn't "seize" from us that which our own children so justly need.

Thanks, OP, for raising this -- I really do hope things work out for you. . . and that you're able to ignore the pious cant spouted here by posters who (presumably) are far more insulated against the realities of economic life in contemporary Britain than are the rest of us, or fortunate enough to have children who are able to stand on their own two feet.

treliac

A couple of important demographic changes here:

Health improvements have led to vastly increased numbers of elderly people, living beyond the lifespans of previous generations, who are declining in health and fitness more gradually and needing support for a comparatively long period, which has led to the proliferation of care homes and other types of care. (Although some reports indicate that increases in longevity will start to reverse with the changes in lifestyle of many of today's young people).

In my parents' day buying your own home was beginning to take off. Many still rented as did most in my grandparents' day. They didn't expect to get onto the housing ladder as seems to be more the norm today.

If my children can't afford their own homes, they may have no alternative but to stay at home until they can achieve independence. But then my grandmother had her married children living with her until they could do the same. Each generation has it's own problems to contend with but they may not be the same.

Errata

Perhaps all sides of this need to be identified. A couple now in their 80's who both need residential care may some 40 years ago have paid less than £10k for a house which in todays market may be worth £200k, an amount they haven't earned through hard work or saved through being thrifty, simply an amount they have been lucky enough acheive through market forces. Market forces which previous generations to them didn't benefit from.

monkeyspanner

Errata wrote: »

Perhaps all sides of this need to be identified. A couple now in their 80's who both need residential care may some 40 years ago have paid less than £10k for a house which in todays market may be worth £200k, an amount they haven't earned through hard work or saved through being thrifty, simply an amount they have been lucky enough acheive through market forces. Market forces which previous generations to them didn't benefit from.

So are you saying that this is a justifyable 'wealth tax by stealth' to allow the state to profit from market forces? Or is it simply a 'windfall tax' on individuals because the state does not have the guts to tackle the likes of the utility companies or the high earners in the city whose 'hard work' in the last few years has caused so much damage to our banking system and pensions or the non-domiciles who pay less tax than the ordinary working man.

Or is it simply that sick, vulnerable, elderly people are a lesser priority in our society than the useless able-bodied layabouts who are never likely to contribute taxes or to accumulate wealth to pay for their own care and whose only pupose in life is to draw benefits and to create a new generation to follow in their footsteps and hopefully not terrorise too many elderly people in their unlimited leisure time.

EdInvestor

For most poeople this need not be a zero sum game: oldie and family vs the state/taxpayer There are financial products that fill the gap, provide peace of mind and value for both sides, spending some of the money on care, and leaving some for the family and to boost the basic lifestyle of the oldie..

It's useful to understand the financial position in this area before making political statements. To be sure, this is not as easy as it sounds

dunstonh

So are you saying that this is a justifyable 'wealth tax by stealth' to allow the state to profit from market forces?

Ok, lets open that up a bit more...

If the individual needing care doesnt pay for it, who is going to?

monkeyspanner

Ed you are absolutely right but the care anuity options are not generally known because the 'care managers' employed by the social services do not explore and explain funding alternatives with clients considering residential care and as soon as they discover the client has a property or savings available you don't see them for dust. I guess because so called self-funders don't need 'care' or 'management'. It is left to charities to pick up the information gap.

monkeyspanner

dunstonh wrote: »

Ok, lets open that up a bit more...

If the individual needing care doesnt pay for it, who is going to?

OK let's open it up a bit more:

So it's OK for you to drop dead and pass £300,000 tax free to your beneficiaries from your accumulated wealth but if you are ill for a few years prior to death you can only pass £21500 tax free and the rest is up for grabs by the state either in the form of care home fees or to go towards a care anuity to pay care home fees as edinvestor suggests.

So the answer for all oldies is make sure you die quickly if you want your beneficiaries to have your money.

If money can be found to fight questionable wars around the middle east I am sure its not beyond the imagination of our treasury to find funds for caring for our elderly.