We all grumble about some of Frank's posts but please, let's give credit where it is due. I think his contributions to this thread have been excellent.
I think Bentley is mixing legal and moral responsibilities in his original post. I agree with some of his ideas. I do think where spouses hold their half of the house separately it should be possible to put a charge on the half of the house the person in care owns so that when the spouse not in care dies this money can be recovered.
As for dictating how much anyone can inherit or accumulate by essentially placing a 100% tax rate on the balance. I can think of no good reason why one person should have to forfeit much larger sums of money than the rest of the population just because they are over retirement age and have been fortunate, or prudent enough to accumulate enough money to pay for their own care in retirement.
And, yes, if the child of an older person has become wealthy, one would like to think that they love their parents enough to want to support them in comfort in old age and infirmity, and many do, but not every older person was a good parent. I once dealt, professionally, with a man in his 80s seeking assistance from a charity. He presented himself as a dear old man, loving husband and father sadly neglected by his 4 children. I later discovered he was a violent and aggressive man, domestically and elsewhere. Would you expect the children of a violent abusive father like this to help in paying for his care?
I do however think that everybody should be expected to provide for themselves throughout their lives and not expect state support just because they are older. Many people I know do need help because for many and various reasons they have not been able to accumulate enough assets to fund their old age. But when I hear of older people who can afford to pay for care seeking every possible method, legal or otherwise, to protect their assets so that the state has to pay, my feelings are of utter contempt.
