Care Homes - Who should pay?

Well, on the basis that the argument is free care in old age because we paid in can I just ask this: the current cost of residential care per week is about £580? I've just found that on a website dated May 2013. Even if you have paid in all your working life can you tot up how much you've contributed, bearing in mind it was always a small proportion of our wages and wages when we were younger were small too! And can you tot up how much you have taken out in other sorts of medical care, hospital appointments, doctors appointments (all free at source) not to mention medicines that cost more than the prescription fee? How about dental care and medical care for the children? And can you honestly tell me that when you've done that sum you have contributed enough to pay £580 or more per week (allowing for future inflation and hopefully not needing residential care for a very long time) for any number of years? Personally I doubt it.

So, if we don't want to return to the old work-house style care for the elderly I think we'll have to use our own resources if we want a decent quality of care. That's what personal resources are for. Or maybe some of the children will pay?

It's free in Scotland isn't it? Does anyone know what the standard of care is like for the elderly there?

Do British taxpayers pay for care of the elderly in Scotland? If Scotland leaves the UK can the money be used towards the care of our elderly instead?

Here (in Switzerland) it is free if you can't afford it- but you have to pay if you can- and any property is taken into account too- just as in the UK. However, each person can keep about £25.000 of their savings for their children to inherit, before they have to begin to pay. I think it is fair- both my mil's house and savings went towards her care, in the UK, and my parents' went to pay for theirs, here. Fair imho.

of course it is fair that those who can pay - do so. If the home has to be sold - it is not required by the 'aged person' who will be living in the care home. the 'aged person' would still get pension/pension credit and probably attendance allowance and has no rent/bills etc to pay.
my mother was in a care home - self funding as her house was sold to pay - and she did get to choose the care home and as the alternative was her living with and making demands on her children it was the right thing to do.
the only people who seem concerned about the self funding thing are the inheritors who bleat about the loss of the family home and their inheritance
when I get incapable of looking after myself even in sheltered accommodation I would expect my capital to be used to make me as comfortable as possible.
do not those who think the state should pay realise that it comes from the current taxpayers not from 'what they have paid in' (which would really have to stretch to pay for their care. ) as well as their pension etc.

Many 'children' expect to inherit the huge profits made by the parental home- especially in the South and of course London. I know people who paid 10.000 for homes now worth 1.5 million. Why should their kids expect to inherit that- when other tax payers pay for their parents' care????

But if you live in Scotland you don't have to pay for care so how can that be fair?

From infocarescotland:

Personal and nursing care in a care home
If you are aged 65 or overandliving in a care home which you pay for yourself, and you are assessed as having personal or nursing care needs, your Local Authority can provide a flat rate payment for the Personal and Nursing Care component of your care home fees.People of all ages can receive payments for nursing care if they have been assessed as requiring that service.
This means that you will only be liable to contribute towards your accommodation and living costs in the care home (the 'residential' component of your care home fees). Payments for personal and nursing careare only part of the care home fees.
Rates from April 2013:
£166 for personal care per week
£75 for nursing care per week

These paymentsfor personal and nursing care are paid directly to the care provider on your behalf by the Local Authority but only after an assessment of your care needs has been carried out and a contract is in place between the Local Authority and the provider. Payments for personal and nursing care will onlystart once the contract is in place, and there is no requirement for the Local Authority to backdate these payments to the date you moved into the care home; this is set out in the Free Personal and Nursing Care Guidance.
If youchoose to receive thepayment for the Personal Care Component of your care home fees, you will no longer be eligible for Attendance Allowance after 28 days and you must inform the Department of Work and Pensions of your change in circumstances.

So, not quite the Utopia that is painted by the right-wing press. Personal Care needs are assessed within strictly limited guidelines, only including toileting, bathing, etc. Food preparation, etc is NOT included unless the person has to be spoon or tube fed. Hairdressing and chiropody are not covered i.e. the resident pays themselves.

NOW - in response to the 'Scotland gets more than its fair share' argument:

“As official figures show, Scotland has paid more in tax per head than the rest of the UK in each of the last 30 years and we contribute a higher share of UK revenues than we receive in public spending.”
The overall figures yesterday were in line with the previous year’s data. Out of just under £560 billion of spending in 2012-13, England accounts for £456bn, compared with £54bn in Scotland.
Pro-independence campaigners say the most recent Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) figures show that Scotland contributes 9.9 per cent of UK tax revenues, but gets just 9.3 per cent of public spending. It means Scotland generates an average of £11,079 in taxes, per head compared with £9,342 for the rest of the UK".

If the Scottish Government, being somewhat left of centre, chooses to spend its block grant differently (SG would say more equitably) than the rest of the somewhat right of centre UK, in the areas under its devolved control e.g. the NHS in Scotland, then that is its prerogative and must be balanced by cuts to other budgets, eg transport, the arts, education. If someone living in England believes this to be unfair then I suggest they take it up with their own MP and demand similar changes be introduce there.

mollie65 I don't agree that the only people concerned about self funding are bleating (as you put it) inheritors.

My children and grandchildren struggle financially, do not own their own homes and are never likely to.

I am the one who is concerned about leaving them something in my will to help them out when I am no longer here to do so.

I think many people of my generation, comparatively well off but with children who are poor, feel the same.

petallus - I would suggest that you help your children/grandchildren now if you are comfortably off and they need the help. I think that is what most parents do anyway even if it means they cut back on their own lifestyle.
and it is the 'inheritors' who do most of the complaining about loss of inheritance (if you prefer that term - I still think it is 'bleating')
if they feel so strongly about inheriting the money they should care for their parents themselves (as lots do if they are able to)
I know I would have inherited much much more from my mother if she had not been self funding but it would have felt 'wrong' and very selfish to expect others to pay for her care.

Thanks so much for your suggestion mollie65.

Of course I help my children/grandchildren out now, as I said in my previous post.

What I am concerned about is that when I (and DH) are no longer here to do so the grandchildren in particular will really struggle.

That is why I want to leave them money in my will, to keep them going so to speak.

How do you know it is the inheritors who do most of the complaining?

I am about to meet a friend for coffee. Her mother-in-law is in a very costly nursing home at the moment, being paid for from the proceeds of her house sale. Friend hasn't 'bleated' so far but I'll watch out for it this morning!

I also think it's only fair that an elderly person in a care home should sell their house to pay their fees. This is what we did for my Mum. At the time you could keep ?£20,000 of the capital, and when the rest was gone the govt. took over.
I knew of a few families where the elderly parent transferred ownership of their house to their children. But this had to be done well before they went into "Care", when social services have access to bank accounts etc and so keep track of where the money goes.

thanks triciaF - your sentiments are exactly the same as mine
it is only fair that those who can pay - do so.

I can see both sides of this question but I would like to take it one step further. What message are we sending out to younger people? We were brought up to save and provide for ourselves but now we are telling people don't save, it won't keep pace with inflation, don't buy your own home, it will be taken away from you when you get old and can't look after yourself. Spend your money on today, tomorrow will be looked after by 'them'. The big problem is going to arise when most of us are long gone.

Relatives have the choice - look after your elderly and keep the estate intact or place them in a home and expect to pay for it. I know all the arguments about how it's impossible, because they are too much to cope with or they need to keep their job, etc. . Fair enough but you can't have your cake and eat it. Pay for someone to come in and look after mother (or father) while you hang on to that well paid job or if poorly paid pack it in and wait to claim your inheritance in full.

The ones I know personally who are trying to get the state to pick up the bill for looking after 'mother' are the same ones who are moaning about the family down the road claiming benefit since the breadwinner was made redundant.

I agree with you petallus Why should my daughter who still lives with me, lose her home if I have to be put into care and the home sold off to pay for this? I should be able to leave her provided for. Her earnings (as with many younger people now) do not allow her to rent a home of her own (other than to house share) and certainly she will never be able to afford to buy a home of her own.

If I was still married my husband would not be forced out of the home in order to pay for my care, so why should my daughter be left homeless?

mollie65 There is no way I can help my daughter out financially now as, while I am equity rich (in a small 2 bed flat - so cannot downsize further as the second room is hers!) I have no savings or spare cash.

As for her caring for me should I become too ill or infirm to look after myself. why should she have to give up her work to do so and be stuck looking after me instead?

Perhaps the message we are sending out is that "children" have a right to have a house left to them and don't need to worry about saving for the future. We have supported and educated our children and helped them when they needed help. Now they are self supporting adults it seems only fair that we can spend the proceeds from our house to give ourselves a good quality of life (and care) if and when we need it.

My arguement always goes back to the point that those who don't bother for one reason or another to buy their own home have their fees paid, even if they may have spent all of their money on holidays and good living. Again the homeowners probably paid more in tax and council tax etc over the years. A lot of older people are in a good position now because they did inherit from their parents [probably the first generation where people bought their own homes]. Years ago we didn't buy our house thinking how great it would be that it would pay for our nursing home fees; we wanted to better ourselves and, hopefully make life better for our children, which included helping them to get a good education thus benefitting society in general. It seems that, as usual it's one group in the country paying for everything ie the group in the middle.

wisewoman I guess it depends which generation our children are born into. My elder daughter is now married and she and her husband have their own home, thanks to his high earning power. She fully admits that if she wasn't married she would be in a similar situation to that of her sister (4 years younger) and be renting with someone or still living in the parental home (bit difficult as I am in a 2 bed flat)

Only one of my younger daughter's friends (she is almost 29) lives away from their parental home, simply because they are not self supporting adults. Obv this may change during their 30s if/when they meet someone they decide to make a home with but it isn't a certainty.

Life isn't as it was when my husband and I married - we bought a house with a £25K mortgage and our earnings more than covered the cost of borrowing, even when the rate when up. Now it is cheaper (in London anyway) to buy than rent IF you have sufficient funds for the deposit (no longer 10% sadly) Rents are astronomic here and leases are short so there is no security in renting a home, either.

I want to help my daughter be self sufficient but my home is all I have and I would like to legally allow her to own part of it without her having to pay extortionate IHT if I die within the next 7 years or to be forced to leave if I go into a care home and it has to be sold.

I don't mind if some of the funds from the sale of my home are used towards my future care and I know that my children won't mind that either BUT I can't be the only one whose adult offspring do not have a home to call their own other than the family one and so should inherit something without the threat of IHT rather than be rendered homeless when I go into care or die?

It seems a bit unfair that only those people who have to receive care are hit by this huge cost. Most people would like to leave something to their children and, as someone else has said, to buy a house (or to rent) these days is a major expense that leaves many younger families struggling.

I believe there was a proposal that people could opt to pay a lump sum and if they needed care they would not have to pay any more (and if they had no capital or property, it would be paid for anyway). This would mean, of course, that those that didn't need care would have paid the lump sum just for peace of mind, but I think something like this might be fairer.

I believe inheritance tax isn't payable up to £325,000. This seems a reasonable amount to me. I'm aware that in the south east, and London in particular, many houses are worth well in excess of this, but I still think £325,000 is quite a lot of money.

Lucy Could you gift a half share in your home to younger daughter NOW, perhaps, for the sake of equality leaving the other 50% to your older daughter in your will. As long as you do not need to go into care in the next few years, DD2 would have security and the home could not be sold to pay for your care as you cannot sell half a house.

Firstly if someone is over 60 and living in the same house as the person who needs to go into care then they are not made homeless.

I think Wisewoman has made an excellent point. I'm guessing many of our 'children' are now in or approaching their 40s. At they a generation who are still mentally 'children' reliant on mummy and daddy for handouts? Sounds like many some are.

Why should the state pay for your or my care when I have a valuable asset in my house? Greedy children. If they can't be bothered to give up something to look after elderly parents that's fair enough but they can't have their cake and eat it

My DD is NOT mentally a child. She is just rather poor. She works full time and tries to manage without asking me for money.

I give her handouts for the sake of the grandchildren who otherwise would be growing up in poverty. For instance, my GS who is at Grammar School would be one of the 2 percent at such schools who qualify for free meals. I don't want him to be one of the 2 percent so I pay for his meals.

There are some pretty scathing comments on this thread which are annoying and somewhat blinkered IMO.

And uncharitable