Care Homes - Who should pay?

There are many reasons why a younger generation cannot take care of ageing relatives – lack of space, distance, other family commitments, for example. Mr absent and I cared for my mother (in our house) and his sisters looked after theirs (in sheltered housing) for the final years of their lives but there were times when it was incredibly hard. I once said that my life seemed to be symbolized by emptying the commode, rather than measured out in coffee spoons. I worked hard to avoid embarrassment or any sense of indignity for my poor old ma when I washed and dressed her, wiped her bottom and so on. I don't think I want absentdaughter to have to do the same for me.

I think part of the original post was asking for how society overall should approach the problem. Our individual stories add to the discussion - but what is right for ALL of us?

We have all paid in to a National Health Service which I personally (like house insurance) hope I never have to personally draw on - and I'm going to do everything possible not to.

If my fellow citizens draw on the national resource I'm not going to be judgemental of how or why they found themselves in an unforeseen position of having to do that.

If I get to the end of this life and have managed to stay out of hospitals and care homes at that time and find a dignified way to go at home I'll be happy. In that circumstance I may well have earned the right for my family to leave them, say, half of what I own and the other half can go into that 'insurance' pot for the needs of everyone else.

The £75k is a bit complicated and only covers the basic 'care' element on top of that you still have to pay for your keep I believe so it will cost a fair bit more than that.

I think 2 people have mentioned that it is tough on those who have been careful with their money v those who have been profligate but I don't see any way to avoid that. The original idea of us all paying a basic amount into an insurance fund seems to have died a death but I think that would be much fairer and then those who needed it would be covered and those who didn't could count themselves lucky. Another suggestion might be some sort of tax on pensions ring fenced for this purpose but whatever scheme were to be adopted I think there would still be a lot of extras to pay depending upon the sort of care one chose.

40% of anything over 325.000, is it not?

Yes, my parents scrimped and saved, and often did not do things they wanted to do, or made improvements to their home that could have made life more comfortable- so they could leave us money. It used to drive me mad-and I used to try and persuade them to spend the money on themselves- and to give some to the children...but to no avail. And so the money went to pay for their care...

I know people who are making their old age a misery worrying and trying to avoid this 40% tax- to the extent they do not have time to enjoy the time that have left (and sitting on millions in property and assets...) and then complain about the state of the NHS and roads (not education as they all send kids to public school). Where do we think money for the welfare state, the NHS, education, roads, the environment and sea defenses, etc, etc, etc, etc- comes from? Thin air.

Thank you Aka.

It's not that I don't see both sides of the problem of who pays for care home fees.

I was discussing the issue with DH this morning. Most people we know of our age are investigating ways of avoiding inheritance tax on their estates so that their children/extended family will keep as much of their assets as possible. They don't want 40 percent going to the state.

Also, I might have scrimped, saved, worked hard etc. in order to be able to leave money to my family. Someone else might have preferred to spend their income on holidays and high living.

If they ended up with very little and I had a fair amount of capital, I would end up paying for my care home fees and they would not. Would that be fair?

Oh I know, a bit of a simplistic argument and not something that can really be resolved.

I quite like the idea of a cap on how much people have to pay. Wasn't £75,000 suggested once?

Can't money be put in trust for grand-children, well in advance? Or money given to children, again, well in advance? It used to be 7 years that have to be survived, what is it now legally?

I know many people sitting on millions in property and assets- should the State really pay for their care (with taxes paid by people who are much much less well off- and money taken from social, education and NHS budgets, etc). There must be some kind of wealth assessment and limit, surely. I agree though that everyone should be able to keep some money to give to their children at their death- and of course special cases of children living in the house should have special dispensation in certain cases (as with mental or other handicap, etc, on a case by case decision).

We all had a little left when my mil died- not much, but enough to remember her by, and same for my parents- but most of it went into their care- and I think that was fair- and they were all very well looked after, both in the UK and here where I live.

This is always a difficult topic as people's personal circumstances and philosophies can be so different. We never know exactly what is round the corner for us - "The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men gang aft agley." We tried to live with the idea that our DC's education came first. Then, whatever the future held, they would have some skills to help themselves. Hopefully, that is working and they know not to expect big legacies. Equally, they also know that we expect nothing from them. (but will be grateful in due course for anything they choose to do for us, should the need arise.)

I think I put my case rather too strongly Petallus as I was specifically referring to offspring who take it as read that the state will foot the bill for their parents care but they will naturally inherit the family home, worth hundreds of thousands.

There is a world of difference between you choosing to help your daughter out and those who sit back and expect a windfall. Your daughter is not expecting handouts, you said this yourself. My children do not expect hand outs either but I too help out when I can by buying shoes etc as Easter presents.

I do hope I've made the difference clearer as I'd hate to upset you over a misunderstanding.

And uncharitable

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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

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 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!

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.

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.

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.