Trust wills and care home fees

I am very sorry if I have given wrong information but only going on what I have read and heard so I am confused now,I thought Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own funds from taxation in Scotland ,Wales,and Northern Ireland.
and UK Government will provide £41 billion per year to the Scottish Government. via the Barnett Formula don’t know about the other nations.
But from what’s been said Scotland and the other nations send their taxes to the UK treasury then get it back plus what ever else is agreed.
The plus being from every one paying taxes in the UK.
I had understood that the first minister of Scotland decides how that money is distributed.
I also have read that care is free —-not so from info from our Scottish Grans and also University fees are free is this untrue as well.
I don’t know about Scotland but I understand in Wales prescription charge are free to but not in England.
Why we couldn’t have all stayed as one unit I don’t know,
I am 1/4 Scottish 1/4 Wales 1/4 Irish 1/4 English so my sympathies are with all of you.

Care Homes in Scotland are not free. I was quoted £800 per week for my husband to go into a local privately owned Care Home. The Scottish Government pay approximately £270 per week for the nursing care my husband would have needed. The £800 would have been raised by my husband’s pensions and savings which would have affected my standard of living.

I am in Scotland and I can assure you all we do pay care home fees. If you don't own your own home your pension/ benefits contribute and you are left with an amount to buy items you need. I think people here are getting mixed up with care home fees and free personal care. I can assure you Scotland is not the land of milk and honey that folk make it out to be. I don't know anything about Wales.

Seajaye, but it's not a fair system - it's just a lottery. Most of us won't need long term care. Those that do will often not survive for long (with life expectancy drastically reduced in care homes).

People who do live for more than a few years in care will probably run out of funds. Those with savings will be shocked at how quickly this happens.

I think that, going forward, everyone should pay (far more) into a ring-fenced fund. Those who need care will have it provided. That's what the system was always meant to do.

It is a ticking time bomb for us all, but the fact is that care costs a huge amount of of money and has to be paid for by those that can afford it, or alternatively if the family expect to inherit, the family inheriters could provide the care, if they are in a position to do so. The deprivation of assets rule is designed to ensure the system remains as fair to all generations in society as possible. Trying to avoid care home fees by putting assets in trust is tantamount to defrauding the benefit system, it's certainly not the moral high ground.

I thought that 'personal care' was free in Scotland.

Trust me, we do pay in Scotland!

I’m confused! There have been a few comments on here suggesting that Wales and Scotland do not pay care home charges! Can you substantiate this? I have had relatives in both Wales and England who’ve definitely paid care home charges.

I think it really is high time that the current (crazy) system of 'rules' is examined - and changed.

The only 'wealth' considered for liability is property or money in the bank. Therefore, for those who don't wish to pay for their and other people's care, the answer is simple.

If, at present, you see no reason why you'll require long term care - spend it. Invest in many luxury cars, antiques, gold jewellery, art etc. for your loved ones to inherit.

If you take out an equity loan and then use it to help your offspring and don't need care for a few years, nobody thinks anything of it as regards deprivation of assets. However, if you let your children have a share of the property so they benefit rather than a loans company, the Council will upset the transaction.
My mother has enough to pay for her care at the moment but when I mentioned that she was having some new windows fitted in her ageing property, the Social Worker cautioned me that it could be seen as deprivation of assets if she needed help later on. We are doing it as cheaply as possible but he was concerned that we were putting in double glazing rather than just replacing the windows with single glazing. I have had to take photos to show that she has big holes in the frames which are keeping the place freezing and are dangerous from a security perspective. Furthermore, from an eco and cost of living point of view, single glazing would just be a nonsense especially as she received compensation 30 years ago to put in double glazing due to the noisy bypass that was built behind her house. The Social Worker warned me I might have to prove that!
Whilst I can see why we should pay for the care if we have the means, it does make me wonder why she has bothered to save and buy her own house when other people can protect their assets.

My understanding is that in Scotland, your home will be used for care fees. I have heard of people trying to avoid it, but I wouldn't know how. It does rankle with me that people who have never worked,never contributed will get the same care as me. In hindsight Ive often thought Id have been better never working. I remember a conversation once about this very thing, a neighbour told me a story about a person who basically wasn't worried about pension or future care. ' The state will just look after me' was the reply. Alright for some.

Rightly or wrongly, the point about dementia care, though, is that although dementia is an illness, then unless there are other health issues, the care needed is ‘social’ rather than medical. It’s help with washing, dressing, ‘toileting’ as they like to call it, maybe with eating and drinking, plus someone on hand 24/7 for supervision and reassurance for the confused and anxious.
None of which needs trained medics, just carers.

For very nearly the last 8 years of her life, my mother was in a very good dementia-only care home, with no nurses on the staff, just carers, who IMO did a fantastic job, or I doubt she’d have made it to 97.

fairnessforall

Have been following this discussion and while agreeing with some and not with others.
I feel no one has mentioned that while people in England have to pay if they have property or savings, but people living in Scotland and Wales do not.It was said by someone that if you live in England then you have to deal with the England system but neglected to say that the England Tax payer also contributes
to the free system in Scotland and Wales.
The system that the England government give extra money to these countries is paid with England Tax payers taxes.
Is this considered a fair system

Is the whole of the residential care cost covered by the state in Scotland? I had understood that it was only the ‘care’ element,, not the ‘hotel’ ditto - which I’d have thought would be rather more.
I’m sure someone will correct me if I’ve got it wrong.

Ladypatti

To FFogglove
Sorry I agree with the other people I’ve paid my dues and still pay others who have never worked get all the benefits but because I’ve worked hard and saved I’m penalised and can’t claim any so why should I pay for a care home

Did you see the BBC series on care homes with Ed Balls ? Privately funded care was charged at £1000 per month in order to contribute to those who were unable to fund themselves. The care home charged £3000 per month for Social Services funded homes and £4000 for self funded care. How can this possibly be right ? We absolutely have to come up with a fairer system.

maddyone

I haven’t said one word about what some call the feckless poor. Nor would I since I think it’s a poor argument and even more, irrelevant, and primarily, not true. This discussion is about fairness and equality. No one is asked to pay for NHS treatment because we, as a society, have made the decision that we want to fund our medical treatment through taxation in order that it’s accessible to all, free at the point of need. We don’t discriminate. A billionaire or someone who lives on benefits. It doesn’t matter, all will be treated. But when it comes to care in old age a different value system is applied. We ask those who own a house, however small and inexpensive, or have a bit in savings, to cover the whole cost of their care. This includes nursing care as for some inexplicable reason, nursing care is not deemed to be a health need, and is made extremely difficult for relatives to claim for their loved one. I have seen Gransnetters discuss this in regard to their spouses, who were terminally ill, but refused nursing care costs. This is the nitty gritty of the situation. It is blatant discrimination against the old.
Doodledog is right. She says care should be provided free at the point of need, just like NHS care is provided. She says this should be financed through taxation. She is right, it should be. But Gransnetters and others don’t want their children and grandchildren to pay for this. Why not? These older citizens paid for their education, and their health needs, so why on earth shouldn’t the young, in their turn pay too? Our taxation system is designed so that the well paid pay more, the less well paid pay less. It’s not perfect but it works. We all pay in, we all take out, as and when we need it. If we’re lucky enough not to need too much in the way of health care, or old age care, then we’ve paid anyway. We don’t ask for a refund, we’re lucky not to need it. But if we do need months and months of treatment because we’re ill, or unlucky enough to need old age care, then it should be there for us, as and when it’s needed. Free at the point of need.

I agree. Also just read an article in The Times, saying that terminally ill people in receipt of ongoing NHS care - in other words nursing care which should be free - who live longer than their prognosis are now having that free care withdrawn. This includes cancer patients and end stage dementia patients. Why are we so monstrous to such vulnerable people and the families that are trying to do their best for them ?

Ffoxglove

mumofmadboys

Don't you think we should pay our own care home fees before we pass any money on to the next generation?

No actually I don't.
I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance.
For example my grandma paid nothing because she rented all her life, the lady in the room next to her had to seen her house how is that fair?

It's 7 years for depravation of assets.

Actually for Social Services purposes there is no time limit on deprivation of assets. It used to be seven years, but this has been scrapped and SS can basically trawl back as far as they like in order to prove you responsible.

I have no idea, and just for the record, I'm a home owner too.
My care costs will probably mean my grandson will be put into care, so I have plenty of reason to want to try and cling on to what I have, but it's just another of life's "not fair" issues.
It won't mean that I expect others whose lives have been different to fund me.

Which is why I said 'in this post'. This isn't a team game - people are all speaking for themselves.

For the hundredth time - my argument is not based on judgement of the lifestyles of others, but on basic fairness.

Everyone who gets their care funded is being paid for by the rest of us and our children - some may have spent every penny they earned on missionary work, or saving tigers, or on wine women and song - I really don't care. What I am asking is why people don't begrudge having the rest of us and our children pay for their care, but do object to paying for the care of those who have bought a house or saved their money?

There is though, doodledog.
Not by you, and not by maddy, but comments about people having worked while others haven't.
Plenty of implied references peppered throughout the thread.
"Why should I pay?" is one of them.

My mother signed her house over to me and my 2DBs before she remarried in her late 60s . We already knew that she wouldn’t be needing a care home as my DD and I are both nurses and we would be doing any nursing she would need .
As it happened she died of cancer 7 years later and we nursed her at home with some help from the District nurses. She died peacefully in her own bed .

Fairness for all. You seem to have forgotten that it is not just the English tax payers who pay, Wales and Scotland also have people who pay taxes, money that goes to central government in London. They in turn give lump sums back to the both of them to spend as they see fit on health, education etc. So I suggest you ask your MP (Tory by any chance) if Wales and Scotland can do why can’t England.
Good post Maddyone

What's the difference between that and the rest of us and our children funding someone's right to spend their income as they earn it, and getting free care at point of need?

Please note - there is no reference to fecklessness of any sort, (whether implied or explicit) in this post.

I don't think anyone argues about how it should be maddy. But the OP is about how it is now. It isn't going to change (in England) overnight. We can argue as much as we want about the ideal system but none of that changes the OP's position of preferring that the rest of us and our children fund her care so that she can leave her house to her daughter.

I haven’t said one word about what some call the feckless poor. Nor would I since I think it’s a poor argument and even more, irrelevant, and primarily, not true. This discussion is about fairness and equality. No one is asked to pay for NHS treatment because we, as a society, have made the decision that we want to fund our medical treatment through taxation in order that it’s accessible to all, free at the point of need. We don’t discriminate. A billionaire or someone who lives on benefits. It doesn’t matter, all will be treated. But when it comes to care in old age a different value system is applied. We ask those who own a house, however small and inexpensive, or have a bit in savings, to cover the whole cost of their care. This includes nursing care as for some inexplicable reason, nursing care is not deemed to be a health need, and is made extremely difficult for relatives to claim for their loved one. I have seen Gransnetters discuss this in regard to their spouses, who were terminally ill, but refused nursing care costs. This is the nitty gritty of the situation. It is blatant discrimination against the old.
Doodledog is right. She says care should be provided free at the point of need, just like NHS care is provided. She says this should be financed through taxation. She is right, it should be. But Gransnetters and others don’t want their children and grandchildren to pay for this. Why not? These older citizens paid for their education, and their health needs, so why on earth shouldn’t the young, in their turn pay too? Our taxation system is designed so that the well paid pay more, the less well paid pay less. It’s not perfect but it works. We all pay in, we all take out, as and when we need it. If we’re lucky enough not to need too much in the way of health care, or old age care, then we’ve paid anyway. We don’t ask for a refund, we’re lucky not to need it. But if we do need months and months of treatment because we’re ill, or unlucky enough to need old age care, then it should be there for us, as and when it’s needed. Free at the point of need.

my issue is not about inheritance but what about the remaining partner in a relationship. i remember seeing a lady that had to live in a house way too big for her as if she sold the proceeds would have to be used to pay for her husband's care. she would then be homeless. if she stayed in the big house (she did not want) she was assured of a roof over her head.