Old people having to sell home to pay for care is discrimination and ageism

My parents where in a very small OAP home- only 12. It really used to annoy him that they had to share the smallest room (the room was for one only - and mum was there for 1 year before he had to join her, and there was no other room. It was that or dad having to go miles away in another OAP home)- and yet he knew that they were only 3 there paying! Their savings disappeared very quickly! The UK is not the only country where this is the norm - it is just that in the UK we are used to the NHS and free care.

Sorry Graces mum I entered your name by mistake.

Ivanhoe, Gracesmum and VQ

You have surprised me over this topic.

I would have thought being socialists you would have said that those with property and savings should pay for their care. Isn't your outlook on this a little, dare I say it, going against good old socialist values. You sound more Tory, or at least your idea of what a Tory is, than Tory's. I am confused I have to say.

Lining someone else's pockets whilst leaving nothing to fall back on? If that's bigger than self interest I think I'll stick to charity beginning at home.

merlotgran , It's something bigger than self interest.

What's that got to do with renting?

merlotgran, The State in Europe and Scandinavia have something's called "Society", "Community". Both are sadly gone from Britain now, and equally sadly our dog eat dog nation has been achieved by Thatcher.

So if you rent all the time what happens when you retire and your reduced income leaves you strapped? The state will have to pay for your care because you have no assets and have been lining someone elses pockets all your working life.

gracesmum, i'm flattered. Seriously!

Much cheaper btw to be care for in your own home. This is what we intend to organise if we ever need it. Another solution at the later stage is I to make the house work for us/him/me - we are lucky to have plenty of space, and would offer free accommodation for a couple, or even a family - in exchange for help.

Lucky enough that here where I live, when the time comes when neither is possible - we can 'opt out' when we feel the time is right.

The new rule in UK favours those with expensive property (I know many who have houses worth a lot more than half a million) and those who do not have any (and yes, it does irk that some make huge sacrifices to save for a pension, do up houses instead of blowing any money on large flat screen tvs and holidays, etc) for whatever reason.

Do you know, Ivanhoe I find myself agreeing with you!
#lyingdownindarkenedroom

gracesmum, ""Is it principally only in this country that we persist in seeing property as an investment?""

No, America is the same.

Europe have mostly rents, and Scandinavia.

The British have an obsession with home ownership, at almost any cost.

I'm also happy for the money from my house to be used for my care should I ever need caring for. It seems a reasonable idea to me and, to be honest, nothing new.

Is it principally only in this country that we persist in seeing property as an investment? People talk about how much their property is worth, but that is meaningless unless you realise your assets. Yes, it can be a form of saving for the future, but an inheritance for the children? Why?
Some years ago DH was very ill, also made redundant and frankly we were strapped for cash. With 3 children we had no savings but a house that although not large, was listed and very saleable. So we sold it, moved to a modern house - much cheaper to run, actually nicer garden, still 4 bedrooms and used the money realised by the move to live off until DH was sort of back on his feet. That was worthwhile and we were lucky that our "savings " were effectively in our house. But when push comes to shove in the future, if our house funds sheltered accommodation or care home fees - so much the better. Who else is going to pay for it?

Absent - I agree and I think I've already done that on another similar thread. If I have the misfortune to go into care, I will no longer need my house and it might as well work for me, either as rental income or as a lump sum to pay for my care. Any other point of view is emotion-driven.

Anyway most of us will die of old age in our own homes or in hospital after a very short stay so only a few of us will actually require long term care

You've got that wrong, Snowy. People are living much longer now and many will require long term care like my mother who is 94 and very, very frail.

Its all yours Ana. Ive gone before you as you suggested.

vampirequeen , That's absolutely right.

Why should people who have managed to buy a house and save for a pension be penalised in their old age? My mum and dad did without holidays and treats to buy their house and pay into dad's pension. If mum has to go into a home she did all that just to add to some care home company's profits. If she hadn't bothered then she would be paid for by the state to be in the same care home.

That just doesn't seem right.

What is the point of keeping your house if you need to live in a care home? What is the point of saving for a rainy day when you cannot recognise when you finally need an umbrella? If you need care in old age and you have the finances to pay for it, then of course you should pay. The state, i.e. taxpayer, should have to pay only for those who cannot pay for themselves.

I know many people who bought their house for a few thousands in the 50s, which are now worth half a million or more- is it fair for the children to inherit, often without lifting a finger? What use is a house once you are in care? Should people who do not have houses, or very modest ones- subsidise those who have big piles worth a lot?

We had to sell both my mil's and then my parents' houses to pay for their care, and we had very little left over- but we thought that was fair enough.

Here where I live now (Switzerland) it goes the other way round. You have to pay until you have about £30.000 - which is safe for your children to inherit, then the State picks up the tab.

Another one for Ivanhoe to get his teeth into, I suspect...

It's totally wrong. Care should be paid for by the state. These people have paid their dues and should be entitled to keep their money.