View Full Version : Is this a Fair System
I wonder how many of you out thee particularly those with elderly parents, are aware of the rules and regulations should your loved one need to be put in either a residential or nursing home.
We have all encouraged them to make wills. Many of them struggled for years to pay for their homes with a view to leaving them to their families. Alas its now a case of if you own your own property then you have to pay for your own care. The elderly who have been hospitalised and now are no longer able to care for themselves must sell their property to foot the bill ASAP .
If you have elderly parents who live in a council house then there is no problem. The state will pay. How fair is that.
j4bberw0ck
09-Apr-07, 23:31
How fair is that.
It isn't fair at all, is the short answer. There are things that can be done to prevent it happening, but it's too late by the time parents are going into care.
It's no more fair than people who sit on benefits instead of working because "it isn't worth their while to work", and no more fair than people who've saved for a pension all their lives finding that their savings have sufficed only to make sure they won't qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee. The folks next door, meantime, who never saved a penny and peed it up against a wall on a Friday night all their working lives, will get the same income because of the MIG.
Crazy, stupid, unfair and none of it any concern to a Chancellor who will retire on about £120,000 a year pension in due course, having been Prime Minister for a few months. I'm hoping and assuming the British electorate will have the sense to vote the "gentleman" concerned OUT at the first opportunity.
Its not only politicians who are ripping of the elderly. How can these private nursing homes justify charging 500 pounds a week.
The best thing is for elderly people to sign over their house to their family now before going in a home, the earlier the better. then make a will in their daughter/sons name saying the parent(s) can stay in the house rent free for as long as they live etc. As the house is no longer theirs, they would have no nursing home fees in the future to pay as they would have no assets.
What about if one parent is fit and well but the other needs fulltime care of a nature that is beyond the scope of the fit one? Can the fit one live in the house while the disabled one receives fulltime care in a home or will the house need to be sold for residential care to both?:confused
The best thing is for elderly people to sign over their house to their family now before going in a home, the earlier the better. then make a will in their daughter/sons name saying the parent(s) can stay in the house rent free for as long as they live etc. As the house is no longer theirs, they would have no nursing home fees in the future to pay as they would have no assets.
Not as simple as that, I'm afraid............. you have to do it 7 years prior to the parent going into the home, for the government not to have a claim.
I believe that you are allowed to retain £19,000 from the estate - otherwise.............. it is fair game for them to rob you of the rest.
Killing is too good for this government :(
j4bberw0ck
10-Apr-07, 08:32
then make a will in their daughter/sons name saying the parent(s) can stay in the house rent free for as long as they live etc. As the house is no longer theirs, they would have no nursing home fees in the future to pay as they would have no assets.
This isn't true, Fran. Anyone doing it that way has created a "gift with reservation" which means (a) the taxman can have a Court overturn the transfer, and (b) the local authority can do the same thing when they're assessing whether or not the home must be sold. If the children have taken a mortgage on the house they could find themselves in deep, deep do-do.
To make it work the way you describe the parents would have to pay a market rent for the property. It's essential that anyone thinking about signing over a property take proper legal advice. If there's any provable suspicion that the house was disposed of to avoid care bills, the deal can - and will - be unscrambled.
j4bberw0ck
10-Apr-07, 08:35
What about if one parent is fit and well but the other needs fulltime care of a nature that is beyond the scope of the fit one? Can the fit one live in the house while the disabled one receives fulltime care in a home or will the house need to be sold for residential care to both?:confused
Don't know the answer to that, offhand, but can probably find out.
It's not fair at all, but it has been the situation for quite some time, so whatever we may think of the present government, they didn't come up with the idea in the first place.
My mum's lawyer advised her to sign her house over to me back in the early 1980s, assuming that if she lived for at least a further 7 years, and required care after that time, the house would belong to me, and therefore if it was sold (because she was no longer living in it) the proceeds of the sale would come to me and my family.
It wasn't quite as simple as that, by a very long way, and the same has been true of other older people I've known who followed similar advice.
As far as I'm aware, in the case of a couple, where the house is jointly owned, the "fit" partner can continue to live in his/her own home, but I'm not 100% certain of this.
Penelope Pitstop
10-Apr-07, 09:47
As far as I'm aware, in the case of a couple, where the house is jointly owned, the "fit" partner can continue to live in his/her own home, but I'm not 100% certain of this.
I also think that's how it works.
I suppose if the elderly people/person were to sell their house to their children and rent it back that it would have to be sold at the going valuation rate??? i.e. could they sell it to their children for less than it's market value and rent it back??
....I think I know what the answer is going to be:confused
When you think about it there would be nothing to stop them selling it to a complete stranger for less than market value at any time!! i.e. If their house was worth £80K no one could stop them selling it for £50K ....if they wanted to! I know they would still have £50K worth of assets then, but think you are allowed to "gift" a certain amount each year???
Slightly off topic I know, but does anybody know what the situation is where people still living in their own home require a lot of care from paid carers?
I have some friends here in Edinburgh who work as carers - in some cases their "clients" (I hate that word!) have visits from carers, sometimes in pairs, three times a day. I know personal care is free in any case for the over 65s, but this isn't always only personal care, it can involve housework, shopping and other things as well.
I believe the cap on personal savings is £16,000 (would that be per person in the case of a couple?) -and above that, people are normally expected to contribute to the cost of care in their own home, but would that apply to over-65s as well I wonder, if the service provided more than personal care?
Here (as elsewhere I'm sure) there is a shortage of residential care, so that people are "encouraged" to remain in their own homes when possible. So long as they do, I'm assuming that regardless of the market value of their homes, that wouldn't be taken into account?
j4bberw0ck
10-Apr-07, 13:19
As far as I'm aware, in the case of a couple, where the house is jointly owned, the "fit" partner can continue to live in his/her own home, but I'm not 100% certain of this.
Asked for some advice here and in essence, it's this:
1. Every case is "judged on its own circumstances", SO
2. The fit partner continues to live in the house until they in turn need care, or die, or sell up; AND THEN
3. Up pops the local authority who've monitored the care costs for the first to go into care, and exercises their right to claw back the care costs from the proceeds of sale. They effectively have a first charge on the property.
Good, huh? I think there's probably a case for requiring people to make a contribution based on income for their long-term care costs, perhaps by the sort of insurance that's available easily enough already, but spread across their whole working life. The problem with doing it through the tax system is that there's no hypothecation of taxes in the UK - which is why road taxes don't get spent on roads, they just go into the general "pot", and why your NI contributions don't go towards health and sickness - they're just income tax by another name. That said, they were supposed to pay for care and pensions when they were introduced, but they were used to meet current expenditure, not invested in a proper fund.
I can't remember whether it was Beveridge (who was the "father" of the Welfare State) or Aneurin Bevan (the then Minister of Health) who said "the secret of the fund is that there ain't no fund" (or words to that effect), but it's true then and now that today's tax pays today's bills, with no provision for the future. hence the godawful mess the system's in.
The problem with doing it through the tax system is that there's no hypothecation of taxes in the UK - which is why road taxes don't get spent on roads, they just go into the general "pot", and why your NI contributions don't go towards health and sickness - they're just income tax by another name. That said, they were supposed to pay for care and pensions when they were introduced, but they were used to meet current expenditure, not invested in a proper fund.
I can't remember whether it was Beveridge (who was the "father" of the Welfare State) or Aneurin Bevan (the then Minister of Health) who said "the secret of the fund is that there ain't no fund" (or words to that effect), but it's true then and now that today's tax pays today's bills, with no provision for the future. hence the godawful mess the system's in.
Good grief, jw0ck, "hypothecation"? I'll need the dictionary for that one ;)
I always knew that road tax wasn't used directly for road maintenance and improvements....but for quite a while I did naively believe that NI contributions were spent on pensions and welfare! So, yes, I really did think that my NI contributions were directly providing for my parents' generation's pensions... [lol] silly, silly me!
j4bberw0ck
10-Apr-07, 14:14
Good grief, jw0ck, "hypothecation"?
:lol::lol: If all schoolkids were taught economics they'd leave school in a far better position to see through the con tricks of politicians. Which (since politicians control education too), is why schoolkids will never be taught economics.
pentlander
10-Apr-07, 14:25
Whilst I can understand where everyone is comming from I disagree.
Why should my taxes pay for someone who has significant assets to be cared for simply so they can give their children an inheritance.
Whilst I agree the system is unfair I still dont think it my responsibility to ensure relatives of a loved one can gain from the sale of a parents house.
What better use is there for your main asset thant to provide all your care in later years. I'd personally rather that than my daughters husbands getting thier hands on my years of hard saved cash and buying some flash new BMW.
j4bberw0ck
10-Apr-07, 14:41
It's a fair point, Pentlander, and one which underlines the need for some sort of personal provision for old age. But like pensions and the Minimum Income Guarantee, what do you do about those who won't or can't contribute? It's very, very easy to make sure the State pays your care bills, so it comes from your pocket and mine ultimately.
Does seem totally ridiculous. You work through life, pay your taxes like a good citizen, pay into a pension scheme and pay your Social. Then the gov't decide you have not paid enough and rob you again. They have encouraged everyone to become independent, buy their own houses and them swipe a load of money back again when you have become defenceless. I think Robert Maxwell was a better bet - at least you knew HE was a crook!
pentlander
10-Apr-07, 14:55
It's a fair point, Pentlander, and one which underlines the need for some sort of personal provision for old age. But like pensions and the Minimum Income Guarantee, what do you do about those who won't or can't contribute? It's very, very easy to make sure the State pays your care bills, so it comes from your pocket and mine ultimately.
Maybe if you pay for it yourself you could get upgraded to business class care. Massages from care assistants, free bar, priority on the remote control in the lounge room.:Razz
Whilst I can understand where everyone is comming from I disagree.
Why should my taxes pay for someone who has significant assets to be cared for simply so they can give their children an inheritance.
Whilst I agree the system is unfair I still dont think it my responsibility to ensure relatives of a loved one can gain from the sale of a parents house.
What better use is there for your main asset thant to provide all your care in later years. I'd personally rather that than my daughters husbands getting thier hands on my years of hard saved cash and buying some flash new BMW.
It's not "your" taxes. Many people who are now being expected to sell their homes to pay for their own care have paid tax and national insurance all their lives in the expectation they would be looked after in their old age. Many people have contributed to pension funds all their lives, only to find them gone thanks to our greedy Chancellor. Why should people who have worked and saved all their lives, living within their incomes, going without anything they can't afford even if it meant depriving themselves of things other people take for granted, only to find what they have saved for is being taken away. I know many people of my generation and older who will still go without in order to keep intact the inheritance they hope to pass on to their children.
My parents had very little money to pass on but they were fanatical about keeping our inheritance intact even if meant depriving themselves. A little deprivation would not hurt the spongers of this world.
pentlander
10-Apr-07, 15:10
It's not "your" taxes. Many people who are now being expected to sell their homes to pay for their own care have paid tax and national insurance all their lives in the expectation they would be looked after in their old age. Many people have contributed to pension funds all their lives, only to find them gone thanks to our greedy Chancellor. Why should people who have worked and saved all their lives, living within their incomes, going without anything they can't afford even if it meant depriving themselves of things other people take for granted, only to find what they have saved for is being taken away. I know many people of my generation and older who will still go without in order to keep intact the inheritance they hope to pass on to their children.
My parents had very little money to pass on but they were fanatical about keeping our inheritance intact even if meant depriving themselves. A little deprivation would not hurt the spongers of this world.
All very true. My only point is thought that the property is not being taken away it is being used to pay for your own needs. If the children of such individuals are so concerned why do they not take in the parent and do the caring themselves as happened before nursing homes were used as OAP dumping grounds.
I'd personally rather that than my daughters husbands getting thier hands on my years of hard saved cash and buying some flash new BMW.
You should love him like as if he were your own son and therefore you should want him to have the finer things in life, not necessarily a BMW as they are German...
pentlander
10-Apr-07, 15:22
You should love him like as if he were your own son and therefore you should want him to have the finer things in life, not necessarily a BMW as they are German...
I'll sell up before I end up in bayview and spend it all on a week of loonacy in Vegas.
Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who made remarks about home-ownership and "wealth tricking down though the generations"?...
or have I got that all wrong....relying on my own memory here and not googling ;)... could be I'm having a senior moment[lol]
I think Maggie wanted home ownership only to generate cash to fill the gap with their local government spending schemes.
I think it was John Major who wanted a classless society and wealth trickling down the generations.
All very true. My only point is thought that the property is not being taken away it is being used to pay for your own needs. If the children of such individuals are so concerned why do they not take in the parent and do the caring themselves as happened before nursing homes were used as OAP dumping grounds.
I'm afraid you're living in some idyllic past when women didn't go out to work, people accepted living in cramped conditions, and families stayed in the same communities all their lives. It just ain't like that any more. In fact more often than not now it's the grandparents who are looking after their grandchildren if they live near enough to do so. Chances are they don't. I have many friends whose offspring are scattered to the four corners. That's the trouble with medicine prolonging life - fine if you're fit and well and financially independent. Otherwise it's a nightmare and I'm sure many people would prefer a quick end to the prospect of state care in homes or, even worse, hospitals, where you're likely to be neither fed nor watered and generally neglected. But that's not likely to happen to either Blair or Brown so why should they care?
The day I'm no use to anyone else, I'm no use.
Just a thought , why not set up a trust for your property and any other assets you might have?
Know several folk who have done that here in the south.
Might not be possible under Scot's law hence my query.
If you go into a home u also lose your private pensions as well and get about £11 pocket money as well i think its about £500 a week to live in a nursing home.its a total disgrace.
I know my elderly parents often think of this. They want to leave my sister and I something and they really want us to benefit from what they have. My sister and I are of the opinion that we would much rather have them than their money/property, however it really annoys them that they will have to use their assets for care in a home if the time comes when others get it paid for them - honestly maybe we would all be better off in the long run living off the state - then who cares! I wholeheartedly agree with your comments badger!
percy toboggan
10-Apr-07, 19:18
If your parents have an asset which they can no longer utilise -ie.live in it. then they need to liquify most of the cash to pay for their care. Otherwise the taxpayer has to fund it. I am taxpayer and wonder why you expect me to subsidise your parents care. If the nest egg is so important to you why not have them move in with you so you can look after them yourself. My parents left me nothing apart from about seventy quid. They lived in a council house having paid the rent every week for forty years. They both died in their fifties. Life is a lottery and you make the best of what you have.
If your folks both dropped dead a few years ago you'd have been sitting pretty with your inheritance. I'd rather have had mine around for another decade and more.I'm sure you would too.
In coclusion I think the system is fair - so long as they don't take their last bean. I think you get to keep the last sixteen grand or so. A tidy sum.
I'm sorry to be forthright and realise this is not the answer you might have been looking for. It is my view however, and I stand by it.
Pentlander - When it gets to the stage where someone goes into a Nursing Home its because they need 24 hour nursing care. They are not seriously ill enough to warrant taking up a hospital bed but still need nursing care. How many families can provide that in their own homes. You try explaining the whole setup re selling your house to pay for your care to an 85 year old and see what the reaction is, Its already a very stressful time for them without losing everything they own.
percy toboggan
10-Apr-07, 19:35
If you have elderly parents who live in a council house then there is no problem. The state will pay. How fair is that.
Not if they have substantial savings they won't. Do not assume that everyone who lives in a council house is broke , or is a sponger.
People have different spending priorites and I know a good few folk in rented accommodation who have a bob or three in the bank. Your post seemed to broad brush tenants into some kind of dependency skip. Garbage.
Taking savings, other properties and finally the house you lived in - this has been happening for many years.
I worked in England early 80s, folk going into nursing homes were financially stripped, most of the nursing homes charged around £500 a week in the early 80s.
Government suddenly put on a clamp, I think around 84, to the cost they would pay for people in nursing homes, up to that time government had been paying for those unable to pay for own care privately. The government put a figure which I cannot remember but it was something like £275, roughly half what the nursing home owners were charging the occupants or government. Many people were told to pay up the difference or their old relatives were out - many were literally dumped in hospitals again with no bed available when they were discharged. Nursing homes would only take folk with private finance, twenty years further on we are still in the same situation, possessions taken to pay for your care.
I have worked most of my life, saved a bit here and there, why should my savings and house be taken to pay for my care when my pals have spent their salary on holidays, cars, opera, theatre and enjoying life. We have earned roughly the same, they will get looked after by the government free of charge due to not having savings or a house, my salary was used to save and to buy a house so my parsimony will cost me my house and savings, this to me is being ripped off - I have paid my taxes already and continue to on interest in savings, my personal possessions should be mine to do with as I see fit.
Not if they have substantial savings they won't. Do not assume that everyone who lives in a council house is broke , or is a sponger.
People have different spending priorites and I know a good few folk in rented accommodation who have a bob or three in the bank. Your post seemed to broad brush tenants into some kind of dependency skip. Garbage.
I do agree with you there percy. It's relatively recently that it seems to be assumed all hard-working and self-reliant people are bound to be owner-occupiers!
Most of my relations lived all their lives in rented accommodation, council or otherwise, always paid the rent on time and managed by hard work and careful management, to have some savings in the bank.
I didnt suggest for one minute that people who live in council houses were broke or spongers. These are your words PERCY I was a council tenant for over 30 years before buying my council house. I bought it with a view to leaving it to my family not for it to be used to pay for care should I need it Its mine to do with as I choose. We are encouraged nowadays to buy our property. Now we know why. Ive paid my taxes and National Insurance just like you or the council tenant. One thing is for certain ''my house will be in order'' long before they get the chance to take it.
What happened to "Free Care for the Elderly" provided for by the bill passed in February 2002 or is it only free for those with less than £19500 worth of assets?
What happened to "Free Care for the Elderly" provided for by the bill passed in February 2002 or is it only free for those with less than £19500 worth of assets?
Dusty, I think this only applies to care provided for people living in their own homes. As far as I'm aware it's not means-tested.
I found this which explains what help you are entitled to under free personal care:
Personal Hygiene
Bathing, showering, hair washing, shaving, oral hygiene, nail care
Continence Management
Toileting, catheter/stoma care, skin care, incontinence laundry, bed changing
Food and Diet
Assistance with the preparation of food and assistance with the fulfilment of special dietary needs
Problems with Immobility
Dealing with the consequences of being immobile or substantially immobile
Counselling and Support
Behaviour management, psychological support, reminding devices
Simple Treatments
Assistance with medication (including eye drops), application of creams and lotions, simple dressings, oxygen therapy
Personal Assistance
Assistance with dressing, surgical appliances, prostheses, mechanical and manual aids. Assistance to get up and go to bed. Transfers including the use of a hoist
You still have to pay for living in a Nursing Home if you can afford it but everyone who is assessed as requiring it can get free personal and nursing care or £145 per week to purchase their own care and £65 per week to purchase nursing care.
Sorry for posting before I knew what I was talking about.
Angela,
You are quite right, people can opt to recieve the care(s) in their own homes whether the provided or purchased route is chosen.
[QUOTE=percy toboggan;211346]If your parents have an asset which they can no longer utilise -ie.live in it. then they need to liquify most of the cash to pay for their care. Otherwise the taxpayer has to fund it. I am taxpayer and wonder why you expect me to subsidise your parents care.
My parents, thankfully, aren't at the stage of being cared for but it is on their minds for the future should their circumstances change. You are right, why should you as a taxpayer pay for them, so why should I as a tax payer pay for other old folks to go into care, surely just because my parents have saved and been tied to a mortgage for many years; looked after their money and worked for a living paying tax and national insurance, should be able to go into their old age knowing that their wish to leave what is theirs to their family after their time, if that is what they want to do? What do they wish? that they had given everything away years ago!
Well i disagree with that way i see it the pensioners have paid been paying there taxes all there working life and that should entitle them to free care when there not able to care for themselves and me as a tax payer have no problems with that at all.
And tax money is better going towards that than paying for unemployed people that are screwing the system and not interested in working.
percy toboggan
11-Apr-07, 18:15
Well i disagree with that way i see it the pensioners have paid been paying there taxes all there working life and that should entitle them to free care when there not able to care for themselves and me as a tax payer have no problems with that at all.
And tax money is better going towards that than paying for unemployed people that are screwing the system and not interested in working.
I don't know how old you are but if you're under thirty there will come a time in your life when there will be just two people working for every one person who is too old, or too decrepit. This might alter your view and reduce your largesse. As someone said these are fast changing times. Thirty years ago almost everyone got free long term care if they needed it. It was a better country to live in then (England) it's slipped downhill gradually.
And Venture: You actually DID suggest that council house tenants did not have sufficient means to qualify for having to pay for their care - re-visit your original post.
Whenever , as a child I used to whine to my auld Dad 'it's not fair' he would invariably reply 'it's not raining, Son' Thus , ever since I have looked upon those who say 'it's not fair with a dose of scepticism. No, it isn't fair. Thougfh it could be much worse - there may be NO care avaialble whatsoever for instance.
Life is not fair. The lack of a decent wedge from the house sale when yer parents finally pass away having spent years as a dependant cabbage for someone else to look after should be the least of ones worries.
The situation is, sadly, only going to get worse. People are living longer on average, but in many cases the last years of our lives are quite likely to be dominated by ill-health of one kind of another.
I think a lot of older people worry most of all about being a burden to whoever's looking after them, whether they live in their own homes or not, and their children worry about the quality of care their parents are getting, and perhaps feel guilty if they can't care for them themselves.
In that sort of situation, money isn't really the main concern, is it?
Well i disagree with that way i see it the pensioners have paid been paying there taxes all there working life and that should entitle them to free care when there not able to care for themselves and me as a tax payer have no problems with that at all.
And tax money is better going towards that than paying for unemployed people that are screwing the system and not interested in working.
Eddie I agree with you
Angela your right in what you say as well (imo) their are situations money just doesn't come in to.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.