Ignorance is no excuse

People who try to avoid paying for their care are wrong. I have the money, I am happy to pay. I am happy for those who can't to have their care paid for if they need it. Are there really that many of them, I don't know?
But that is not my argument.

I am not happy with my money to be taken on my death, assuming I never need care, by governments who waste it. I will avoid my family paying IHT at all costs, I've already been clobbered by that one when my parents died.

Its infuriating to have "them" having free access to take what they decide from your money.
Not that I've got any, but I'm angry they can do it, anyway.

At least we can all agree on that (i think!)

Nursing care is funded by the nhs.
Social care self or council funded,
We really need health and social care sorted

MartavTaurus totally agree with your entire post 👍🏻

Sago

Well it’s true, my Mother who worked all her life and paid tax was in a nursing home paying £1000’s a week, I had to sell her home to pay for care.

In the same home were residents who paid nothing.

So it does often seem unfair.

Same here.

Definitely Iam we need health & social care tying up.
And it’s so important we need cross party agreement on the subject to take it forward properly, once and for all, There’s been too much tinkering around the edges. This thorny issue needs to be tackled comprehensively.

Oh gosh, the care system is such an issue but what’s the answer? I was lucky because both my parents spent a relatively short time in care homes and dad was on CHC. Dear mum was only in care a couple of months so it hardly dented the money we got from selling her house.
Is it fair that people have to pay for care if they have the funds? I don’t know but carehome costs are eye-watering.

A big issue that hasn’t been mentioned is how are care homes allowed to charge such huge amounts? I’m currently looking for a home for a relative and around here £1,500.00 a week is the cheapest! The homes are notoriously short staffed as they pay minimum wage for what is not a very pleasant job. When I speak to people who have relatives in care homes they speak of bells ringing and no body comeing, wrong clothes returned from laundry, showers maybe once a week, small rooms and on and on. My relative spends a lot of time in bed and he’d do the same in a care home. BBC you and yours programme had a section regarding the costs this week. One lady was paying £11,000 a month for her mother!! A breakdown of how these costs are reached should be included in the advertiseing bumph the homes give you to encourage you to book a room.

Tess46 read MOnica’s post at 13:10 on Wednesday which explains costs.
My Mum was in care for 9 years with dementia, the final tally was probable close to £450,000, she was self funding. My Dad who predeceased her had planned good provision, their money, their choice.
Both her care home and subsequent nursing home were of a very high standard.
I don’t know if any other residents were self funded or not, what mattered was my Mum.

MartavTaurus

People who try to avoid paying for their care are wrong. I have the money, I am happy to pay. I am happy for those who can't to have their care paid for if they need it. Are there really that many of them, I don't know?
But that is not my argument.

I am not happy with my money to be taken on my death, assuming I never need care, by governments who waste it. I will avoid my family paying IHT at all costs, I've already been clobbered by that one when my parents died.

I quite agree.

We're happy to pay for any care we may need. Additionally, I'm happy for those who can't pay for care to have care paid as needed.

However I'm not happy with governments wasting money.

Seems to me IHT needs revision.

Norah

MartavTaurus

People who try to avoid paying for their care are wrong. I have the money, I am happy to pay. I am happy for those who can't to have their care paid for if they need it. Are there really that many of them, I don't know?
But that is not my argument.

I am not happy with my money to be taken on my death, assuming I never need care, by governments who waste it. I will avoid my family paying IHT at all costs, I've already been clobbered by that one when my parents died.

I quite agree.

We're happy to pay for any care we may need. Additionally, I'm happy for those who can't pay for care to have care paid as needed.

However I'm not happy with governments wasting money.

Seems to me IHT needs revision.

Exactly, MartavTaurus and Norah.

We pay tax in many forms throughout our lives, have to pay for much of our medical care (opticians, dentists, sometimes private care and operations where NHS waiting lists are far too long) so why our hard-earned assets should be subject to more tax after our death is wrong.

Those who evade tax are the ones who should be investigated and made to pay their fair share in life.

MT62

MissAdventure

Yes, that must cost a fortune!

Anyway, regardless, in terms of care homes, i would report any staff who are giving out info on somebodys finances.

It’s a sackable offence to share any details of a clients personal information.
But you can’t stop residents sharing their own information.

Hello, Miss A! Great to see you back - I hope that means your health has improved

My MIL has recently gone into a care home. She is 101, and until then she lived alone, with visits from carers and from us (her three children and their spouses). She is paying full rate, but at the high rate of fees her savings will run out and she will have to sell her home. She is reluctant to do this, as she has always seen it as something she and FIL worked hard to pay for, and is proud that she can call it her own. She is of the generation that dreaded 'dying a pauper', and is old enough to remember workhouses for those who had nothing. I think that when she has adjusted to being in care she will see that she doesn't 'need' her house, but it's huge psychological leap for her just now.

Other residents do talk about being in there free - it seems there is nothing too personal to be discussed when their lives are rather short of events to talk about . Some were on PC, so are not contributing anything from their own pockets, and complain about not being able to keep the whole amount. Presumably they didn't pay tax or NI either, if they are on PC now? It really doesn't seem fair to me that MIL is charged so much for something others get free, and that the reason for that charge is that she worked (as well as raising children and cleaning her house), so has some resources.

I don't think the comparison with the NHS is fair - most people pay into that, and whilst some may smoke or drink, (or enjoy extreme sports etc) none of us knows if we will become ill and need costly treatment. It is an insurance scheme, and as with all insurance we pay in in the hope we won't need to claim. Similarly with childbearing - it is our children (or grandchildren) whose taxes are paying our pensions, so if we are putting a price on children, whilst their deliveries, health and education are a cost, they pay it back as adults.

Of course we (as a society) can't have older people not getting care, just as those unable to work should have their contributions paid so they are looked after. The truth is that a lot of the residents where my MIL lives would be incapable of looking after themselves. MIL is not demented - she is physically frail, but many of them have both mental and physical frailties. The alternative to care would be to let them die, which would be unconscionable - it's not the care of the needy that people object to, but the way some are charged and others not.

I wonder whether a lot of those who don't see the two-tier payment system as unfair know that even if they pay the fees they will still have money in the bank, so it is less of a blow than 'dying a pauper' would be?

Well I'm not imminently at death's door.

MissAdventure

Well I'm not imminently at death's door.

Well, that sounds like good news - I hope you continue your recovery.

Thank you
Me too.

I have known people who have gone into care homes and have been reluctant to sell their family homes, the reason being that they were always optimistic and thought they could one day return to live in their own homes.

My SisIL was one, her home did have to be sold to pay her fees in the end but by then she didn't realise. She would always get very agitated if the subject came up previously.

I don't think those who are able to fund themselves should have to subsidise those who cannot. That is totally unfair.

What if they put a cap on the amount a person subsidised the non fee payers?

Why is it totally unfair Allira? Is it fair for those who can afford to fund themselves to be subsidised so their relatives can receive an inheritance?

Smileless2012

Why is it totally unfair Allira? Is it fair for those who can afford to fund themselves to be subsidised so their relatives can receive an inheritance?

Yes of course it is.

If people need to be subsidised for care when they need it, taxpayers in general should be doing so, not a few individuals.

It's theft.

It’s a conundrum. Not dissimilar to the two child benefit one. In my family we have a couple with two neurodiverse children. Their parents worked out if they claimed )and they could given the extent of issues ) they’d get about 72,000 a year. Both parents worked and don’t earn that anoint

No I don’t want children on poverty. Yes I believe there’s a debate to be had about how we fund our welfare state and fair distribution of what we have

I would be very surprised if private care fees are used to subsidize LA care costs because many do not take LA clients, they would be so much cheaper.

Costs are high because of the standard of care needed and the overheads they have, including Liability Insurance. It's exactly the same for childcare to comply with regulations costs a great deal

Agreed, Iam. As ever, the poor and rich are ok, and it's the people in the middle - the hardworking taxpayers - who fund everything, and I suspect that is behind the surge in populist parties. They won't improve matters, of course, but they appear to be listening.

It's not just care homes, although they cause so much angst at the end of people's lives. As you say, it's childcare, benefit top-ups, Pension Credit - all those things can make people who claim them better off than those in work, and that is (IMO) entirely unfair.

David49

I would be very surprised if private care fees are used to subsidize LA care costs because many do not take LA clients, they would be so much cheaper.

Costs are high because of the standard of care needed and the overheads they have, including Liability Insurance. It's exactly the same for childcare to comply with regulations costs a great deal

Yes, it is true and happens frequently.

It is known as a cross subsidy and covers the lower rates paid by LAs for those unable to pay their fees.

Everyone should receive the care they need but those who are able to self-fund should not be subsidising others who are unable to do do.

David49

I would be very surprised if private care fees are used to subsidize LA care costs because many do not take LA clients, they would be so much cheaper.

Costs are high because of the standard of care needed and the overheads they have, including Liability Insurance. It's exactly the same for childcare to comply with regulations costs a great deal

Private fees are used to subsidise non-paying residents. Not directly, (as in John's fees being paid by Mary), but the LA negotiates cheaper bulk rates for residents, (and most care homes do deal with local authorities), and the homes charge fee-paying residents more to make up the gap.

This means that if the home needs £1200 per resident the LA pays around £900 for John, and Mary pays £1500. This is per week, so of course John's contributions from State Pensions don't come close to covering any of it.

If fee-paying homes are not cheaper, they must be more luxurious, or take fewer residents and have better ratios between staff and residents. Either that, or their owners are making higher profits.