Ignorance is no excuse

Grantanow

And there have been examples of irresponsible climbers who needed rescue, putting rescuers' lives at risk and costing public money in search operations. Perhaps they should pay for their rescue.

Why not?

We rented an end-of-terrace three-bedroom house 40 years ago and it cost £250 pm, equivalent to just under £800 today.

Minimum wage after tax and NI is £1780 for a 37.5 hour week

£1,780 per month?

Doodledog

Cross posted, Allira - I wasn't ignoring your post.

That's ok.

Yes, there are huge profits for some in the care home business.

I think a major problem is that living is just so expensive and wages are too low. AI tells me that the average rent for a 3 bed house is £1300-£1700 a month, depending on area.

Minimum wage after tax and NI is £1780 for a 37.5 hour week, so it is clear that there is going to be little of that left after paying the rent. If both parents work, they need to pay £600-£1400 month if they claim government funded hours (depending on the age of the child), so again, there will be little left over, and it is very hard work running a home and bringing up children with two parents working full-time.

If that couple see another couple with neither parents working, or one working and getting benefits and top-ups it is not unreasonable for them to be resentful. They must feel as though they are running to stand still. Surely it is wrong that two people working full time can't afford to have a decent lifestyle and bring up children, when those with one or both of them not working can?

Yet it is often the same people who say that benefits are too high who object to rises in minimum wage. Something has to give. Either rent caps, higher wages or cuts in benefits. If none of those things happen, we can look forward to more resentment of everyone by everyone else, more people deciding it's not worth 'playing the game' and trying to provide for themselves (never mind everyone else), and less money to pay for public services of any kind.

Doodledog, thanks for continuing to debate the issues. I’m left leaning as most know but I’m increasingly concerned about the perceived unfairness with what Keir Starmer referred to as hard working families and their neighbours who don’t work but appear to have worked out ways of making the system work for them.

My dad had two weeks respite in six so mum could recover. They were in their eighties. Dad’s employment pension meant he paid for respite, fine. He was well cared for. Other people without work pensions were L.a. funded. Quite right to, ex pet dad paid a much higher premium.

Cross posted, Allira - I wasn't ignoring your post.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

It's theft.

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.

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?

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

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.

Thank you
Me too.

MissAdventure

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.