Blunkett - Sell house to pay for your elderly care

[GLASGOWOODS]

Who says I'm talking about me? Can't you have a discussion without personalising things.?.do you think it fair that someone who has had the money but spent it can get help but someone who has held onto their cash can't?

 

Just tell your kids to keep you out of a care home, take care of you and their reward (when you croak it) will be all your assets. But then I guess most kids these days would rather wesh their hands of you and just take your money.

[Mr Gobby]

Tell you what convert..I'm going to have some great holidays when I retire, sell my house and cash in my pension..the council can look after me when I get back

 

My sentiments aswell. As for Blunkett a bit like the blind leading the blind but you can say such crap when you have a million or two in the bank .

[Anna B]

So who does foot the bill for elderly care if they have no means, no assets??

 

I'm assuming the answer is the tax payer.

 

I'm a tax payer, I'm funding for someone's care right now??

When I require care is it unreasonable to ask the tax payers of the day to fund it???

 

I hate to mention this, but when you've all finished selling off the parents home, the cost of care will be down to you, the family.

 

The literature states that the OAP must have a 'family or friend' to act as a 'sponsor,' that is, they must make up any shortfall in funding. Care homes are at liberty to refuse to take someone on if they don't have a sponsor.

The council (in Sheffield,) will pay only £400 per week (approx.) towards care home fees. The rest, and as I mentioned before, it can be considerable - average cost £600 per week - must be made up by the 'sponsor' ie. family.

 

So, if care costs the average, and mum or dad doesn't have a house to sell, the children will be expected to fund the care shortfall to the tune of £200 per week.

On the other hand, if they do have a house to sell, when mum and dad's house cash has gone, (and at £2,400 per month it will be gone very quickly,) the family, once again, will be expected to cough up the shortfall for the fees.

And of course fees can go up at will.

 

You have to have experienced this to believe it. The ringing round trying to find somewhere that has suitable places and that you can afford. Don't get me started on the actual standard of care supplied for the extortionate fee...

 

Home care is another scandal and also costs a lot for very little. The whole situation is a nightmare, and a whole generation of old people who have paid into the system for years have had the rug pulled out from under them.

As for insurance, it was on TV last night that insurance companies have singularly failed to come up with the policies that the government were hoping for. It's a real mess.

 

Somebody said people wouldn't be left to die on the street. Having been through it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[apelike]

 

So people with a mortgage don't buy anything or use services (decorators/plumbers etc) once the house is built?

 

Of course some do but thats usually applies to first time occupiers and those only number in the 10's of thousands on new house builds.

 

It would be better to build plenty of social housing for the young and new occupiers as that would be a much better way of benefiting the economy. Cheaper social rents rather than expensive mortgages or private rents would mean more to spend on the home.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 23:30 ----------

 

According to poppet2 a mortgage is cheaper than renting so, using your logic, those with a mortgage would have helped the economy grow even more..

 

I think poppet2 mentioned that relating to a mortgage on a council owned property.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 23:33 ----------

 

Would you consider housing benefit to be a subsidy? Also funded by the tax payer?

 

No, housing benefit is just that, a benefit and paid for by the taxpayer.

 

But just think, if rents were lower then less the housing benefit budget would be so putting up council rents in line with private rents is counter productive.

[mjw47]

Two lads start off working for the same company and remain with it for their entire working lives.

 

They reach the same level and receive the same wages.

 

Both marry and have children, one decides to save, make a few sacrifices and buy his own house.

 

When that house requires decorating or needs a new boiler or roof repair he pays for it.

 

The other decides he will be quite happy in a council house, have more holidays and go out on a more regular basis.

His rent includes external decorating and repairs etc.

 

When they reach old age and require looking after in a care home the one who has paid for his own house and looked after his own repairs etc is expected to hand over the value of what he has worked for to the care home.

 

Whilst the one who lived in a council house and spent his extra money on having a good time receives the same treatment without any contribution.

 

Does that seem fair and reasonable?

 

If the house in question is a modest semi valued at £150,000, instead of having the satisfaction of leaving his children a small legacy - which he and his wife worked for - he is supposed to hand over that amount in addition to anything paid in taxes throughout his working life?

 

In comparison to the treatment received by his work colleague how is that equitable?

[Guest sibon]

Two lads start off working for the same company and remain with it for their entire working lives.

 

They reach the same level and receive the same wages.

 

Both marry and have children, one decides to save, make a few sacrifices and buy his own house.

 

When that house requires decorating or needs a new boiler or roof repair he pays for it.

 

The other decides he will be quite happy in a council house, have more holidays and go out on a more regular basis.

His rent includes external decorating and repairs etc.

 

When they reach old age and require looking after in a care home the one who has paid for his own house and looked after his own repairs etc is expected to hand over the value of what he has worked for to the care home.

 

Whilst the one who lived in a council house and spent his extra money on having a good time receives the same treatment without any contribution.

 

Does that seem fair and reasonable?

 

If the house in question is a modest semi valued at £150,000, instead of having the satisfaction of leaving his children a small legacy - which he and his wife worked for - he is supposed to hand over that amount in addition to anything paid in taxes throughout his working life?

 

In comparison to the treatment received by his work colleague how is that equitable?

 

My mortgage is roughly 40% of the rental value of my house.

 

I'd say that the bloke who has paid rent all of his life should ask his landlord to pay for his care.

[Anna B]

 

If you feel that way, why on earth did you buy your property?

 

Because at the time it was considered a good thing to do, something to strive for, something to leave to your children, and you wouldn't be taking up a valuable council house property which might be needed by someone else.

 

Then overnight (literally) everything changed, and the goalposts were moved. Without warning everything was turned on its head. This thread is the proof of that.

 

Nobody is going to escape the effects of the credit crunch, this is only the beginning.

Yet still no bankers have been held responsible, and still they collect their massive, obscene bonuses....

Edited February 6, 2015 by Anna B

[tinfoilhat]

I hate to mention this, but when you've all finished selling off the parents home, the cost of care will be down to you, the family.

 

The literature states that the OAP must have a 'family or friend' to act as a 'sponsor,' that is, they must make up any shortfall in funding. Care homes are at liberty to refuse to take someone on if they don't have a sponsor.

The council (in Sheffield,) will pay only £400 per week (approx.) towards care home fees. The rest, and as I mentioned before, it can be considerable - average cost £600 per week - must be made up by the 'sponsor' ie. family.

 

So, if care costs the average, and mum or dad doesn't have a house to sell, the children will be expected to fund the care shortfall to the tune of £200 per week.

On the other hand, if they do have a house to sell, when mum and dad's house cash has gone, (and at £2,400 per month it will be gone very quickly,) the family, once again, will be expected to cough up the shortfall for the fees.

And of course fees can go up at will.

 

You have to have experienced this to believe it. The ringing round trying to find somewhere that has suitable places and that you can afford. Don't get me started on the actual standard of care supplied for the extortionate fee...

 

Home care is another scandal and also costs a lot for very little. The whole situation is a nightmare, and a whole generation of old people who have paid into the system for years have had the rug pulled out from under them.

As for insurance, it was on TV last night that insurance companies have singularly failed to come up with the policies that the government were hoping for. It's a real mess.

 

Somebody said people wouldn't be left to die on the street. Having been through it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

I would really like to see some figures on this. It flies in the face of surrounding councils where many (most even)will charge, give or take, what the council will subsidise. Of course higher end ones require a top up.

 

What you are suggesting is that nobody in care home can stay there if they have no money (regardless of what the family have) which would surely mean hundreds of old people on the streets or they are being topped up families. And not all families, for what ever reason, give enough of a toss to top up those fees.

 

Sums aren't adding up somewhere.

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2015 at 00:06 ----------

 

Because at the time it was considered a good thing to do, something to strive for, something to leave to your children, and you wouldn't be taking up a valuable council house property which might be needed by someone else.

 

Then overnight (literally) everything changed, and the goalposts were moved. Without warning everything was turned on its head. This thread is the proof of that.

 

Nobody is going to escape the effects of the credit crunch, this is only the beginning.

Yet still no bankers have been held responsible, and still they collect their massive, obscene bonuses....

 

What's that got to do with care homes?

[apelike]

My mortgage is roughly 40% of the rental value of my house.

 

But what was the original price of the house and when did the mortgage start?

 

Try comparing today's mortgage payments (non HTB) with today's rents.

[Guest sibon]

But what was the original price of the house and when did the mortgage start?

 

Try comparing today's mortgage payments (non HTB) with today's rents.

 

The mortgage started ten years ago. I had a 33% deposit though.

 

In general, paying a mortgage is cheaper than paying rent. It has to be, if you think about it. So this argument is a non-starter really.

 

Anyone with an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds shouldn't be getting state aid for anything.