Care fee`s and the sale of a home

No.

But if you (being the mum's child, in your example) expect the council to arrange your mum's care & accommodation, then the council will charge.

The reason is simple - council tax payers shouldn't have to pay for a dishonest, cheating mum.

Or, rather, the mum's heir (who could easily avoid the problem by murdering mum as soon as she needs care; then they/you won't need the inheritance).

Like it or not, all kinds of things in this country are means tested - including many taxes. Lying about your means falls into the same category as fraud, theft, etc.

HTH

Who can they charge? If the child refuses to pay for whatever reason, can the council simply refuse to offer any care to the person? In that case, aren`t they leaving themselves open to trouble if the person needs care, doesn`t get it and is hurt/killed?

I`d stand that arguement on its head and ask why people who worked hard and saved all their life should be left with nothing, for themselves or to pass on to their children, to pay for care that should be provided by society?

You really have some kind of a problem with social care by the look of it - got a bad experience you want to share rather than just ranting away?

In your opinion. Not sure why you went on a rant about a hypothetical question. When it gets closer to this time for me I`ll be getting decent advice on how to minimise the amoun the council can get back from me for my care. I fail to see the incentive for anyone to bother saving if when they get old, it`s all taken off them again to pay for care that should be provided by society. But you obviously disagree.

Any more than the family?

People save for a rainy day. When you need care that rainy day as arrived.

Your argument is not without merit, but it is based on a premise which is either false or at least doubtful.

There's that premise again. The point is that some people (including you) think that care should be provided by society for everybody as a matter of course. Others think that it should be provided only for the innocently needy, i.e. for those who are unable to provide it for themselves.

Both positions are valid, but obviously the first requires a higher public budget. The official norm now is that the budget is only high enough to be able to afford the second option, and that people are generally expected to save up for rainy days. Society provides a safety net only for those who have been unable to do so.

Of course everybody, both among those who have and who have not saved up, hopes to remain in adequate health until the day the die (and most people still do, don't they?) and that they will not need expensive long term care. If their hopes come true, they'll be glad in one case to be able to pass on their hoard to their heirs, and in the other case they'll be glad not to become a burden on the public purse.

In other words, you want _me_ to pay for your mother's care so that _you_ can have the benefit of her house?

Sorry, but I don't see the merit in that.

It is only the same as the recent MP thing where they had paid off the mortgage so put the property in a trust fund for their kids so the taxpayer could continue to pay their rent on it. Utterly utterly wrong.

The same as anyone else who claims that they are owed money.

They go to court and (assuming they win) take your house from you.

tim

(including

Rubbish, society provides the safety net for those that *haven't* saved, regardless of whether they were able to or not. If two people were on identical salaries throught their working lives, one was careful and saved all they could and the other pissed every spare penny up against the wall, the latter would get all sorts of means tested benefits (inc care home fees) but the former wouldn't.

Which is why many people simply don't bother saving for their old age. For those on a lowish income it is financially nonsensical to do so.

While subsidising those who are a burden on the public purse because they didn't bother saving.

themselves or to

So you don't see any merit in the NHS then? Or any other public services which are free at the point of delivery? Or insurance?

A case can be made for the social provision of treatment or services for serendipitous bad fortune, especially for serious cases of ill health that no-one can predict or afford. However, the need for care during one's later years is clearly foreseeable, and I think that should come from a person's reserves and assets if they have them, including their house if necessary, which they won't be needing.

I am actually a firm believer that any services which are completely free at the point of delivery inevitably get abused, as evidenced by the number of alcohol related cases clogging up all A&E departments at every hospital over the weekend. In such cases, I think it's perfectly reasonable for those concerned to be presented with a bill on the way out, and not to be treated at my expense.

Insurance only benefits the insurance companies and those who are higher than average risk or fraudulent, who are actually subsidised by those who are careful, lower risk and honest. If you are lower than average risk, and could take the risk yourself, you'd be better off overall if you didn't take out the insurance.

So if they'd not paid off the mortgage, and given the money to the kids instead, you think that would have been OK?

No, because the mortgage is completely irrelevant. The ownership of the property is what matters. And they own it whether or not they're paying a mortgage.

They obviously didn't save *all* their life. But you got the order right. (1) For themselves - and that includes any care they might need. (2) To pass onto their children.

You used the word "should" and you might argue that society *should* provide care for everyone regardless of their means. The fact is that the state can't be that generous given the current level of contribution that we all make in the form of taxes.

provided

health that

Everyone can predict that at sometime in their life, they are likely to need to see their GP, go into hospital, or otherwise use NHS services.

Course it isn't. Not everyone needs care in their old age.

In other words, people should be encouraged to spend all their money while they are healthy, then rely on the taxpayer to pay for any care costs.

hospital over

That's a different issue, but where do you draw the line? There was some controversy recently about doctors refusing to treat people who didn't give up smoking, or didn't lose weight etc.

Pretty much the same with means testing. Means testing benefits the dishonest at the expense of the honest, it benefits the wasteful at the expense of the thrifty, and benefits the rich at the expense of average income people.

But a lot do. The risk is appreciated by everyone, and is therefore clearly foreseeable.

That's the situation at present, isn't it? It's undesirable, but I don't see how it can be avoided, except by making the level of the safety net not the most desirable way of spending your later years. There have to be incentives of better care for those who do prepare for their own future.

I would normally draw the line with the words 'self-inflicted'. Get yourself drunk, you pay. Break a leg skiing, you pay. That sort of thing.

Indeed it does, sometimes. But not if there are incentives or rewards for those who provide for themselves.

themselves or

provided

contribution

Yes, and? The answer's obvious, isn't it?

If care costs weren't means tested, and the taxpayer funded them regardless, which groups in society would benefit overall? Which groups would lose out? What form of behaviour would be encouraged? What form of behaviour would be discouraged?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Howso - what am I missing?

But where do you draw this line?

Break your leg at work, on you way to work, at the supermarket

tim

As is the risk of needing to see a GP. Should that be charged? Or should there be some complex means test?

So people should save just in case they have to go into a care home? And those who haven't will get slightly worse care homes? What if they die before they need a care home? Why should they save just in case?

To simplify things, say 50% of people have saved 200,000 for their care home fees and the other 50% haven't saved anything. Say that 50% of people actually end up needing a care home. Say the total care home cost pp over the rest of their life is 200,000 for the superior self-paid care home and 160,000 for the state care home.

So we have:

25% die before needing a care home with 200,000 in their estate. 25% die leaving nothing. 25% need a care home and spend their 200,000 savings paying for it. 25% need a care home and it's paid for by the state. Cost to the state 160,000.

So the average cost to the taxpayer is 40,000 per person.

So what if we now decide that the superior care home fees would be paid by the state regardless and with no means testing? The average cost to the taxpayer would become 100,000 per person, so on average each person would have to pay 60,000 extra in taxes in their lifetime.

BUT, they wouldn't need to save anything to pay care home fees, would they? So those who saved 200,000 will now either have an extra

140,000 to enjoy in their earlier life, or would be confident in being able to leave 140,000 to their kids when they die.

This effectively *forces* those who can afford to save to do so, consider the extra taxation as compulsory care home savings. It also benefits those who could never afford to save enough for the superior care home. The losers are those who were wasteful and didn't save when they could afford to do so, and to a lesser extent the beneficiaries of the estates of those who did save but died before they needed a care home (but this is balanced by those who did need a care home and had savings being able to leave an inhertitance).

Depends whether you hit it with a hammer (self-inflicted) or it was accidental.