Why children must invest in their parents

‘Only if I pop my clogs quietly do the kids hit the bricks-andmortar jackpot.’

Back in Ireland, there used to be a tradition that parents would encourage at least one of their sons into the priesthood. Not only did it confer kudos, but having someone on the inside, so to speak, safeguarded the family’s spiritual health.

I’m wondering if it might not be judicious for my generation to nudge at least one of our offspring to take up geriatric nursing, as a means of safeguarding the family’s material wealth.

It’s just an idea, but having cast my eye over Theresa May’s manifesto – which proposes that the value of elderly people’s houses be included when means-testing for care at home – it makes sense, in a shrewd/cynical sort of way. Instead of outsourcing care to social services at great expense, why not keep it in-house? If only to keep the house?

If that sounds venal, then that’s because it is. I know we are entering post-ideological politics – and I, for one, am delighted because, contrary to what Maureen Lipman claimed in the BT advert, most “ologies” are very far from scientific – but is it so very wrong to want to pass down to my children my hard-won rung on the property ladder?

I came from council-house beginnings, and to own my ordinary Victorian terrace still feels like an achievement to savour.

Depending on whom you ask, Mrs May’s social care proposals – which would include the value of someone’s property in the means test for receiving free care at home, but with payment deferred until after their passing – either represent a failure of the welfare state, a fiscally fair way of paying for care, or a death tax.

I admire her for this unflinching approach to social care; it may be the least sexy element in a political manifesto for the least sexy election ever, but she hasn’t shirked her responsibility in tackling it head on.

She’s heading in the right direction, but I’m not entirely convinced that this is the right route to take.

Personally, I’d rather be taxed on the money I’m earning than on the savings I’ve made. It’s hard to escape the feeling that householders like me are being penalised for their prudence and the sacrifices they have made to buy their homes.

But what we do know about strong-and-stable Theresa is that she’s a details politician who prefers to knuckle down and work out her sums, rather than scribble ideas on the back of a proverbial envelope.

If elected, I hope (and trust…) she will look at the costings in far more detail and entertain the idea of a tax increase, or the introduction of some kind of Government-backed, longterm care insurance scheme, so that the many will look after the few, rather than worried individuals having to look after themselves.

At present, it’s all a bit cross-your-fingers. If I live into a healthy old age and pop my clogs quietly, the kids hit the bricks-and-mortar jackpot. If I linger and – God forbid – succumb to dementia or another horribly debilitating progressive illness, then the social care costs will spiral, and they’ll lose out.

David Cameron (remember him? Lives in the sequestered tranquillity of a designer shepherd’s hut…?) pledged to cap social care costs at £72,000.

But that’s been scrapped, which perturbs me.

Instead, the Conservatives have said they will pass legislation ensuring nobody has to sell their home to pay for their care during their lifetime, and would raise the current ringfenced asset threshold from £23,250 to £100,000, which is very welcome.

As things currently stand, a pensioner’s house is only counted among his assets if he needs residential care; this new extension means more people will pay because the social care coffers are echoing empty as demand rises.

But ask any professional working in the field and they will confirm it’s far more cost effective and health outcomes are improved if the elderly can stay in their own homes as long as possible.

So where’s the incentive to stay in the community if there’s no difference in the amount they will pay?

Depending on the level of support needed, the social care final bill could easily swallow up the cost of the average home and result in children and grandchildren receiving a fraction of the inheritance that would otherwise have been due to them.

Also, let me interject that I know how little home carers are paid, and I have witnessed first hand perfunctory visits that last 15 minutes, where barely a word is exchanged. Will that be reflected in the bill? Somehow I doubt it.

There’s no escaping the fact that the care crisis is the negative consequence of positive changes to society. We live longer, most of us reside in dualincome households, job opportunities have atomised families, time is short and care of older relatives has been outsourced.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing? It is what it is. But maybe not for long. Perhaps this debate will alert adult children to the fact that if they want to inherit the family home, they will need to invest in their parents.

As for me, I’ll be suggesting to my homebody eight-year-old that a future in geriatric nursing would not only be a marvellous career, but a way of staying with Mummy and Daddy.

The pay might not be great, but at least she wouldn’t have to commute, and once her two patients have been permanently discharged, the house is hers.

Would it be so bad if filial piety came back into fashion?