Thank you @ Selinacroft
Those that agree to this unfair cost are in the minority, the majority see it as unfair.
I could give a very true example of someone who’s had a life of abroad holidays and cruises and put their property in sons names years ago, now SS funded!
What I do know is that most of my generation will be off loading assets and keeping any saving well below threshold to avoid these payouts.
I will never stop fighting for this, but seriously if it’s not dealt with in a fair way it will only get worse for future generations .
I am not sure about 'fairness' (is what your true example did fair? it's all open for debate I think) I'm just being realistic as I don't see where the money is going to come from for good state funded dementia care in the next (say) 20 years. If you do divest yourself of funds I hope you are happy with the free care you receive (if you ever need it, which hopefully you won't - having seen our relatives go through this, I'm sure we all hope we won't).
Obviously I wouldn't object to inheriting some of my mother's money, but given she needs care I'm glad she has the money to self fund. If she'd relied on the LA she would almost certainly have spent a lot longer at home with inadequate care, unsafe, anxious, at risk of falls, wandering around in the rain and being brought home by the police, because SS choose the least restrictive (i.e. cheapest) option. Which of course is all wrong, but this is how it works even with people being obliged to use a chunk of their assets to self fund - if they didn't, that would put further pressure on LA funded places. Our council is one of those which announced earlier this year it is cutting services to the bone, including those for 'vulnerable adults', to avoid going bankrupt.