Spending downsizing cash

Many people say they would rather die than go into a care home, but unless you are prepared to go to dignitas or find another way to end it all, you don't actually get that choice. By the time you are so infirm that you need a home, you are very unlikely to have the ability to plan and carry out your own death.

What they are really saying is "I don't want to get frail and dependent". Well of course none of us do, but that is the reality of hyper-ageing. It's understandable that people want to deny it but it's going to happen to a significant minority of us

Unfortunately I agree with this. With the addition that plenty of people refuse pretty much any professional help which then almost holds family members to ransom unfortunately. Meaning you constantly have to drop everything and rush over for the latest crisis.

Maybe they find the idea of a care home they can choose more acceptable than the local council making the decision.

My brother is in his mid 50s and is terminally ill. He came out of the hospice yesterday to live with our parents who are in their 80s. They are caring for him as he can't live on his own. He has a tracheostomy and is tube fed. He made his will a couple of weeks ago and we decided it would be better if he left his small estate (about 220k, a house) to our parents. My dm said that will go towards their care home! Hopefully they will never need to go into one but I did think it was a bit strange saving for that when dm has always said she wouldn't want to go into a care home and I'm pretty sure df would rather kill himself. Oh well it's their money.

I know that. Add up all the tax a childless person pays in tax over their working life - and beyond - and it’s perfectly obvious that their input is cumulatively much more than if they’d had kids. MN s obsessed with net contributors, the childfree have a flying start.

You could in fact - purely from a financial perspective - argue that not having children is selfish as you're effectively relying on other people to spend their money raising children - because let's be honest kids are expensive, and they cost a lot more than just education - to hopefully ensure that the child free (and everyone else) is supported in their old age.
I mean it's bollocks obviously, because nobody selflessly has kids for that reason, but just to look at things from the other side.

It's amazing how little people know about how it works. Just imagine a future where everyone is over 80. Maybe they need to make one of those dystopian films so people can see why we need people to have children.

They’ll have paid for their own pensions several times over by the time they get there.

It doesn't work like that. Workers pay for those who are currently retired. If other people didn't have children then there would be nobody to pay the pensions of the retired child free (and everyone else)
So paying for those kids education is a financial investment into all of our futures.

They’ll have paid for their own pensions several times over by the time they get there.

No I’m not childfree. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are and subsidise the rest of us.

But they're really not subsidising the rest of us! Your kids (and everyone else's) will be paying their pensions. It all evens out (roughly)

No I’m not childfree. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are and subsidise the rest of us.

Without children there is no future, when everyone is so old there is no food, no one to deal with the rubbish and the sewage, no one to wipe your brow when you are suffering, no one to bury the dead society is over. People make sacrifices to have children, physical, emotional, financial and if everyone stopped having children who wants to be the last poor old soul eating the left over food, living in their own filth until their lonely death.

How have you worked out that people without children work all their life and take nothing out? Are you sure that applies to everyone? I used to work with someone whose ambition in life was to work as little as possible, never earn enough to make a payment on his student loan debt. He worked just enough to rent a room in a fairly grotty house and had no ambition to improve his life. I don't suppose he is unique. I've got 4 children but I've always worked, left school at 15, studied around a fulltime job to get qualifications and ended up a higher rate tax payer. I've paid in a hell of a lot more than my colleague.

I see you've changed it to taking more out while children are in education, still not right as the children are getting the education not the parent but remember that is an investment for the future, educated children will hopefully turn into the doctors, nurses and tax payers of the future.

Sorry but you're wrong there. I'm not going to bother arguing back and forward with you because you have clearly decided to double down on your nonsensical argument.
What you're saying there is that you (assuming you are child free and that is why you're making this point?) have cost the taxpayer nothing for your education. It all goes against your parents. Even though you have (presumably?) paid tax in your working life, the 2 don't net off.
It's absurd.

The children will also bring in tax (presumably) when they grow up so it all roughly nets out.

But it doesn’t, does it? If you don’t have children you pay in all your working life and take virtually nothing out.

You can't possibly be suggesting that parents should be responsible for the cost of their children"s education as well as their own, from a tax perspective?

Of course I’m not. Why would you think that? But the fact remains that people with children cost the state more while those children are in education. Those people who don’t have children do nothing but pay in. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

BIossomtoes · Today 11:43

You also have to remember that those people who don't have children were children so they got education/healthcare/state funding (child benefit/child trust funds or whatever appropriate to their age) plus policing/fire service/military.

That’s a very silly argument as it applies to literally everyone, regardless of whether or not they have children.

Of course it applies to everyone! That's the whole point. Whether you had children or not you presumably cost the taxpayer however much your education cost. The same as your children will themselves cost the taxpayer. That isn't on you.
The children will also bring in tax (presumably) when they grow up so it all roughly nets out.
Each individual will cost when they are very young, bring in during adulthood and then cost again when they are old.
You can't possibly be suggesting that parents should be responsible for the cost of their children"s education as well as their own, from a tax perspective? That makes no sense at all.

Someone with no children might have been a layabout who never worked so who has been the bigger drain on taxes?

That’s why I quite deliberately stipulated a healthy childfree high earner who will undoubtedly be a net contributor throughout most of their working life.

I think it is setting people against each other. Seems popular with some on here.

@Iwasafool I'm really not sure why most people don't see it if I'm honest. Why would what is spent on your kids education have any weight against what's spent on you? Seems it's just another thing to moan about really.

Exactly that. So glad I'm not the only one who sees that.

They are in their 40s and 50s and higher tax payers. Yes they could have an accident tomorrow but they have paid in plenty and will probably continue to do so.

I've certainly paid in more than I've spent, I worked for 55 years, still pay taxes now, never been on benefits, higher rate tax payer for some of those 55 years and provided the state with 4 tax payers.

By the way we don't donate tax, it is taken from us and is an obligation not an act of generosity.

We have enough in savings that one of us going in to care would not result in us needing state funded care so you are wrong that one of us going into care would mean state funded.

All that illustrates that it isn't just a question of have you had children, it is much more complicated than that.

"You could argue that child free people who haven’t received the free childcare and education from taxes should be eligible for free elderly care."

Only if they didn't receive education / childcare for themselves, surely? The money spent on their kids would go against their kids own "account"

No it is pointing out that even if you don't have children you have benefitted from government spending so why would that give you a free pass for care? I worked and paid taxes from 15 to 69, I don't work now but still pay taxes. Someone with no children might have been a layabout who never worked so who has been the bigger drain on taxes?

The silly argument is saying that people without children should get a free pass. Individual circumstances vary so either do a person by person investigation or accept as citizens we all have the same rights whether we had no children or a dozen.

Setting the old against the young is a big thing on here, let's not start making the same sort of division between people with and without children.

can you guarantee all 4 of your children will donate more tax than they spend?

all it takes is one to have the misfortune of disability or injury and they are a taxpayer burden.

or be left as a single parent and unable to work, relying on UC and benefits.

we are all one event away from needing the benefits safety net or a lifetime of full time care.

also bear in mind that if one half of an elderly couple needs care, that will be at state cost as they can not force liquidation of assets when the well spouse is still living independently.

I have enough to more than pay for my care in old age. However if I fell and hit my head requiring full time nursing care, that money would run out very quickly. If dh develops dementia and needs a care home, I will not be expected to sell up to pay for it, and we will be an overall drain on taxpayers.

You also have to remember that those people who don't have children were children so they got education/healthcare/state funding (child benefit/child trust funds or whatever appropriate to their age) plus policing/fire service/military.

That’s a very silly argument as it applies to literally everyone, regardless of whether or not they have children.