Spending downsizing cash

Who will be the carers in the future if we don't have children? Maybe it would all be living in clover for a few years but what then? Whose going to be wiping the backsides of those without children, I'll tell you who the children of the people who did have children.

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. They also took their share but if people want to play silly buggers rationing free care to the childless/childfree then they need to realise that isn't all one way.

Having said that I have no intention of having state funded care, I will pay for my own as well as donating 4 tax payers for the benefit of others.

I don’t think you could argue that with any credibility really. The people who really get fucked over in public spending terms are childless, healthy high earners.

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 Or you could argue that the people who have spent their time and money bringing up the people who will be paying taxes to fund care and maybe actually working as carers should be the ones who get free childcare? Or maybe we could just provide adequate care for all.

I don’t want the kind of “care” the state would deem adequate, thank you. I’m quite happy to pay for my own so I get some choice in the matter. There’s no point in having rainy day money if you won’t put the umbrella up when the sky opens.

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.

or perhaps everyone should have a healthcare “budget”- the amount of care you receive from the nhs is added up over your lifetime, and any unused portion can be put toward care home.

personally I think elderly care should be a human right, everyone eligible for the same care. Maybe they could use some of the massive inheritance taxes they collect to fund it, rather than considering abolishing IHT.

And what’s your opinion on other things paid for by taxes? Do you think all parents should sent children to private school if they ‘could have made the provision for it’ instead of existing the state to pick up the tab?

Or healthcare…. Everyone who can afford it should make their own provision? Instead of expecting the state to pick up the tab?

Where does this ‘morally repugnant’ use of tax payers funds begin and end?

My mother has a very modest home and savings. The current rule would mean that her entire home and savings would be used to fund her care while those with a larger estate keep most of theirs. Her opinion is the rule is backwards, and everyone should be allowed to keep a percentage of their estate to pass on to their family.

My mother worked 3 jobs as a single parent while raising us. She is still working and paying taxes aged 70. She sacrificed many things in order to own her home and to work instead of receiving government benefits. She would have been far far better off financially if she had simply not worked. And now, as she sees others who have not bothered working don’t pay for their care - she is frankly very pi55ed off about this.

So yes, I’ve seen her work her arse off for what she has and I fully understand her opinion on the matter. Thankfully she lives in Scotland where higher taxes allow for free personal care for the elderly but she would still lose everything she has if she needed nursing/residential care.

Due to her good example of hard work (‘Apple… tree!) , thankfully I’m in a position not to need her money and I don’t care about receiving any inheritance from her. I’d be over the moon if she spent it enjoying herself like the lady in the OP

so she downsized - but is spending the money mostly on making the new flat her home, somewhere she feels comfortable in.
the alternative could have been to downsize and spend more on the new place to get exactly what she wanted that needed no work - or to have slayed in her old home

Your mum has good reason to kill herself rather than contribute to her care (if her assets meet the criteria) in her latter years... Okay. I can see why you lack perspective. Apple. Tree...

Well we all have different backgrounds and experience which has influenced our stance on the matter. My own mother would genuinely take her own life before allowing the state to sell her home to fund her care. She has very good reason for this opinion and I fully agree with her

And buying somewhere and getting a new kitchen and bathroom are pretty normal things to do.

It's a relief isn't it, I don't want to have to justify going on holiday.

To win though the council will have to prove that there was an expectation of care and that it was done intentionally to avoid care fees.

it’s harder than you think to prove.

it tends to be circumstances like moving in with a child as the parent can no longer live independently, and building extensions/paying for improvements on that child’s home.

in that case there is a clear need for care, and the money has been used to benefit the child.

Let’s be clear that if we have enough money to self fund the local authority will never go anywhere near our financial affairs. My position is like yours @Iwasafool so our expenditure is nobody’s business but our own.

Putting property into a trust to avoid care fees is unlikely to be legal in the UK and the council will challenge it and probably win
.

I think I said I'd do it if I was widowed so I can't give an age. I'm in my 70s now. The point is it won't be any of their business. I would have savings, a property to sell, my SRP, my private pension and half of his pension plus I'd be entitled to attendance allowance if I needed residential care. I'd pay for myself so I can do what I like with my money.

@Blossomtoes

Forgot to add. I think we should just agree to disagree.

Hopefully the OPs mum is through the big spending stage and has many years ahead to enjoy her new home and her family.

I am happy with my analogy and I am ok with my thoughts on what I personally consider to be morally repugnant. We have an aging population, the cost of which will have a considerable financial impact in the coming years. As a country we are in debt which is expensive to service and the books don't balance. It has been shown on this thread and other threads that some feel its ok to blow or ring fence their money because the state will pick up the tab for their care or for that or their relatives.

Expecting those that can put something toward their care even if they cannot cover all of their care costs is not the same as saying you can only live on bread and water until you die. If you are ok with your children and other members of society picking up the tab for those that could but didn't bother because they were entitled not too or purely because they have paid some tax. That's that great, it's just not where I am at.

Like I said, we need change at an institutional, community and individual level.

Hi OP

Sorry if its been covered but perhaps the middle ground here is making sure she has some adaptions in her flat, such as rails for the toilet and an accessible shower?

Tbh at 87 I would be letting her enjoy it after a life of frugality. If she was 57 or 67 I might worry more!

At least she has you looking out for her too x

I completely agree with you. My comment was addressed to another poster and I should have made that clear.

My point about those of us who own property still stands. If you feel so strongly about the profit you’ve made on yours, feel free to sell it below market value - personally I see mine as the care home fund.

Can we stop talking about “free bars” and moral repugnance? The fact is that anyone who owns a house or flat has a couple of years residential care covered and the average stay is 19 months. Added to which only 15% of the population actually goes into residential care.

Has anyone said they are against funding elderly care for those that need it or said people should not go on holiday or decorate their homes? People have a responsibility to make some provision for their later years rather than expecting the state to just pick up the tab like it is some sort of free bar. Your children and other care home residents are the ones who are going to be taxed to pay for your care, if you do not make provision when you could have. That's morally repugnant.