Spending downsizing cash

I was responding to your statement that government funded care would only provide the ‘basics’

I know what goes on in the real world, I’ve worked in many care homes. My grandmother was in a very good home for 7 years entirely funded by the local authority. Someone self funding doesn’t result in better care unless you are extremely wealthy.

It’s not a question of having the funds to have your hair done in a care home. It’s the basics that cost the money - here it’s in the region of £1000 a week. And if you can’t provide proof of the means of meeting the upfront fees you will very likely be turned down for residential care if the local authority can get away with cheaper care based in your home. For many people that means bedbound and relying on carers coming in four times a day to change and feed you, and at night being put in a nappy until the morning care visit. And with their only hope of residential care being as a result of a fall, proving it’s too dangerous to be left alone at home. That, from my personal experience, is where we’re at now. There’s a real lack of understanding of what goes on in the real world here.

But as previously mentioned, it isn’t down to the individual to decide what the LA view as unusual spending, and therefore deprivation of assets. And at the moment they are so strapped for cash that the rules are being applied to the letter. The whole system needs an overhaul.

That’s surely up to the individual and where their priorities lie. Basics now or basics later? When someone is at the stage of needing 24 hour care, there isn’t much requirement for more than the basics. I’d much rather enjoy the time I’m fit and well to the maximum than afford to have my hair done weekly in a care home

I do know most of this as have worked in the care sector as a nurse.

I disagree that having one holiday is ‘reckless spending’. But it sounds like what you’re saying is that if a person spends their funds throughout their younger years, and therefore has no savings, that’s (in the councils opinion), acceptable. But they may begrudge an 87 year old woman one holiday before she dies… and you agree with this?

Attitudes are irrelevant while we have the system we have now. Frittering away your savings will leave you dependent on the state, which will only provide the basics, not what you would necessarily want for yourself. It also puts the burden on those who are self funding their own care, because they also contribute to the care costs of those who have no means. I don’t understand why people advocate spending everything you have and giving yourself little choice as to how you are treated when you are at your most vulnerable.

The system we have at the moment dictates that any savings and property be used to fund the care needed, until the funding pot drops below the threshold for Local Authority contribution.

The answer to your question is in the legislation regarding care funding. Specifically if you dispose of savings and assets at a time when there is a reasonable expectation that you will need care, that is deprivation of assets and you run the risk of the Local Authority treating those assets as still in your possession for the purposes of their financial assessment of your ability to pay - thereby reducing your care options.

So in the case of the OP’s mum the LA would probably take the view that at the age of 87, with all the attendant risks of aging, she has a reasonable expectation of needing care. Burning through her savings at a rate of knots would likely be viewed as deprivation of assets. In her case, she has a flat to sell, the proceeds of which she could use for care, but given the cost attached to residential care, the addition of the £150,000 she currently has, would ensure that she has more than the basic options open to her for longer.

A close relative was recently assessed for care. It involved providing bank statements to prove income and savings. He’d recently spent a large chunk of his savings which prompted an investigation as part of the financial assessment. That threw up some reckless spending and the LA included the full amount in the financial assessment. As a result he couldn’t provide proof of the required upfront funding for residential care and the LA would only provide home based care, which doesn’t assess property or savings below £14,500.

Even home based care is expensive. My own mum has LA carers coming in three times a day. She has no savings and her only income is state pension, pension credit and attendance allowance. Her weekly contribution has been assessed at over £120 regardless of how many care visits per day she receives - you pay the same for the minimum as the maximum. It’s a minefield.

The attitude of some towards elderly care is awful. It should absolutely be funded by the tax payer, as education is for children and care for under 65s. So this lady has my permission to ‘fritter away’ her equity and use my taxes towards her care.

Why do we suddenly expect to self fund care due to age alone?

I wholly agree that we need a national conversation because the present system as far as I can see, takes advantage of vulnerable people, giving them no choice but to sell everything they’ve worked for during their lives to pay astronomical and out of control care fees. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s right for people to abdicate responsibility for their own care within the present system by essentially frittering away their savings and then expecting others to fund their care when the time comes.

So at what age do we all need to stop going on holiday and decorating our homes? Are we only allowed to do those things once we have £1m saved for our elderly care?

it’s more morally repugnant to be so against funding elderly care as a tax payer.

It’s not that it’s a ‘free bar’. My mother has worked tirelessly all her life to own her own small home and have modest savings. She is still working now aged 70. The current rules would mean she would have to use her entire house value and savings to fund her care, while those with more equity/larger estate are allowed to keep hold of a large portion.

She could so easily have been in receipt of benefits throughout her life and would have been financially better off for it. But she chose to set a good example to her children by working for what she has and paying tax her whole working life. So she is, rightfully, rather annoyed that others, who have chosen not to work/pay taxes, will receive free care while she would need to sell her modest home.

I understand your point but if I am widowed, not unlikely as DH is ten years older than me and in poor health but we can't tell the future, I intend to downsize and give a chunk of money to my kids not to avoid tax/care fees etc but because I'd like to see them enjoy it. I'd still have a property to sell plus my pensions and half of his pension that would come to me would pay any fees for a good long while.

For clarity and the avoidance of any doubt, I think the state should look after the elderly without means testing. Yes it’s expensive but it has significant economic benefits. We do currently pay “Scandinavian taxes” but receive “US services”. There are two reasons why, that money has been largely stolen by friends of the party and we can’t staff care largely because of Brexit and subsequent draconian RoW immigration rules. All these things can be laid at the door of the current far right administration and the clowns that voted them in.

It is a misinterpretation. OP’s mum wouldn’t be subsidised by anyone. Her flat would be sold to cover the fees.

What “facts and common sense” are you referring to?

Not sure it is a misinterpretation. Subsidies driven by virtue signaling rather than facts and common sense are unlikely to be sustainable or fair.

I have to say, I'm quite surprised that so many people have said we should all live for today and let the state pick up the tab.

I think that’s a misinterpretation of what they’ve said. Your mum has a flat which can be sold to pay for her care if she needs it. She can’t spend that so, no matter what liquid money she gets through, her care is assured.

I personally won’t have an issue with my fees subsidising other residents if I need to go into a care home. Once the rainy day has arrived and the umbrella’s up I don’t mind if it helps to keep someone else dry.

I must admit and I am also surprised at how many people have a 'free bar' approach to care for the elderly. Its not 'free' other care home resident pay and the tax payer pays. We have an aging population who deserve to live their final years with dignity but we need to have a sensible conversation about who is paying and who should be paying.

It think it is only natural that you are concerned about your mother's spending in the context of her longer term care/funding needs. You worry because you are looking at the bigger picture and care. Do not feel bad for caring.

I guess that solely depends on whether you think them paying it all is the “right thing”. We need a national conversation on social care.

It’s also ‘on’ those people who are using their savings and property to fund their own care. A proportion of what they are paying goes to the LA to subsidise care for those who have no other means. Why should those who have done the right thing pay for those who have thrown caution to the wind and deliberately skinted themselves, or have to fork out in order for children to inherit property ?

Because if we don’t someone else has to. Those people who self fund care through savings or the sale of their home, end up subsidising those who haven’t made provision. That’s how the state funding system works. And if you piss your money away at an age where you have a reasonable expectation of needing care, there’s a strong chance the state won’t pay. And if they do, you have much less choice because they will use the cheapest option - which is usually care in your own home rather than placing you in a care home. No-one is saying it’s a fair system but it’s all we have at the moment, so saying ‘sod it’ and spending all your money just shifts the eventual burden onto someone else in the event you need care.

Leave her to enjoy the rest of her life. Sod paying for a care home. Why should we work all out lives and have to pay extensively for care.

@PropertyManager
@Blossomtoes
Nobody is disputing there is waste or that support should be given to those who cannot pay because they have been on a low income throughout their careers. Just expecting the state to pick up the tab is morally repugnant. Support should be seen and appreciated as a safety net not a free bar! The OP's mother should have to fund her own care for as long as possible or move in with one of her children. The state should be the last resort, not an expectation once you have pissed away all of your money / assets or ring fenced them for your children/family.

We need change on an institutional, community and individual level.