In a country where savings don’t seem to matter….

Sometimes people do stash valuables. I'm not saying it's a good idea but I am advising the previous poster to at least tell their family they are doing it, so it doesn't just get lost.

It baffles me that people think they should not pay for their own care in a nursing home. Should the state pay my rent even if I have lots of savings when I'm 80? Isn't this the same thing? I also disagree with inheritance as a concept as it allows the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. It would be far fairer if all money went to the state after death and would also encourage the elderly to spend while alive which helps the economy.

Lots of old people refuse to pay for care no matter how badly they need it. Apparently it would seem to go against the grain.

A childless elderly aunt of dh (with plenty of money) absolutely hated paying for care, although she really needed it. She would send away anyone dh arranged for her - ‘too loud, too common’ etc.
She thought her neighbours should do it ‘for love’. They were nearly all very elderly and decrepit themselves - at one point I had one of them on the phone almost in tears, saying they couldn’t do it any more.

We lived over a 2 hour drive away, so that was a non starter.
At one point the aunt expected a much younger woman, one of her bridge cronies, to drive 20 minutes each way every night to fill her hot water bottles!!
Dh had offered to buy her an electric blanket but she ‘didn’t trust’ those things not to electrocute her in the night. 😩

So much worry and hassle for my poor hdh - until he finally managed, with great difficulty, to get her into a nearby care home.

And even then she insisted on dh paying the fees every month (and she would repay him) since ‘If they know I’ve got money they’ll find a way to steal it!’
You could hardly make it up.

Care homes in London & SE start at £1600 pw, many are £1800-1900pw.

16% of 85+ are in care homes, but significant numbers are paying for equivalent care at home at similar cost.

The threshold to qualify for state care is very low - savings of £23,250. Everyone with assets above that have to fund their own care.

That's a bit risky if you're burgled and they're not insured.

@EilonwyWithRedGoldHair I know that most homes are not worth £800k, but almost every house is worth more than a years care home fees. As I said, the vast majority of people who go into care homes die within a few months. I appreciate it was different for your mum, and I really hope that she had a good quality of life there.

Nevertheless the reality is that most people never go into a care home, and of those who do, most die very quickly.

You can't rely on that, my DGM was in a care home for more like 6 or 7 years due to physical issues, no dementia. Fortunately care homes were cheaper then, and the one she was in was in a cheaper area, relatively speaking. She had a good NHS pension as well, which covered a good chunk of the monthly costs.

And most houses aren't worth 800k.

@NameChangeAgain48 it costs a lot of care for frail elderly people. People don't want to pay enough tax to support the current NHS and benefits system, how on earth do we find free social care for all as well.

Or put a other way, what do you want to country to stop funding in order to pay for social care?

DH and I are in our early 70s and have managed to save a small pot to make life reasonably comfortable. We could spend it on more exotic holidays, more expensive home improvements etc, but, having lived through all 4 of our parents getting frailer, we are aware it is not just the cost of care homes you need to think about. Stair lifts. hearing aids, mobility scooters, home help, adjustment to the house to make it safer. One friend spent £1000s converting a downstairs room into a walk in shower as they couldn't get uo stairs. Another diagnosed with terminal liver cancer spent even more on an.operation the NHS wouldn't do, and then died in a few weeks. Only 1 of our 4 parents ended up in a care home. All the other 3 ended up spending most of their savings helping them to live. That is what it is there for. None had a lot, but it helped make their last few years a little more comfortable.

i think part of the problem is that the numbers involved for those that do end up in care are so eye-wateringly high. MIL was costing the tax payer £1800 a week in her care home. She worked on and off through her life but was off a generation where women stopped work to have children, and ran the household. That’s not the kind of money that most people are used to shelling out for anything and she certainly didn’t have the opportunity to save that.

Healthcare and education are provided free at the point of use in the UK. The public service is available for everyone, including those that can afford to go elsewhere. If you want to pay more for a ‘luxury’ version, you can go private to do so. But everyone pays taxes to maintain the public service.

Social care is treated so differently. It’s the other way round. It’s not free at the point of use. Users are expected to purchase / pay out of their pocket for care privately right from day one, and only when their money runs out can they access the free at point of use public service. Of course, these two levels of service are often being provided in the same place, same facilities, same carers etc so it’s not even as if you are buying into a ‘luxury’ version by going private.

@EilonwyWithRedGoldHair but most people who own a house would have far more than that. My house is worth £800k which would pay for a care home for years. The reality is that most people die within a few months of moving into a care home. The exception is people with cognitive issues such as dementia, where their physical health can be good for many years.

Why isn't the state paying for its elderly care. Why are people paying taxes their whole lives and then left to fund themselves?

People don’t pay anywhere near enough tax for this level of support @NameChangeAgain48

I think you are asking the wrong question. Why isn't the state paying for its elderly care. Why are people paying taxes their whole lives and then left to fund themselves? Why are care homes allowed to charge such obscene amounts of money? Why aren't care homes owned by the public?

In London, the average weekly costs often exceeding £1,500–£1,700+ per week for self-funders as of early 2026. My name pays over £2k a week. It's obscene.

How many more of these threads do we need? There seems to be at least one every day - the OP can't even be bothered to come back because they only started the thread to get people ranting.
OP, if you do come back, I'm interested in how you managed to pay off 450K for a house, and save another 34K, whilst working in care homes, which is notoriously underpaid, and you're not even 40.

Beryl will need more than a little nest egg. Average yearly costs are apparently £67,000 a year.

This sent me down a rabbit hole.

A 39 year old with £450k can spend £18k/yr to get down to zero by death (using typical annuity assumptions).

Average benefits cost per benefits-receiving adult is about £13,500/yr.

So having the money makes OP better off than benefits but not massively.

I do remember thinking this when my dad went into sheltered accommodation. Of c. 40 people living there he was one of two that were self funding. He’d only earned a low wage but had always saved. However that aside earning more gives you huge freedom. I’d argue that you are wealthy - being mortgage free on a property worth £450k in your 30s is considerably better off than most people. Seeing my parents scrimp and save all their lives only to be too ill to enjoy their savings when they retired does make me think you need to take a balanced approach between saving and spending to enjoy life.

You could downsize when you retire (or move to a cheaper area) and invest the difference for income.

You can actually enjoy yourself in your retirement, if you have savings. You don't go from working to a care home. You could save and then retire early and do all the things you never had time for. You're not saving for care home fees are you?

Put your money in ISAs tax free or pensions where you get tax relief on contributions and tax free lump sums. Look at the benefits of saving.

I don’t know. I don’t want to be 40 with a paid up house and low savings.

I honestly would feel more comfortable if it was 50:50 at 40. Most people these days don’t buy their own first home until 35! So we are way ahead atm with 300k equity. But also massively behind on pension. (I have 6k!) I don’t want to lose out on the compounding anymore than I already have.

Op you’ve already paid off a house with a mortgage that a HUGE amount of people can’t afford PLUS you have savings? How on earth are you not wealthy? And why are you even thinking about this? You will have a financially worry less life, why do you care age 39 about the end game part of it all?

Well OP, by my calculation you've paid off around 40k a year for your mortgage and savings, plus EXISTING I assume, so you must be raking in a small fortune in terms of your job.

Are you not enjoying life?

@Lougle but demographics have changed hugely in that time period.

It astounds me that within 80 years we've gone from no obligation to provide/pay for care, to people being grateful that care is provided, to people being so jealous of others who are less fortunate than them that they would deliberately deprive themselves.

I find so much of the sentiments on these sort of threads so depressing.
While I appreciate that it feels unfair for people to have to sell assets etc to fund their care in old age the idea that those who don't pay are all feckless and should only be entitled to some kind of basic, Dickensian type of support is sickening.
My mother who at 78 is about to move into a nursing home due to having dementia and being completely bed bound due to arthritis/said dementia and shall be fully state funded.
My parents worked all their lives, from 14 and 16, in low paid but vital jobs. My father was, before his death 14 months after retiring, a cleaner in a hospital (working 12 hour days as he effectively had 2 jobs coverng the day shift and evening). My mother also worked in the hospital giving out the dinners, plus being a cleaner in people's homes whilst also volunteering at our primary school while all of us attended. Their only 'fecklessness' was having 5 kids - and Dad smoked until his early 40s and liked a few pints on a Saturday evening. We lived in a cramped council house and went on holiday every couple of years to a caravan. We did not receive benefits other than standard child benefit. There wasn't loads of money to be feckless with but also certainly not enough to save or buy our council flat in London in order to have an asset to fund their old age (they would not have agreed with buying council property anyway). All 5 of their children have also always worked and all work in the public sector.
As with those struggling today I get the impression that many would think my parents should have 'bettered' themselves i.e done evening classes, retrained to earn more and to become more financially literate but without appreciating not all are capable of that. I think it is so depressing that that there is so much moral judgement surrounding around 'poorer' people.
So due to not having been able to save more than the potential costs of her funeral should my mother, who may have helped your mother to eat her dinner in hospital, cleaned your neighbours house or potentially listened to your children read be placed into a basic, "hostel-type" (as mentioned in a previous post) accommodation? Why? As some type of punishment?
Is it fair I won't recieve any inheritance while some shall recieve funds from grandparents and parents? No it is just life. What I do feel is unfair is how care for certain illnesses, like Dementia, do need to be paid while others don't. That doesn't really make sense to me.