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

That’s my approach - minus the climbing wall! My DSs would have been so envious!

Work hard - pay the mortgage off and have some fantastic experiences on holiday. Working long hours including extra paid work eg external examining allowed us to see whales off Cape Cod, for example. I’m not spending my days worrying in case the state claws some back for care costs. I don’t even think about that, to be honest.

No that’s right. Perhaps we could bring back the Poor Houses. Can you not see what you sound like?

Also, there are so many jobs that pay minimum wage/ low wages that are important for society, such as care workers / HCA’s. I’m very grateful people do these jobs and can see why the end up with limited savings / renting in old age and needing state support. It’s a shame we can’t make sure everyone is paid properly in the first place.

Family trusts are the way forwards.

£450k - not hugely wealthy? Don't kid yourself, compared to a fair percentage of the population you are and it's disgenuous to suggest otherwise.

What are your suggestions btw? I'm not sure there's a reasonable alternative.

Edited as clicked too soon.

Also, what sort of paternalistic society are we thinking should exist that “rewards” us for working for our living and paying our way?

Most people on here would run a mile from voting for socialism and couldn’t be more scathing of it, judging from the comments made on this and other threads, yet they also harbour a seething resentment for not being looked after. It’s a grievance culture.

That’s capitalism folks. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, earn your way and suck it up. Life is hard and unfair. Others have done it and so should you.

It is crazy to me that there are people who would rather deliberately leave themselves without the financial means to buy the best care if needed, because they think people who lived in rented accommodation and had no savings would also be in the care home with them.

They would rather limit their own choices, so that the state would pay for them too, because the state pays for others.

And why? Because ... its not fair. I can only hear those words in the whiny voice of a child who didn't get sweets at the shop.

In 20, 30 years, when the country is out of money and those who can't pay for care are in bloody awful conditions, cheapest of the cheap, I hope those who could have paid for better but chose to spaff money up the wall so the state couldnt take it will be happy that the state did indeed pay for them just like the person in the next bed to them in the crowded dorm of elderly people being helped by too few staff.

Meanwhile, I'll be in my mid range not wonderful but certainly better place that i was able to pay for because providing for myself mattered more than not letting someone else get something for free that I didn't get for free.

Tolerating a small degree of unfairness is the price of living in a civilised society.

In most cases it’s better to focus on stuff in our power to change (ie our own skills and earning power) rather then fretting about deep social issues that often don’t really have any good solutions, especially in the short-medium term.

You say you’ve worked in care homes - but I don’t think your experience is very wide if you think they are all the same. Even visiting a small selection in my locality when looking for accommodation for my mum has told me that there is a huge difference from the more basic to the luxury ones. Sure the actual care may be the same, but in terms of an older person having any quality of life in there, they are widely different.

I think you are just being goady though - like these types of post generally are.

Absolutely this.

That's an interesting idea as someone who is desperately trying to save as I have no property to leave my kids.

Die with zero! Help your kids now rather than waiting till you’re in the grave

I do think at this point, we do need to look at these threads where the OP starts with a post that’s about a contentious political issue and then doesn’t return to their thread- as not being in good faith.

im not sure if they are are trying to influence the debate or trying to get a feel for the uk political mood of real people - but they aren’t genuine.

The sheer number on care home costs recently where the OP disappears after first post is making me suspicious.

But if you are genuine OP, it is idiotic to spend all your money so 68-80+ is really hard for you (spoiler alert - benefits aren’t all that generous), just so you can game the system on the off chance you are in the minority who need residential care for more than 2 years in old age.

But yes, well done, you’ve sown the seed to a group of 30/40-somethings that they’ll end up having the state taking all their money and other people will get the same for free.

Thats an intersting gap. Can I ask where you got your stats from please? I will try and find my source.

This is very much my experience too. I attend several groups for people with MH/ND and on the surface you would think we all look fine.
All of us have faced huge barriers when it comes to getting and keeping employment. The people who pass through our groups who are capable of working don't stay long, because they get jobs.

But the answer is not to widen the gap by having the people at the bottom have even less.

There is far, far too little difference between the lifestyle of those that do work, and those that don’t. I’m very happy to pay for a basic safety net for those that are disabled or unable to work, but the fact that you have to be earning at least £50k each to see any meaningful benefit from working is utterly wrong. People with the full state pension receive only £3 a week more than those that have never worked and are on pension credit (£238 vs £241), plus pension credit is then a gateway benefit to lots of other entitlements.

It's such a shame that Parliament has consistently blocked various attempts to put a limit on care costs. From memory, I think Teresa May was the last to try to bring it in but it didn't get Parliamentary approval.

Getting really tired of all these faux-grassroots, politically motivated threads. They're all the same!

Free for everyone would then result in increasing inequality because of inheritance. We shouldn't have so much inequality in the first place ergo we clearly need to tax people like OP more so there's no inequality ;)

(I don't know the real answer. I would like there to be much less inequality but more towards everyone having money).

Does OP realise that if someone is unwell and on benefits, they have a limit on their savings before their benefits are stopped? So people literally cannot save deposits etc because their state aid, which they rely on for income, would be stopped.

I realise OP is suggesting that if they themselves deprived themselves of savings/home ownership they would be subsidised. I think ultimately if you really think it's not fair/not worth it OP, why have you bothered? Is it the 30 years of peace of mind and a privately owned home that you are in full control of? Is that perhaps worth more to you than the possible future risk of missing out on state funded care in the future?

Most people who don't work usually can't due to disability.

I (social worker) work in the community with a lot of people who are too unwell to work - but you wouldn't automatically realise that if you just met them. Knowing them well, they would desperately struggle to work and any business that employed them would be taking massive risks. That's not to say they will never get more well (mentally and physically - depression/anxiety and chronic pain) but some people just living a life is hard enough.

What do you suggest happens to people who aren't well enough to work? How do you test that without cruelty? It's a hard balance to draw.

Taking the mick and being genuinely unable often look the same from the outside. However I think most people want the respect that comes from work, the freedom, the choice, the meaning - very few people are genuinely fraudsters.

In fact, fraudsters probably have an easier time because they aren't feeling guilty about writing perfect forms about their enormous disabilities, and they are well enough to complete all the admin and paperwork that it takes to actually get any benefits.

Yes I agree and it makes me angry

This is very similar to a thread that is on here right now.
Why all the similar posts about the poorest in society at the moment?

I don't mind supporting children, the elderly, or people with severe disabilities. And I wouldn't mind doing that even if I had saved up to take care of myself with my own savings. Some people weren't able to save as they never had a high paying job or had to use their savings because they lost their jobs, I don't mind helping others. I do have a problem supporting able bodied younger adults that are too lazy to help themselves.

Another thread illustrating the poverty mindset, entitlement and grievance mongering of this benighted country.

You're 39 OP - you own your house outright and you've got five figure savings. You have done extremely well in life presumably down to your own talents and planning. And you've got another 20 odd years of work where you could become CEO or solve the climate crisis or build wealth or create art or help others but here you are anxious that a poor old person might be having their dementia care funded by the state. What are we supposed to do with socially housed old people once they can't fend for themselves? Turn them out onto the street? Leave them to die?