ATBU to do all they can to avoid paying for their care in old age?

[WateryTart]

Bit of a do in the village hall last night and we were sharing a table with a couple we only vaguely know. The conversation turned inevitably to the election and various hot issues.

The couple took early retirement and are in their 60s. They have already given their house to their DCs and pay them the going rate in rent. Plus they have made substantial trust funds for their DGCs. They give their DCs money towards their expenses, like a new car or home improvements. They are determined to have no savings or assets above the prescribed limit by the time they need care.

This is because the DW's father was in a nursing home for the last 3 years of his life which he had to pay for himself. In the next room was a man who bragged he was fully funded by the council. They found out the council only paid 2 thirds of what DF was paying so he was, in effect, subsidising this man as well as paying for himself.

I can see why they feel as they do, it's one thing to pay for yourself but quite another to pay for someone else as well.

They feel that in future everyone should have to take out insurance bonds in their 20s because either everyone should pay towards their care or no one should pay.

It was an interesting discussion. ATBU?

This is why there needs to be altogether more taxation to cover everyone's care costs. So everyone pays, an affordable amount, for everyone's care.

Otherwise people will plan and dwindle down their assets. So there are just none left. They'll have holidays, buy things in cash etc etc.

Why, with a welfare state, is it necessary for a whole sector of the population to self fund care instead of everyone paying an affordable amount throughout their lives?

Probably worth spending the money on a good easily maintained bungalow and fully equipping it, getting a couple of lodgers in and sharing the care costs.

Yes - spending money on an accessible bungalow with an accessible bathroom and room for a wheelchair/walker to move around and get in and out is a good investment into your old age. You'll be able to stay in your own home with a care package for much longer if you can retain some independence. Harder if you get dementia obviously.

Thanks for all the replies, very interesting to hear people's views.

I think that most people wouldn't mind paying as long as everyone pays. That's what gets people's backs up. That's where a bond would be the answer, you have no choice other than to save for your old age. A lot of people of my generation feel that we have already paid our dues in NI, some disagree, I know. Not sure how I feel but, after talking to this couple, we are going to do what we can to make sure our DCs get some benefit from our cautious life style and decision to save rather than blow our money on expensive holidays and flash cars.

We have family friends who are fairly wealthy - they own a £700k property outright, have good pensions and a healthy bank balance. The wife developed dementia, and he is so hellbent on not paying for care that she's really suffered from neglect as a result. She is frequently in hospital from urine infections, falls and bed sores and I can't believe that he is allowed to behave in such an appalling way.

What saddens me is that I grew up with my great grandfather living with my nan and gramp and that's what people did 50 years ago. Care homes were almost unheard of, yet nowadays people don't expect or want to look after their loved ones. I worked in care and saw some truly shocking levels of neglect from families towards their elderly relatives, but the minute the will was read, it was a different story. I looked after my grandmother until she went into hospital and fully intend to look after my parents too. We've become a very selfish and neglectful society towards the elderly .

Why a bond? Why not get revenue from extra taxation? Taxation has much more ability to be fair and proportionate. A bond would have to be means tested to be fair, which is a further administration cost on top of tax administration. Why do the administration twice and have all the associated costs of that?

Jane, you have to remember not many families can afford to have someone give up work to care full time for a relative. The care that is available to buy in is also often lacking in quality - due to the huge time restraints put onto the carers.

DPs parents put their house in trust for him many moons ago to make sure it couldn't get eaten up if one of them needed a care home. As it stands his dad is terminally ill and looked after by his mum at home and his mum has cancer, so in all likelihood both of them will die naturally anyway.

I've already put plans in place to go to Dignitas once I get to an age where my ailments outway my quality of life. So I doubt very much they'll be care home fees needed for us.

My GM was a nurse - worked all her life -nights- took care of her children during the day, never owned her own home but had an index linked pension - she paid full rent, all utllities etc all her life. She moved into sheltered accommodation in her early 70s and continued paying her way - others who lived in the same complex had theirs paid for... When she became too far gone with Alzheimers to look after herself she went into a private nursing home, they took all her savings and her pension to cover the costs. Not 1p left when she died. That is fine but why should others get fully financed for not having worked?

Karlos we are similar. We will do everything we can to stop ds having a shit quality of life when we can do nothing about it. Of course if we knew he would be well cared for we would feel differently but that isn't going to happen.
We would be happy to pay higher taxes though.

That is fine but why should others get fully financed for not having worked?

Because otherwise you'd be watching people die on the streets?

jane you can't have it both ways. You can't criticise people for trying to care for their elderly relatives but doing a terrible job then also criticise them for placing them in a care home.

Most adults in 2017 are in a situation where house prices are over 5x their salary and both adults are needed to work. Children are being conceived later so many 60 year olds (myself included) will still have 20 year olds at home. We are now also expected to provide childcare for our grandchildren as full time care is so expensive, when exactly are you proposing these families also look after their ailing parents?

They are BU. Also, the average person underestimates the strengths and abilities of the local authority legal team. They know alllllll the loopholes and you will be pursued if you've played silly beggars and dispose of your assets.

I sincerely hope people don't encourage their parents and themselves into debts. It can be a very scary time and they are seldom written off, even in death. Why would anyone want to do that to someone they love at the most vulnerable time in their lives? It's borderline abuse IMO and actual abuse in many cases.

Just wanted to counteract a myth, absolutely everyone contributes towards their nursing care, even if they only have a state pension. Apart from a small weekly sum, the rest of it goes towards their care.

I would exopect my parents to use all of their assets to pay for their own care when they need it - and then for the state + us to maintain that standard of care once their assets run out.

Why should i inherit anything from my parents? They cared for me and my siblings, brought us up to join society as independent grown-ups - why should we be sue anything from them when they die?

My view is that everyone who possible can should fund their own needs - whether that be by buying insurance, by creating savings, by moving to suitable properties as they get older etc etc - planning for 'normal' levels of need over an 'average' length of time. That then means that taxes can be used to take care of those who have not been able to fund themselves, or need above and beyond the norm - those with complex conditions, those who have not been able to accumulate any assets, those who need care much longer than the norm.

This idea that the next generation should inherit from the richer elderly while these same elderly should not buy their own scare just seems very odd to me.

It must be quite annoying to have to sell your home which you have worked hard to pay for over many years of you find yourself in a care home with somebody who is fully funded by the council and has lived their entire adult life in council housing or rented accommodation getting full housing benefit.
Of course being able to pay gives more choice but if you are happy with a council funded free place then you should be able to have that or just pay the difference between council finding rates and the fees of the home of your choosing.

I hate people who say they "worked hard all their lives " to afford things.

Take this couple based on relatives of mine. They retire at 55, and 60. she has taken about 10 years out of work to raise 3 kids. Bought a lovely house for £15k a long long time ago which is now worth £400k . Both came from working class families and went to university for free.Got pensions when it was based on final salary, and his pension continues to support her when he dies. He dies at 68 she is still going strong in her mid 80's.

I have no idea how much that pension is, but on top of this she has 2 pensions from 2 other jobs she had. Spent her retirement going on some amazing holidays, on average probably more foreign holidays in a year that I've had in my life.

This relative of mine isn't trying to hide any assets or anything, but I don't think this scenario is atypical, do people really think they earnt all of that? That pension was designed to support someone for 5 years tops. They paid £15k worth of a mortgage on a huge house. Even with inflation thats still pittance compared with today.

I understand with how house prices have gone people want to pass that house wealth onto their nearest and dearest. And I mention the holiday to demonstrate the wealth, not to suggest shes wasting money because I personally think its a fantastic thing to spend it on.

But it isn't a case of you "earnt it" you got bloody lucky.

Jane, people are living longer and are living longer with conditions that require round the clock care. My g grandmother lived with her daughters family 50 years ago but she died of another illness before she got to the point of needing intense long term care.

I suspect there will be a marked rise in suicide if the penalties for requiring social care continue to rise.

I think, by the way, that there is an exception for this where a child cannot, for whatever reason, become independent - through disability or illness. I believe that it should be possible for elderly parents to make provision for their dependent children before having to pay for their own care. However I do not think that this should be the case for independent children.

There are two other points that need to be considered. If a parent sells their house and moves into rented, they need to account for the money from the sale of the house. So if they need care at home they will be full cost. If they gave the money to their children the council will investigate and they may be charged full cost and have a tax bill for 'the gift' ( there is only so much money you can give away)
If a parent gives their house to their children, the council may investigate and decide whether it was done to avoid care costs. Also I have also seen an extremely sad case where the results of this were awful. Parent signed over their house to their daughter to protect it. Daughters husband had an affair and left her. He was I entitled to 1/2 the house. This forced a sale, mother lost her home and daughter only had 1/2 of her inheritance anyway.

If you have assets you should pay. Hiding assets or disposing of them simply to avoid paying for your care is wrong. I don't expect to inherit much from my parents as I fully expect them to need some sort of later life care and I know they would be ashamed to try to wriggle out of paying for it.

Why is it annoying that someone should be able to get care if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves? You need care, they need care. you pay for it, because you can, they are paid for by the state, because they can't. That's the mark of a civilised society, to care for those who cannot necessarily pay the full cost themselves, surely?

I wish there was some sort of insurance i could be paying now to ensure that i did not become a burden to my children in later life

whatsin on the other side you have people like my grandmother - only worked for 8 years of her life, has always lived in council accommodation and always had the rent paid by housing benefit. She has gone on holidays abroad and frittered benefit money on nonsense. She now lives with one of her daughters as she needs round the clock care. She refuses to go into a care home. She gets pension credit as she has no private pension provision and she gets attendance allowance due to her age related disabilities. She has home help and has to contribute £15 per week towards the cost of this (she has no household bills). Altogether she gets around £220 per week from state pension, attendance allowance and pension credit. My FIL on the other hand worked for 35 years and has a private pension, he too needs home help but can't afford it as he would have to pay the full cost as well as all his household bills due to having saved for his retirement.
If both go into care, one will be council funded and the other won't be. It isn't a fair system.

This is really also only going to work for a few generations anyway as people coming up later aren't going to be in a position of owning a huge house that can be sold for care home provision.

Let's do some maths;
Dorothy and Bernard own a house worth 400k and they then split that between three children.
Their three kids john, Deirdre and Mark all get about 150k each after fees and while Deirdre and john are on the property ladder, mark took a different path in life and rents. Deirdre got divorced in her fifties and now lives in small house by the coast and her inheritance is her retirement fund. Mark pussed his up the wall on booze and holidays and john bought a buy to let.

So now Deidre has a house worth £150k, Mark is still renting and john has a mortgaged property and a buy to let as his pension. When they die, Mark will probably pass on debt to his kids, Deidre went into care so under the new Tory rules Deirdre's two kids both inherited under 50k and john had no kids.

Let's say in three generations you are going to have inheritances of under 50k being the norm for home owners with children and whilst you might say that's absolutely fine. That's unlikely to get people on the property ladder if they haven't already managed it by midlife.