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?

Can we be honest and state that when we talk about the good old days when families cared for their own, we mean women?

I'm not saying no man exists who has responsibility for his mother in laws personal care, but they're few and far between. Call it what it is, a burden on women.

So by your logic we should just scrap the entire welfare state then. Is that what you really want?

No, but we need to address those who choose not to pay - like a bond, as I keep saying. Opting out of saving for your old age when you could well afford to shouldn't be an option.

There is no way the baby boomers will cope with accepting the standards of care currently on offer in your average care home. No way at all.

We're currently struggling to meet the needs of the war baby generation. They already expect a far higher standard of care and attention than the generation before them. There is not going to be anybody willing to work in social care soon due to the already poor pay and very difficult working conditions.

Neflixandbill
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

It's called pre-funded long term care insurance, and does exist. However, it's not very common in this country - I believe it is much more common in the States

Please tell me you don't work in social care helpimichty. It sounds like you'd actually struggle to care for and about the 'baby boomer' clients.

No, but we need to address those who choose not to pay - like a bond, as I keep saying. Opting out of saving for your old age when you could well afford to shouldn't be an option.

Possibly, but how big is the actual problem? Are there any reliable statistics? Note that the challenge is identifying how many people deliberately chose not to save despite being able to afford it. That is different from (probably the majority) who genuinely couldn't afford to save a meaningful amount.

Don't get me wrong, I dare say there is a problem. However, I have far, far less respect for those who deliberately hide/divert their assets to avoid paying than I do for those who just failed to plan properly. One is at worst stupid, the other is deliberately fraudulent.

I think what's driving this attitude is the consistently selfish and self obsessed attitude that prevails in the baby boomer generation with an overriding view of being hard done by and that theyre the only ones who deserves anything and everyone else is freeloading.

I don't know why baby boomers think they are the only people who own a house, or have savings, or insurances and plans, and "everyone else" is getting it for free.

Everyone else is predominantly just like them. They are normal. People occupying council houses and living on benefits are a very small minority, a minority who are quite frankly not really worth worrying about.

Today 11:55 claritytobeclear

Please tell me you don't work in social care helpimichty. It sounds like you'd actually struggle to care for and about the 'baby boomer' clients.

Don't be so hysterical.

The problem with taxation is you never fund your pension but those before you. At present funding pensions for some people who are richer than those paying the tax. We could spend the next 20 years funding old age care for some very rich pensioners to find when it's you're turn the current government changes the rules.

DH and I are both from the "Baby Boomer" generation and both earned reasonably well prior to taking early retirement.

We actually approve of Teresa May's proposal to require people to pay for care but to ensure the last £100K is protected.

We only have 1 adult DD who has a lovely apartment in a care home for young adults with severe living difficulties. Although her benefits do cover her rent and food, there is very little left to cover her daily expenditure, clothing, holidays etc so these are primarily funded by us.
(DD has no awareness of money and was of course raised where money wasn't really an issue.).

This new proposal would give DH and I a great deal of comfort knowing that she would have at least £100K going into her trust fund, after solicitors' costs etc are deducted should she - hopefully - outlive us.

I do appreciate our circumstances are very different to most people but have no issue funding care in this situation so long as it means we would be able to choose a better quality care package.

Having re read my post I think I should clarify that by "not worrying" about those without the money to Fund care I don't mean they should be forgotten about I mean baby boomers should stop worrying about them getting "something for nothing" and concentrate on their own futures

I would like to take issue with someone mentioning Norway's sovereign state fund. They do not have free health care - you pay for every appointment and there is an excess of several thousand pounds a year for health care. Maybe if people didn't expect free paracetamol, hay fever tablets and missed doctors appointments we might have more cash available too.

It is important to remember that the vast, vast majority of old people never end up in a care home. Most people, instead of moving money about to ensure their children get an inheritance would be better adapting their home - downstairs shower room etc.

I couldn't give a crap if my parents leave me any money. They earnt it and they should spend it as they want and if that does mean it is spent on care then so be it.

However, I have far, far less respect for those who deliberately hide/divert their assets to avoid paying than I do for those who just failed to plan properly. One is at worst stupid, the other is deliberately fraudulent.

I have no respect for either group, equally reprehensible in my book.

I was talking to my Mum about this the other day. As far as a lot of elderly people are concerned they did pay their 'insurance as they paid incredibly high tax rates and were told this in turn would look after them in their old age. They were also encouraged to save, save, save and build assets not debts which they did too. She said it feels like being punished for doing as your told.

Incredibly high tax rates? There have never been incredibly high tax rates in the U.K. Have there?

Debt and so on wasn't available the way it is now. These are only products. As banking became de regulated and interest rates fell, products available increased. To say they were told not to get into debt to "do the right thing" is misguided- it only looks like that in retrospect

Far too many people forget how much they cost the state in everyday life - their birth, child health programs, education (especially for older folk whose university was free), health care, police, all of the general trappings of civilisation. Very very few people pay enough tax to be net contributors, but so many people (I hate to say it, especially baby boomers) claim they "worked hard and paid their way their whole lives" so feel they're owed something "back". I wish it were made clearer to people that young people are funding current pensioners' pensions, and their care, and their healthcare, winter fuel allowance and free tv license and all those things. Which is a little galling when every pensioner I know is far better off than DH or I are likely to ever be, considering we have university debt, less good pensions, a much higher retirement age, smaller (and hugely holey) benefits safety net, tougher economic times, and a much much harder time getting on the property ladder, most of which is down to the actions of those we're now (or soon to be) supporting. And then they want to commit benefit fraud to have us pay more?

I have no respect for either group, equally reprehensible in my book

And yet throughout this thread you have been defending the well-off asset diverters whilst condemning those who cannot afford, whether through lack of earnings or lack of planning.

Vote Tory much?

Shootfirstaskquestionslater - As from next year all families will be made to pay the top for their parents in care homes

Really, where has that come from? I have never heard it and I listen to a lot of money podcasts, including Moneybox which regularly has programmes on care costs.

Yes many families may want to pay top-ups to ensure a better care home, but to be made to pay them?!!

And how is it going to be enforced? What if you have been estranged for years, will the govt come after you to top up fees for parents you haven't seen for many years?

I can understand taking money off DC if the house has been handed over, but no one can force DC to pay for their parents!!

We are comfortable with decent house equity, I am not averse to paying fees but will also be giving my DC plenty of handouts when they in 20s (we early 50s, they teens) to make sure they get something whilst we still alive. And setting up savings accounts for DGC if/when they come along

You can't possibly make people pay for someone else's care cost. Even if they're related.

And yet throughout this thread you have been defending the well-off asset diverters whilst condemning those who cannot afford, whether through lack of earnings or lack of planning.

It's a discussion, dear. Different points of view, I'm putting both sides, I think. I will defend asset diverters while the feckless are not made to pay their fair share. That's my point. Everyone should pay.

Vote Tory much?

Patronising cow, much?

I abhor the "chose not to save" spiteful comments on these threads. Some people don't earn enough to save or are disabled from birth or care for a disabled child from birth. Let's leave them all to die, eh?

Some people don't earn enough to save or are disabled from birth or care for a disabled child from birth. Let's leave them all to die, eh?

Good grief. What a huge illogical leap. I said people who chose not to pay - fairly obvious I'm not including those who can't pay. That would be daft. But feel free to make up your own narrative.

It wasn't you who said that quote though, was it OP? Some other people did and I won't let that go unchallenged.

Totally agree re the gap in the market for long term care insurance. Much more common in other countries. I think the government urgently needs to work with insurers on this, as they did with flood risk insurance.

The bond is a good idea but I think we should also have the option for euthanasia if we would rather not do that. I don''t have much money and never have despite working all my life and i would rather check out entirely if needing tons of care leaving my house to my offspring. only fair to give us the choice before making my income even less for my whole life.