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?

Plymouth, I think it is a very sad stare of affairs indeed, when people are seriously contemplating suicide in old age, rather than living with care needs.

What does this say about the society we live in now?

Plymouth,

have you checked with your offspring that they would rather have the house than have more years of your life?

If my parents put that proposition to me, I would be horrified. I don't want their house, I want them. If they are old, senile, demented, in need of full time care, whatever. The only possible scenario in which I would consider it acceptable for their lives to be somewhat shorter is if they were in continuous, unbearable, pain, in which case the discussion with a doctor about side effects of the level of pain relief required, including shortening of life, would be reasonable.

Instasista
Tax was 95% in the 60s for the higher earners in this country

What does this say about the society we live in now?

That we're living too long beyond our natural years and that medicine strives too hard to keep everyone alive regardless of whether they actually want to be.

I'm more in the quality vs quantity camp.

But that's not what Plymouth is saying.

She is saying that she would choose to commit suicide rather than not pass her house on to her children - which is an astonishingly peculiar system of values, which values a monetary asset above a person's life.

helpimichty, there is a vast difference between artificially prolonging life and promoting euthanasia.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the former, in all cases, I fall short of the latter.

Yes, I would do exactly the same. I can't see the problem with choosing this. It might be distasteful to some folk, but not everybody thinks alike. I want my resources to go to my dcs not be spent on care that I absolutely do not want and would choose not to accept. People are generally free to choose what they spend their money on in other aspects of their life, so why not this?

I'm not advocating euthanasia. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two different things.

helpimichty, and those that did not want to be 'euthanised'? Would they be effectively murdered through neglect, if nothing else?

Where does this way of thinking stop? Does it extend to everyone and anyone with care needs beyond what they can personally pay for?

But why should someone like Plymouth think that assisted suicide is necessary, or even a contemplatable option, to preserve an asset for her children?? That is what seems to me to be bizarre.

If someone says 'I am in unbearable pain, have been for as long as i can remember and will be for the rest of my days and cannot take it anymore', then I understand why somewhere like Dignitas exists. But to do that because you want to preserve an asset to give to your children??????

helpimichty, does it extend also to those with potential care needs?

I've been diagnosed with cancer. I expect my treatment costs more than I can afford. Should I give up right now?

Oh for goodness sake. Like I said I do not advocate euthanasia. No, people should not be neglected to death

People who are capable and of sound mind should be permitted to make their own choices though.

The problem with offering people the choice of paying into a bond or planning suicide in their old age is that that choice would have to be made in one's twenties - what about people who changed their minds when crunch time came? Are we going to drag the elderly off kicking and screaming to euthanasia, saying, "Well you did have the choice to save for care, you chose to opt for suicide 70 years ago when it didn't seem so real "?

Of course not clarity this is not what I am saying.

Choice is the key word. I would choose not to spend my money living in a care home when I am old.

@cantkeepawayforever The only possible scenario in which I would consider it acceptable for their lives to be somewhat shorter is if they were in continuous, unbearable, pain, in which case the discussion with a doctor about side effects of the level of pain relief required, including shortening of life, would be reasonable

But it isn't about what YOU want though, is it? What if I don't want to stay alive following (say) a hugely paralyzing stroke; or on a ventilator; or some horrible mix of drugs so I virtually rattle all day long? What's the point in having a useless body that can only remember the things it used to be able to do and now won't do what I tell it?

Maybe I don't want to spend all day watching daytime TV and waiting for the highlight of strange people to pop round and wipe my arse for me?

Maybe I want my family to remember me as I was, not as the shell I have become? I say this watching 2 close family lose their grip on physical ability and mind (Alzheimer's) respectively.

So those who cannot self fund, even if they have frittered away life savings previously, helpimichty, how should they be treated, in your opinion?

The state can provide for them through higher taxes, NI contributions, insurance, whatever. You can't go around killing people.

It would be nice to have a choice for oneself though.

I wouldn't be happy if someone came and dragged me off now, stuck me in an institution and took all my assets from me to pay for it. I wouldn't be happy now and I wouldn't be happy in the future.

janeeyre My parents have done sweet FA for me - they allowed me to live in their home as I grew up - they did not raise me at all. I was neglected emotionally and have had no help or kindness from them during my adult years - No way will I be sacrificing myself to look after them if they need care.

You're not going to trick me into saying that everyone should be put down once they hit 70 or whatever. It's not Logan's Run and I'm not a deranged nazi.

I'm merely pro choice. You know, like we have now with termination of pregnancy.

helpimichty and if higher taxes and NI are used to fund care, there would be absolutely no reason to drag anyone off and take their assets because the care would already be funded.

Forcing somebody to remain alive against their will and making them pay for it to boot.

Forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and pay to raise the child that they didn't want.

What is the difference?

No, because there wouldn't be enough money in the pot. There will never be enough money in the pot.

Not trying to trick you, helpimichty. I just was asking for clarification regarding some of your posts. They were reading rather worryingly. And I am pleased my questions provided an opportunity for you to clarify.

Who says there will never be enough money in the pot to care for those with care needs?

What is wrong with everyone contributing for mass care needs rather than asking for people to self fund?

It's just like everything else in life, money buys you choice.
No assets, limited choice.