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?

There will never be enough money because care workers do not receive adequate pay for the job they do. The care bill would run into trillions if care was carried out properly and care workers were paid properly. As it is now, the care generally carried out is a shoddy counterfeit of what it should be.

I've just been to a joke of a PIP tribunal, to be finally turned down, even though I've been bed bound and have extensive evidence. I've lost out on nearly 7k in benefits that I was entitled to.

So I will be doing all I can to make sure, that my house will not be taken for care. Baring an instant death accident.

You see, I know exactly what goes on within the care industry. I know what goes on and I absolutely know that the money paid for the care received is an absolute disgrace.

This is just a variation on the theme of those that have money often pay less than those that don't. So people with significant assets and income will seek professional advice on how to ensure as little as possible of their estate ends up going to the state.

Personally I don't agree with doing this, but I understand why people do it and there are many legal avenues to do this

helpimichty you are talking about the situation now and don't seem to be able to see past it. Not enough funding, not enough pay is now.

What about if care was adequately funded? Why would taxation and NI be able raise less money than self funding?

If things carry on in the same way, people will not have the assets to self fund. Children have debts from self funding in university, parents have to act as guarantees on mortgages and give up work to care for elderly parents who lose their assets when they need more professional nursing care.

my df and dm worked and paid tax and ni. dad died before retirement so mum inherited a bit of his serps. she sold their 4 bed house and relocated to the south coast. she is now late 70s and if she follows the rest of the family may well live to her 90s. i hope she will buy a modest retirement flat which will leave her with around 120000 in cash. we are all of the view that this is earmarked for care, especially home based care.

I can't see the situation improving any time soon due to the ageing population and shrinking workforce.

Things will become worse. The amount of money required to provide decent quality, long term care for everyone that needed it would be impossible to raise. We are talking astronomical amounts. It costs around £600 per week for somebody to receive residential care in a care home in my area (a poor area). To provide decent care and pay staff properly, you'd need to double that. That's around £62.5k each year, for say five years - some people are in longer, some shorter. That's over £300k per person for five years. Now multiply that nationally for each and every person who needs care. I don't know how many people are residing in care homes as we speak. Also, this doesn't include the people who need home care - another terribly underfunded area.

The care home population appears to be around 300,000 nationally after doing a google search.

Dh reckons 18.9 billion per year that doesn't include medical care. Some care homes are more expensive.

The current situation, it seems to me, illustrates perfectly, the 'Ellesberg paradox'.

Some people do not like the current situation, with regards to the welfare state, at all. Admit it is underfunded. However, at the same time, they seem to be totally unwilling to vote a government in who want to raise taxes to tackle this underfunding. Preferring to contemplate everyone self funding, and commit suicide when self funding is either not an option or too unpalatable.

Contemplating suicide as a preferable option rather than risking their vote enough to trust a government to stick to their promises to use increased taxation in order to tackle this issue.

Who has promised increased taxation to pay for social care?

If the govt increases taxation all their rich buddies might just hot foot it out of the uk. Either way it's a downward spiral.

I'd gladly pay more tax for a functional health and social care system.

Interesting thread. Where I live where you end up depends whether you are placed in care via Social Services or the NHS, both use different homes and block book beds, from what I've heard the homes used by Social Services are marginally better. Thinking you can choose the home you go to if you have no money/assets is incorrect. You will be at the mercy of the authorities, there is no choice.
As for caring for elderly family members it's not always possible when all adults have to work, as is the case in my family. Also a good point was made up thread that this caring responsibility mainly falls to female family members.

I don't blame them tbh, its their money to do with what they wish, if they want to give it to their relatives now, so be it! A lot of people are doing this.

I agree absolutely with helpmeimitchy

The sooner assisted suicide becomes legal in the UK the better, imo.

It's often impossible for families to care for their elderly relatives. Many of the people have dementia or impaired cognitive functioning and need constant care and supervision as well as the space for special beds, hoists, baths etc. We're not talking about years gone by where grandma sat knitting and drinking cups of tea. Frail elderly people need more care than a newborn baby and are at constant risk of infection and illness. The care required is specialist and physically and mentally demanding.

Very true helpimitchy caring for the elderly is not straightforward, especially if they have specific physical disabilities, dementia or Alzheimer's.

If the govt increases taxation all their rich buddies might just hot foot it out of the uk. Either way it's a downward spiral.

I'd gladly pay more tax for a functional health and social care system.

helpimichty, would you vote for assisted suicide over increasing taxation? It seems you think this is a better solution. Because you believe the rich would 'hot foot it out of the U.K.' I think legalising assisted suicide would be a worrying turn of events. Is the uk now only a place for rich people who can self fund any care they might need, ever?

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to choose an assisted suicide package if that's what I'd prefer.

Would you do that in preference to voting for raised taxation, ilovesooty?

My mum looked into what to do to protect herself should she require care in the future. She was considering downsizing. Her lawyer advised against transferring her house to my brother and I because ofvthe disposing of assets issue.

We're very fortunate she lives in a very nice area and has a good sized house. She has a small private pension and we were advised that with her pensions if she rented the house out the 2 combined amounts would more than cover care home costs. That way the house isn't touched.

I have to admit that wasn't an option we'd considered but looking at the rental prices in the area it's a really good solution & has taken a lot of pressure off my mum

One's not the same as the other clarity

I'd like to see properly funded care for those who need or want it even if that means increased taxation.

Personally I'd opt for an assisted suicide package rather than several years in a care home and feel I should have that choice.

But I'm sure you'd understand it being problematic, if the option of assisted suicide was considered as a factor, when governments were projecting what funds were needed to be put aside for national care costs, ilovesooty?

You can only estimate the need for funding in any event clarity

I don't see the "problem" as sufficient reason to refuse people autonomy over their own lives and futures.

What kind of fucking idiot would kill themselves rather than release equity from their home to pay for their care? What a load of hyperbole