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?

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.

Totally agree. I've worked as an OT in acute hospitals for almost 15 years. The number of times I've had 'I've paid NI all my life!' near shouted at me as the reason why I should be providing a stair lift/bungalow/24 hour home care etc etc is unreal. And a lot of the time from people who have been retired for 20 years, worked in low paying jobs, or were women who did a lot of part time work around a 15 year break to have children. They just have no concept that what they paid in a lifetime of NI wouldn't even cover one week in an acute hospital bed in today's money, much less for anything longer term.

Long term care is also a fecking nightmare and no one tells you about top up fees which many homes charge. I had the horror of getting my DM into a residential home at the beginning of this year. She was turned down by 14 homes to begin with, so we were left in no position to just go for the homes that didn't charge top-ups. She was finally accepted by a 15th, and I then had to purchase over £1000 worth of equipment myself because the NHS and social services won't pay for any equipment for care homes in our area, and I know this is true for many others. They say, 'The homes should provide that equipment.' They don't, because it's an easy way of cost-cutting. Even though DM was 'fully funded' I still got hit with a £300 bill when she passed away in March. She'd been there a grand total of six weeks. I shudder to think what it would have cost us if she'd lived. She genuinely had no assets as she was a single mum in a full-time secretarial job for her working life. I don't think I'll be encouraging my ILs to sign their assets over to us to avoid care fees, because you just can't avoid them. They did that with my husband's DGM and it's worked out well, but I think they got lucky. I would much prefer they sell their house and they use that to pay for care when they need it.

ilovesooty Do you not think a lack of automony is a risk with legalising assisted suicide? Over the basic right to live. Any worries concerning being a burden would be compounded as legalisation suggests the choice is a completely viable one.

Do you not think it a sad state of affairs when suicide is considered preferable to having care needs? I do.

What does this say about how we value the vulnerable in society?

Here's an idea.
Seeing as though the dcs in the ops scenario are subsidised by their parents. Why doesn't the son pack in work and care for them full time in their own home?
Why should taxpayers such as myself, subsidise the elderly rich when they have the means to either pay for their care or pay their son/ daughter to do it.
Not all old people with money have worked hard for it.
Lots of people inherit and technically do sod all for that.
Likewise Plenty of hard working people are not rich.

You are in a much better position using your money for care. Even if al
You have is private and or state pension/disability benefits and In a care home they will take The majority of this to pay for care. I think the standard pocket money rate is around £15 a month. THIS is for any social life, clothes, food, sending grandchild Xmas presents, haircuts , doing anything.

There was talk of cutting lots of things on prescriptions few months ago and people brought up about some people getting toothpaste/shampoo basic stuff you can buy on prescription this is because if you are in care then you simply don't have the money for basic toiletries and the staff try and get you some things for free.

I'm disabled I get social care I solely live on disability benefits the council make me pay towards the cost. I.e. My ESA is £140 a week because this is what the DWP say i need to live on. My local council however say that I only need JSA rate plus 25% so I'm "allowed" to keep £90 of it to to run a home and live the rest they take. Ditto my DLA. Trust me it's only going get worse. I'm a young disabled person it's so depressing to know that any care I get given will be basic bog standard
No frills. Anyone who gives away money so they kids can inherit and then live next 10-30years in the cheaper care home going will seriously regret it.

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

Plymoputh, earlier in this thread, stated exactly that - that she would commit suicide in order to leave her house to her offspring, if she started to need significant care [not, this is not 'reached a stage of advanced dementia', as a later poster suggested - just at the point where she needed significant care]

I would rather die than leave ds to fend for himself. If that makes me an idiot so be it. But really, unless you have to live with knowing you have a child who will not be independent of you in adult life, you shouldn't be too quick to judge those of us who do. It really does change how you look at a lot of things.

Karlos, i do believe that your situation is one in which all assets should be able to be passed on / ring fenced for the welfare of the dependent child. Not, however, for independent offspring.

There are a couple of issues at play here. First of all is a feeling that this is unfair- and it is. The NHS (thankfully) provides free care for everyone in this country throughout their lives, whether you go to your GP once in a blue moon for a minor ailment, or you are unlucky enough to get cancer, or you have some conditions which you have contributed to yourself through excessive alcohol abuse, smoking, obesity etc. Regardless of what's needed everyone (proportionately) pays in the same and everyone gets whatever they need back out.

So why when it comes to elderly care do pensioners with additional care needs get stripped of their assets, where healthy pensioners get to keep theirs? A person who develops dementia and needs full time residential care may have cost the NHS virtually nothing throughout their lifetime, and they could end up losing everything whereas someone else who received hundreds of thousands of pounds of NHS care keeps all their assets to pass on to their children. They system is inherently unfair and penalises people who happen to develop these kind of conditions in their old age.

A better system would be greater and equal taxation for all throughout their lifetimes. People will not stop redistributing and spending wealth as they simply cannot stomach losing everything they have worked for when those who have saved nothing get it all for free. It begs the question: "what's the point?"

Karlos I'm sorry if I've missed something earlier in the thread but ignore you die your DS would have to fend for himself wouldn't he? Or are you talking about fend for himself purely financially?

I'm assuming your DS has a particular situation which means he can't live independently? I think that's somewhat different really.

And wanting to die because your disease/ quality of life is too poor to live is totally different too.

People on here are talking about dying because they don't want to pay their own living/ nursing/ food costs in old age. They'd rather be dead and leave some inheritance. I don't believe anyone can suggest that with a straight face. It's clearly horse shit

My only surviving parent - a property owner - is careful with their money so can pay for decent care when older. I don't expect a penny in inheritance and never have done.

Just to clarify - I mentioned that I would rather have assisted suicide than be in care not because I didn't want to pay for it but because I'd rather be dead than lose my independence. I don't actually have any assets to speak of anyway at the moment.

I think lots of people would rather die than go in a home, free or otherwise.

Assisted suicide is a tricky one - what would stop vulnerable elderly people being persuaded to do this to protect their children's inheritance? If you had to make the decision early in life, what if you changed your mind? My mum used to say things like 'if I ever lose my mind I'd rather be dead' but she is 5 years in a care home now, blissfully unaware of her family, let alone her former thoughts.

Her house was sold to pay for her care, as it should have been. She didn't have any savings but did have a couple of hundred grand sitting in a house she paid £3k for.

For the people worrying about all the feckless people who didn't save and are now sponging off the state - have you never met normal people? I know a LOT of elderly people, who live in council houses (so no assets) and will receive full funding. This isn't because they pissed their money up the wall, or because they handed it all over to their kids, it's because they had low paid jobs their whole lives and lived hand to mouth. They didn't save for their care because they didn't have money to save.

Not everyone who receives funding is doing so just to spite people who have to pay. I genuinely don't understand why you wouldn't want to pay your way if you can - or why you'd begrudge someone who couldn't pay getting equal care (which they don't)

Birdsgottaf1y you have care and support needs at the moment. This means that if you dispose of your assets (even if you try to put in trust or what not), you still would get charged. You cannot do this if you expect LA funded care. They won't fund you.

I genuinely don't understand why you wouldn't want to pay your way if you can - or why you'd begrudge someone who couldn't pay getting equal care

Exactly that.

My point wasn't so much about bumping myself off so I could pass on a house as being able to opt out of a hypothetical bond because I know that I never want to be witless and dependant on others and would rather dead at that point. Hence i wouldn't want to have to pay for a bond for care I dont ever want to need and cant afford as I have no spare money.We need the choice. I dont have ten grand for dignitas. Of course my daughters would say they valued me over inheriting a house but I see no point in prolonging an empty possible painful life as old age doesnt get better. Not advocating this for others but choice is needed.

But that's a different debate- not related to how individuals pay for their care

I think that is a terrible attitude op, if everyone tried to play the system then there simply will not be enough money to pay for care....
look carefully at national statistics and you will find that as we have an ageing population and the population is increasing every year, even with draconian tax rises on our children, (do we really want to saddle them with that?) there will not be enough money to fund all the care.

Also with the exception of the poster with the autistic child and others like her, it is a horrible assumption to feel entitled to benefit from our parents estates after their death....

If people have accrued assets they should pay for their care, personally l really like the Conservatives plan for funding care, ie your care is paid for out of your assets AFTER you die down to the last 100K, much better than the current system.

I say this as someone who has assets, so this will affect me but l shall not be dodging the responsibility of my care should l need it.

Yes but I was just returning to clarify my earlier post about why I wouldn't to pay for care in that way.

I genuinely don't understand why you wouldn't want to pay your way if you can - or why you'd begrudge someone who couldn't pay getting equal care

Missing the point totally. The couple we met felt that the situation where the DF paid for his care and was subsidising other residents was patently unfair. I agree with that. How can that ever be fair?

No one is suggesting that people who can't pay should somehow be made to pay but the suggestion was a bond that everyone over a certain level of income has to take out, so that people can't spend all their income on frivolities but then be kept by the state. That also seems reasonable to me.

Something should be done to stop residents in care homes having to subsidise council paid residents. That's just ridiculous.

Plymouth, but that assumes that the only reason you would want care would be through mental impairment, not physical impairment. Not all of those who require care - home-based or residential - do so because of dementia. Others are simply too physically disabled or frail to manage without help. I would not have wanted my very physically disabled elderly grandfather - childhood polio finally winning against willpower - to have been able to choose NOT to be cared for, given that his mind was as active as ever.

"something should be done to stop residents in care homes having to subsidise council paid residents. That's just ridiculous."

And doesn't happen?

Where's the evidence to suggest that self funding residents subsidise LA funded residents?

But he's not subsidising their care and if he was why should that matter? Does he know why they get funded? Have they confessed that they had loads of cash but pissed it all so they could stay in a council house all their lives for the sole purpose of screwing the care system in old age?

I shall be going on the dark net and buying myself some euthanasia drugs (surely they must be available on the dark net?) for
My dotage . That's where I am at with this right now .