To think we have to accept that we need to use savings to fund care in old age

[LastDuchessFerrara]

My parents died before reaching old age but I'm now watching family and friends caring - in one form or another - for older relatives.

Many seem to be in denial about the fact that savings, pensions and, in some cases equity in their home, needs to be used to enable their relatives to continue to stay in their homes or go into care.

"But they've worked all their lives!" they cry in protest. Well, yes - and now that money needs to be used in their old age.

It's really focussed my mind on how any money I accumulate might not be spent on amazing holidays but paying for cleaners and carers.

I'd be interested in views but please can this not be a "boomer" bashing thread. I know plenty of impoverished old people and plenty of entitled non-boomers.

I'm fairly certain they government will come up with some sort of insurance system for everyone. As some people have already said the system is unfair to those who have saved when others haven't or can somehow hide their assets. It's the only way for us to have a fair system imo.

People with money get a much better care home and treatment within a care home than people who don’t have the money. Dementia is one of those where proper care, diet and therapies can sometimes extend quality of life for years.

Besides Dementia is not the norm and is decreasing. Currently only 30% of the elderly have it and it’s decreasing year on year as we and don’t have as much indoor pollution.

I would really like to see legalised euthanasia.

I nursed my beautiful granddad until the end and I know he would've chosen this had it been an option.

Most of my old nursing colleagues are in agreement. A dignified death is a rare thing and we prolong life way too much.

@GrumpyHoonMain

People with money get a much better care home and treatment within a care home than people who don’t have the money. Dementia is one of those where proper care, diet and therapies can sometimes extend quality of life for years.

Besides Dementia is not the norm and is decreasing. Currently only 30% of the elderly have it and it’s decreasing year on year as we and don’t have as much indoor pollution.

It’s the biggest cause of death in this country and rising.

The government need to get their act together so the so called ' baby boomers' and ones like me can start paying in for insurance now!
Life insurance tends to be a decreasing insurance which isn't the right thing here. It needs to be ring fenced solely for care and maybe refunded if not used or something similar. I'm not sure how it would work but it's clear something needs to be done if we are going to live longer.
Plus a few care home owners need to be held to account as many are very wealthy and yet let their staff not have enough ppe! That was a scandal. The private sector for adult social care isn't the way forwards , in my opinion anyway.

@Lockheart

It depends whether you would define needing care as being in the medical sphere.

I do think it's odd that if you have cancer (for example) all of your treatment, and care in hospices, can be net from the NHS. But if you have Alzheimer's, although the costs of medical treatment will be met, you have to pay for your own care in homes.

It's a difficult line to walk. Personally I'd like to see hugely increased govt funding to care homes so that any fees are heavily subsidised if you do have to pay for care. But I fear that's a pipe dream.

We are facing a time bomb with an ageing population both increasing demands on care and leading to a smaller economically active population, generations of people where both parties in a couple need to work, thereby resulting in no-one at home to care for elderly parents, increased longevity leading to increased medical needs where care IS needed, meaning that care can no longer be provided by untrained relatives at home, and generations of people who currently rely on inheritance to buy housing (if the equity in houses is eaten up by care fees, then obviously they won't be able to).

If I were the govt I'd be trying to sort this out now before it all goes tits up in 20 years time. But what do I know.

That’s because the average stay of a cancer patient in a hospice is 10 days, but the average stay in a nursing home with dementia is several years.

Absolutely OP. What we 'scrimp and save for all our lives' is to enable us to be cared for and kept safe as we age, rather than relying on the state or expect family to be run ragged whilst sitting on pots of money doing nothing.
I'd even go so far as to lower the thresholds the state steps in to contribute financially, and means test attendance allowance. Redirect the extra millions to mental health services, primary care, SCBU, staffing etc etc.
And not all older people have 'worked all their lives' and paid in. My MIL almost 80 gave up work at 25 and chose never to work again. As did many thousands of her generation.
We all now know what the rules are. If people choose not to spend/enjoy/give away their many thousands whilst they can and would rather save then that's their choice, and can't moan when the gamble doesn't pay off and they have to pay for care.
Thirty years of nursing has taught me that in reality too many people live too long though, and no one is benefitting from that at the very end.

It’s lot of things. No magic bullet. More equal society ( so people can save better). More personal responsibility. Higher taxes so society is i in a better position to help. More family responsibility and flexible working policies. Different attitude to multi- generational households.

Where there's an issue is when the person who needs care is much younger than you'd expect. I read a thread on here recently and the woman's husband needed full time care, suddenly, at 56 or 57. No wage coming from him, possibly losing her own job to care for him or having to fund his care, still having dependants, future completely dashed.
Imagine having the rug pulled from under your feet in those circumstances. Going from thinking you have a financially secure retirement planned to having no certainty at all.

I'm in favour of self funding where possible, but there should be some allowances made when it is a younger person needing care, or someone with dependants.

MIL was different, and in her 80s when stroke struck. She had a mix of social funding and self funding. Once her savings got down to a certain amount, social services funded, so she still had enough for her funeral (Covid) and a little for her sons.

But, don't be under any allusion, the council will (and did) check back through years of bank statements, etc to see if anything had been 'gifted'. BIL had to prove he paid in full for the house he shared with his mother. He purchased the house in the 80s, and had luckily kept records from then otherwise they'd have gone after his (only) home too. It was incredibly stressful.

I really hope DC are financially secure and independent before anything happens to me/DH. Once that's the case - you can't take it with you.

@Pukkatea

I think like everything - eventually it will be accepted, but for now it's rubbish for people who had the goalposts moved. People for whom previous generations did things a certain way and they lived their lives assuming they could do the same - saving for massive retirement funds and investments on houses etc on the assumption they could pass it on to their kids and then find at the last minute they can't. The next generation will be in a completely different position (the real ticking time bomb is that the current batch of 20-30 year old won't have any property to sell to fund care when their time comes).

I'm 63. Who are these "previous generations "? My parents had very little. They left me very little. I worked hard, have savings, gave my children a good stay and education, and if I need care later then have no problem using the money I've earned to pay for it. Why is it that current generations think we were all born with silver spoons? Thanks to Thatcher she tied a generation of workers to mortgages, and now everyone thinks that things were fabulous in "the old days".

My dad had some modest savings and he could have chosen to ' give' it to his children years and years ago as a gift but he chose not to do this and ended up paying for his care. Never had a penny out of the state he hadn't already paid in for. A model citizen in so many ways but it didn't get him anywhere really and dementia is a cruel disease as much as cancer is.
It is what it is , but it's still very unfair when others ' get away' with so much! That's life I guess!

It would be sensible, like others I'd rather be dead then spend 10 years existing in a care home.

Average time in a care home is just over 2 years. People don't generally spend 10years in one.

In the days before the welfare state people saved for their old age so that they would have some choice, dignity and peace of mind.

Obviously life expectancy was lower and the alternatives to spending your own money were pretty grim.

But the idea that you ‘work hard all your life’ while benefitting from the NHS, free education, etc just so you can give your money to your children and push the cost of your care into the state is nonsensical when you really think about it.

It’s a complicated issue but I am yet to see a compelling argument for people not contributing to their own care. Of course the ‘family home’ should be part of this, unless there are special circumstances.

Luck of the draw isn't it? My own parents didn't have to worry about their parents and any care was free back then , plus they died in their 70s in their own homes. Long time ago now.
Living till your 90s is ok if your healthy in mind and body.

I think it's hard any way you try to get people to pay for it, maybe will try and hide money.

I personally feel savings should be excluded, as the person has made a choice to save the money, be thrifty, gone without etc. They paid tax on the money, tax on savings, tax on pensions.

But houses could be used and have a charge against, baby boomers like my parents bought their house for 2k and it's now worth £250k and that's modest house.

Yes many people would probably sell their house in their 60/70s but wouldn't that help the housing market? Maybe you'd also have to say x% amount of your house sale after 60 needs to then be ring fenced for care.

There's isn't a full proof system and people will moan about the costs and subsiding others, who don't have savings or a house. But council nursing homes aren't the nicest and extra money gets you potentially better comforts in your old age.

It's a ticking time bomb. I worry about my own children who can't even afford to buy a home where we live , let alone save up for old age! They have pensions but the state pension will be gone by the time they get to their late 60s or 70s or whatever.

The difference in care for those that have nothing and those that can afford to pay for a better care home are enormous.

If I have to go into care, my kids are going to have to lump it because like hell would I want to be in one where only the bare minimum is funded by the local authority.

Anyway that can afford to pay or contribute should consider themselves hugely fortunate in comparison to those that cant.

Politicians are probably putting their money in many off shore accounts so not too worried about any of this! It needs to be addressed though for us normal bods!

The problem will come in, say, 40 years time when many people of my generation will need care but will have no savings due to high living costs, no house to sell due to having to rent, no state pension probably, no final salary private pensions, no inheritance due the the previous generation having to spend it all on their care. What happens then? Do we all just work ourselves into the grave?

@heygirlheyboy, plenty of people last quite a bit longer than 2 years in care homes. My mother was in hers for very nearly 8 years, having gone in at 89. During her time there I saw residents come and go, but quite a few were there for several years.

It was a dementia-only care home, and extremely good. Incidentally it took local authority funded residents as well as self funded, and they received exactly the same care, despite the difference in fees.

We looked at plenty of care homes before choosing, and I can say hand on heart that the most expensive ones, with ‘stylish’ decor, certainly did not strike me as the best.
People with dementia advanced enough to need 24/7 care won’t give a toss about ‘stylish’ anyway. Cosy and homely is far preferable.

Care home owners must be wallowing in money. The care homes round here charge £900 per week, whether from government or patients assets/savings. They pay their staff minimum wage. Staff need to be better trained and the elderly better cared for, for this kind of money.

@Livelovebehappy

Care home owners must be wallowing in money. The care homes round here charge £900 per week, whether from government or patients assets/savings. They pay their staff minimum wage. Staff need to be better trained and the elderly better cared for, for this kind of money.

I agree there must be money in it!

Like a lot of the caring industry people are being charged x per week or per hour, all while staff are being paid the minimum.

@AlwaysCheddar

If I get a stage where I don’t have a clue what planet I’m on, id rather someone put a pillow over my face than pay thousands on a grotty nursing home.

Yes. Lets hope we get the equivalent of Dignitas by then.

Without wanting to offend people who've had cancer in later years, I don't really see why you should get free care for cancer at that age, but not for eg Parkinsons. They are both medical conditions.

There was a letter in the Times about this today (well several letters). We need to pay more taxes (including IHT) and spread the risk as we do with everything else.

My parents owned their house
Several years ago they split the tenancy so that they could both leave their half to grandkids should one of them die and the other one needs care .
My mum passed away my dad has the right to live in the house if he goes into a home the local authorities can only take his half of the house into account for care home fees .
As my mums half is legally owned by my son and my niece they can’t touch that half
This is probably the best way to leave your kids something
Cost about £500 in total for the wills and transfer of Tenancy after my mum died

Care homes are rubbish. They don't care and they're not homes. They rake in the fees and do the minimum. God help anyone who doesn't have family or friends who can eg make sure someone has enough pyjamas or get them drinks they like.