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.

The comparison between people with cancer staying in hospices and people in care homes doesn't really fly, because I think the average length of a hospice stay is about 2 weeks, whereas people can live in care and nursing homes for years.

It would be better, perhaps, if care homes were not run for profit and if carers were paid a decent wage and received good training.

Care should not be 'free' - you have to pay to live in your own home so should pay something towards your care.

The best suggestion I heard for funding elder care was (I think from the LibDems) a 2% death tax on the whole of the estate of anyone who dies over retirement age. 'Free' care, either at home or in house, so no other care fees, well, unless I suppose you want some five star celebrity home.

@Zenithbear

We intend to spend as much of our savings as possible on ourselves and families before we get old. We've both worked, saved and planned. We're retiring early and will spend quite a lot of our savings in the first 10-15 years while we are hopefully still fit. We've got lots of holidays planned. Our dc have already received inheritances from other family members, all got on the property ladder young and one has a rental so not too fussed about how much is left for them. We would rather treat them while we are still here to make sure that money is used as we intended.

My parents have this attitude. They are fairly wealthy and have been incredibly generous with me and my siblings helping us on the property ladder etc. Their argument is they would much rather be around to enjoy us making use of the money, they benefit from us having larger houses etc when they stay and we are all at that pinch point of small kids and high costs when the money is incredibly useful. If and when they need care we will 100% support them to find the best care and wouldn't begrudge them spending every penny on being well looked after in old age. Theres no point getting to 90 with a huge pot of money for the sake of it!

@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.

Which of your relatives would you like to serve a prison sentence for doing this?

I was not brave enough to do this for my Dad - I wish I had been, but I was not prepared to go to prison to end his suffering. Dementia is really cruel.

Care should not be 'free' - you have to pay to live in your own home so should pay something towards your care.
One thing I always think is quite odd is that it seems more often than not the former family home is allowed to sit empty for years while the person lives in a care home.

So, all those people who have never paid into the system, have never saved anything, how do they pay for their care? It's a bit unfair that taxpayers who have paid their whole lives and who have been prudent and saved get shafted and those who have never saved will get get their care paid for by taxpayers who have. Not exactly an incentive to save and be responsible is it? Might as well fritter it all away in younger years.

catspider, my gran was in a care home - she didn't have 2 pennies to rub together (not through profligacy, just from being born into a working class family in 1900). All of her pension went to pay for the care home except £5 per week she was given as 'pocket money'. This went on sweeties for us, and a bottle of good Scotch once a month!

My parents scrimped and saved all their lives so that they would have money to leave us. Mum has dementia and dad is partially sighted. This can only go one way.
I wish they'd been more like their neighbours and done stuff with the money 20 years ago. They haven't been on holiday jn 25 years. Their house is a mess. They agonise over putting the heating on, even though they can afford it. What was the point?

I'm happy to go in a home if I'm struggling. It'll be warm, I'll get fed and there will be people to talk to. Bollocks to living alone in a cold house (I'm going to outlive dh by about 15 years).

The country can’t afford to pay for care homes for everyone in old age. Why should we have tax rises to cover the costs when people are sitting on hundreds of thousands in equity and savings and can therefore pay for themselves? I know I won’t get huge inheritances because my parents will need to use their money in their old age. It’s fine.

Part of the problem is that care homes charge different rates to self funded residents and LA.

My friend discovered that the proceeds of her Mum’s modest house was, in effect, subsidising the LA funded residents.

@catspider

Thing is, I don't think people who have never paid into the system have spent all their money on champagne, they haven't paid in because they're too poor (or too rich and have successfully hidden their money from the tax man). I mean, would you include the care worker in receipt of tax credits in your not being responsible group? The vast majority never cover their own costs and take more from the state than they put in. More or Less (radio 4) added up the numbers once and found the average baby boomer received £200,000 in benefits (healthcare, education etc) over their lifetime than they put in so more than likely theres an element of post and kettles in your post.

@catspider

So, all those people who have never paid into the system, have never saved anything, how do they pay for their care? It's a bit unfair that taxpayers who have paid their whole lives and who have been prudent and saved get shafted and those who have never saved will get get their care paid for by taxpayers who have. Not exactly an incentive to save and be responsible is it? Might as well fritter it all away in younger years.

Savings don't just require incentive, they require spare money. And when we're talking about the cost of care, a significant amount of it. I think is no less fair for tax payers to fund care for those who can't afford it than to expect them to fund care for those who can, so their wealth can be inherited by their children. What is unfair, is the huge amounts charged by care homes run for profit and often providing a very substandard service , whoever foots the bill.

I know a lot of us say we'd rather top ourselves than face dementia or loss of independence or pay for a care home but very few actually do. It's like perspective changes with old age and humans cling on.

Kendodd - the family home is usually sold to pay for care home fees.

I learnt from my mother's experience in a care home …. you need enough savings to be able to choose a decent one, but no point in having tens of thousands tucked away or it will all disappear. Spend it while you're still mentally and physically able. Mum had enough to fund about two years of her care (£1K a week for an average place), then the Council paid (topped up by her pension).

@MyLittleOrangutan

I think there's a big idea of, once you've stopped working you shouldn't have to pay for anything. Sick of PILs saying they've paid their bit, they must take more out of the system in year than they ever put in. I do think peoples own savings should be used to pay for their care. It's an insane idea that the younger generation of tax payers should pay for this while the older generation keep their own money, it would just widen the gap between the haves and have nots. You should spend your own money before spending anyone elses.

I see this a lot with older relatives. They seem to get very selfish the older they get and are fond of reminding us all how hard they worked and how much more difficult they have it. They didn't work significantly harder than we did from what I can see, and seem to think they are owed all this by the state even if they retired early and expect the younger generations to pay for all of their living costs.

A spiffy idea coming out of Australia is that pensioners who have their own occupational pensions should be taxed to pay for aged care. To spell it out, in Au, the state pension is means-tested, so non-state pensioners would be paying for all other pensioners' aged care out of a pension on which they are already taxed to pay for, for instance, transport/schools, etc.

Radio4rocks

The thing is not everyone has just pissed there money up the wall some people work hard all their lives for little money and just can't afford to save. I am well aware that this is how some ppl feel as I work in this area. The financial side is the most emotive thing for a lot of people and many older people feel that they paid their NI to cover this but sadly it doesn't. In Scotland it works differently so it would be interesting to see how they manage

I think there's a big idea of, once you've stopped working you shouldn't have to pay for anything. Sick of PILs saying they've paid their bit, they must take more out of the system in year than they ever put in. I do think peoples own savings should be used to pay for their care. It's an insane idea that the younger generation of tax payers should pay for this while the older generation keep their own money, it would just widen the gap between the haves and have nots. You should spend your own money before spending anyone elses

Totally this.

And you're not being shafted if you have to pay for your own care. It's part of the expenses of living, like food and heating.

Personally I think that they should be able to pass on some of their estate, so that the state only uses up to the last £100k. But some people think that nothing should go to fund their own care because they've 'worked hard all their lives'. What about the young people that can't afford their own houses and will also work hard all their lives. That seems grossly unfair to expect them to also pay lots of tax so that the older generation can pass their wealth onto their children, further rigging an already rigged system.

They didn't work significantly harder than we did from what I can see

Maybe you're not looking hard enough.

and seem to think they are owed all this by the state even if they retired earl

All what? And what's this seem to think? Don't they talk or are you actually imagining it?

and expect the younger generations to pay for all of their living costs

What do you mean? Food? Petrol?

I think it’s right that if you have a home you’re no longer able to live in because of your care needs, you should sell it to fund somewhere you can live.

I am 30. I am fully expecting that by the time I need care i will be expected to pay for it myself. People are living to such an old age now that we can barely afford care for the elderly now, and as OP says, many expect free care now. I will fund the care of others through my taxes for the next few decades and then when it comes to my time I imagine I will be told 'you have had a job. You can pay for your care yourself'. Its not sustainable.

Not answering the question really, but it does make me think you may as well share your wealth with those you love early enough to see them enjoy it. I'm not talking about deprivation of assets, but helping children out with a house deposit if you can, or going on nice holidays etc. My PIL sit there fretting about inheritance tax and I just think well it might all have to go on care anyway, why not use some of it now doing things you enjoy and making the lives of loved ones easier whilst you're all together to enjoy the benefits?

You may think you'd want to do away with yourself when you get old and infirm but the reality is you won't feel like that at all.
My DGM is in a home, used to say the same. She now has dementia and lives in a care home (£3,000 a month) and she's not going anywhere!
You really can't say that you'd do yourself in when you get old - you more than likely won't and you'll want to live whatever your quality of life is.

Lots of people say they’d top themselves if they ever got dementia. My own mother did. Repeatedly, since she’d seen what it had done to an elder sister.

The trouble is, by the time anyone has dementia noticeable enough for it to be anywhere near diagnosis, the person’s memory will probably already be affected to the extent that they can’t remember that there’s anything wrong with them.

Fairly early on, my DM was told by her GP that she had Alzheimer’s, but had completely forgotten by the time she got home maybe 15 minutes later.
Any attempts to remind her were met with angry denial, so we soon stopped.

Oh it's a tricky one. I used to feel like your friends and I can understand where they're coming from - if they hadn't saved and had blown the lot, they'd be looked after. It's as if you're punished for having been sensible etc. However a few years later I see it a little differently. Hard as it is to pay out heavily, those savings give choices, at home care, high standard nursing homes etc, that without you wouldn't have. What better time in your life to be able to have the best of care, the extra little luxuries etc. My DPs have both managed to stay home and their many sacrifices mean they can do that in the way they want to. As a pp says, the ones provided by government are often not what you would choose. I know no offence was meant but please remember, dementia is not the same in everyone. My DDad is most content and loves company and conversation and is still doing all he can to keep living.