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.

fully funded care would be between 4 to 8 billion a year

I’d love to know where these figures have come from, do you have a source?

As you say, it’s about political choices. When there are so many children in this country living in poverty I can see no justification for throwing money at asset rich elderly people to protect their well off children’s inheritance. For me it’s morally indefensible.

@WombatChocolate

Your a bit doom and gloom aren't you? the debt caused by Cv will be paid back over many generations, this fascination with balancing the books is why we have such shit public services/transport, poor RnD in manufacturing and a skills shortage.

Taxes don't have to rise & the tories won't be in power forever and like it or not, inherited wealth puts billions into the general economy, whereas wealth going into CH's ends up anywhere, often abroad.

Vinyl, I agree.

JASJAS, I like to think I’m a realist. I think you should read up on the plans for the coming budget. And you’re right, Tories won’t be in power forever....their plans to increase taxes, will probably be the lowest of all parties anyway, so changes of government could see even bigger increases. And these taxes won’t be for funding care home places anyway. To do that would require taxes (and there are clearly a variety of different taxes which could be used which hit different groups of people or organisations, but would need to raise vast sums for care home places funded for all...and be popular enough to o get introduced and passed...hmmmm....)

As Vinyl says, it would be hard to sell the idea to hard pressed working people or businesses who have struggle during Covid, that their money should go to fund those who are asset and cash rich, so they can pass it down to their families, rather than using it to fund care home places.

@VinylDetective

fully funded care would be between 4 to 8 billion a year

I’d love to know where these figures have come from, do you have a source?

As you say, it’s about political choices. When there are so many children in this country living in poverty I can see no justification for throwing money at asset rich elderly people to protect their well off children’s inheritance. For me it’s morally indefensible.

House of Commons health and social care committee social care funding and workforce

Page 40 of this report lists the shortfall estimates of varied bodies

committees.parliament.uk/publications/3120/documents/29193/default/

And yes I agree Vinyl. I think the government dont understand that people’s views on this are shifting

Also most older people don’t go anywhere near a residential care homes out of a population of nearly 12 million people over 65, aprox 550,000 are in a care home.

This is what the report actually says

The full cost of adequately funding social care is therefore likely to be substantially higher than £7bn, potentially running to tens of billions of pounds

That’s copied and pasted from p 39.

I do find it a bit odd that the public is so against a death tax to cover the cost of care. For one, it won't affect them in their lifetime but mostly it would act as a sort of insurance, in that, give up 2% of your estate on death or roll the dice and risk losing everything to care costs or nothing because you didn't need any care. I get the point that it may give an incentive to use care to, sort of, get your money's worth but that would be the case with insurance as well.

I suspect we will just go on as we are as it seems to work well enough. I just really, really hope we don't try to unload the costs of this into the young and poor through more taxation so we can protect the inheritance for the better off.

Yes - the discussion in the social care sector is that the shortfall talked about is just to fill the existing hole as it stands. To fully fund it going forward will take way more as the population ages

There’s been at least 10 inquiries into how to fund social care and all of them come back with the same answer; increased taxes or compulsory insurance but the government doesn’t like those answers so keeps asking the same question in the hope of some kind of new magical solution

keeps asking the same question in the hope of some kind of new magical solution

The very definition of madness!

Thing is compulsory insurance is just tax by another name. I think if we fund social care by tax it should be a wealth tax. Living standards have hardly risen for the majority over the last 25 years and for the poorest, they've declined. We have to stop protecting the wealth of the elderly and stop further burdening the young.

Take two families both earning the same. One family are spendthrifts, foreign holidays, new car every year, all the latest gadgets, expensive clothes, etc etc living off credit cards as spending more than they earn live in rented accommodation/ still owe money on mortgage. Other family live within their means and have some savings and by using money wisely own their home. First family will get care paid for by the government ie you, second family have to use savings/property to pay for their care. Why would anyone bother to save! The rules encourage people to spend, spend ,spend and expect someone else to sort it out.

Oh, and I'm older and (relatively) wealthy before anyone accused me of being jealous or something. And I 'worked hard all my life' but so what, everyone does, that doesn't make me in any way special.

My MIL wants to stay in her own home and as her dementia worsens we know she’s happier around her own things. But she needs 24hr live in care so has carers live with her every 2 weeks (in start of covid we did this) this costs £6,000 a month and luckily she has the money but there won’t be much left over even if it lasts long enough. It’s her money so it should be spent on her but I worry about how me and DH will manage in our low paid jobs when we get elderly.

@Plunger

What would you suggest then?

I remember a thread similar to this and it seemed very different ( more people against self funding etc). As a PP suggested times may be changing.

"And yes I agree Vinyl. I think the government dont understand that people’s views on this are shifting"
Above is quote from PP that suggested times maybe changing.

The most sensible thing that most people can do as they get older is to downsize their home while they are fit and well. Rather than be obsessed about leaving £££ in inheritance for your family, give them the money for house deposits etc ten years before you may need care (at 65 rather than 75).

@Landofthefree

The most sensible thing that most people can do as they get older is to downsize their home while they are fit and well. Rather than be obsessed about leaving £££ in inheritance for your family, give them the money for house deposits etc ten years before you may need care (at 65 rather than 75).

Good suggestion actually.

Landofthefree. I agree people should if possible/inclined give to the younger generation sooner ( I would like my DPs/in-laws to leave to their grandchildren rather than me and DH) I aim to help my children when it may be most useful ( eg housing deposits etc).

@Landofthefree

The most sensible thing that most people can do as they get older is to downsize their home while they are fit and well. Rather than be obsessed about leaving £££ in inheritance for your family, give them the money for house deposits etc ten years before you may need care (at 65 rather than 75).

That ship’s sailed for us, all the kids have bought houses. That’s my point really, they don’t need the money either now or when we die, so it will be used for the best 5* care home available if and when the time comes.

You are not being unreasonable but if I have to pay for my own care, I also want the choice of whether I want to stay alive or not.

If the state forces me to stay alive against my will, I'd rather they pay for that.

I'd rather my children benefit from any wealth we may have than waste the money on extending my life beyond the time when I am getting any enjoyment from it.

Anything I have left (after care homes etc paid for) I aim to leave to grandchildren.

But if people keep voting for lower taxes it isn't going to happen. People say we should fund this and fund that and then, when it comes to putting pen to paper, vote for the opposite.

I understand why some wish to end their lives if they feel the quality ( to them) is not what they want. My DH has stated this. What I wonder though is the effects it may have on those administering the end?
Thinking of this from PP in particular:
"You are not being unreasonable but if I have to pay for my own care, I also want the choice of whether I want to stay alive or not.

If the state forces me to stay alive against my will, I'd rather they pay for that."

I agree with the principal that care should be self-funded where possible. However, even that makes me uncomfortable as yet again, poorer people have to use often sub-par state facilities where those who are lucky enough to have more money are able to subsidise for higher quality care.

What I would prefer is a massive overhaul of the system which means that everyone gets good quality care without over-burdening the younger generation.

The property issue is unique to people going into care. If you sell a house, normally you will have to then use that money for accommodation as you have to live somewhere. However, if you are going into a care home, you will not have accommodation costs and are able to keep the property which usually continues to increase in value. It is a special sort of madness that people are able to move into free accommodation for the rest of their lives whilst their personal wealth continues to grow to be handed on to whomever they want on their death.

A big hike in capital gains tax on sales of property if the owner hasn't lived in them for a certain number of years would encourage quicker sales of property when people go into homes so it releases more property to the market and slows the rise in housing prices.

Or a system where once you go into a care home your estate is controlled by an independent body who assess what your care costs have been and remove a percentage of this from your estate on a means-tested basis on your death.

If we allow people to protect inheritance at the cost of the state, the net result is that many children of wealthier parents who will probably have already had help getting on the housing ladder will inherit more money and the gap between them and the people who can't get a foothold will be magnified with each generation.

There are massive wealth gap problems in the UK. We can come up with innovative solutions which ensure fairness and equality and I really think we should.

And I say this as someone who did get help getting on the housing ladder, is likely to inherit money from parents and would see this amount reduced by any of the measures I suggested.