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.

"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." I believe Local Authorities can already put a charge over property to recoup the care home costs on death.

@Plunger

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.

Yes, so very true

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
It sounds good but I feel you are asking for something impossible....ie You want something which would consume a huge amount of society's resources to somehow not consume a huge amount of society's resources🤷‍♀️
as if you feel there must be a way to do this, but there isn't... there is no way for a dwindling number of younger people to support an increasing number of elderly people
I suppose robot carers might work 🤷‍♀️

This image of people is one used so much to divide us.

For every spendthrift I know, I must know 50 people who are saving. The vast majority of people who don't have savings don't have them because they never earn enough to save.

IMHO, a lack of savings is more to do with poor financial education and a lack of proper living wages than a Devil may care attitude.

Taking the money from your estate when you die reduces the impact of this. You don't lose anything when you are alive and if you do have savings your kids will still get something whereas the children of the spendthrift will get nothing

"Plunger:

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."

The first scenario the people may not get the security of owning a property. They also may not be able to retire early if not saving. All that loss of security for the ( low -i.e. see PP who quotes less than 550000 in care out of more than 12 million) risk of paying for their care ( they still getting to keep I think £23000). I would not want to lose having security of my own property and pension schemes for the sake of spending some money on my care ( if I need it).

@o8O8O8o

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 It sounds good but I feel you are asking for something impossible....ie You want something which would consume a huge amount of society's resources to somehow not consume a huge amount of society's resources🤷‍♀️ as if you feel there must be a way to do this, but there isn't... there is no way for a dwindling number of younger people to support an increasing number of elderly people I suppose robot carers might work 🤷‍♀️

2 solutions:

1. Increase the top rate of income tax (The UK has the lowest top rate of all the wealthier European countries)

1. Put the assets of all people going into care homes under the control of an independent body and on their deaths take a means-tested cost of care from their estate.

I don't have all of the answers because I am not a tax expert, but there are a lot of people cleverer than me who would come up with a better solution than we have now.

The fear of pissing off the electorate leaves us with the only option as tweaking the current system when it is this system which got us here in the first place with the wealth gap growing with every generation.

A lack of savings is more to do with a poor financial education
I agree and, not to condone the fiscally feckless... But a spendthrift does at least spend their money into the economy, unlike a wealthy person emulating a dragon jealously guarding its vast hoard.

For an elderly person who is mentally and physically frail to have good quality of life we need care facilities with high levels of staff and staff who are well paid, well trained and motivated.
as things stand working in a care facility is something that most people will only do as a last resort if they can't get anything better, it is difficult and demanding work which is badly paid and the staff levels are rarely adequate.
A few lucky people will get good quality care, most are merely warehoused, merely acting as pipelines to channel their liquidised assets into the coffers of the care home owner

www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-us/news-and-media/facts-media#:~:text=209%2C600%20will%20develop%20dementia%20this,with%20dementia%20in%20the%20UK.

Have been following this thread with interest as have direct experience of caring for someone with dementia, and all the fallout.

I think the main issue I have, aside from the economics, is that according to the link above, 70% of care home residents have dementia of one sort or another, and I was quite shocked by the number of those under 65 who have it too.

Dementia is a degenerative brain disease, it seems like luck of the draw who gets it, and in the later stages, which can go on for years, the sufferer is essentially reduced to a shell being kept alive and requiring not just basic care, but medical intervention such as tube feeding etc.

There are two forms of available funding - one is the means tested LA funding with the 23,000 odd threshold, but there is also CHC which is supposed to release NHS funding for care when the medical needs escalate. This is not well publicised, the focus is all on means testing and assets. And CHC can be applied for whether a person is in residential care or at home as it is allocated supposedly on care needs.

We're starting this latter journey, for my MIL, and my research suggests that getting CHC is incredibly hard because there are grey areas around what is social care and the crossover with medical need. Fortunately the home she is in have triggered the process as obviously due to Covid and her no longer having a scooby who we are for the last year, we haven't been able to see her. She's now bed bound and non-verbal, up to now she has been self funding but her assets are now gone after roughly three years in the home. Prior to that we had her at home with us for 18 months before we could no longer keep her safe and the wolf from the door at the same time.

But back to the point I did have in my head.

It is all very complex when flesh and blood people with complex needs due to advanced age are framed as first and foremost numbers on a balance sheet. Sod the inheritance issue, it's more that it feels like they are being penalised for getting the wrong disease - and also the hardline approach that all families are just after the cash when often the overwhelming feeling is to experience a living grief, plus trying to juggle all the complex admin, keep the person needing care calm, comfortable etc.....which can lead to things like finances ending up in a muddle.

We either strive for a more equitable society or it remains a pay to play scenario.

The funding thresholds mean that those with modest assets lose the lot, while the wealthy have been able to organise themselves financially aren't hit as hard.

It is already accepted that we do have to pay for end of life care, it is a fact.

The fairness of it is another matter entirely, and this needs to be addressed.

Put the assets of all people going into care homes under the control of an independent body and on their deaths take a means-tested cost of care from their estate

No way. I’d far rather put my finances in the hands of someone I trust than some anonymous state monolith, so would anyone with any sense. There would have to be administration fees to cover the costs and it could end up costing your estate more.

Mistress, thanks for your thoughtful post.

I can see what you mean about the ‘wrong disease’. Unfortunately, with the complexity of alternative methods and unwillingness of the electorate to pay for them through increased taxes, I suspect a version of the current system will remain. On balance, for society as a whole, I think it probably is the best way, rather than a current working generation paying and being penalised with vast taxes, to allow the elderly with assets to keep them..... it at the same time, I totally appreciate that for those who have the misfortune to develop dementia and need that care, it feels they have developed the ‘wrong illness’. In a sense it is the wrong illness. The expense of caring for it is more than the state can afford, whereas other things like a heart attack, or other conditions which mean someone can stay in their home can be treated in a more affordable way. I can totally see how it doesn’t feel satisfactory.

I think we need an "insurance fund" set up for our old age. Everyone who earns say, above £30k (this figure is an example only.....or it could be a stepped amount, eg for every extra £1k you earn, you pay in a slightly higher percentage) has to put in a percentage of their pay each month
You may need to use that fund....you may not......but it seems the fairest way

@yoyo1234

"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." I believe Local Authorities can already put a charge over property to recoup the care home costs on death.

I don't think they can do that if one spouse is still living there but I could be wrong?

@CareBear50

I think we need an "insurance fund" set up for our old age. Everyone who earns say, above £30k (this figure is an example only.....or it could be a stepped amount, eg for every extra £1k you earn, you pay in a slightly higher percentage) has to put in a percentage of their pay each month You may need to use that fund....you may not......but it seems the fairest way

Still won't cover the staggering cost of a person having dementia for 10+ years and totally unworkable with higher taxes that will happen and staggering costs of living.

A lack of savings is more to do with a poor financial education

Nowt to do with poor wages, insecure work (gigs, zero hours, temp contract work), increasing cost of living, of course , oh, no, it's all fecklessness (we've already got almost the full bingo on this thread - foreign holidays, latest tech, spendthrift, etc).

I don't know what the answer is then? ?? Yes, it would be a tax of sorts - but I am not sure what other workable alternatives we have.

I'm not being sarky when I ask this.....what do you think Would work?

@CareBear50

I don't know what the answer is then? ?? Yes, it would be a tax of sorts - but I am not sure what other workable alternatives we have.

I'm not being sarky when I ask this.....what do you think Would work?

Hopefully better treatment for dementia, and the idea that most people can retire if they are capable of any form of work or are very rich is going to have to go the way of the Dodo bird, legalised suicide/advanced directives/living wills. The reality is that people who live longer and longer are more likely to get dementia, which no society can afford to pay for.

Good care should be accessible for all, not just those with money.

Otherwise we just go back to pre NHS, which seem to be what many want, its the ultimate "i'm alright jack" attitude.

So, one woman from a M/C background, gets a job job in the city, retires, her £2.1m house is used for 2 years 5* care, the remaining £1.5m goes to her 3 children.

Meanwhile another woman, leaves school with little education but works as a carer in hospitals/care homes and community, helping the most vulnerable, she lives in rented accomodation, she needs care, has no savings, put in a loer tier care home, often left in her own shit, no day trips, crappy meals, no entertainment...

And we all think thats all ok because she didn't "save" for her old age and is a feckless fool who the state should do little for?

Affordability? we are about to embark on upgrading Trident, HS2/3, have cut billions off corp tax and brexit has/will cost the economy billions.... yet we can't afford to fund our care in old age?

The 'commons report included significant pay rises for carers, something that should happen however care is funded.

We can't fund care when carers are badly paid how can we possibly fund it if they are properly paid?
It's too easy to sweep the problem under the carpet, old people are shut away out of sight and out of mind, no one wants to face the reality of what is involved when someone develops dementia, too many factors incentivise society as a whole to ignore the problem
morally this is very wrong but if no one wants to do it and no one wants to pay for it🤷‍♀️
if the only person who genuinely cares about your elderly loved one is you and you don't have the time or the resources to help them, what can be done....🤷‍♀️

@threatmatrix

It really enrages me that people who worked hard and saved all their lives have to spend all their children’s inheritance on care, when lazy bastards that have been on benefits all their lives get the same for free.

But what about the people who have worked really hard on low wages, such as nurses, and won’t be able to afford care? It is far more complicated than saying those who can pay for care deserve it, whilst those who can’t afford it are poor because they are lazy. We do not live on a meritocracy, and people’s individual financial circumstances often bear little relation to how hard they work or how socially positive their work is.

Affordability? we are about to embark on upgrading Trident, HS2/3, have cut billions off corp tax and brexit has/will cost the economy billions.... yet we can't afford to fund our care in old age?

You keep saying this but the fact is that we do fund care for people without the means to pay for it. Why on earth would we fund it for people with significant assets?

There’s a very high chance of my getting dementia, it’s rife in my mum’s family. While I’d much rather swallow the reds than go into residential care, I’m a realist and know that’s probably where I’ll end up. As a homeowner with savings, it’s up to me to pay for it. It would be truly shocking to use taxpayers’ money so our kids can inherit money they don’t need.

It’s literally incomprehensible to me that people can’t see this.

Living for over ten years in a care home with dementia seems to be fairly unusual, but obviously will depend on co-morbidities, age when diagnosed etc.

I do think that there should be an analysis of care home costs and the level of possible profiteering that exists though, and maybe some sort of cap introduced perhaps?

I am sure some operators are genuine selfless people and obviously one should be able to make a living from such an investment and risk. But so should the staff, and careful analysis of care standards should be balanced out too.

As mentioned above, it sometimes appears that the declining elderly are warehoused rather than actively cared for. That said, in the late stages of dementia there really is little can be done other than alleviating suffering.

It is incredibly complex, personally I would want to ensure care standards are prioritised, and a change to funding thresholds. Maybe a 50 50 approach for those with assets which reflects that people have contributed throughout their lives? So those with the least assets still have something?

Much of our economy especially regarding property these days is built on inherited money, as getting on the property ladder is more difficult for many younger people now. Others have mentioned that aspect of our economy is starting to shrink.

It is proven that those with the least pay the most throughout their lives, the more you have to start with the more you can accrue, the less you have the harder it is to be prudent, and psychologically people in "relative poverty" have been shown to live in the short term rather than think ahead because of lack of realistic opportunities to make a meaningful change. It's like the "just stop buying Starbucks to save a house deposit argument". Great on paper but meaningless when you actually do the maths.

The attitude that you should save for the future over enjoying the life you have (if you even can) is apparently "worthy"..... but if that means living a drab penny pinching life for you and your family, so the state doesn't have to bail you out, what is the point of living? Contribute - fine. Have every last sou disappear into the last few years of your life - a bit galling.

people’s individual financial circumstances often bear little relation to how hard they work or how socially positive their work is
One might even say there is an inverse relationship between how socially positive your work is and how much you get paid
The most important people get paid the least
The more you give of yourself the less you get back

I agree that the amount of wealth and certainly the property wealth of the boomers is often. It a reflection of how hard they worked at all.

Today lots of people work very hard and do 50/60 hours work in unpleasant jobs like care home work for minimum wage, but will never afford to accumulate many savings or buys a property because the work is so poorly paid. They have worked really hard.

Lots of the boomers bought family homes in the 60s for less than £5k and could afford their mortgage on the salary of 1 worker in a fairly standard job. Their houses escalated in value vastly in the 70s and 80s allowing them to trade up, or remain in their first properties which are not extremely valuable assets.

Yes, the boomers worked, but so do most people. Yes, boomers saved and had a more frugal lifestyle than perhaps is usual these days because times were a bit different, but the argument that they worked hard so deserve to keep the property and pass it on doesn’t wash. What is the reality is they want to pass it on and their families want to receive it...and somehow this natural desire gets caught up with ‘working hard’ to justify the wanting it, along with the huge annoyance about other people without assets getting the care (at some level anyway) being provided by the state. They say it’s not fair.

Loads of things about life aren’t fair are they. The fact that the boomer generation with property were able to buy cheap property in the 60s and lived in it for 50+ years whilst younger people today can’t do that isn t really fair is it? The fact that some boomers had more than others through their whole lives isn’t really fair is it....and again it can’t all be explained by some people worked hard and others didn’t.

My parents have got a big expensive house that they bought in the 60s. It is worth close to a £m now. They would like to leave it to me. I’d like to get it. They worked standard jobs until they retired - nothing special and their work efforts weren’t particularly spectacular and they retired in their 50s. Lucky them I say. If they need care homes shortly, we will fund it from their property if needed. I will feel a small pang at not getting the million quid house, but I won’t feel they have been cheated and not have I. They have had a lifetime of living in a quality house and the pleasures that brings. It will enable them and us to choose their care home if it is needed and not worry about being moved around as council care homes close. And I have provided for myself and not relied on an inheiritcance which might not exist. Goodness I’m of an age, and will be by the time they die, that if I’d waited for an inheritance rather than providing for myself, where I’ll be close to retirement myself. I couldn’t have waited for it but had to get on and work myself and sort out my own property and savings...exactly as they did. Yes, it would be nice in my 50s or 60s to receive a massive inheritance, but I have provided for myself. I hope they don’t get dementia mainly because it will be awful to see them degenerate as other people on here describe...I can’t even imagine what that’s actually like and hope I’m one of the lucky ones whose family don’t have it...for that reason more than the money. But we don’t know do we who will get it. We hope it’s not our mum and dad but it might be. I still wouldn’t say ‘They would have been better off not having a big house and spending their money on fags, and booze and holidays to Spain like Betty did who is now having her care home paid for and who had a free council house all her life’ - no! My parents have been really fortunate and had enough money and a big house and had all the benefits that come from it for more than 50 years and if it needs to be sold to fund care will get the benefits of having the funds for us to make choices for them which wouldn’t otherwise be available. They worked, but no harder than lots of people. I am just glad they have been fortunate in having enough money through life and now. I cannot say they would have been better off if they had less or had spent it all profligately.

**“
I agree that the amount of wealth and certainly the property wealth of the boomers is often. It a reflection of how hard they worked at all.

Today lots of people work very hard and do 50/60 hours work in unpleasant jobs like care home work for minimum wage, but will never afford to accumulate many savings or buys a property because the work is so poorly paid. They have worked really hard.”**

I agree with this. The “should have worked harder” tore comments make me very sad. My mum who is now retired and disabled worked all her life from age 15 doing things like cleaning army offices, hospital laundry room etc. All needed jobs yet all shit pay. She worked hard, she just didn’t have the education or ability to get a higher paying job and sadly the jobs she didn’t weren’t respected enough to be paid a decent wage.

My parents chose not to buy a council house we would have had a large reduction on because that happened as the same time my dad was offered a job in another area they though would have better prospects. In retrospect they’d have been better off buying the council house and staying in the current job as it didn’t pan out well.

; 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
Come on - it's not the Gov it's the people, the public had the screaming abdabs at Theresa Mays dementia tax - no gov will impose it because people will then vote them out - look at fb etc people are stupid.