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.

It's very interesting seeing which bits of previous messages are picked up for comment.

@VinylDetective

That’s not our family’s experience

I’m interested in your family’s experience and their location because that’s how it works in England.

England. Live in care arranged through a reputable care agency, all done properly, roughly the same as being in a care home. Not “ many times more than a care home” as quoted above.

I have no problem with paying for care in old age, my kids however might complain about their inheritance going on care.

I think I've heard many of the local tales of death, injury and thank heavens for the air ambulance service. Always grateful, and fully subbed up to the fundraisers.

Care v mental health is a difficult discussion, and probably deserving of its own discussion thread. Could we leave it for tomorrow? It does merit a full airing.

I agree @LastDuchessFerrara in fact, with hard earned money it's a great idea to pay for better quality care. It's a very good reason to save for retirement.

IF we had been able to organise care for DMIL at home, it would have been cheaper than the care home, but it would have been a visit in the morning, and at lunchtime, and early evening. DMIL is an owl, and never went to bed before 1.00 am so a carer coming at 7.00 pm to settle her for the night wouldn't have ticked her box at all. Not before 11pm would have been her view, and who would want that as a job, and what responsible relative would sanction it?

But that isn't the same level of care as a care home. Fil recently organised 24 hour at home care for MIL Friday lunchtime to Sunday evening and it was about £1000

You can get full time live in carers for about £1k a week, as a regular ongoing thing.

You need a house big enough for the Carer to live in comfortably, a way to release capital if not enough cash, and you still have the work and expense of maintaining the house.

Also covering for the Carer to have a break every day.

The comparison between MH and care is very interesting. The obvious difference is that social care tends to be end of life. The family home can be sold to pay, usually without any danger of the person needing to return to it. People of all ages might need treatment for MH problems and even if its residential, few people are in care for life. It would be a nightmare if people were forced to sell their homes to pay and then had nowhere to live once they were discharged.

I gave up on the NHS when my MH was at its worst. I now have private counselling and CBT which is expensive but I couldn't bear to wait on a months long waiting list when I just needed help. I'm extremely lucky to have had the means to do that (although it did mean sacrifices). Money gives you choices and in the case of MH and care, it grants you choice and efficiency. I wish everyone could be offered on the NHS the same standard of treatment that I pay for but again it has such enormous funding implications. An eerily similar story to the nice private care home vs grotty council funded one.

I heard of someone who arranged live in care for her still able but frail DM. 3 people shared it, each one staying for 2weeks stretches, then the next then the next in rotation. They took her out to theatre, parks, coffee, she was helped to dress but could wash herself. Cooked and cleaned.
I've no idea what was paid. So a companion/housekeeper/carer.

We looked into live-in care for an old aunt of dh. Of course it will depend on the person’s needs, but she would have needed assistance day and night (going to the loo etc.), which would have meant at least 2 carers on shifts, since they must have their proper sleep, breaks and time off.

So it worked out rather more expensive than the nice care home just across the road, which was where she ended up eventually. Money wasn’t an issue, she had plenty, but TBH I doubt live-in would have worked anyway - she’d already rejected a whole series of non live-in carers dh had arranged for her - too loud, too ‘common’ 😱, you name it, something wrong with all of them.

Truth is, she hated shelling out for any of it! When she finally went into the home, she was paranoid about the staff realising she had money - ‘They’ll find a way to steal it!’ - so dh had to pay each month, and get her to reimburse him. Writing those cheques was an agony to her - it was like Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost, handing the cheque over!

@jasjas1973

If you have care in your home you have to pay for it if you have more than £23.5k. It’s prohibitively expensive if you need 24/7 care, many times more than a care home

Thats because its really medical/nursing care... the govt managed to con us into believing its social care, to get people to think what a great idea it is to get people to pay for their own care! its too expensive/we can't afford blah blah blah!

Do you think those in long term MH units should also pay for their own care?

What money do you think the Government has exactly? The Government only has what people are in effect prepared to pay in taxes. The majority of people pay in less than they use in services like schools, NHS, roads etc. People do not want to pay more taxes in their lifetimes (I've worked hard all my life etc, etc). They want to have the services provided for them (we want to save the NHS at all costs; why don't we have more police on the streets etc, etc). People in this country consistently vote for a Tory government which is low taxation, lower public services). They voted for Brexit despite knowing that it would cost a lot of money to the economy, at least in the short term, meaning less money for public services.

People at the top end, who are actually net contributors and already pay proportionately much higher rates of taxes than the average person, cannot be squeezed much more. (Apart from the absolute multi millionaire tax bracket, who can move their money around and pay less tax. But the people want to pay less tax so they vote for a Tory government that allows loopholes for these people because they're their mates). But the people with averagely high wages who already pay extremely high taxes won't sustain much more of a tax burden. Eventually they would leave and work elsewhere.

How do you propose to resolve this? Are you and everyone you know prepared to pay more taxes? Whatever you say, a substantial proportion of people don't want to pay more taxes, they want someone else to. Look at the outcry when they tried to increase IHT.

MH units have also closed at the rate of knots in this country. Have you not heard of care in the community?

@Googlebrained

If you'd bothered to read what i'd posted earlier, i've explained how it could be funded but for your benefit.... reverse cuts to corp tax, Trident, HS2.... 100s of billions in those 3 alone.

Sure there are cuts MH services, is that ok too because no one wants to pay extra taxes?

The point is that if you find yourself in a secure unit, the state pays, these stays can last many years and can be on going, my DD was working in one, shocking the lack of early intervention in MH and the earlier release of people into the community without enough support, so they end up back in a SU.

The opposition to IHT changes and Mays so called Death tax, was led by the Sunday papers & the Mail.
Unfortunately, its not the electorate the tories are frightened of, its their membership.

At the time, few talked about it in RL.

People at the top end, who are actually net contributors and already pay proportionately much higher rates of taxes than the average person, cannot be squeezed much more. (Apart from the absolute multi millionaire tax bracket, who can move their money around and pay less tax. But the people want to pay less tax so they vote for a Tory government that allows loopholes for these people because they're their mates). But the people with averagely high wages who already pay extremely high taxes won't sustain much more of a tax burden. Eventually they would leave and work elsewhere.

This exactly!

How much more tax do people think the ‘squeezed middle’ can afford to pay?

Take doctors for example, who pay thousands in tuition fees and thousands per exam even when qualified and working. Unsociable hours, long shifts. The harder they work to climb the ladder the more income tax they pay, they lose child benefit, if they work too much overtime they might cross the next tax threshold and lose 64% of their income to tax rather than 42%.

And this isn’t household income! So if one person in a couple earns over the tax threshold they’re a higher rate tax payer and pay significant tax; if both manage to keep their salary just under the threshold they escape paying extra tax and have a much higher income than the couple with one high earner.

[quote jasjas1973]@Googlebrained

If you'd bothered to read what i'd posted earlier, i've explained how it could be funded but for your benefit.... reverse cuts to corp tax, Trident, HS2.... 100s of billions in those 3 alone.

Sure there are cuts MH services, is that ok too because no one wants to pay extra taxes?

The point is that if you find yourself in a secure unit, the state pays, these stays can last many years and can be on going, my DD was working in one, shocking the lack of early intervention in MH and the earlier release of people into the community without enough support, so they end up back in a SU.[/quote]
If you'd bothered to read my message you'd see that I said people won't vote for a party of high taxation, which includes corporation tax. The Tory party believes in lower corporation tax, so won't change it. Yet people continue to vote for them. The Tory Party also supports Trident, so people continue to vote for that above public services too.

Your argument was that the government pays for Residential MH services. Mine was that to a large extent they don't, as it's only very short term in lots of cases. Care for the elderly is much longer term and involves a massively larger group of people. I agree wholeheartedly that provision for mental health should be much better. But this comes back to my argument that people don't want to pay for it. You get what you vote for. Everyone wants to pay less taxes but receive better services (for them at least, they don't care so much about services they don't use).

HS2 is about a long term investment in the country and reducing the imbalance between north and south. I can see why we need to invest in infrastructure.

I get a bit fed up with the "We've worked all our lives argument". I hear this from my parents a lot with regards to paying for care in old age. The fact is working all your life is what the majority of people do and it doesn't warrant any kind of special entitlement. Also people don't all get the same benefits from working all their lives - my parents for example had non contributory pensions from the bank they worked for most of their lives which they were both able to take at 50, not on ill health grounds. They then both continued to work and earn money on top of this and pay into new occupational pensions. Many people would not get that kind of benefit from working all their lives, many get quite a poor occupational pension,it really depends on who you work for not how hard you work. Older generations have also benefited from the movements of the housing market over their lifetimes, also money they have not earned, same applies to inheritance which my parents received when both me and my sister had long left home and become independent and their mortgage was paid off , which is just sat in the bank and they don't need it. They've passed a small amount on but in their case I don't see why taxes should be paid by younger generations to fund their care. The money you accumulate/ earn does need to cover your expenses for your entire life , so if you've been able to amass quite a lot you should spend it on your care when elderly. Those those haven't been so lucky should get some help. My Grandma used to pay for carers and cleaners when she was still at home and needed help and didn't complain about it. I think her and Grandad had put money aside for that very reason.
I would hand over any extra/inherited cash over to DC when they need it rather than make them wait until they don't, apart from putting some aside for care needs. I don't really understand the fixation on passing money on through inheritance if it could be better used earlier.
The point about people who do dangerous sports having to fund their own hospital visits doesn't really wash as these people are likely to be really fit and healthy, - okay so maybe they'll break their leg and need treatment for a few weeks once in their lifetime but this is a drop in the ocean compared to all the obese and elderly people that consume most of the NHS resources.

I've seen so many families fighting to get an elderly relative to stay at home, even though they are absolutely not safe there. I suspect losing inheritance to pay for care home fees clouds judgement for some of them.
It's an awfully sad situation and I'm glad of the Mental Capacity Act which allows professionals to act in the best interest of the client, if necessary.
Relatives (especially distant ones) are not always the most objective when it comes to making decisions that have financial implications.

How much more tax do people think the ‘squeezed middle’ can afford to pay?

And yet you want free elderly care @HikeForward, where’s the money to pay for it coming from? Not only are we one of the lowest tax countries in the western world, but very, very few people are net contributors. Most parents won’t be with education and healthcare costs.

If you'd bothered to read my message you'd see that I said people won't vote for a party of high taxation, which includes corporation tax. The Tory party believes in lower corporation tax, so won't change it. Yet people continue to vote for them. The Tory Party also supports Trident, so people continue to vote for that above public services too

Corporation tax doesn't effect the avg voter.
& the tory party have changed it, they reversed a further 2% cut, still got elected.
If it went back to the G7 average, we'd have enough to fund adult social ver easily.

A HS railway in a small country like ours plus, given the changes in regard to WFH, is perverse, use that money to invest in railways between northern cities and reduce fares?
Trident didn't have to be upgraded....

The people my DD cared for last year in a secure unit, were all long term, often in a cycle of Crisis/SU/residential/community/crisis/SU..... prison for drugs offences seemed to feature too.

I agree on the weird situation where everyone moans about public services,, yet objects to any tax increases, usually because they believe the NHS is wasteful, which on international comparison, its not.

Everyone wants a great acre home service, should they need it. But basically people aren’t keen to pay for it.....whether that is out of their savings and sale of their house, or through paying higher taxation through their life.

It’s the bottom line isn’t it. People don’t want to pay and hope this mythical society with money that has magically come from somewhere, that they haven’t contributed into.

Given it’s still only the minority of the elderly that go into homes (someone mentioned half a million of a population over 12 million over 65s) it’s easier for government to upset 500,000 people and their families who might have to find their own care (and of course a lot of them are funded by government anyway as they don’t have the means to fund their own) and those that actually need the care, fund it who can, rather than suggesting taxing an entire working population who form a large part of the electorate and just would t bear it or go for it as an idea.

When you’re younger, you hope you won’t be one of those needing that care and so don’t want to pay extra taxes (and thats probably reasonable when lots of the group who need care CAN fund it themselves through their significant assets) but if you turn out to be one of those that does in the end, at that point you have no choice but to receive the care...and have to pay if you have the funds.

I don’t see any change coming in this, despite all the arguments for it. It would be political suicide for any party. And ultimately that has to drive their policy making too...what’s the point of introducing a policy that might be right if no-one will accept it and you will be booted out and the next lot in won’t implement it. No-one has won through that. Some things are just politically unachieveable. Whatever our beliefs about these things, we do have too recognise the political realities of what is possible and what isn’t.

I’ve said up thread, I don’t think taxing the working generations further is politically feasible, and personally I don’t think it’s actually acceptable either. Already, the older generation have the majority of the housing stock wealth and bulk of savings wealth. Workers struggle more these days to buy property, won’t see the rapid house price inflation that gave the older generation their wealth and won’t be retiring early or having old pension provision. To hit them harder still with the large taxes that would be needed, and will only increase in terms of funding requirements just seems a redistribution of income and wealth from the younger to older generation. And for what....to allow them to keep their homes and pass on their wealth to their children who are already in their 60s usually...exactly those who have already purchased their homes and funded their kids, not those who actually need a leg up from an inheritance. No, it’s not acceptable.

I very much take the view that my parents who have a large house, have enjoyed it for 50 years. They bought it in the late 60s from a mortgage gained from having just 1 standard job and although they worked steadily, they never worked any harder than most to suggest they somehow ‘deserve it’ or deserve to keep it and pass it into their children. They have enjoyed it and if it is needed to fund their care, they will get the benefits from that choice. I will be in my 50s or 60s and have provided for myself and my family like they did. I haven’t my life hoping for their house or seeing it as my right, or their right to leave it. If I get it because they do t need care, well that’s a bonus, but to rely on it, or worse to delay their going into a care home if that’s what they need, in the hope of getting that money which is theirs and not mine, would just be wrong.

Quite what will happen when the current 20s need care homes is a different matter. If large numbers of them haven’t been able to buy homes, even more will need to be funded by the state. In itself, that will require vast amounts of tax. Those can afford to pay, will even more have to fund their own.

I think the big problem is that something has to give somewhere. Increasingly people can’t afford to live in the here and now so paying for old age is going to be low priority. My grandparents were born and lived in a different European country. Their retirement years were paid for through their working life via higher taxes and health insurance. But...it’s a country where renting a home is the norm and rents are at least half what they are here on comparable properties. So what they saved in rent went to fund old age.

My DSis has to spend well over half of her wages on rent (and she’s in a studio flat!). Her boss also heavily pressured her to opt out of the workplace pension as the boss didn’t want to make the contributions! I don’t know where she’ll be come retirement.

@Meruem

I think the big problem is that something has to give somewhere. Increasingly people can’t afford to live in the here and now so paying for old age is going to be low priority. My grandparents were born and lived in a different European country. Their retirement years were paid for through their working life via higher taxes and health insurance. But...it’s a country where renting a home is the norm and rents are at least half what they are here on comparable properties. So what they saved in rent went to fund old age.

My DSis has to spend well over half of her wages on rent (and she’s in a studio flat!). Her boss also heavily pressured her to opt out of the workplace pension as the boss didn’t want to make the contributions! I don’t know where she’ll be come retirement.

Yep! It's the elephant in the room and a ticking time bomb but things will never change until it all blows up.

How much more tax do people think the ‘squeezed middle’ can afford to pay?

Agree with this. It is always this group that seem to be expected to shell out/give up life savings/pay more tax/to work until they drop dead and how dare they expect any inheritance or to be able leave any to their children or grandchildren.
As someone pointed out that anyway only a low percentage end up in care homes and then mostly for a short time. Otherwise honestly the only way to avoid it will be to blow the majority of your savings in early retirement and give away as much as you can.

@rawalpindithelabrador

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).

If you read my full post rather than the single line someone else quoted, you would know that what I actually said was

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.