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.

@Zenithbear

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.

Yes it is often the case

Re tax. What about flat % tax on death, for everyone’s estate rich or poor? If it’s a % then it’s already means tested in a way. It takes the tax burden away from the squeezed middle. I think someone upthread said the libdems had proposed this?

People can have all the bloody 'financial education' in the world, Crack, it's a vast, erroneous sweeping generalisation to assume part of not saving is 'poor financial education'. It's right up there with 'Poor people go to foodbanks and/or are fat because they haven't been taught to cook'.

@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.

What can you do though? I agree it is very unfair. At 70 odd you cannot deny someone care really can you.

@RainingBatsAndFrogs

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.

This is true. My friend did this job. She was quite well paid especially compared to the care home workers. The majority of people probably cannot afford to do this. I can’t imagine how costly it was for the client each month.

After reading this thread for several days, I think my views are hardening in favour of the people who think it's mostly personal responsibility, not society should step in.

@XingMing

After reading this thread for several days, I think my views are hardening in favour of the people who think it's mostly personal responsibility, not society should step in.

Fair enough. One problem though is areas of deprivation and/or where house prices are low/ownership low.

Services are run by councils and there needs to be some means of ensuring these areas get the same care & funding as say Surrey or West Devon.

Most people do not need nursing care, nor do they have the means to pay for it, with an aging population and less people available to become carers, solutions have to be found.

We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.

People are living longer, often in worse health, but people in their 70s and 80s now are likely to have a final salary pensions and likely to own their own home.

The next generation won't have final salary pensions, but are likely to own their own home.

The generation after that are getting on the property ladder later and pension provision is getting more and more uncertain.

Its one of those looming problems that governments hate to address because it isn't a vote winner.

"Just because we can doesn't mean we should" By that i mean wht do we fight to keep our elderly alive when they have either have no quality of life or don't want to be trapped in a room staring at 4 walls and with no dignity. My elderly Father is so desperate to die, he has dementia but is still able to live at home with the aid of carers and myself ( yes i am breaking lockdown). He has no quality of life and is in constant pain, why do we allow humans to live like this?

Thing is boomers represent peak population. Successive generations are smaller. The numbers needing care will diminish with time. And hopefully science will defeat dementia.

No they are not.
Unless otherwise stated, the term “older” refers to persons aged 65 and above. The UK has an ageing population (ONS, 2018k). ... The 85+ age group is the fastest growing and is set to double to 3.2 million by mid-2041 and treble by 2066 (5.1 million; 7% of the UK population) (ONS, 2018k)

successive generations may be smaller but more and more of them are living longer, and younger generations are making fewer new humans
the relative proportions of young and old are inverting....

@jasjas1973

No they are not. Unless otherwise stated, the term “older” refers to persons aged 65 and above. The UK has an ageing population (ONS, 2018k). ... The 85+ age group is the fastest growing and is set to double to 3.2 million by mid-2041 and treble by 2066 (5.1 million; 7% of the UK population) (ONS, 2018k)

That’s because people are predicted to live longer, not because there are more of them. This graph makes it very clear.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/trendsinbirthsanddeathsoverthelastcentury/2015-07-15

@VinylDetective I've just shown you the ONS prediction for the over 85s in the UK..... it will double to 3.2m by 2041 and then treble to 5.1m by 2066.

Thats an increase in the numbers of the over 85s, the group most likely to be in need of care.

[quote jasjas1973]@VinylDetective I've just shown you the ONS prediction for the over 85s in the UK..... it will double to 3.2m by 2041 and then treble to 5.1m by 2066.

Thats an increase in the numbers of the over 85s, the group most likely to be in need of care.[/quote]
Because their projected life expectancy is higher. Not because there are more of them - what part of that don’t you understand? Life expectancy is reducing now.

The population demographics are both scary and fascinating - how long will the current middle aged generation live for? Given the obesity empidemic and increased alcohol consumption they will probably have lower life expectancy than their parents. We will likely see a peak of our elderly population in coming decades, coupled with an overall decline in population (unless immigration policy changes).

Because their projected life expectancy is higher. Not because there are more of them - what part of that don’t you understand? Life expectancy is reducing now

I hope to god no one has to look after you, you are nothing but rude, you are wrong but can't admit it, funny i always thought 5.1m is a bigger number than 3.2?

An increase from 3.2 (which in itself is a doubling) to 5.1m in just over 20 years is rather scary and its an absolute increase in numbers, whatever the cause.

Immigration is an interesting one, with declining birth rates, who is going to look after the elderly unless we allow more immigration.

@RaidersoftheLostAardvark

The population demographics are both scary and fascinating - how long will the current middle aged generation live for? Given the obesity empidemic and increased alcohol consumption they will probably have lower life expectancy than their parents. We will likely see a peak of our elderly population in coming decades, coupled with an overall decline in population (unless immigration policy changes).

Life expectancy is falling already. Because it’s linked to poverty, the effect of the recession that’s racing towards us is likely to make it fall lower and faster. You’re right obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease will have a massive effect on those projections.

@DownstairsMixUp

I'll go off to Switzerland before I pay all my life savings to go in a shitty care home

Your decision, but bear in mind you’ll have to do it while you’re still reasonably fit and well, like this woman in 2015.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182813/Healthy-former-nurse-75-died-Swiss-suicide-clinic-deciding-didn-t-want-risk-burden-family-NHS.html

I think the problem is as much about the length of time that people can expect to live in poor health as the length of time they will live.

At a social level we need to ask questions about what is contributing to bad health (not just people should stop smoking etc., but facing up to impact of poverty) and as others have mentioned on the thread, the implications of medicine that can prolong life, but not necessarily a life worth living.

All really difficult questions, and none of them likely to win many points at the ballot box.

I definitely think that the Hippocratic oath is out of date. Modern medicine has made it a concept that is incompatible with human dignity and the potential for suffering. I read that now people will routinely live to 120, but with 20, 30 or even 40 years of poor health and frailty. The cost of hundreds of thousands of bed-bound demented people “living” for years on end....

How would people with dementia, please don't say 'demented people', live for years and years if the very typical 'comfort measures only' advice is in place?? That's not going to happen. Comfort measures only means no interventions, feeding tubes etc for people with advanced degenerative diseases.

@DownstairsMixUp

I'll go off to Switzerland before I pay all my life savings to go in a shitty care home

Lots of my relatives said similar after the ten year period 95-05 when a number of older adults in the family had developed conditions like Alzheimer's and Lewy bodies, or conversely were extremely well and capable mentally but experiencing major physical decline, and all proceeded to need care and then to die. And yet as they themselves have become older and less well, none of them have done what we were all swearing blind we would do when it was our turn. Odd isn't it, that what seems obvious when it's years away becomes a lot less so when it's a decision to be made now or in the very near future.

Very true.

And one has to be compos mentis to agree to a euthanasia trip, at which time one is probably thinking, “Oh, I’m not that bad, I’ll leave it another month...” and then it’s too late as if you lose capacity you are unable to choose to execute an exit plan.

And furthermore I’ve never known anyone face up to or admit they have dementia. There is fierce denial, collusion with spouse to conceal it and anger if anyone dares to mention any memory loss etc.