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 7 year thing is not relevant to care home costs,only to IHT

Most people don't even know they have a better, cheaper option. Dementia extracare. Buy a flat with 24 hr care in the building and other amenities. It's significantly cheaper than a £900 a week care home and the individual has their own home.

Also tenancy agreements for those who can't afford to buy.

It's a shame that enemy people who work in care don't realise this is an option.

www.which.co.uk/later-life-care/housing-options/sheltered-housing/extra-care-housing-acfud8m0r7tu

@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.

So you'll be in a grotty nursing home

Also know people who beat the system by transferring deeds 7 years prior so government topped up.

www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

As already noted, the 7 year rule applies to inheritance tax, not funding of care.

If the council decides that somebody has deliberately transferred assets to avoid paying for care, they can be assessed as still owning the assets.

I’m just pointing this out because some dodgy people try to sell schemes e.g. putting assets in trust that would have the effect of actually increasing IHT liability, but not reduce liability to pay for care.

The other issue is that there are no guarantees that the council will fund high quality care for anyone.

The other issue is that there are no guarantees that the council will fund high quality care for anyone

There’s no possibility councils will fund high quality care for anyone. Council rates fund only the most basic of care in a distant city here. The high quality local homes won’t accept anyone except self funders because they don’t have to. Market forces prevail.

Deprivation of assets is not only pointless because local authorities go back years and there’s no time limit, but it’s self defeating. The reality is if you want decent care you have to pay for it. And younger generations have to stop seeing it as their money.

There’s no possibility councils will fund high quality care for anyone.

Well yes - just trying not to be too depressing!

@picknmix1984, that may well be an option in earlier stages, but won’t necessarily work later.

I’ve heard of people being asked to leave such accommodation, even with care in place, because (besides no longer being able to do their own personal care, with maybe incontinence thrown in) the person may well be up and down at all hours of the day and night, locking themselves out, repeatedly knocking on neighbours’ doors at 3 am, asking why e.g. the TV isn’t working (because for the 49th time they’ve switched it off at the wall plug) etc.

Unless anyone’s experienced dementia at this sort of level it’s very easy IMO to think that there must be a practical and cheaper alternative to a care home.

Unless they’ve lived with it, most people are frankly clueless about the day to day reality of dementia past the early stages.

I’m happy to add that dh and I were as clueless as anybody, until we were living with it 24/7 and had to learn the hard way.

Deprivation of assets is not only pointless because local authorities go back years and there’s no time limit, but it’s self defeating. The reality is if you want decent care you have to pay for it. And younger generations have to stop seeing it as their money

That depends on what has happened to those assets, i give my house to my dd, move into rented, she has her young family living in my old house or has sold it and moved to NZ? or i spent it on a series of foreign cruises? (which is what a relative did)
A 3rd of people in long term care are young & most people do not have assets to pay for care and even those that do, might be one half of a couple and the house can't be sold as the spouse will still be living there.

What do they all do?

Its such a shame that so many are willing to dismantle the concepts of the NHS and put up with shockingly bad healthcare and thats across all care sectors, not just ASC.

I agree, I think the sensible solution is to make euthanasia an option, it's something that I'd rather have the option of if facing dementia or terminal illness. Why force people to live at great expense and suffering if they don't want to be here?

We’re talking about care in old age Jas. Care for younger people isn’t relevant and just muddies the waters.

Social care isn’t governed by the same principles as the NHS, never has been, never will. I’m much more pissed off by the rationing of care that meant I had to pay for my cataract surgery in order not to go blind before it was deemed essential than I am about paying to be fed, watered, kept warm and have my arse wiped should it be necessary.

That depends on what has happened to those assets, i give my house to my dd, move into rented, she has her young family living in my old house or has sold it and moved to NZ? or i spent it on a series of foreign cruises?

They would look at why you gave the assets away, and whether that had anything to do with avoiding care costs, not what you did with the money.

So if you are 50 and in good health and want to fund your child’s business investment, that is different to being 75 and transferring your house into a trust for no clear reason.

I actually agree with op, finding your own care with savings and property is the right way.
Government funded places are for those who cannot afford their own care.
I know we work hard for our properties and savings, but this shouldn't be because it's all there for our children and not for our care.
It was never intended for such a thing.

Funding g

@VinylDetective

We’re talking about care in old age Jas. Care for younger people isn’t relevant and just muddies the waters.

Social care isn’t governed by the same principles as the NHS, never has been, never will. I’m much more pissed off by the rationing of care that meant I had to pay for my cataract surgery in order not to go blind before it was deemed essential than I am about paying to be fed, watered, kept warm and have my arse wiped should it be necessary.

My mum worked as a matron in an old peoples home for the last few decades of her working life, there were plenty of younger people in the home (50s 60s) So whilst the discussion is specifically about older people, the principal of care for all is still v important.

My point is that hi quality care should be available to all and not a lottery based on wealth/postcode or who has the best accountant.

I really don't know why its a controversial view, surely we should all want the best for all our elderly? and not put up with even more inequalities.

Some people seem to be extremely happy for people who have worked and saved all their lives, paid off their mortgages, maybe invested in a rental property or two to just hand it all over, is that because they haven't acquired any or most of that but are full of sour grapes and glad that others may have to use some for their care or will they sheepishly hand over everything they have worked for?
What's the point then of choosing a good career, getting on the property ladder, returning to work with young dc, going for a promotion, saving, investing etc.
Too right I'll be spending a lot of my money on my dc, gdc and a fuck ton of holidays. No it's not all to fund my old age, it's to spend as I wish. I'll be selling my rental in early retirement and spending the lot.

Admittedly I haven’t rtft.
My grandma, in the very early 1980s, lived in a council home in Leeds. It was a rambling, Edwardian villa, of which there were and are dozens unwanted as they’re too big for modern families. With the exception of the stannah added to the imposing stairway, it looked like a small country house hotel. The more active residents laid the tables in the dining room and rang the meal bell, the others (like grandma)were helped through from the Lounge. In so far as grandma was aware by that stage, she was living in a nice hotel-far removed from the working class life she’d had. I refuse to believe that A: she didn’t deserve this ending to her long life and B: that the council isn’t the most economical and appropriate supplier of this service.
They should have purchasing and maintenance power, employment banks, everything in place that allows members of our society -us- to experience the “to grave” part of the Cradle to Grave contract.
Same goes for in-home care, btw; it’s not a service that can, or should be expected to, be able to be run for profit.

@merrymouse

That depends on what has happened to those assets, i give my house to my dd, move into rented, she has her young family living in my old house or has sold it and moved to NZ? or i spent it on a series of foreign cruises?

They would look at why you gave the assets away, and whether that had anything to do with avoiding care costs, not what you did with the money.

It wouldn't matter, the money is no longer available to fund someones care. Councils don't have the budgets to pursue all but the most obvious of cases.

It wouldn't matter, the money is no longer available to fund someones care. Councils don't have the budgets to pursue all but the most obvious of cases.

I wouldn't rely on that.

MrsWooster, now those rambling properties are bought by developers for demolition or redeveloped into apartments. Like seaside hotels in faded resorts.

I can't agree that ASC should be funded from the public purse where people have sufficient assets to pay, but there should be a floor for assets that can leave a modest inheritance as the Dilnot Commssion suggested; those who need care in their last years should receive it if they have only a state pension and no property.

The latter @Zenithbear. We have a care home fund - we actually call it that - which would cover one of us for two years which is the average stay. After that’s spent the house would have to go into the pot. Hopefully only one of us will need it.

We spent our lives working for job satisfaction, we bought our home because we wanted to live in the house of our choosing and not pay rent all our lives. We didn’t do it to leave it to our kids although they’re very welcome to what’s left when we’ve finished with it.

@merrymouse

It wouldn't matter, the money is no longer available to fund someones care. Councils don't have the budgets to pursue all but the most obvious of cases.

I wouldn't rely on that.

As they get shorter of funding investigation of deprivation of assets will get more intensive. Anyone who thinks it won’t is deluded.

Some people seem to be extremely happy for people who have worked and saved all their lives, paid off their mortgages, maybe invested in a rental property or two to just hand it all over, is that because they haven't acquired any or most of that but are full of sour grapes and glad that others may have to use some for their care or will they sheepishly hand over everything they have worked for?

I think most people are just being pragmatic.

Care is very, very expensive. Councils just don't have enough money to fund well paid staff and facilities.

People focus on the idea that people with no money are better off because the council will pay for their care, without realising that money gives them the freedom to choose better care.

In the 1980s people died of diseases that are now fixed with a daily pill. It's not comparable. Many people on this thread are not talking about relatives who simply need help to get to the dining table.

We could of course all pay higher taxes, but you can only tax people with money, so the people who pay the taxes will be the people with the houses and savings. I'm not saying that is a bad idea - just that you can't avoid the fact that the money has to come from somewhere.

However, as a PP has pointed out, those without assets are doomed to whatever their local authority deems adequate and affordable. There don't appear to be any extra care facilities in my county.