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.

This why I refuse to grow old in the UK. In Sweden you pay maximum £200/month for care (regardlesd of how much care you need), £350/month for all your meals and then rent for you room which is usually £400-500/month. The main thing is also that they will never charge you more than your income, so if your pension is very low, you pay less.

In return we pay higher income tax, about 30% unless you are a high income earner. You get so much mote from it though, not just when you are old but throughout your life.

Perhaps if care costs were based on average income over a lifetime rather than savings at the time of need it would mean that those who are irresponsible would find themselves forced to think ahead.

No, it wouldn't. You can't make people pay with money they don't have, so unless you're going to enforce "unless you pay what we say you must pay you will be left to die without care", all that would happen is people who are irresponsible would be irresponsible anyway, knowing that when the time comes they won't be paying anything because they don't have anything.

@oneglassandpuzzled

Can I come with you for some of the ice-cream!?

Of course you can. If we really feel like depriving our assets maybe we can have sauce and marshmallows on top?

@Remaker

I can’t tell you how many times my best friend told me that her mum had requested to have a pillow put over her face if she ever got dementia.

Her mum now has Alzheimer’s and has been in a care home for the past 5 years. She’s not even 80 yet and in good health so she could be there for another decade.

It’s unlikely she will be there another decade. This is from Alzheimer’s Uk website:

“On average, people with Alzheimer’s disease live for eight to ten years after their symptoms begin. However, life expectancy does vary considerably depending on how old the person is and other factors as mentioned above. For example, people whose symptoms started in their 60s or early 70s can expect to live for around seven to ten years, whereas someone whose symptoms started in their 90s will, on average, live for about three years. The length of time that someone with Alzheimer’s can expect to live for also depends on whether they were diagnosed early on or later in the course of the disease.”

My mother had it, diagnosed age 85. Died aged 93. She wasn’t in bad health physically and we did think she would go on longer. But Alzheimer’s is a terminal disease. People die of it not with it.

@Sprockerdilerock this ones for you. There are some mild swear words but it always makes me laugh -

www.facebook.com/bungeeman/videos/10163801827990722

The flip side of the argument is that those who have "frittered it all away" over their lifetime instead of saving for their care have contributed more to the economy, with VAT/alcohol duty etc on their purchases going to the Treasury, plus the job creating effect of having that money circulating rather than being locked away in a bank account also contributing to a higher overall tax take, so they are fully deserving of their state funded care.

To be serious, everyone deserves a good standard of care in later life if it's needed, and it shouldn't depend on your ability to pay for it. But for that to happen, there has to be tax increases somewhere in the system. The biggest amount of untaxed wealth in the country is in the property market, so one way or another, that's what is going to be paying for social care. Let go of the idea that people can or should have stacks of unearned wealth from their houses to pass on to their children.

I think care homes should be cheaper. 25 years ago I worked in the kitchen of a care home. At the time it was £600 per week to stay there. The cook had a budget of 50p per meal for each resident! She had to really carefully plan the cheapest meals that would go the furthest. I remember I sat down once and worked out a lot of the approximate costs, staffing, utilities etc and the profits they were making were massive. It’s a huge money making machine and houses people spent 25 years buying can be reduced to nothing in a couple of years. I don’t agree with that.

You don’t always have to actively commit suicide to end your life in old age either. My grandmother got breast cancer at 80 and just refused treatment. I think she spent a couple of weeks in a hospice right at the end but other than that she was at home. My DC know I don’t want to be kept alive when there is little quality of life left. So either I, or they on my behalf, would just refuse treatment if/when I became ill. It’s pretty rare for someone old to never need treatment for anything.

In the South-East a lot of the assets that old people own is not through hardwork but property prices. Honestly, I definitely do think that people sitting on millions in assets (like my parents who own a three-bed place in London worth 1.4m) should pay for their own care - they are millionairs - why should I be funding their care. However, it will privilege the middle classes as they are much better at distributing their assets at the right time and not have any by the time care/death comes along. Not sure what happens to the housing market if fewer young people get an inheritance to put down for a deposit.

There are very few fat cat care home owners. The sector has a very high failure rate. The fact is that running a care home is expensive even with minimal standards. As local authorities buy a lot of places they can largely dictate the price they pay and it's often barely above running costs. If we want social care free then none of us pay enough tax. If we think we pay enough tax then we have to accept means testing of social care.

I'm not even 40 and know people the same age already relying on what they will be left in inheritance for their future/retirement. Instead of building a better career, saving and investing more in pensions they talk about what they'll get when their parents die and make irresponsible financial decisions as a result.

@SonjaMorgan

CV has shown that if we want too, we can afford quite a lot of things we were always told we couldn't have

But we can't afford it. We are borrowing and using quantative easing at an alarming rate.

But we've always borrowed and used QE massively....

My point is that we can borrow 100s of billions, yet cannot cobble together enough to look after our elderly, which is a tiny amount in comparison.

It all comes down to choices - have a High speed railway vanity project or look after our public services?

But some days it does make me want to just go out and spend the lot right now on expensive holidays, perfume, meals out, spa days and ice cream (lots and lots and lots of ice cream)
Why don't you? There is no guarantee you'll make it to a care home and then you'll miss out on all that ice-cream.
Everyone should save a little for their future while enjoying the present.
I grew up around here and many who I'd have considered healthy are dead or ill in their 70's dementia been common amongst them it is sad.
My parents neighbour is a beautiful proud glamorous women her mind and functioning is gone she's very young 69 IMO.
I thought I'd see her with her driving style through to her 90's.
It is a reality check on borrowed time.

Both my father and my maternal grandfather committed suicide rather than carry on in pain at the end of their lives. It obviously does happen as two members of my own family did it however, neither of their death certificates say suicide so it wouldn't show up in statistics.

I know in the past it was seen as a kindness not to put suicide on a death certificate as it was seen as a terrible shame but I wonder what that kindness has masked.

I think euthanasia should be available if people want to take the option. Not everyone would take it but we should be allowed to. I'm planning to put a DNR in place long before I'm old enough to need it.

We are facing a time bomb with an ageing population both increasing demands on care and leading to a smaller economically active population, generations of people where both parties in a couple need to work, thereby resulting in no-one at home to care for elderly parents, increased longevity leading to increased medical needs where care IS needed, meaning that care can no longer be provided by untrained relatives at home, and generations of people who currently rely on inheritance to buy housing (if the equity in houses is eaten up by care fees, then obviously they won't be able to)
This!^

My parents both had to pay for their care and they had the savings to do so. Because they had the funds they had more choices about what care to have as time went by

Mine did too. I don’t have a problem with it. We’ve spent our lives building financial security and saving for the proverbial rainy day. If we need care, it’s time to put the umbrella up. All our kids are financially secure and anything we leave them will be a bonus for them, they don’t need it.

I said the same thing to people who commiserated with me about the £2k+ a week my parents’ care home cost. It was worth every penny to know they were warm, wellfed, clean, treated with kindness and the phone not ringing at 4am.

Savings.

Ah yes, I remember those.

In the 70s we had some. Nowadays, no chance.

@Toorapid

Very few people are actually net contributors to the tax system, something like the top 10% of tax payers. The rest of us take out more than we put in, even if we have "paid tax and NI all our lives".

This is true, however, ones financial contribution to the tax system is not necessarily in line with ones contribution to society as a whole As we are all now very aware the essential workers are typically the ones who get paid the least!

@jasjas1973 we didn't use QE until 2009.

@countrygirl99

There are very few fat cat care home owners. The sector has a very high failure rate. The fact is that running a care home is expensive even with minimal standards. As local authorities buy a lot of places they can largely dictate the price they pay and it's often barely above running costs. If we want social care free then none of us pay enough tax. If we think we pay enough tax then we have to accept means testing of social care.

In that case there is no solution, we cannot function as a society if we have to to support ever growing numbers of 'elderly passengers' There is no solution we cannot put people on an ice floe Perhaps governments for start offering financial incentives for people who agree to euthanize themselves at a certain age.... Obviously that is preposterous I don't see what can be done, perversely it looks as if humanity will be undone by longevity 🤷‍♀️

@LittleRa, are you sure? I know three people in care homes and all pay over £1k each week and one pays £1.3k each week. None of these homes seem amazing.

In that case there is no solution, we cannot function as a society if we have to to support ever growing numbers of 'elderly passengers'

Avg life expectancy is 82 ish? people now retire at 66 to 68 so approx just 15 years of retirement, most stays in care homes are less than 2 years and only a 1/3rd end up there.

The whole argument we can't afford it, is rubbish.

@Toorapid

Very few people are actually net contributors to the tax system, something like the top 10% of tax payers. The rest of us take out more than we put in, even if we have "paid tax and NI all our lives".

Good point Toorapid and one many people just don't get. And I've read your threads about your DH and am sorry for what you're both going through.

I think it is fairer to make people pay towards a compulsory insurance scheme from 30 years onwards. You might pay out for years but.never need it but you might pay and be very glad as it would be so much cheaper than having to sell your home to fund care. At the moment the system is not fair. Those who spend all their money.on fabulous holidays get all their care paid whilst those who put all their money into buying a home has to sell it not only to pay for their own care but also to subsidise those spend all their earnings through life but then don't have to contribute a penny to their care. At the moment system is fucked as over 55's can draw down their pension early then once they have spent most of it they can claim pension credit, do be funded by taxpayer. Some over 55's are drawing out pensions giving them to children then getting tax payers to fund them as they get older. Several years ago I heard it coated that if everyone was made to contribute to their old age care through.insurance it would cost approximately £10k to be paid over lifetime. It might have gone up now but still best option imho.

I'm not even 40 and know people the same age already relying on what they will be left in inheritance for their future/retirement. Instead of building a better career, saving and investing more in pensions they talk about what they'll get when their parents die and make irresponsible financial decisions as a result.

See this is a very silly approach IMHO. I don't believe you should ever rely on money coming your way - not ever. My dad did exactly this and when his parents died in the late 80's he inherited half a million. He now sits on his money like a dragon on a pile of gold, won't spend a dime on urgent refurbishments or household improvements (they don't have central heating.)

But the point is, he basically gave up a good career teaching when he early 30's, and assumed his wealthy parents would be passing on their money to him, not needing to spend any of it on care for themselves. His gamble paid off but I still don't think it's right to basically forego your working life just because you're waiting for riches to fall in your lap. I'm fiercely independent though and I just don't understand this approach at all.

Perhaps governments for start offering financial incentives for people who agree to euthanize themselves at a certain age.
Haha- then of course many change their minds when the time comes - so someone has to do it for them ................ great dystopian movie theme!