Spending downsizing cash

[CueilleLeJour]

I'm really not sure if I'm being unreasonable here.

Mum is 87 and downsized a few years after we lost my dad. She bought a nice little flat and had £150K from the sale.

Growing up, we never had much money and dad kept a close hand on the purse strings. Mum was left with a comfortable but not huge pension, and some moderate savings which she has spent over the last few years.

Since downsizing, she has basically had access to more free money than she's ever had in her life. In the last year, she's spent nearly half the £150k. Mostly on the flat - new kitchen, bathroom, carpets, furniture, professional decorating etc - but also an expensive holiday. It's clearly been an amazing feeling for her to have all the money she could dream of and spend it without my dad's disapproving eye peering over her shoulder. Part of me thinks it's great and she should just enjoy it while she can.

But part of me is really alarmed at her getting through half the proceeds in a year, and I worry about possible future care needs. My BIL's mum is 90 and has been in a care home for 3 years and it's just burning cash. They wouldn't let her in without proving she had 2 years of costs up front - which I think was about 140K.

My mum is just convinced she won't ever need a care home, and I know she's better off than many people who have nothing put by. It's also really none of my business, it's her money to do what she wants with. It's not dementia or anything, just someone who has never really had to make financial decisions having a whale of a time splashing the cash.

But am I right to have a little anxiety about it all?

YABU You only live once, she's right to spend it while she can
YANBU It's a bit reckless to spend half your downsizing profits in the first year

Funding care for the elderly is only an insignificant detail for entitled freeloaders. Where do you think the money the state spends on supporting the elderly comes from? I wouldn't worry about grown up stuff whilst you are toilet training. The Pampers (other brands are available) are that way 👉

If you have ever worked in either the NHS or local / central government you will know they are experts at pissing our money up against the wall.
If they got their financial houses in order there would be more than enough to provide better salaries for medical and care staff and better care.
But no one will fix it, because too many people are doing very nicely out of it.

Funding for elderly people whose life times of low paid jobs make it impossible for them to save is all our responsibility as members of a civilised society. I’m perfectly happy to fund people less fortunate than me from my Band F council tax.

The NHS don't pay for social care, only medical care via Continuing Healthcare (CHC) it is quite possible to be turned down for CHC funding as the bar is set high, your friend should get her dad assessed by the Local Authority for social care.

The main difference between what the state provides and paying yourself, is that if the state are paying, they get to decide when they deem you need care, and how much - whereas if you have a pot of cash of your own and are struggling at home you can decide to go in when you want.

The state will try and keep people in their own home where possible, with up to 4 visits a day, they will only pay for a residential place if they feel homecare is unsafe or not enough.

NHS CHC only funds for medical needs, normally chronic and terminal conditions, they don't fund dementia care save for the final "active dying" stage. So just because your friends dad is denied CHC, doesn't mean the LA won't provide, they may well.

Let her spend it. If she needs a care home later if she has no money and her house is part of a living trust( with her children as beneficiaries) then it’s on us(taxpayer). If she has cash and simply owns the flat then it’s on her and her children.

So the whole of her married life she had your dad looking over her shoulder and now you are doing the same? Come on OP, let her enjoy spending for a change. Glad she went on an expensive holiday, it’s not much fun living with a mean man.

You said it yourself, it's none of your business.

I'm a homecare worker so do it for a living... I lived around the corner and was taking them both hot meals everyday and I was in hospital myself having shoulder surgery and I had been home from hospital 1 hour when I got the call to say she had died

That sound really tough. Your support will have meant so much to them.

Having worked in care let her go on a year long cruise and live the life of luxury! She will get her care funded if she is broke!

I would say let her enjoy it... For one she has bought a home upgraded it so it should value more now... That's a good thing... And just think would your mum think about the amazing holiday she had or how much it cost?? I think she would remember the holiday .. if she lived her life not be ing able to spend and then had free access.. your going to go on a spree... Xx

@CueilleLeJour my mum is 84yo and she is in a similar situation. I've told her to enjoy her money and spend it.

She spent money on her new flat but hasn't spent money on herself.

I take her away for weekends and to shows. I know she won't be here for decades, so I just make the most of it when I see her.

Honestly I'd worry less about her finances and more about her happiness. She's not daft she knows she's blowing through the money - might she regret it? Yes, but then it sounds like she has enough to live on, without the capital, so all's good!

@PropertyManager
@Blossomtoes
Nobody is disputing there is waste or that support should be given to those who cannot pay because they have been on a low income throughout their careers. Just expecting the state to pick up the tab is morally repugnant. Support should be seen and appreciated as a safety net not a free bar! The OP's mother should have to fund her own care for as long as possible or move in with one of her children. The state should be the last resort, not an expectation once you have pissed away all of your money / assets or ring fenced them for your children/family.

We need change on an institutional, community and individual level.

Leave her to enjoy the rest of her life. Sod paying for a care home. Why should we work all out lives and have to pay extensively for care.

I have to say, I'm quite surprised that so many people have said we should all live for today and let the state pick up the tab. I hope none of you are Tory voters?

I would support a system where we all paid higher taxes and the state looked after the vulnerable, but that's not what the British public are voting for. You can't have Scandinavian style public services on American style taxes, it just doesn't work.

Yes, there are some elderly people living in expensive homes subsidised by the private residents, and that must be galling if you are the one paying. But not everybody gets into those homes. For many people, state care is 4 visits a day from carers of varying quality and less than 100% reliability.

If it came to that, me and my siblings would step up. But I personally would not feel OK spending my money recklessly and assuming my kids would pick up the tab.

The more money my mum has, the more choices she will have about her old age. She is a wonderful person who is clearly happy to live in the day, and I'm not trying to take that away from her. It just makes me slightly uncomfortable to see her money disappear at that rate. But that's my problem, not hers.

Because if we don’t someone else has to. Those people who self fund care through savings or the sale of their home, end up subsidising those who haven’t made provision. That’s how the state funding system works. And if you piss your money away at an age where you have a reasonable expectation of needing care, there’s a strong chance the state won’t pay. And if they do, you have much less choice because they will use the cheapest option - which is usually care in your own home rather than placing you in a care home. No-one is saying it’s a fair system but it’s all we have at the moment, so saying ‘sod it’ and spending all your money just shifts the eventual burden onto someone else in the event you need care.

It’s also ‘on’ those people who are using their savings and property to fund their own care. A proportion of what they are paying goes to the LA to subsidise care for those who have no other means. Why should those who have done the right thing pay for those who have thrown caution to the wind and deliberately skinted themselves, or have to fork out in order for children to inherit property ?

I guess that solely depends on whether you think them paying it all is the “right thing”. We need a national conversation on social care.

I must admit and I am also surprised at how many people have a 'free bar' approach to care for the elderly. Its not 'free' other care home resident pay and the tax payer pays. We have an aging population who deserve to live their final years with dignity but we need to have a sensible conversation about who is paying and who should be paying.

It think it is only natural that you are concerned about your mother's spending in the context of her longer term care/funding needs. You worry because you are looking at the bigger picture and care. Do not feel bad for caring.

I have to say, I'm quite surprised that so many people have said we should all live for today and let the state pick up the tab.

I think that’s a misinterpretation of what they’ve said. Your mum has a flat which can be sold to pay for her care if she needs it. She can’t spend that so, no matter what liquid money she gets through, her care is assured.

I personally won’t have an issue with my fees subsidising other residents if I need to go into a care home. Once the rainy day has arrived and the umbrella’s up I don’t mind if it helps to keep someone else dry.

Not sure it is a misinterpretation. Subsidies driven by virtue signaling rather than facts and common sense are unlikely to be sustainable or fair.

It is a misinterpretation. OP’s mum wouldn’t be subsidised by anyone. Her flat would be sold to cover the fees.

What “facts and common sense” are you referring to?

For clarity and the avoidance of any doubt, I think the state should look after the elderly without means testing. Yes it’s expensive but it has significant economic benefits. We do currently pay “Scandinavian taxes” but receive “US services”. There are two reasons why, that money has been largely stolen by friends of the party and we can’t staff care largely because of Brexit and subsequent draconian RoW immigration rules. All these things can be laid at the door of the current far right administration and the clowns that voted them in.

There are lots of different views on this thread, but some people are definitely saying that paying for care is a mugs game and someone else should foot the bill. Others I know are very smug about having managed their money to give as much as possible to their children without paying inheritance tax or care home fees. Neither of those attitudes sit comfortably with me morally.

I agree with you 100% but that's not what happens now. We can't plan our financial futures based on the world as it should be.