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

It's a relief isn't it, I don't want to have to justify going on holiday.

And buying somewhere and getting a new kitchen and bathroom are pretty normal things to do.

Well we all have different backgrounds and experience which has influenced our stance on the matter. My own mother would genuinely take her own life before allowing the state to sell her home to fund her care. She has very good reason for this opinion and I fully agree with her

Your mum has good reason to kill herself rather than contribute to her care (if her assets meet the criteria) in her latter years... Okay. I can see why you lack perspective. Apple. Tree...

so she downsized - but is spending the money mostly on making the new flat her home, somewhere she feels comfortable in.
the alternative could have been to downsize and spend more on the new place to get exactly what she wanted that needed no work - or to have slayed in her old home

My mother has a very modest home and savings. The current rule would mean that her entire home and savings would be used to fund her care while those with a larger estate keep most of theirs. Her opinion is the rule is backwards, and everyone should be allowed to keep a percentage of their estate to pass on to their family.

My mother worked 3 jobs as a single parent while raising us. She is still working and paying taxes aged 70. She sacrificed many things in order to own her home and to work instead of receiving government benefits. She would have been far far better off financially if she had simply not worked. And now, as she sees others who have not bothered working don’t pay for their care - she is frankly very pi55ed off about this.

So yes, I’ve seen her work her arse off for what she has and I fully understand her opinion on the matter. Thankfully she lives in Scotland where higher taxes allow for free personal care for the elderly but she would still lose everything she has if she needed nursing/residential care.

Due to her good example of hard work (‘Apple… tree!) , thankfully I’m in a position not to need her money and I don’t care about receiving any inheritance from her. I’d be over the moon if she spent it enjoying herself like the lady in the OP

And what’s your opinion on other things paid for by taxes? Do you think all parents should sent children to private school if they ‘could have made the provision for it’ instead of existing the state to pick up the tab?

Or healthcare…. Everyone who can afford it should make their own provision? Instead of expecting the state to pick up the tab?

Where does this ‘morally repugnant’ use of tax payers funds begin and end?

You could argue that child free people who haven’t received the free childcare and education from taxes should be eligible for free elderly care.

or perhaps everyone should have a healthcare “budget”- the amount of care you receive from the nhs is added up over your lifetime, and any unused portion can be put toward care home.

personally I think elderly care should be a human right, everyone eligible for the same care. Maybe they could use some of the massive inheritance taxes they collect to fund it, rather than considering abolishing IHT.

I don’t want the kind of “care” the state would deem adequate, thank you. I’m quite happy to pay for my own so I get some choice in the matter. There’s no point in having rainy day money if you won’t put the umbrella up when the sky opens.

You could argue that child free people who haven’t received the free childcare and education from taxes should be eligible for free elderly care Or you could argue that the people who have spent their time and money bringing up the people who will be paying taxes to fund care and maybe actually working as carers should be the ones who get free childcare? Or maybe we could just provide adequate care for all.

I don’t think you could argue that with any credibility really. The people who really get fucked over in public spending terms are childless, healthy high earners.

Who will be the carers in the future if we don't have children? Maybe it would all be living in clover for a few years but what then? Whose going to be wiping the backsides of those without children, I'll tell you who the children of the people who did have children.

You also have to remember that those people who don't have children were children so they got education/healthcare/state funding (child benefit/child trust funds or whatever appropriate to their age) plus policing/fire service/military. They also took their share but if people want to play silly buggers rationing free care to the childless/childfree then they need to realise that isn't all one way.

Having said that I have no intention of having state funded care, I will pay for my own as well as donating 4 tax payers for the benefit of others.

You also have to remember that those people who don't have children were children so they got education/healthcare/state funding (child benefit/child trust funds or whatever appropriate to their age) plus policing/fire service/military.

That’s a very silly argument as it applies to literally everyone, regardless of whether or not they have children.

can you guarantee all 4 of your children will donate more tax than they spend?

all it takes is one to have the misfortune of disability or injury and they are a taxpayer burden.

or be left as a single parent and unable to work, relying on UC and benefits.

we are all one event away from needing the benefits safety net or a lifetime of full time care.

also bear in mind that if one half of an elderly couple needs care, that will be at state cost as they can not force liquidation of assets when the well spouse is still living independently.

I have enough to more than pay for my care in old age. However if I fell and hit my head requiring full time nursing care, that money would run out very quickly. If dh develops dementia and needs a care home, I will not be expected to sell up to pay for it, and we will be an overall drain on taxpayers.

No it is pointing out that even if you don't have children you have benefitted from government spending so why would that give you a free pass for care? I worked and paid taxes from 15 to 69, I don't work now but still pay taxes. Someone with no children might have been a layabout who never worked so who has been the bigger drain on taxes?

The silly argument is saying that people without children should get a free pass. Individual circumstances vary so either do a person by person investigation or accept as citizens we all have the same rights whether we had no children or a dozen.

Setting the old against the young is a big thing on here, let's not start making the same sort of division between people with and without children.

"You could argue that child free people who haven’t received the free childcare and education from taxes should be eligible for free elderly care."

Only if they didn't receive education / childcare for themselves, surely? The money spent on their kids would go against their kids own "account"

They are in their 40s and 50s and higher tax payers. Yes they could have an accident tomorrow but they have paid in plenty and will probably continue to do so.

I've certainly paid in more than I've spent, I worked for 55 years, still pay taxes now, never been on benefits, higher rate tax payer for some of those 55 years and provided the state with 4 tax payers.

By the way we don't donate tax, it is taken from us and is an obligation not an act of generosity.

We have enough in savings that one of us going in to care would not result in us needing state funded care so you are wrong that one of us going into care would mean state funded.

All that illustrates that it isn't just a question of have you had children, it is much more complicated than that.

Exactly that. So glad I'm not the only one who sees that.

@Iwasafool I'm really not sure why most people don't see it if I'm honest. Why would what is spent on your kids education have any weight against what's spent on you? Seems it's just another thing to moan about really.

I think it is setting people against each other. Seems popular with some on here.

Someone with no children might have been a layabout who never worked so who has been the bigger drain on taxes?

That’s why I quite deliberately stipulated a healthy childfree high earner who will undoubtedly be a net contributor throughout most of their working life.

BIossomtoes · Today 11:43

You also have to remember that those people who don't have children were children so they got education/healthcare/state funding (child benefit/child trust funds or whatever appropriate to their age) plus policing/fire service/military.

That’s a very silly argument as it applies to literally everyone, regardless of whether or not they have children.

Of course it applies to everyone! That's the whole point. Whether you had children or not you presumably cost the taxpayer however much your education cost. The same as your children will themselves cost the taxpayer. That isn't on you.
The children will also bring in tax (presumably) when they grow up so it all roughly nets out.
Each individual will cost when they are very young, bring in during adulthood and then cost again when they are old.
You can't possibly be suggesting that parents should be responsible for the cost of their children"s education as well as their own, from a tax perspective? That makes no sense at all.

The children will also bring in tax (presumably) when they grow up so it all roughly nets out.

But it doesn’t, does it? If you don’t have children you pay in all your working life and take virtually nothing out.

You can't possibly be suggesting that parents should be responsible for the cost of their children"s education as well as their own, from a tax perspective?

Of course I’m not. Why would you think that? But the fact remains that people with children cost the state more while those children are in education. Those people who don’t have children do nothing but pay in. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

Sorry but you're wrong there. I'm not going to bother arguing back and forward with you because you have clearly decided to double down on your nonsensical argument.
What you're saying there is that you (assuming you are child free and that is why you're making this point?) have cost the taxpayer nothing for your education. It all goes against your parents. Even though you have (presumably?) paid tax in your working life, the 2 don't net off.
It's absurd.

Without children there is no future, when everyone is so old there is no food, no one to deal with the rubbish and the sewage, no one to wipe your brow when you are suffering, no one to bury the dead society is over. People make sacrifices to have children, physical, emotional, financial and if everyone stopped having children who wants to be the last poor old soul eating the left over food, living in their own filth until their lonely death.

How have you worked out that people without children work all their life and take nothing out? Are you sure that applies to everyone? I used to work with someone whose ambition in life was to work as little as possible, never earn enough to make a payment on his student loan debt. He worked just enough to rent a room in a fairly grotty house and had no ambition to improve his life. I don't suppose he is unique. I've got 4 children but I've always worked, left school at 15, studied around a fulltime job to get qualifications and ended up a higher rate tax payer. I've paid in a hell of a lot more than my colleague.

I see you've changed it to taking more out while children are in education, still not right as the children are getting the education not the parent but remember that is an investment for the future, educated children will hopefully turn into the doctors, nurses and tax payers of the future.