In a country where savings don’t seem to matter….

[Unap100]

Do you really blame anyone for squandering their retirement fund and expecting the government to pick up the tab?

I’ve been an avid saver. I am not hugely wealthy but through my savings I’ve recently paid my house off of 450k and I’m 39. I have 34k in the bank.

But to what end?

YES of course there are benefits personally and NO I don’t want to be on the bones of my arse with no choices in life.

But seriously… I’ve worked in care homes etc and why the hell should one person have that funded and the next person have worked all their life to fund it? You might get a slightly nicer care home for a bit but they’re all underfunded and barely satisfactory anyway.

Genuinely, where’s the fairness in that? Where’s the incentive to work? It then either goes to a care home or taxed away.

I never thought I’d say this but spending it all while you can doesn’t seem a bad idea. AIBU? What’s your view on this?!

I grew up from the age of 11 on benefits, before that despite being literature, dad earned good money. Mum left school at 14. There were no jobs outside of cleaning/canteen work for women.
We bought our house on 17k between us, as my wife worked for a bank the subsided mortgage was 8%. Dad died a month after we got married, mum had died when I was 17. It took 10 months to sell Dad's house. We were fucked financially. We got £35k for it

So I've always grafted. I'm not reliant on anyone, not the government, not the state pension no one. As soon as I could I pulled my money from the defined benefits pension (yes your told not to, but it was due to pay £7k a year) and got good advice...if I bought an annuity tomorrow I'd get 25k a year.

I'm now worth over £3 million, even with Iran....so yes it's worth working hard. I retired at 55 and never have to worry about money again

Not really no.

Plus all the bloody Royals and hangers on, landed gentry etc.

And you begrudge me a HA flat? After I've paid for a week in Benidorm and HP on a ford focus with my lifetime of savings??

its around 7% last time I checked.

If you both work full time you get full housing benefit. If you don’t you don’t.

A 'fair' system would involve either everyone paying, or everyone getting free care.
So, if everyone pays, what do you think should happen to elderly people who worked hard all their lives but never managed to afford to save or purchase a home?
And if we make it free for all, what do you think all the people in the care homes paying fees would be doing with their money if they were getting free care? Because there's not a great to spend it on once you're in a care home, and they cant take it with them. So what is the benefit to elderly people of not paying for their care?
Because before I can agree with you that the system is horrendously unfair and flawed, I'd like to hear your views on the alternatives.

Good luck having that attitude in 20 years when the country is completely fucked and if you can't pay for your own care you will be in shit the likes of which hasn't been since since before the 1950s

People are looking at how things are today and picturing it being like this in 20, 30, 40 years.

Boy are they in for a shock!!!

Save all you can, while you can, because old age care as you know it today is unlikely to be around when you need it.

Or, hey, go spend everything you have and keep your fingers crossed. 🤷‍♀️

Only a tiny number of people end up in a care home.

If my mum ends up in a care home, I'll be glad she's got the money to pay for it. She has worked hard all her life (teacher and then head teacher) and as a result she and dad bought a lovely house that suited them, which they were able to do what they wanted with. If they'd frittered away their money and been in rented accommodation with no security of tenure, at the mercy of a landlord, then they would have been miserable.

Also, no one needs two homes. If she's in a care home and has to sell her property, she's still got somewhere to live.

@Unap100- it’s been an hour since you started a goady thread and not posted again from your OP. Do think MN need to look at some of these, they seem to be pushing a particular political agenda.

Anyway id you are genuine- you are stupid. You are more likely to not need a care home than you would, and the majority of elderly people in care homes are there for less than a year. If you have only worked with those with dementia it may well have warped your view on this.

However, a good and healthy old age until death is much more likely if you have money. Money for taxis so you aren’t housebound when you no longer can drive. Money to pay cleaners or gardeners to keep you able to manage. Money to make moving into a flat easy to do. Money to update bathrooms and kitchens to make them easier to use when your mobility limits. Money to keep your home heated, maintained and comfortable for you. Money to buy in part prepared foods, money to pay for regular private physio or senior fitness classes. Money to pay for private health care to skip waiting lists.

Rich pensioners are having a much better retirement than the poor.

The “reward” at the end is the same for everyone OP, you die. Really don’t get the mentality of spending the last 20-30 years of your life having a shit time in order to beat the system for the last 2.

Save all you can, while you can, because old age care as you know it today is unlikely to be around when you need it.

Healthcare will change, the waiting lists will just get longer & longer

There seems to be an assumption that a person in a care home with no savings/house to sell hasn't worked hard. That assumption is wrong for a some/many people.

There are many people who have worked full time in low paid jobs their whole lives, had bad luck in relationships etc or just felt there was "no need to buy a house", perhaps because all their family had always rented. These people have paid out rent their whole lives, which likely costs more than people pay out on a mortgage.

I know some of these people personally - retired, but not in a care home yet. They aren't "lucky" they are stuck with hardly any options and spare money, living on a state pension and pension credit, which doesn't cover the rent. With the high cost of buying a house and pitiful wages, the number of these people will only increase.

That's not quite right. That may be the percentage of people who are alive and over a certain cutoff age who are currently in a care home but that's not the same thing as the percentage of people who will, by the time they are at the end of their life, need full time care in a residential setting (which last time I checked was around 30%, although a good chunk of those only need residential care for a few weeks or a few months, less than half of them need it for more than a couple of years).

I'm sure this exact question was asked a couple of days ago - "I went to a care home and some residents had sold their house to fund it and others had spent their money before that point"

Two scenarios for you:

Beryl has saved and has a nice little nest egg. She needs a care home and her family can peruse the glossy brochures of the local offerings, then choose a home that aligns with her needs and preferences. Once in the home, she can have her nails done, have her hair done, wear nice clothing, and go on trips, all paid for with her nest egg.

Gladys was unable to save, or perhaps she's just a bit feckless and didn't consider the future. She needs a care home and Social Services glance down their list of available homes, make a few calls and find the one that has a LA space. She is moved there. She is allowed to keep £31.60 per week of her income for personal spends. So she has choices. Does she get her nails done, or does she buy new knickers, or does she have her hair cut? She can't do it all.

I worked from i was 14 in a fruit and veg shop.
All through uni I had numerous jobs as my parents couldnt afford to fund it.
I started as a trainee in a professional career with Saturday training at 22 on £7k and worked in tesco along side that to be able to afford it.

I got an acquired disability at 28. I will never be able to work again hence benefits.

I bought my house, a small 3 bed semi before I became disabled. I struggle to pay the mortgage with what I get, there isn't much left over for food, heat etc.

My peers who bought similar properties at 25 are now in large houses, their children are in multiple hobbies, they go away numerous times a year. Eat out every week. Have wine collections
Nice cars. Pensions.

I should have had that life.

But I don't.

Most people dont end up on benefits as a lifestyle choice

What’s your solution? Should we euthanise non-homeowners as soon as they get sick so only the homeowners and the rich can have care?

Why don’t we extend it to the NHS? Got cancer and you’re on benefits? We’ll leave you to die. Few quid in the bank and your own house? You’ll get treatment.

Your husband has swanned off and left you in debt? It’s off to the workhouse for you and your children.

So you don’t think it’s worth saving, having a pension, owning a home because you may be one of the 10% who go in a care home decades in the future?

Another thread illustrating the poverty mindset, entitlement and grievance mongering of this benighted country.

You're 39 OP - you own your house outright and you've got five figure savings. You have done extremely well in life presumably down to your own talents and planning. And you've got another 20 odd years of work where you could become CEO or solve the climate crisis or build wealth or create art or help others but here you are anxious that a poor old person might be having their dementia care funded by the state. What are we supposed to do with socially housed old people once they can't fend for themselves? Turn them out onto the street? Leave them to die?

I don't mind supporting children, the elderly, or people with severe disabilities. And I wouldn't mind doing that even if I had saved up to take care of myself with my own savings. Some people weren't able to save as they never had a high paying job or had to use their savings because they lost their jobs, I don't mind helping others. I do have a problem supporting able bodied younger adults that are too lazy to help themselves.

This is very similar to a thread that is on here right now.
Why all the similar posts about the poorest in society at the moment?

Yes I agree and it makes me angry

Most people who don't work usually can't due to disability.

I (social worker) work in the community with a lot of people who are too unwell to work - but you wouldn't automatically realise that if you just met them. Knowing them well, they would desperately struggle to work and any business that employed them would be taking massive risks. That's not to say they will never get more well (mentally and physically - depression/anxiety and chronic pain) but some people just living a life is hard enough.

What do you suggest happens to people who aren't well enough to work? How do you test that without cruelty? It's a hard balance to draw.

Taking the mick and being genuinely unable often look the same from the outside. However I think most people want the respect that comes from work, the freedom, the choice, the meaning - very few people are genuinely fraudsters.

In fact, fraudsters probably have an easier time because they aren't feeling guilty about writing perfect forms about their enormous disabilities, and they are well enough to complete all the admin and paperwork that it takes to actually get any benefits.

Free for everyone would then result in increasing inequality because of inheritance. We shouldn't have so much inequality in the first place ergo we clearly need to tax people like OP more so there's no inequality ;)

(I don't know the real answer. I would like there to be much less inequality but more towards everyone having money).

Does OP realise that if someone is unwell and on benefits, they have a limit on their savings before their benefits are stopped? So people literally cannot save deposits etc because their state aid, which they rely on for income, would be stopped.

I realise OP is suggesting that if they themselves deprived themselves of savings/home ownership they would be subsidised. I think ultimately if you really think it's not fair/not worth it OP, why have you bothered? Is it the 30 years of peace of mind and a privately owned home that you are in full control of? Is that perhaps worth more to you than the possible future risk of missing out on state funded care in the future?

Getting really tired of all these faux-grassroots, politically motivated threads. They're all the same!

It's such a shame that Parliament has consistently blocked various attempts to put a limit on care costs. From memory, I think Teresa May was the last to try to bring it in but it didn't get Parliamentary approval.

There is far, far too little difference between the lifestyle of those that do work, and those that don’t. I’m very happy to pay for a basic safety net for those that are disabled or unable to work, but the fact that you have to be earning at least £50k each to see any meaningful benefit from working is utterly wrong. People with the full state pension receive only £3 a week more than those that have never worked and are on pension credit (£238 vs £241), plus pension credit is then a gateway benefit to lots of other entitlements.