What's this scheme called please

No, I haven’t.

Doodledog I would describe the lady you describe, as deliberately spending all her money and relying on the state, bacause everything you say about her shows conscious knowledge of the results of her behaviour. However, it is still true for me to say that I have never met anyone like that. All the people I knew who ended dependent on the state despite high earnings, were just feckless and improvident. Such peope do not usually lead extravagent lives, but just pay top dollar for everything because it never occurs to them to shop around, setting up an account with a taxi company, so they do not have to pay every trip, but then fail to keep a track on how much they are spending. never going into M&S without buying something. just thoughtless expenditure.

Thank you.

The assumption is always that objecting to one injustice (as I see it) is based on support of another, and that is simply not true.

Doodledog

*I think she - or any of us - have to accept that a scheme which might encompass "deprivation of assets" is going to elicit some criticism from those who believe that asking the State to pay for you so that your offspring can inherit your wealth is morally unacceptable. And it is a debatable issue isn't it? As is the assumption made by some that those without assets have spent lavishly throughout their lives when the reality might be that they have simply not earned enough to save anything because they worked doing essential but 'disparaged' jobs. The kind of jobs that most don't want to do but without which the whole fabric of society would disintegrate.*

That is a spectacularly one-sided view, masquerading as neutral .

Who has assumed that those who get free care have spent lavishly? I think I am the one who has posted most disagreeing with the two-tier system, and I have repeatedly said that this is not where I am coming from, and that in a fair system those who earn less would pay less, but we would all be covered if we need it, with those who are lucky enough not to need care subsidising those who do. I have not seen anyone 'disparage' a job on this thread - have you?

My comments were not directed at any one person, they really weren't. I'm talking more generally about the whole issue of Social Care - a topic that comes up on here sometimes, and on other social media sites. And there always are the different 'camps' (for want of a better word)... and certainly there are those who seem to genuinely believe that anyone who hasn't saved has been profligate - I've seen that observation so many times - but not particularly here on GN.

My comments were not masquerading as anything - I wasn't intending to be neutral! Only in so far as the aspect of there being a need for 'discussion' on the matter which the poster to whom I was replying appeared to think otherwise.

I'm not 'into' attacking people really for their views - I've got no special pipeline to 'the truth'... but topics meander and that seems to annoy some who think we should just stick to the point, and that does bother me a bit because it's such a rigid demand and limits what can or can't be said. Although I obviously have my own POV, I do like to hear what others think... it's the only way I learn anything about stuff that matters.

That’s fair enough. I didn’t mean to take it personally- it’s just that some of the things that are said in these debates are very personal, and also unfounded. If you think A you must think B because C, sort of thing, and it’s wearing.

I have just read through all the posts again and also looked at my will and trust details. We have been Tenants in Common for a very large number of years, done when we were living together rather than married. The Trust papers state that we can live there rent free on the death of one of us, so no problems there. So I do suggest that some of you keyboard warriors get your facts right. And yes I am aware that GSM has a wealth of knowledge and I have taken that into consideration.also my glasses are now broken, not just lost and I can’t get out to order new ones as I now have covid.

My understanding is if you own a house, and need to go into care, you use savings and your pension to pay for your initial stay, and if necessary, sell the house to continue funding it.

A really lovely old chap who used to visit his wife (with dementia) every day in the care home where my mother was, told me that the cost was being ‘rolled up’ and would be taken from the sale of their house after he died, or had to go into residential care.

Particularly since they had no children, he was perfectly happy with this arrangement.
Might add that he had done his best to care for her at home - until one day he had collapsed from sheer exhaustion, after changing wet beds etc. twice or more a night. He couldn’t even get to the phone, and had great difficulty getting his wife to understand to bring it to him. Nor could she understand how to open the door when the paramedics arrived - they had to force it open.

Dh knew someone similar - an old family friend who battled valiantly alone to care for his wife with dementia - until he fell and broke a hip - they ended up in different care homes, since by then her dementia was advanced. When dh visited him, he said he was thoroughly enjoying life again, he wished he’d sought help sooner - but sadly lived only for a few more months.

I suspect that there are many who battle on alone like this.

Doodledog

That’s fair enough. I didn’t mean to take it personally- it’s just that some of the things that are said in these debates are very personal, and also unfounded. If you think A you must think B because C, sort of thing, and it’s wearing.

... yes, I get what you are saying and, TBH, I've understood your POV because with the care system as it is, it does throw up some anomalies.

I really wish government would get to grips with it - it just isn't satisfactory the way it is in our very unequal and divided society.

As the National Audit Office pointed out in '21, the system has been weakened by years of cuts, failures to fix workforce shortages and a lack of central oversight.

Razzamatazz

My understanding is if you own a house, and need to go into care, you use savings and your pension to pay for your initial stay, and if necessary, sell the house to continue funding it.

That’s the way of it, yes . What is less straightforward is whether that is a fair way to arrange things when others get care free.

also my glasses are now broken, not just lost and I can’t get out to order new ones as I now have covid.
Sorrows never come in thingies, they come in whatsits, BOB. I hope you get well soon.

Witzend

A really lovely old chap who used to visit his wife (with dementia) every day in the care home where my mother was, told me that the cost was being ‘rolled up’ and would be taken from the sale of their house after he died, or had to go into residential care.

Particularly since they had no children, he was perfectly happy with this arrangement.
Might add that he had done his best to care for her at home - until one day he had collapsed from sheer exhaustion, after changing wet beds etc. twice or more a night. He couldn’t even get to the phone, and had great difficulty getting his wife to understand to bring it to him. Nor could she understand how to open the door when the paramedics arrived - they had to force it open.

Dh knew someone similar - an old family friend who battled valiantly alone to care for his wife with dementia - until he fell and broke a hip - they ended up in different care homes, since by then her dementia was advanced. When dh visited him, he said he was thoroughly enjoying life again, he wished he’d sought help sooner - but sadly lived only for a few more months.

I suspect that there are many who battle on alone like this.

I suspect that there are many who battle on alone like this.

This.

I'm one of them - though not yet at the point of exhaustion. I care for my partner with spinal stenosis. I've had two bouts of cancer, extensive surgery, with the concomitant chemo treatment. I'm left with what is now called a 'life changing' condition that limits what I can do and often prevents me from going out. I manage my condition through sheer grit and determination, a lot of research - and, fortunately, a kind and sympathetic consultant who has given me an 'open' appointment which means I can call his secretary any time I need to talk to him.

I'm coping OK, but have sometimes found it really hard, at age 80, to muster the energy I need. 'Help' seems to consist mainly of a plethora of leaflets detailing 'tips' on coping that most people have already discovered for themselves, 'phone lines, websites etc, where you can 'talk' to someone... but practical help is virtually non-existent. My partner's (we're second-time-around the block) adult children have emigrated, and my one son has done the same. With our blessings, there was little to keep any of them here. They do though return from time to time to help out when they can.

But I'm lucky compared to many - like those you've mentioned.

I understand 'fiscal responsibility', I understand inflationary pressures - but I also understand how a national economy works, and that's why listening to Truss banging on about tax cuts and "handouts" makes my blood boil - even tho' I'd benefit a tad from such cuts. I wish we could 'smash' the system and start all over again with a more fair and equitable society for all.

... that was a bit of what is called a 'rant', wasn't it .

M0nica

Doodledog I would describe the lady you describe, as deliberately spending all her money and relying on the state, bacause everything you say about her shows conscious knowledge of the results of her behaviour. However, it is still true for me to say that I have never met anyone like that. All the people I knew who ended dependent on the state despite high earnings, were just feckless and improvident. Such peope do not usually lead extravagent lives, but just pay top dollar for everything because it never occurs to them to shop around, setting up an account with a taxi company, so they do not have to pay every trip, but then fail to keep a track on how much they are spending. never going into M&S without buying something. just thoughtless expenditure.

Yes, that sounds like A ). Buying three things to try and not getting round to sending two of them back, 'needing' the latest version of everything and so on.

But why not? It is her money, and we really don't want to go down the road of legislating for how people spend their salaries, do we? I don't think that her attitude is particularly unusual either. Yet people on this thread are saying that it is morally repugnant of B to object to having to pay for care when A gets it free. I just don't get it.

Doodledog, I am not judging anyone, just describing how and why they end up in the penniless mess they end up in.

Maybe you're not judging A, but you are judging those who you describe as 'wanting to have their cake and eat it'. What's the difference?

That wasn't a judgment. That was a comparison. I said people were not allowed to hand their house to their children and live in it without paying rent and compared it with having your cake and eating it. ie it cannot be done.

Ah right. I've only ever heard that phrase used as a criticism - ie about someone greedy who wants to both eat the cake and still have it.

It can be used for that, but it also describes what someone is doing if they do that or something similar.

I have been judged, told to listen to GSM instead of my solicitor, told I need a different solicitor or words to that effect. Told I would have to pay rent and told its fraud. Well most of you want good quality care in a care home, care provided by people like my granddaughters, caring for you on a minimum wage whilst they will never ever be able to do the same in their old age. That’s morally wrong and if this rotten government can’t put in place a system to help then I will by giving them the money that the government can’t have.

To be fair you didn’t say until later that the trust had a condition to allow either of you to live rent free. I was just concerned that you hadn’t had all the possibilities explained to you.

It sounds like you have covered all the bases.

Hopefully there’s enough spare money to allow you to have care of your choice when the time comes or your son will be able to fund you. My friend’s last year in the Care Home that I talked about upthread was truly awful because she had no access to the money that had been placed in trust?

I shall have care at home and pay for it, also the grandchildren have said not to worry. I am happy and that’s what counts

Barmey, I have never told anyone to listen to me rather than their own solicitor. I am retired and can only give informal advice. I have simply said that giving your house to your children and still living there, but not paying a market rent, will not mean the value of the house isn't taken into account if you need care. Nor will it mean that the value of your house is ignored for inheritance tax. None of us can ever say that we will never need care from someone outside our family. However I think that what you eventually said is that you and your husband had done was to arrange for your home to be held as tenants in common so you each had a share you could leave as you wished in your wills, and that the wills allow the surviving spouse to live in the house as long as they wish, which is perfectly fine. You do, however, seem rather confused about the whole thing and nobody can give advice without knowing the full facts.

Ok, it wasn’t you who told me to listen to you it was someone else. Let’s clear this up for once and for all. We are tenants in common and have been for a number of years. Who ever goes first has left their 50% share to my son in a trust, under the terms of the trust who ever is left can live there rent free, my son cannot sell it without my agreement and I can’t without his. Who ever is left is responsible for the upkeep. When the other dies then he has a 100% share and when my son dies the house will go to the grandchildren. If we are both alive and kicking and one has to go into care then the financial assessment will use a 50% in their assessment and if it is kept then a charge will be be put on the 50 share to be paid by my son when he has control. There is nothing fraudulent about it, we have taken advice first from a solicitor and then from another who dealt in this area. We also have a solicitor in the family and my closest friend is also a solicitor dealing in property. This hopefully safeguards either all or a large chunk of the asset.

However I think that what you eventually said is that you and your husband had done was to arrange for your home to be held as tenants in common so you each had a share you could leave as you wished in your wills, and that the wills allow the surviving spouse to live in the house as long as they wish, which is perfectly fine.

This (and what BOB has described as the arrangement she and her family have entered into) is what our solicitor suggested to us, and yes, people have said that it is immoral, that it wouldn't mean that the house might have to be sold, and even that it was fraudulent. As I've said, we decided against it, as the solicitor also pointed out that the possibility that Lathyrus mentioned could happen, and neither of us wanted that for the other.

I agree that the system needs an overhaul, as it is riddled with inconsistencies, and whilst I have taken everyone's comments on board, I still think that it is deeply unfair.

I'm Spartacus ?

As for having care at home and paying for it? Good luck with that. I speak from experience.

I am about to move 120 miles from my husband into rented accommodation, because even if you pay for it, there is no care to be had at home for my DF. So I have to do it. This is not how I had planned for my sixties to be.

What a country.