How much money do you consider 'sufficient' in Savings.

I've always thought you need to be very rich,(so you can afford all you may need/want), or, poor enough to be able to claim on the state, (us, the tax-payers...!!). we, like most of our friends, &, I'm sure, lots of you good folks, are in the middle, with enough to live on without 'claiming', but not a lot to spare, ( after helping children & grandchildren..!!).
Be Happy.!

I was given £100k by my mum a few years ago and I gave about half away to my daughters to help them with house deposits. We are on the verge of retiring though, OH goes next week and I will finish my part time job in December 2017 so he gets a large TFLS in November which we will be keeping. I think there is a fine balance between helping your children and not making them financially dependent on you. We want to help them and do still now with the odd £1-£5k on marriages, children but we will be retired hopefully for around 30 years so don't want to give all away. Difficult to put a figure on how much is enough in savings as it depends on how active we are in retirement, our health, whether we need to move to a bungalow etc etc. No one has a crystal ball. I know nursing homes are expensive and having seen the difference in the council funded one my MIL died in and the private one which my SD recovered enough to come home I know which I would choose. I do not want either of us to be dependent on the state so we will gift small amounts to our daughters from now on, up to £10k at a time as we deem our income and capital is sufficient to provide for us and we have spare. If I get an inheritance from my mum I will gift them half again.

You are correct mumofmadboys and in London £325,000 does not go far when buying a house.

I think the figures are 325k for a single person and 650 k for a couple.

That's what I find unfair Rigby. I believe only around 1 in 10 elderly people needs residential care, and that one person could forfeit nearly all of his or her assets whereas the majority of more fortunate people's assets are not requisitioned.

It is, I know, hugely unpopular but I think by far the fairest system is inheritance tax - and inheritance tax with a much lower threshold than is the case at present, but possibly having different levels of payment according to the value of all assets. In that way, the person who dies is not affected and the beneficiaries still receive something whilst at the same time contributing to the general pot. I also think any trust or other schemes that allow people to avoid paying inheritance tax should be abolished.

I think most people want to leave something to their children - I do. But the present situation where I believe up to £500,000 is exempt from inheritance tax for a single person, and £1 million for a couple is, I think, wrong.

But putting a cap on the care costs of those that can afford to pay for their care means asking poorer tax payers to subsidise the better off, so that there probably better off children can inherit a lump sum when they die. I think this both unjust and supremely selfish.

The world doesn't divide into virtuous frugal sheep and free spending goats. The reason people go into old age poor are many and various. Being too poor to save during their working life is one. Then there is redundancy, illness, disability and a long list of other life event that lead to a loss of savings.

My uncle spent his working life with one firm and retired with a comfortable pension, but his employer was bought up by Robert Maxwell and we all know what he did with the pension funds of companies in his control. One day my uncle received a letter and a cheque for £500. The letter said that this was his last pension payment from his employer and gave him information about how to claim benefits. One day he had a comfortable retirement, the next he was on income support.

I think the idea of a cap was to give people who have saved all their lives a chance to pass on some money to their children. Some people spend all their money on fancy holidays and flash cars and have nothing left to pay their care home fees with. It seems a bit unfair that those who save and go without should have to pay whilst those who fritter it all away having a good time don't. Perhaps putting a percentage of our salary or income into a pot for old age would be fairer then each could contribute according to their means. ( that's taxation isn't it!)

I feel quite conflicted on this. The need for residential/ nursing care in later life is a lottery and affects people differentially- like the need for health care throughout life but this is funded fundamentally through taxation. I have friends who were lucky enough to have very healthy parents and so inherited quite a lot when parents died and then friends where almost all the money went in fees.

I don't understand why anyone should think there would be a 'cap' surely you pay for yourself your entire life if you have the money to do so.

I would think there is a high number of people who own, or have a mortgage on a property that is worth more than £23,000. Presumably all of these people would be forced to sell up to fund care if they lived in the house on their own. I don't object to paying for care just feel there should be some sort of cap.

I think I would feel independent for longer if I could actually choose my own care home and pay for it myself. Selling my house to afford good quality care seems perfectly reasonable.

wouldn't know as don't have any

£2.5K+ a week I think.

And for how long? What happens when the money runs out - would you be downgraded to a not-so-good nursing home?

How much money would you consider enough to fund a really good nursing home

Not sure if anyone has made this point yet as I have not had time to read all the messages. Nursing homes come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Social Services will only fund up to a certain level so, as far as I understand it, if you or your loved ones can't find the rest, you would have to move if you run out of money. That is incredibly upsetting, especially for someone with dementia.
I am trying to make sure I have enough money to fund a really good nursing home in case I need one. This is an area that most people don't give a thought to until it happens to them. My husband went into a nursing home earlier this year. Given that there was no alternative, it is a great place with a committed and stable staff group. But it is expensive. I want my children to inherit my money, but first and foremost it is there to look after me. My preferred method of dying would be to drop dead and thus incur minimal costs, but who knows?

Something that always puzzles me is the feeling of entitlement some, and I emphasise some, older people have, that the state owes them a living when they reach retiring age. Why should we not pay our way through the world until the day we die, including all taxes and for any care we need if we have money to do so, why should we not sell our homes if we need residential care, if we are in a care home we cannot live in our home at the same time.

And while, like most parents, I want to leave my children a nice nest egg for their retirement, they have a had a good run in life, a good education we partially funded, professional jobs that enable them to buy their own houses plus all sorts of other help we have given from time and labour to occasional injections of cash.

Why should others in their generation who have not had the opportunities they have had and are in lower paid jobs have to contribute through their taxes to sustain me in my hour of need so that my already fortunate children can pocket a nice little nest egg on my death.

Nursing home care is subsidised if you have less than £23,000 in the bank/savings. If you own your property outright and have more than £23,000 in bank/ISA etc and are the only inhabitant then you have to sell you property to fund your stay. If your total funds go below £23,000 for the length of time of your stay(which could be months/years depending on needs and cost of care)then it is up to the local authorities to fund you. First hand experience of this so do you spend it all and let council take the brunt of cost or do you sell up and go into a fantastic care home....

At our U3A we had a talk from a solicitor about avoiding care home fees (among other things) The common belief that there is a time limit on gifts is not true, If a council can prove that money was given away to avoid care homes fees, they can recover them regardless of how long ago they were gifted, your children or GC could get an unpleasant shock.

I know a gentleman who was in his seventies and very fit and well. He paid for his grandsons university tuition fees from his savings. A couple of years later he had a severe stroke and needed nursing care. The Local Authority tried to reclaim the university fees from the grandson who had a job by this time. They said grandad had deliberately deprived himself of assets. This was not the case, he could not reasonably have known that he would later have a stroke and need care. However, this took quite a lot to prove. I suggest getting financial advice if you want to give away money to your family. You never know what is round the corner.

Remember many of us will need some care in our own homes before we ever need full time care in a care home.

You will be financially assessed and most people have to pay a contribution for home care. Those with £23k+ get no help at all but there is a sliding scale under that. Care in your home can cost £16 per hour +

Most areas now have extra care housing replacing care homes. This is where you either buy or rent a flat with support available on site. If you need this, or need a care home you would need to sell your house, unless you have enough savings set aside to pay for it.

he he he I too think I'm lucky if I have 23.00 in my savings account. lol and if I were lucky enough to get an inheritance I would soon go through it as there are so many things other people take for granted that I have never had. I still see others worse than me so I'm lucky

MrsK You said Therefore ordinary people are quite entitled to use those laws in the same way, as best they can, to safeguard their finances.

It's one thing to safeguard your family finances by investing in ISAs, taking advantage of any legitimate tax relief going, putting money into trusts for DGC etc, and quite another to deliberately deprive yourself of assets in order to come below a threshold at which you will receive state benefits that you wouldn't be otherwise entitled to. I think that's what Mumofmadboys was referring to.

Wobblybits, for what it's worth, my DBIL has had three hip replacements (no, he's not a freak, he had one done twice!). He had the first two done privately, and wasn't particularly happy when he was told he would have to have the third one (the second on one side) done under the NHS, as it was designated high risk. He'd kept on paying for his very expensive private insurance when he retired just because he knew this would be coming up.

He said that the NHS care was better by far, and he had a course of physiotherapy, delivered at his home, that just wasn't offered when he had his second one done a year earlier. He even had a better single room than he'd had at the private hospital!

Jollyg, I accept why you make the comment "new car or hip", but you do not know the full circumstances.

Firstly without a newer car we would not see my GC very often as they all live 100's of miles away and our old car has broken down 4 times on the road this year. So for us, a reliable car is an essential if we wish to see our family. Neither would we be able to help them with child care, as we are doing at this very moment.

Secondly, my hip was perfect when we bought the car, but I would still buy it now. Driving is one of the few things I can do that enable my wife and I to enjoy life atm. Without a reliable car we would be stuck indoors. With a car we can (as we did the other week) drive to Dunwich and enjoy fish and chips looking across Minsmere.

Thirdly, we can still afford to have my hip replaced privately if we choose.

Fourthly, many people, who know better than I, have recommended I go the NHS route, and any ethical surgeon would not replace the hip unless it met the NHS criteria.

How we choose to spend our savings is our business and only we know the circumstances.