Whatever happened to "saving for a rainy day"?

volver

One thing I agree with in your long post Doodledog is that nothing is fair. Often I am lumped in here on GN as one of the lefties, which I would be glad to be. Elder care, social care should all be equally available to all. But its not. That is the real world. So there are two things I want to say.

I will never be dissuaded from the belief that if a person has "money in the bank" or reasonable assets they they should expect to use it to help them have a comfortable old age, and the ACs will just have to do without. If those assets include a high value house, it gets counted in. Tough luck for the kids. (And I am such a "kid"). Some people have nothing at all on which to live in their old age, and the idea that someone with assets gets to keep them because they want to pass something on to the next generation is not acceptable, IMO.

Secondly. There have been several posts complaining that there are people who have squandered their money but are still getting looked after. Well, to me, that sounds like blaming the poor folks. I certainly don't have any knowledge of how care homes are financed, but I do know enough about pricing and costs in general to know that just because person A pays x, and person B pays x+10%, that doesn't mean Person B is being exploited. For instance. Perhaps the care home can only be viable if the annual income is £z per patient. But the LA can only pay £z-10%, that's all they have. So the shortfall has to be found somewhere or no-one gets to stay in the accommodation. Because the accommodation goes bust. Sometimes things aren't as straightforward as we think.

I agree with you that someone with assets should use them to pay for any care they need, regardless of any adult children they might have who would like an inheritance. My parents did not inherit a penny from my grandparents, both sets lived in council housing and had very little money of their own. In fact my father contributed to grandmas care home fees as he was not happy with the care available at the LA run home ( this was in 1985 when there were such homes) so paid a top up fee for a home he preferred.

I did not expect to inherit anything from my mum, she was very lucky to have sufficient savings and a good pension so when it became unsafe for her to live at home, we could choose the right care home for her, knowing that she could afford the fees for several years. If all her money was used to pay for her care, so be it, it’s what it was for. As it happens, mum has left a decent inheritance for her children but I’ve never factored it into my financial planning so it will be a bonus and I intend to share it with my children.

I also agree with your explanation of the pricing structure, a care home can only operate if it has sufficient income otherwise they would not be in business. However, most care home providers are private companies with owners wanting a profit or with shareholders expecting a return on their investment. If they were still council run and had not been privatised then maybe fees would be lower and more equal. Had mum lived in a different home, say a BUPA one or Sunrise, her fees would have been much higher, one close to me charges £1600 a week! I wonder how much of that is profit rather than running costs?

I'll ignore the insults, as neither of us like those.

It will always be a minefield because we'll never be able to just tick a box and say "send me everything please."

Are you suggesting that everyone wants to do that? Those who want to spend and get free care, or just those who don't? Those who get financial advice on how to keep as much of their savings as possible, or those who don't? Those who willingly pay for something a sibling or neighbour gets free or those who have no choice but resent it?

I'm not arguing for getting anything free - I am arguing for fair taxation so that all those who need it get care free at point of need. Most people would be net contributors as most people don't need care.

Doodledog

These conversations do skirt the insulting, though. I find the suggestion that I am castigating the poor for squandering money insulting, too.

If the system were fair there would be no minefield - you would get what you get. As it is, some get some pay, some can get people in to look at the finances - whether you would or not, it happens.

You're a bit too keen to think everything on here refers to you Doodledog.

So, the minefield...

Is my DF eligible for Attendance Allowance? Podiatry care? A Care Manager? A community alarm? Daily carers? Is he ill enough? Is he old enough? (All these questions are rhetorical.)

Please stop trying to tell me its not a minefield when I am finding it to be a minefield. Please stop being so condescending. It will always be a minefield because we'll never be able to just tick a box and say "send me everything please."

Are you agreeing with me or having a dig? It's hard to tell from the tone of your post.

Doodlebug: I just think that we should all spend what we earn and have been taxed on as we see fit.

Fair enough. No need to complain about the housing ladder or care home fees - if everyone spends as they see fit. Some save, some don't. Some see waste in less than frugal behaviour, some don't.

We drink PGTips milk tea (I just learned that was common). I'm proud as commoners we can pay for our own care and don't care a jot that removes from a supposed 'nest egg'. I'm happy to give generously, pay taxes, help the less fortunate. Good enough to me.

Sorry, that last sentence should have been '. . .some get, some pay and some can get people in . . . '

These conversations do skirt the insulting, though. I find the suggestion that I am castigating the poor for squandering money insulting, too.

If the system were fair there would be no minefield - you would get what you get. As it is, some get some pay, some can get people in to look at the finances - whether you would or not, it happens.

The term "minefield" refers to what a person is entitled to in these cases. And as Farzanah says, its different depending on where you are in the UK. So there's no need to dispute it, because it is difficult to navigate, hence a minefield. So yes, you are missing something.

I have no idea why, out of nowhere, you might think I would use "savings loopholes". I find that suggestion quite insulting, actually.

So would you see it as fair to use financial loopholes to make the system work for you around savings limits and so on? The way you present it it not a minefield at all. It is a simple case of 'pay if you have the money'. Or am I missing something?

And I repeat - I am not accusing anyone of squandering anything. On other threads (and possibly this one - there are a few merging just now) I am defending the youth of today against accusations of profligacy for daring to buy coffee on their commute . I just think that we should all spend what we earn and have been taxed on as we see fit. Gin and sausages, or hair-shirts and bibles - each to their own and no argument from me.

Pammie1

volver

I am currently trying to arrange care for my DF. He has a bit of savings. It is obvious to me that we use any money he has managed to collect to support him in his old age. If he runs out of money, I expect the State to support him. I won't be moaning about the fact that he is paying his way. I don't understand people who do moan about that. Pay your way, if you can.

Please remember that he would be eligible for local authority care funding if his savings are below £14.250. He would also qualify for partial help between £14,250 and £23,250. And no-one is saying you shouldn’t pay your way, just pointing out how unfair the system is for those who have the least. Given that most local authorities will move self funding residents to a cheaper facility once the funding source is exhausted, I don’t think it’s fair to ask them to subsidise other peoples’ care when the money could be used to extend funding for themselves.

I agree that self funders shouldn’t be expected to subsidise the care of others in care homes who are funded by Local Authorities Pammiel, which is effectively what is happening because Local Authorities don’t pay enough for people they place there, and many care homes would go bankrupt if they didn’t charge self paying residents more.

I agree with volver that if we have money to pay for our own care we should do so, but I think there should be one rate charged for everybody in each home, rather than cheaper for Local Authority placements, so self funders can remain in their home of choice.

Care funding and assessment I believe is different in England to the other U.K. countries.
The problem in England as I see it is that the LA do not have sufficient funds to fully cover the cost of care/nursing home fees and for those who cannot fund themselves there is an increasingly limited choice of those homes who will take LA funded residents.
It’s plainly impossible to try and run care and nursing for the elderly as a profitable business.
Perhaps Ms Truss will re consider the Poor Relief Act, and bring Dickensian workhouses back.

Thank you for you advice Pammie1, its a minefield.

One thing I agree with in your long post Doodledog is that nothing is fair. Often I am lumped in here on GN as one of the lefties, which I would be glad to be. Elder care, social care should all be equally available to all. But its not. That is the real world. So there are two things I want to say.

I will never be dissuaded from the belief that if a person has "money in the bank" or reasonable assets they they should expect to use it to help them have a comfortable old age, and the ACs will just have to do without. If those assets include a high value house, it gets counted in. Tough luck for the kids. (And I am such a "kid"). Some people have nothing at all on which to live in their old age, and the idea that someone with assets gets to keep them because they want to pass something on to the next generation is not acceptable, IMO.

Secondly. There have been several posts complaining that there are people who have squandered their money but are still getting looked after. Well, to me, that sounds like blaming the poor folks. I certainly don't have any knowledge of how care homes are financed, but I do know enough about pricing and costs in general to know that just because person A pays x, and person B pays x+10%, that doesn't mean Person B is being exploited. For instance. Perhaps the care home can only be viable if the annual income is £z per patient. But the LA can only pay £z-10%, that's all they have. So the shortfall has to be found somewhere or no-one gets to stay in the accommodation. Because the accommodation goes bust. Sometimes things aren't as straightforward as we think.

volver

I am currently trying to arrange care for my DF. He has a bit of savings. It is obvious to me that we use any money he has managed to collect to support him in his old age. If he runs out of money, I expect the State to support him. I won't be moaning about the fact that he is paying his way. I don't understand people who do moan about that. Pay your way, if you can.

Please remember that he would be eligible for local authority care funding if his savings are below £14.250. He would also qualify for partial help between £14,250 and £23,250. And no-one is saying you shouldn’t pay your way, just pointing out how unfair the system is for those who have the least. Given that most local authorities will move self funding residents to a cheaper facility once the funding source is exhausted, I don’t think it’s fair to ask them to subsidise other peoples’ care when the money could be used to extend funding for themselves.

I've just seen Dickens's post with the link to how funding works. Is that evidence enough that it happens if taking the word of people personally known to you is not?

Thank you, Teacheranne

volver I don't cross question friends as to how much they know about funding or what their background knowledge of local authority relationships with care homes happens to be. Do you? Or do you accept that when they relate their experiences (as Teacheranne has done), they are telling the truth?

If someone has paid tax as required, I see it as fair that they should be able to do what they like with what is left, including leaving it to their children, the cats' home or spending it on gin, whether or not they have the misfortune to need to go into a care home. I see that as true whether they have nothing left, or whether they have spent on nothing but essentials and kept the rest in the bank. After tax, your money should be yours to spend or save as they wish, and if there is not enough money to fund care for all then tax should be increased. To me, it really is as simple as that.

I am well aware that there are those who can't save, and I see that as wrong, too. Of course there should be a fairer system, and I always argue for that, but the fact that the system is not fair now doesn't mean that another unfairness should be seen as the answer.

For the record, I don't have a lot of money, and haven't inherited a penny. I do have a house, but it is not worth a fortune and whereas I would like to leave it to my children, there is an even chance that I will have to draw on it to release equity if I make old bones. Anything I leave my children, even if my husband and I both die tomorrow, will be less than many people in even average housing in London will have made on their houses in ten years, just for living there. The system that caps the amount spent on care would leave my children with virtually nothing between them if I need care, whilst those with more valuable houses will still be able to leave their children far more per child than the price of my house after paying the same cap. Some people inherit and others don't, and some need care and others don't.

None of it is fair, and the only way I can see to make it more so is to make care free at point of need and pay for it with tax or compulsory insurance based on income. That way, everyone pays a bit, and if you are lucky enough not to need care you contribute, if you are unlucky you are cared for, and everyone can do as they wish with their own money.

Apologies if I sound like I am ranting, I had no problems with mum using her own money to pay for her necessary care and was very happy with the care she received.

volver

^I think it’s very wrong that two people could be on the same salary (so equally able or unable to ‘afford’ care fees) with one spending while the other saves, and the saver ends up not only paying for the care the spender gets free, but is charged more in fees to subsidise the spender’s care. If anyone can explain to me how that is fair I’d be interested to hear them.^

None of us get to decide whether what a person spends their salary on is "right and proper". We have no idea what expenses each person is responsible for.

As for a private funder subsidising a local authority funded one, well I have no experience of that. Personally, I don't know the fiscal arrangements behind that and whether the Care Homes can claim other expenses for the LA-funded residents. Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that they just charge you more because you have more money. That's not my experience. Sorry. Its not Ryanair.

Incidentally, I abhor means testing.

As far as I know, the care home where mum lived as a self funder did not claim any additional amount from the LA on top of the agreed fee.

I just wanted to point out the discrepancy in fees paid by self funding residents and LA funded. Ideally all residents should pay the same, if LAs paid a viable amount then self funders would pay less, thus equalising the fees.

There are very few LA funded care homes nowadays, such homes were sold off years ago. The company who owned mums care home were formed as a not for profit company about twelve years ago and bought all the eleven LA owned care homes in Stockport. They then ploughed any profits into modernising the homes and improving facilities. They paid their staff the living wage which is above the minimum wage and fund their own agency staff to cover absences in their homes, this helps with staff retention and standards of care.

I know that should my mum have run out of money after a number of years, she would not be asked to leave as happened in some homes, they would then accept the LA fee. However, the idea of mum subsidising the LA while she was self funding was annoying, it does not matter why someone has no house or savings to pay for their own care but surely a system where resident paid the same, either from their savings or from the LA, would be fair?

So in fact some care homes do charge some residents more because they have more money, this only happens because LAs will not, or cannot, pay the going rate. Some care homes won’t accept LA funded residents at all and should a residents run out of money they evict them.

volver

Look, this is what I mean.

If you have £100,000 in the bank that you'd like to leave to your children, tough. If you continue to live in your own home, you'd have to spend it. Nobody has a divine right to leave money to their children.

So if you have to move into a residential accommodation, how on god's green earth is it fair that you get to sit on that £100,000 and pass it on to your children, then expect the state to pay for your living expenses?

The friends who told you things - did they have actual knowledge of how residential accommodation is funded? Did they have a background in the fiscal operation of residential accommodation? Were they actually sure that some people were subsidising others? Or was that just "obvious"?

... there's been some discussion in the past about this issue in various media.

Here's The Carer's take on the matter.

thecareruk.com/care-home-self-funders-charged-12500-a-year-more-than-council-funded-residents/

I don't know of any other sources of information. I haven't looked.

Doodledog

Dickens I have no idea how you differentiate between those who never had an opportunity to save and those who just preferred to spend, and neither do I care. The idea of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor should be consigned to history IMO. Those who earn less should pay less tax, and there should be higher and rigorously enforced minimum wages.

In fact, I wasn't attempting to differentiate - simply pointing out for the benefit of some posters that there really are people who, for one reason or another, do not have enough disposable income left over to save, because they appear to think everyone can.

... and if they happen to have £7 left over at the end of a particular month - why not spend it on a coffee and a panini whilst they sit and reflect on the fact that they will never be in a position to own their own home... they are, at least, keeping people in business and putting their money back into the economy - as all those who spend what they earn are doing.

It is a fact tho' that due to government negligence and incompetence, those in the middle - the 'squeezed', the 'frugal', will be the ones to bear the burden because as we all know the wealthy will not be impacted and those with nothing will be provided for... though how long that will continue is anyone's guess. And those squeezed / frugal individuals do feel penalised. I'm not one of them - as I said, I'm happy to sell-up and pay for my care if needs be. Particularly as I benefited from the state, from "handouts" that were available to me as a young working woman.

Look, this is what I mean.

If you have £100,000 in the bank that you'd like to leave to your children, tough. If you continue to live in your own home, you'd have to spend it. Nobody has a divine right to leave money to their children.

So if you have to move into a residential accommodation, how on god's green earth is it fair that you get to sit on that £100,000 and pass it on to your children, then expect the state to pay for your living expenses?

The friends who told you things - did they have actual knowledge of how residential accommodation is funded? Did they have a background in the fiscal operation of residential accommodation? Were they actually sure that some people were subsidising others? Or was that just "obvious"?

It's not Ryanair, no. It's end of life care for a lot of people, so far more serious and expensive than that.

There are posts on this thread that tell of the difference between what 'private' residents pay compared to the charge per patient to the LA. Are you saying you don't believe those posters? I have no experience of it either, but know it to be true because I have no reason to disbelieve friends who have told me the same thing, and even if it weren't I agree that we have no idea of others' commitments and expenses, which is why I think that assuming that some can 'afford' things and others can't is based on very dodgy ground.

Ah, thank you westendgirl.

I managed without, and the money situation is almost sorted now.
Luckily I had a huge stock cupboard, though!

It's just worth people knowing the effect their comments have on others, though, particularly when they are based on heresay and prejudice, rather than fact.

I think it’s very wrong that two people could be on the same salary (so equally able or unable to ‘afford’ care fees) with one spending while the other saves, and the saver ends up not only paying for the care the spender gets free, but is charged more in fees to subsidise the spender’s care. If anyone can explain to me how that is fair I’d be interested to hear them.

None of us get to decide whether what a person spends their salary on is "right and proper". We have no idea what expenses each person is responsible for.

As for a private funder subsidising a local authority funded one, well I have no experience of that. Personally, I don't know the fiscal arrangements behind that and whether the Care Homes can claim other expenses for the LA-funded residents. Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that they just charge you more because you have more money. That's not my experience. Sorry. Its not Ryanair.

Incidentally, I abhor means testing.

Missadventure, pleaae, please take your refferals for the foodbank. Yes there are people on here who give the impression that they know it all and are scathing about other people when they do not know the facts.Take no notice of them and their bitter attitudes. If you would be better going to the foodbank then go.
We none of us know when we might need help.