Whatever happened to "saving for a rainy day"?

volver

I'm not suggesting you were moaning Doodledog. But when I see posts that are wondering why people bother to save when the feckless irresponsible poor get something for nothing, that does sting a bit (my words, not said by anyone here).

I agree that the tax system should be fairer and that those with more should pay more.

Ok, so can you explain how my hypothetical example above is fair?

You are right that there is an unpleasant amount of judgement and gloating on here - people buying coffee on the train are judged as though they are asking for a life of poverty - but there is no judgement implied in believing that everyone should spend their own money as they wish (and if they wish to save it, that is their right too). If anything it is quite the reverse, yet every time this conversation comes up (or any other mention of means-testing) the assumptions come think and fast.

Means testing (or 'targeting' as politicians prefer to call it) is not caring. It is not designed to give more to those with less. It is cruel and is designed to limit the number of beneficiaries from a scheme to which we all contribute (and, as a percentage of disposable income, it is the 'squeezed middle' who contribute the most). The rich are not impacted to any great extent and the very poor will get full means-tested benefits. It is the largest contributors (as a group) who get hit - people like nurses, teachers, office workers and others on PAYE, who don't have accountants to massage their earnings, and don't get paid in cash and decide how much to declare, but earn an average or only slightly above average income. If they buy a modest house, or squirrel money away in an ISA they are treated as though that money is not theirs, but must be spent on things that could be provided on the basis of need (as they are for the poor) if the tax system were fairer and if everybody paid in.

I'm not suggesting you were moaning Doodledog. But when I see posts that are wondering why people bother to save when the feckless irresponsible poor get something for nothing, that does sting a bit (my words, not said by anyone here).

I agree that the tax system should be fairer and that those with more should pay more.

volver I wasn’t ’moaning’, I was explaining why I think the current system is unfair, and how I believe those who can’t pay should be treated - in the same way as those who can, with funding provided by fairer taxation. You may not agree with my views but there is no need to sneer.

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.

I am not against the poor getting care, and resent the implication that anyone arguing against fees for some and not others might be. I am in favour of everyone paying in and everyone getting care (and that applies to all healthcare, education, housing, pension etc too). ‘From each according to ability:to each according to need.’ Those who are unable to pay in because of illness, high unemployment, responsibility for sick children etc should of course be subsidised in a fair society, but if we all contribute fairly there is no reason for anyone to be without decent care, or for anyone to lose their savings to get it.

is obviously going to penalise some of the more frugal.

If any of us live to be 100, we will have to pay to live; heating, food, TV licence, whatever. Whether we are in our own homes or in a residential facility, we will have to pay. I think my perspective is about whether those who have a bit of money behind them should be expected to spend it or not. And they should be expected to spend it. Sorry for being blunt, but what is the point of dying with thousands in the bank just so that your children can have it, but expecting the state to support your living expenses?

I am not talking about medical care, which I believe should be free at point of need for all. But I'm not going to get all would up about spending my/our money to support ourselves just because I think someone else doesn't deserve it.

I think that is already happening where I live. No one can get a GP appointment unless it is with a private GP practice (and many seem to have popped up out of nowhere in the last couple of years)

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.

I don't understand people who do moan about that. Pay your way, if you can.

I think people would be more willing to 'pay their way' if the social-care system wasn't being administered by a government - and previous governments - composed mainly of self-serving (often fairly wealthy), free-market libertarians whose commitment to the general public's welfare has been to sell off its services and wash its hands of any responsibilities.

The problems and issues arising from an ever increasing ageing population is not a surprise event. It has been known about for years but, due to the complexities of the situation, and not least because dealing with it might involve an element of public-spending which we know is anathema to 'small-state' governments, it has been consistently kicked into the long grass.

Any system has to be fair - or as fair as is practically possible. But the one we have, which seems to be nothing more than a cobbled together, last minute, "can't-be-arsed-to-deal-with-this" solution, is obviously going to penalise some of the more frugal.

In principle, I have no objection to being charged more care-home fees to cover those who through no fault of their own have been unable to save, or to buy a property. I am happy to 'put back' a little of what I took out of 'the system' which, when I was young, gave me the opportunities to get to where I am now. But it is a fact I think that under the current 'plan' for social care, it is the 'man in the middle' who will, as usual, bear the greatest burden. The wealthy elite will of course not have a problem, nor (for the moment) will the impoverished who have nothing. This will inevitably cause resentment. But the resentment should be against governments that have had ample opportunity to deal with this ever-growing problem and quite simply, haven't dealt with it.

However, this whole issue will become a moot point if, as seems increasingly likely, we will eventually become a nation of Charter Cities (it's on the cards) in the future. Healthcare, social care - any 'care' will simply be a commodity that you can either afford or not. And if you are part of the Charter City society and you can't afford any of these services, there will be no falling back on the 'state' as it will not exist, so you will simply be left to cope as best you can, or just fade away.

Hi, I'm not sure if part of the problem is a shortage of local authority care home beds? If this is the case, does anyone know why there aren't more available? Sorry but I'm out of touch on the details with care home provision these days.

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.

You are penalised for putting by for a rainy day. I wouldn't ever do it again. The system is broken. You save, the givernment get it all back one way it another.

Ah, that is awful.
Do you know that what your mum paid directly subsidised others?

It really is time for somebody to make clear, understandable rules for people going through this.

As if it isn't bad enough to deal with already!

MissAdventure

The system is too complicated, but I really was unaware that self funding people pay extra to subsidise others.

Not that I'd know. My level of expertise was more to do with the nuts and bolts stuff.

My mum paid £1100 per week for her room in a care home for people with dementia. Residents with no funds were funded by the local authority ( Manchester) who paid £675 per week for exactly the same room and services. This was in a lovely care home which was run as a not for profit company so there were no shareholders or owners expecting a return on their investment.

I have no suggestions how this could be changed but it really is not fair. I feel the government should be addressing this in the adult social care funding reforms - too late for my mum as she died two months ago.

Norah

Teacheranne

LtEve

A house for £100k? My DD and her brother have just bought a two bedroomed flat together, it cost them £264k. Neither could have bought on their own despite being amazing savers.

It depends where you live. When my daughter graduated she was offered graduate training schemes in business science in London and in Liverpool. Knowing the cost of living in London, she decided to work in Liverpool with the view of relocating later if she needed to. She has been very successful in her career as she works very hard and had had several different jobs gaining experience. I doubt that she will now move to London as her love of the outdoors in The Lake District and Lancashire is very important for her.

My daughter bought a house on her own when she was 32, she saved up the deposit while paying rent and her student loan. Her rent was low as she lived in a small room in a shared house to save money and her two bedroom terraced house cost £110 ( at todays prices). She works in Manchester mainly and chose to live in Atherton, a small town near Bolton where property is cheap. She could have paid three times that to live in a trendy suburb of Manchester or in the city centre but knew that in order to get on the housing ladder she had to look in cheaper locations. She is now buying a new house with her partner and looking to start a family - happy days!

Had she decided to work in London or some other parts of the UK I don’t think she would ever have saved the deposit.

Good example of why people do save what they can to make their deposit, instead of spending on nails, coffees, fancy phones, vacations. She made good choices and it worked out well for her, you must be pleased.

Thank you Norah, I am very pleased and proud that my daughter made sensible choices that suited her needs, I just hope her planned move to a new house works out!

The system is too complicated, but I really was unaware that self funding people pay extra to subsidise others.

Not that I'd know. My level of expertise was more to do with the nuts and bolts stuff.

I’m not SueEH, but I will answer from my own perspective which is that everyone should be cared for from taxes that should be a lot fairer, and probably higher. With sensible taxation people might have less in their pockets, but would have less to pay for, so it would even out. What people do have left should be theirs to spend or save as they wish, without some having their life savings taken from them and others being able to spend with no penalty.

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.

SueEH

People in the same nursing home as my relative have no savings and are funded by the state. My relative has worked hard, has savings and owns their house. They receive the same care but my relative is self funding to the tune of approx £40,000 per year. I don’t know the circumstances of those being state funded but how on is this system fair? My relative would have been better off spending all they earned and qualifying for state funded care.

Hi, SueEH. I was wondering - if you feel it isn't fair that your relative has to pay £40,000 per year to be sharing care home accommodation with others who are state funded, how would you prefer to see the state funded people being cared for?

crazyH

I’m going to be screamed down for this. Disability Benefit should be means tested. If you can afford to fly abroad on holiday twice a year and pay for your family (abroad) to live comfortably, paying for your grand-nieces’ education, then you can surely pay for your own cleaners etc or whatever DLA is meant for,

WHAT??

In 2019 Scope, in their report called The Disability Price Tag found that "On average, disabled adults face extra costs of £583 per month"

I haven't been on holiday for over 12 years, even in the UK, and I am definitely not getting enough to pay a cleaner! I wish .... they even wanted mine off me to pay almost £200 a week for a 30 min daily wash! That would have left me with a deficit of over £500 every month and didn't give me enough to buy food! Finally managed to show them I couldn't afford it, but it took months to sort out! Somehow they are managing to fleece the system in some way! Most of us are destitute - I certainly will be when British Gas finally give me a bill for the last 8 months! They keep telling me that my Gas is costing £10 and my Electricity is £61.61, which is exactly what I was paying before I moved in with 5 other people! Constant washing of clothes, using air conditioning in the conservatory where I live - more like £611.00 a month!!

We couldn’t save for many years, we lived hand to mouth. I worked 3 nursing jobs to keep us afloat for several years.
We bought our house when I was 45, a 20 year mortgage and it nearly crippled us but at least it’s paid off now.
It’s only recently, in the past 5 years that I’ve had any savings, a few thousand, and more recently a small inheritance from my parents who both died during Covid.
So at 69 years of age I finally have a small financial cushion those goodness knows how long that’ll last.

I've been offered refferal (yes, you do have to be referred!) to food banks a few times recently.
What I see here is enough to confirm that I'd sooner do without than be judged as lazy, workshy, too thick to budget, and so on.

People like Dickens and Happyretired123 and others like them do restore my faith in humanity and society.

it seems it is easy to judge anyone when you are on the other side of a computer screen or away from someones face

Hear hear Blondiescot. Our older generation have had so many more benefits than young ones today, and it’s sad to see criticism of them for “frittering” money on phones and t/a coffees. This is part of modern life which wasn’t available in our time even if we wanted it.

nipsmum

Any savings I had were swallowed up when my husband left. My children were 17 and 14. I worked as a nurse in private Nursing homes. I retired when I was 68. I am now 81 and anything I had in the bank is long gone. You don't know anyone circumstances and I am not sure lots of you are qualified to comment.

Well said. There's an awful lot of assumptions and judgements being made.
My daughter and her fiance moved into their first home together today. They've been living in his small rented flat up until now, and they're delighted to have bought their first house together, even though it is a modest two-bedroomed semi. They both work extremely hard as nurses and have saved hard to be able to do this - and even so, they probably wouldn't have managed to scrape together enough for a deposit if my daughter hadn't been left money when her granny died. It's easy to judge young people as not 'living within their means' - when many are struggling to even do that.

I've never been referred to a food bank and I was unemployed for5 mths. But I'd hate it. I was just talking about this today. Everything is going up. B&M expensive now. I don't drink don't smoke don't go out for meals. Can't remember the last time I bought ñew clothes. I've shelled out for my car tyres and oil change lately. I'work full-time can't afford to retire next year. No savings. Its a worry

Teacheranne

LtEve

A house for £100k? My DD and her brother have just bought a two bedroomed flat together, it cost them £264k. Neither could have bought on their own despite being amazing savers.

It depends where you live. When my daughter graduated she was offered graduate training schemes in business science in London and in Liverpool. Knowing the cost of living in London, she decided to work in Liverpool with the view of relocating later if she needed to. She has been very successful in her career as she works very hard and had had several different jobs gaining experience. I doubt that she will now move to London as her love of the outdoors in The Lake District and Lancashire is very important for her.

My daughter bought a house on her own when she was 32, she saved up the deposit while paying rent and her student loan. Her rent was low as she lived in a small room in a shared house to save money and her two bedroom terraced house cost £110 ( at todays prices). She works in Manchester mainly and chose to live in Atherton, a small town near Bolton where property is cheap. She could have paid three times that to live in a trendy suburb of Manchester or in the city centre but knew that in order to get on the housing ladder she had to look in cheaper locations. She is now buying a new house with her partner and looking to start a family - happy days!

Had she decided to work in London or some other parts of the UK I don’t think she would ever have saved the deposit.

Good example of why people do save what they can to make their deposit, instead of spending on nails, coffees, fancy phones, vacations. She made good choices and it worked out well for her, you must be pleased.

Sawsage2

'53MadeInYorkshire'. It must be very hot for you if you're living in the conservatory. Could you not move into a cooler room?

Sadly not - because of the cost of living and the cost of private renting in the area, my daughter and son-in-law have had to move in with my 2 pre-school granddaughters .... then my eldest had to give up uni as her MH took a very bad downturn and had to come home too .... so there are 6 of us squeezed in to a 3 bed semi - the smallest room is a box room with a huge box in it - the stairs bulkhead or whatever it's called and my eldest is literally squeezed in there with only a bed! The 2 double rooms have my youngest and husband in and the 2 children. That's okay as I can't get upstairs, and originally bought this house as there is room to create a downstairs bathroom - however I just cannot raise any money to help us to make the house work - even equity release won't entertain it as it is an ex council house - I had no idea it would be so difficult! It was the only house I could afford and it is on a huge plot backing on to the forest and there's nothing wrong with it at all ..... but if this goes on much longer, we will either have killed each other, topped ourselves or be homeless! My plan was to live in the conservatory anyway but it is too hot even with the air-con on, so it needs a roof to make it liveable - OR solar panels so that I don't have heat failure every time I put the air con on! The kitchen is falling apart and isn't big enough to seat us, and the utility room/my bathroom needs walls down and replanned completely ..... but looks like I can only manage to get £23k which won't do much of a job anywhere .... Council have said not to hold my breath about getting a grant for the bathroom, so it's all very stressful, nothing changes there!