Whatever happened to "saving for a rainy day"?

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.