Savings

petra

CariadAgain
Your property hasn’t been built wrongly
It’s what is referred to as: non standard construction. There are over a million of them in the uk, not just your one in west wales.

Thankfully it's not "non standard construction". I did check whether it counted as that and it doesnt. They are deemed perfectly standard here in every respect etc.

Double outside walls with room enough for the insulation a previous owner did in between those layers. It's a common way houses are built in this area and I asked why and the answer was twofold - 1. Builders in this area often weren't skilled enough to use bricks for the walls - and so they used those concrete blocks and then they had to be rendered and then they had to be painted. 2. Cheaper to build houses the way they are here - rather than brick walls and slate roofs.

In full agreement with "If you decide you're staying put in a particular house" (for whatever reason) = spend everything you need to (or even want to) on getting it as near as possible to the way you want it to be/well-maintained etc.

It helps a lot to have one's house as comfortable and easy to run as possible. I've certainly done so and am still going through the house refining further on that - making it as easy as possible to run and as comfortable as possible to live in. You know you've probably got it about right when peoples original reaction to it was "Oh - a house - shrugs" and now they check out the garden/look round the house approvingly/look at the view (yep...I checked before I bought the house how much of the view was safe from the Council giving planning permission for someone to ruin it).

Your body might impose restrictions on you as you get older - ie stop you walking as far as you've decided to, etc, etc - and so "Make it comfortable" just in case imo.

win

Doodledog

Most care homes have both paying residents and those being paid for though. It's a myth that you have a better deal if you pay for yourself, in most areas anyway. A friend was looking at local ones for her mother, and they all charge around £1500 a week if you pay, but also take people funded by the state, and there is no difference at all in the rooms or service the different people receive.

In some ways, if there are things you want to do, you may as well pay to do them and let the LA fund your care if you are unlucky enough to need it - it won't matter to where you end up in most cases. Operations are a different matter. If you are comfortable with queue jumping, it is definitely a case of money talking.

If you are funded you cannot choose they could send you anywhere in the country where there is a vacancy and they are few and far between at the moment. At least if you can fund yourself, you can search and hopefully find one which is near your family and offers nice surroundings, a room with ensuite and a view, a nice garden and all the other comforts we are used to at home. You will find it hard to get that if you are funded. I know what I choose as long as I can. The local councils buy block bookings in some of the care homes hence they get the very much cheaper price and yes self funders subsidised them or else they could not make ends meet.

Do people often get sent far from home? The few people I know with relatives in homes are all very local.

I am aware of deprivation of assets, and am not suggesting that; but buying things you like (I don't know - decent boots or a Netflix subscription, or going on a luxury holiday) instead of saving in case you have to pay for care is not deprivation of assets. It is living your life. I am not suggesting anything, actually - just making the point that the idea that paying gusts in care homes get more than those who are staying free is a myth, in my (albeit limited) experience.

When it comes to taking out of the NHS, CariadAgain, much of that is luck. Many people are unfortunate to need lots of hospital stays, just as many need unemployment benefits and so on. That's what NI contributions are for. I don't understand feeling angry about choosing to opt for something not offered by the NHS (if that's what you did). There is nothing virtuous about not needing operations, or sinful about needing them. We are lucky to live somewhere that offers an insurance system whereby we all get treated regardless of existing contributions and/or ability to pay.

CariadAgain

MaggsMcG

Don't put it in a Savings Account. You may have to pay tax on the interest. Put it in an instant access ISA.

Are these totally rocksolid secure? When you know the financial system is clearly going to crash at some point before forever you don't want any "ifs and buts" at all about being able to get your savings back - whatever Society gets up to.

Would appreciate basic how-to info on them.

You can invest £20,000 in a cash ISA if you are of pension age . Pick a bank to invest it in and it is safe up to I think about £80,000 per bank . All ours are now in cash ISAs instead of stock market ones as we do not want any risk .Under pension age it is a lesser amount you can invest in a cash one thanks to the last budget.

That doesn’t apply to over 65s (or possibly over 60s). We can keep the full allowance in cash if we want to.

My late fil was funded by LA as he had no property and savings under the limit . We were limited as to where he could go , due to being funded unless we topped it up . LA do have a limit that they will pay .
We moved him from London to be closer to us in Surrey . So you’re not sent anywhere.
His care home was a lovely big old house with kind caring staff .
As for the OPs money , save some and spend some .

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) gives protection. The amount of protection per person, per institution if it goes bust is £120,000 (it was £85,000 before 1 December 2025). In other words, don’t have more that £120,000 in one bank.

All basic rate tax payers have a Personal Savings Allowance of £1,000 which means the first £1,000 of interest isn’t taxed even if it’s in a taxable account. (£500 tax free for those whose marginal rate is 40%).

£25,000 in a savings account paying 4% will earn £1,000. Enough as a rainy day fund, I would have thought.)

If we have do have another financial crash and no immediate way to stabilise markets (as there won’t be under a Reform government which wants to abolish Quantitave Easing) who knows what would happen?

Rainy days days. If it rains shop on Amazon. Genius.

MaggsMcG

Don't put it in a Savings Account. You may have to pay tax on the interest. Put it in an instant access ISA.

Agreed.

Over 18 may invest £20,000 annually into ISA accounts.

People may also invest in children's and grandchildren's ISAs.

Limited to £20,000 for all ISA accounts a person owns.

Norah

MaggsMcG

Don't put it in a Savings Account. You may have to pay tax on the interest. Put it in an instant access ISA.

Agreed.

Over 18 may invest £20,000 annually into ISA accounts.

People may also invest in children's and grandchildren's ISAs.

Limited to £20,000 for all ISA accounts a person owns.

Am I right in thinking that the £20000 limit is to be reduced to £12000 per year for anyone under 65 as from 2027 though?

keepcalmandcavachon

Norah

MaggsMcG

Don't put it in a Savings Account. You may have to pay tax on the interest. Put it in an instant access ISA.

Agreed.

Over 18 may invest £20,000 annually into ISA accounts.

People may also invest in children's and grandchildren's ISAs.

Limited to £20,000 for all ISA accounts a person owns.

Am I right in thinking that the £20000 limit is to be reduced to £12000 per year for anyone under 65 as from 2027 though?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-free-savings-newsletter-19/tax-free-savings-newsletter-19-november-2025#:~:text=2.-,Annual%20subscription%20limits,%C2%A320%2C000%20until%20April%202031

crazyH

I find the need to ‘save’ once you’ve reached the age of 75, is absolutely unnecessary. Enjoy your money, be generous with the children . Money is for spending and cross the bridge of care-homes, when you come to it.

The further shores of old age, beyond 75, are exactly when people most need to have some money put by so that they can buy services they never used to need and stay in their own home.

downsizing; legal and removal expenses . Adapting the home with ramps for mobility aids

More heating, ready meals, accessible bathrooms, a carer to help you shower, a cleaner, laundry. Taxis when you no longer drive. A new kind of clothing or footwear to accommodate physical changes. Technical aid to stay online , the gateway to ordering food eliveries, shopping on line, and an online social life for the housebound.

If you plan it right, your independence in old age is a far greater gift to your children than your money.

Less worry and stress , more pleasure for all generations .

Our kids are all well into middle age, and discussing "The Parents " old age/ welfare/health/ support needs etc is a very active topic among their peer social and work circle (which is mostly medical).

75 years ago, we were all comparing our babies progress, development and worrying about their care in the next few years; now those babies are comparing their parents progress through old age.

"Can they walk ? Yes, but holding on to the bannisters more... I've bought them these gripper things for their shoes and nag them to stay home if its icy.. Vocabulary? Hm. lots of repetition . Teeth? quite a few out now. Wees, poos, nappies..... got all that to come. "

Good post, butterandjam.

In Sussex care homes are around £2,000 a week !! Yes that right.
Not many people with savings would have enough to last for very long with add ons at the home too.
Even paying that much family members were charged for Christmas dinner if visiting !!

Sorry but £2000 a week is a snip compared to here. Look on it as a hotel for a week with full board, laundry and personal care. All heating, broadband, entertainment and maintenance costs covered. Bargain!

Aveline

Sorry but £2000 a week is a snip compared to here. Look on it as a hotel for a week with full board, laundry and personal care. All heating, broadband, entertainment and maintenance costs covered. Bargain!

Saving for care, be it at home or in a care home, is surely advised.

£25000 in a savings account paying 4% interest will earn £1000. Enough as a rainy day fund, I would have thought.

Not much at all in a care home, plus the odd hip or knee operation thrown in.

And if there are two of you…..

Our savings are all for our future care needs. I'm happy to go into a good care home and spare the family the worry and hassle of trying to arrange care at home.

Calendargirl

^£25000 in a savings account paying 4% interest will earn £1000. Enough as a rainy day fund, I would have thought^.

Not much at all in a care home, plus the odd hip or knee operation thrown in.

And if there are two of you…..

I was simply illustrating how much one can save outside of an ISA without paying tax.

And, as I made clear upthread, I don’t regard care home costs as a rainy day. A rainy day in my book is an unexpected one-off emergency expense.

We need to be planning long-term for old age decline and care.

If there are two of you, you will have more income to save from. While two don’t live as “cheaply” as one, neither can a single person live on half the income of two; heating costs and only a 25% council tax discount for a start.

Government figures show that the average pensioner couple is far better off than a single pensioner, especially a single woman.

2024 figures show the average income of a pensioner couple after housing costs was £595 per week compared to £282 for single pensioners. Single women have even less.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2024/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2024

Percentage-based pension rises means that difference will be higher now. It amounts to more than £16,000 a year. Income tax needs to be taken into account depending on the allocation of income between spouses but enough for a leaking roof or a new boiler and even a hip replacement if you do consider that a rainy day expense.

Do you not think, apart from some savings for emergencies ie a new boiler I had to have this year, and any holidays one might want, that income is for spending now on living well.
I do not want to be going without to save now for care home costs which may never be needed judging by the statistics of people in care.
I have a decent home which would be sold and the funds used if needed so I won’t go without “ just in case”.

I don’t go without in order to save. But nor do I spend on pointless luxuries. I go on holiday, buy new clothes, get my hair done, but I’d rather have savings to pay for help needed: someone to keep the garden tidy, do extra housework, and if needed, some personal care, maybe a care home, rather than be a burden to my family.

Graphite - I read quite a few years ago now that a single person needed £2,000 pa extra to live on to a coupled-up person. Of course there's been a lot of inflation since then.

Add in my first thought on reading how much extra we need was "......and the rest....". That figure didn't seem to take into account:
- having to pay rent or buy a house on one's own (rather than only covering 50%)
- having to pay all the cost of renovating/maintaining a house on one's own
- having to buy all the house possessions on one's own (eg my own recent take on that was a new washing machine on my own, new bed and bedding for it on my own, new garden furniture on my own, etc etc etc).

Obviously a pensioner couple could get away with a car between them - but two adjacent neighbours (both single) = a car each.

The list goes on and on of just how expensive it is to be single.

That's before we get onto any inheritance money there might ever be somewhere along the line = cue for the average person might be due for half of any inheritance money their parents leave (ie 2 child family). But then their spouse could also say the same = 2 half inheritances = 1 whole inheritance.

Many people born like my H and I before WW2 never inherited anything, our parents born around the turn of the Century, my H’s both before and mine 1900 and 1904 lived through very hard times and were never able to buy houses or amass savings.
We learned very early on that we were responsible for ourselves.
Our contemporaries were all like us and we just lived our lives accordingly.

Some (many?) care homes refuse patients who can't prove that they have enough to fund what is assumed to be the rest of their lifespan.

If £2000 a week is 'a snip', that would mean upwards of £104k per year per person, and as the average stay in care is 2 years, we are looking at savings of significantly over £416000 to cover 2 people for two years each if they found a home that charged a 'snip' of the usual cost. Usually people have to sell their homes to release that sort of money, which makes the amount saved far less relevant.

Over £400k is way over the average savings pot for adults in the UK - even those over 55, who for obvious reasons have the most put by. I googled to see what the average actually is, and the results are in the screenshot. They are for savings outside of pension pots, so include those of us on final salary pensions who don't have a 'pot'.

To my mind, this means that as the majority of people don't need care anyway, that few of those who do would be unable to fund it for any length of time, and anyway may find that they are excluded from homes that would reject them for lack of funds, there is little point in going without little luxuries while they are alive and well on the offchance.

It is not deprivation of assets to use margarine instead of butter, or to have an annual holiday, buy a new coat or pay someone to do the cleaning and gardening - it is spending your own money that you can't take with you when you go.

I can see the sense in having money put aside for things like dentistry, and even for basic medical care if we do end up losing the NHS under a Reform government, but I often wonder whether posters with money have any idea about average lifestyles and finances. Expecting people to save hundreds of thousands is simply not realistic.

Cabbie21

I don’t go without in order to save. But nor do I spend on pointless luxuries. I go on holiday, buy new clothes, get my hair done, but I’d rather have savings to pay for help needed: someone to keep the garden tidy, do extra housework, and if needed, some personal care, maybe a care home, rather than be a burden to my family.

Same.

We don't go without, however we don't spend on useless items either. We give quite generously to our children and grandchildren, long term savings.

Several years ago we began with window washer, gardeners for occasional 2-3 times yearly tasks. We've necessary weekly cleaners. Saving our backs.