Paying for Social Care

maddyone

That’s good advice theworriedwell, I may well do as you’re going to do if my husband dies first. However, the plan is that I’m going first, I don’t want to be left on my own. If only we could plan in such a way. However I have no intention of going anywhere yet.

My husband's older than me and he's been disabled for the last 30 years so I suppose logically you'd think he'd go first. In fact I think I might die of exhaustion any day now! (I'm nearly 70, still working, still his carer and currently bringing up 2 GC.)

This is a good idea

theworriedwell

Alegrias1

Here's a scenario....

You get to 75 and believe that you've worked hard all your life and you've saved tens of thousands of pounds, and you own a house. You'd really like to leave it all to your kids and so you think the best way to achieve that is to get the taxman to pay for your food, Community Charge, utilities, TV licence, household goods...

Any sensible person would tell you where to get off, buy your own stuff. Oh, unless you live in a Care Home of course, because then anything goes.

It just doesn't make sense.

If your place is being paid by LA you lose most of your pension as contribution to your costs so no one gets care for nothing, they take it if you are in hospital longterm as well.

I might not have been too clear on this. The imaginary person in my scenario is nowhere near a care home, they just think that they should keep all their money until they die and that you and I should pay for their lives for a few years.

I should be clear too that people can give their children as much as they like, when they like, I don't have any problem with that. For me the problem comes when people want to give their children all their assets then have the state pay for their care. How is that different to the "feckless" people above who spent all their cash on drink and holidays? They both want to use their money in ways that are important to them, and expect me (and you) to financially support them afterwards.

growstuff I refer to your post at 19.53. I really don't believe you mean that. I am actually laughing. If you had your way no one would wish to work and definitely wouldn't be putting their name down for an extra shift at work!

growstuff, let's imagine you come into a large sum of money in the next couple of years. You inherit from an Aunt you didn't know you had, win the lottery or invent a best-selling gadget that does the ironing.

What would you do with this money when you die? Would your belief that inheritance is wrong tempt you to disinherit your children, or would you want to make their lives more comfortable than yours has been?

How on earth can you say that? It's not fair that only some parents can leave money for their children.

No, it's not. But unless you want to live on a collective farm or something, that's the way it is. It's not fair that some people are born talented and others aren't. It's not fair that some are born disabled and others aren't, and so on. Are you suggesting that we should reduce the advantages of being able bodied and intelligent, or good at something valued by society, too?

And I can say that because it is my opinion, just as you can state your own.

It comes down to the same thing, though (*growstuff*). We seem to be agreeing that people need an incentive to do all of those things, unless we are just born 'driven'. Whether that incentive is to provide more for our children or to live in a big house on the top of a hill is immaterial, really. 'Leaving something behind' is a big psychological desire - look at all the plaques on hospital wards and public buildings named after benefactors.

Of course single and childfree people are also ambitious (or not as their personality dictates), and i'm not suggesting otherwise.

Doodledog

varian

Life is a lottery Doodle

Some folk are born into wealth, some onto poverty. and some poor souls are born into a war zone.

Fairness of any sort is an illusion - but that does not mean that it is not something we should strive for and vote accordingly.

Yes, I know.

I realise that we are going round in circles, but to me, voting for the right of this who are neither rich nor poor to be able to work towards improving the chances of their children is an attempt at fairness. It's the only chance they have. As I keep saying, none of this really applies to the rich or the poor, and I see means testing as keeping people in their place - it is cruel and regressive.

To remove that right (to those unfortunate enough to need care) is going to drag the family down, not raise poor people up - it just seems vindictive to me, and unnecessary if instead of concentrating on ensuring that 'ordinary' people don't get a head start, we looked at ways of implementing a fairer tax system so that care is paid for upfront.

How on earth can you say that? It's not fair that only some parents can leave money for their children.

If you really want to promote fairness, take all assets when a person dies and redistribute them, so that individual earns his/her own wealth and doesn't depend on inherited wealth.

maddyone

I don’t know what others would do, but I would keep my house and if necessary it will pay for my care. I will certainly use my money, what I have, to treat my children and grandchildren. I already do this. We paid for weddings, IVF, and give/gave generous gifts. There are certainly people who are wealthy. We are not wealthy but we own our own home and have saved some money. I assume most of you will be doing the same as far as each of us is able.

I think that you'd find that you are wealthy, if you looked at the overall picture. Somebody with median wealth most certainly couldn't afford that.

love0c

Pippa Sorry I do not understand your post. My husband and I have always worked hard and encouraged our children to do the same. If you want something then save for it, learn to pay your own way. regardless of how this or any government decided to proceed I will always keep this opinion. Personal pride. We should all be encouraged to think this way. If we did the country would be better off as a whole. A fair way has yet to be found. But it needs to be one that encourages people to save for retirement if they are able to do so, not discourage.

People aren't discouraged. They're parted from their wealth when they die anyway.

Josianne

It is certainly a lottery and as said, we are shaped by our experiences.
I received an inheritance, a large one, but I would have given it all away to have had my parents back to have seen at least one grandchild.
Whilst others had help and financial support from grandparents when their children were growing up, I was paying for nannies and cleaners to go out to work.
I am now making sure my children currently receive as much as I can gift.

Meanwhile, none of my family have needed care. My parents, my stepmother and two grandparents all died from cancer. Contrary to some claims, they did not spend their last few weeks in hospital. They were discharged after some minimal treatment to die at home, where they were nursed/cared for by my sisters and me. Confirmation that my father had been awarded a care package came through on the day he died. Other than that, there was no financial support, although a district nurse came to administer my mother's pain killers.

love0c

Pippa Sorry I do not understand your post. My husband and I have always worked hard and encouraged our children to do the same. If you want something then save for it, learn to pay your own way. regardless of how this or any government decided to proceed I will always keep this opinion. Personal pride. We should all be encouraged to think this way. If we did the country would be better off as a whole. A fair way has yet to be found. But it needs to be one that encourages people to save for retirement if they are able to do so, not discourage.

You seem to enjoy running other people down love0c and judging them, so much so that it sounds as if you envy the life of those who end up without. I can't think of any other reason for being so destructive about those who end up with so little.

The problem with people who think others should live by their "rules" is they forget the people who broke them. Those who managed to set up companies, come up with brilliant inventions, paint amazing - or even very good - art, write music, books, etc., that we can all enjoy or simply add to the "wealth of goodness" in the lives of the people around them. Sometimes accumulating great wealth, sometimes none at all.

There isn't only one way to live your life and I would much rather have such courageous people around than the condescending and superior.

Doodledog

foxie48

Doodledog your assertion that people only work hard at school, work overtime and take stressful jobs etc so they can leave money to their children is IMHO complete rubbish. On that basis, single people and childless couples wouldn't bother either. I know lots of hard working ambitious childless people and I have no doubt they will end up paying for their care should they need it and they don't even have children they can turn to for help with even the most basic things like shopping!

It wasn't my assertion! It was something that growstuff mentioned earlier.

If that's what you think Doodledog, you misunderstood what I wrote. My claim about working hard was in reply to a suggestion that people should pay for care in relation to lifetime income.

It is certainly a lottery and as said, we are shaped by our experiences.
I received an inheritance, a large one, but I would have given it all away to have had my parents back to have seen at least one grandchild.
Whilst others had help and financial support from grandparents when their children were growing up, I was paying for nannies and cleaners to go out to work.
I am now making sure my children currently receive as much as I can gift.

Casdon

I was thinking more in terms of parents helping their children with house purchase and that type of scenario Alegrias1, when the parents are in their fifties and sixties. Apparently one in five house purchases in 2019 were purchased in this way.

Indeed they are. A friend of mine is a financial advisor and this is exactly the kind of thing she gives advice about. School fees are often paid by grandparents too.

To me, the greatest unfairness is that people with low value houses see the inheritance almost wiped out, while those with high value houses and assets get to keep a much bigger percentage (or, at least, their children do). That's why the plan proposed by May and Osborne was much fairer, but the Tory backbenchers started squealing and, for some bizarre reason, Corbyn's Labour did too.

I seem to remember it was just over £7 a week!

That’s good advice theworriedwell, I may well do as you’re going to do if my husband dies first. However, the plan is that I’m going first, I don’t want to be left on my own. If only we could plan in such a way. However I have no intention of going anywhere yet.

love0c

Theworrriedwell that is true. I remember my MIL's pension was taken into account and then her savings. She paid it all herself until she died.

They leave you something for personal expenses, I think my granddads went on whisky mine would go on chocolate. We are all entitled to a little vice.

Theworrriedwell that is true. I remember my MIL's pension was taken into account and then her savings. She paid it all herself until she died.

Well impressed with the home my elderly relative is in. I got a phone call today as I was watching the announcement about booster jabs. It was the home to tell me relative had just had her booster.

I haven't had an inheritance, my father died when I was a child and my mother didn't have an opportunity to buy a house or save money. If my husband dies before me I intend to downsize and give my children his half of our assets. If they get any more that's great.

It’s correct that the pension is taken to pay for accommodation and food. Nobody gets completely free care.

Me too love0c. Obviously as I never received an inheritance, for me it’s a moot point. But I would certainly have divided it amongst my children if I had received one, as although they’re all okay now, it would have been helpful earlier on.

Alegrias1

Here's a scenario....

You get to 75 and believe that you've worked hard all your life and you've saved tens of thousands of pounds, and you own a house. You'd really like to leave it all to your kids and so you think the best way to achieve that is to get the taxman to pay for your food, Community Charge, utilities, TV licence, household goods...

Any sensible person would tell you where to get off, buy your own stuff. Oh, unless you live in a Care Home of course, because then anything goes.

It just doesn't make sense.

If your place is being paid by LA you lose most of your pension as contribution to your costs so no one gets care for nothing, they take it if you are in hospital longterm as well.

Maddyone I received one. I split it evenly between between my adult children. They both used it as a deposit for a house. I would do the same again, no question.