will the government help itself to nearly all your savings?

nrsql

So the choice is between.
Spend your life being thrifty and saving then use the money saved for care fees.
Have a good time, spend all your money (probably get into debt) and get the care free.

Think I'm making a mistake in not taking more tax avoidance measures in that case.

margaretclare

elizw wrote:

it will if you go into a care home - it is my one greatest fear of getting older.

Hi eliz

Please bear in mind that it's still only a minority of people who end their lives in care homes. Even with an ageing population, most people manage to carry on living at home, even if they have a package of care coming in to enable them to do so.

What you could do is to spend some of your savings on making your home comfortable, manageable, against the time when you may not have the energy or the ability to do so. There are numerous things you could do along these lines. A few years ago we had the bathroom completely re-done to include a shower cabinet instead of a bath - his knees and my hips meant that climbing in and out of a bath was getting dangerous. There's a lot you could do.

I've heard of people who've gone into a care home by their own choice, just purely because they could no longer manage the stairs, the old-fashioned bathroom was upstairs and no downstairs loo, so effectively they were trapped on either one floor or the other! Yet they had refused to do alterations in earlier years when they could have done.

Although I am no great supporter of the present gubbmint - for political reasons - I dislike this type of wording 'the government/the council will take all our savings/our house'. They have no money apart from what they take from us in taxes (and the fact that they waste it on illegal wars is another question). If you want to go and live in someone else's house i.e. a care home then it costs you! As others have intimated, make some plans yourself, don't just sit and whinge about what 'the gubbmint' will do, and as has already been said, don't shift the problem on to another generation!

Margaret Clare

margaretclare

CIS wrote:

If you look at from the point of view of 'Ive paid all my taxes', remember that most people would be in the red on tax paid after 1 reasonable visit to the hospital.

If you can afford to pay then you should.

Absolutely.

A few months ago I had a second revision of hip replacement. This type of highly-technical surgery couldn't have been in the wildest dreams of e.g. my mother's generation. Only a few decades ago people died in agony from destroyed hip-joints. They didn't die OF this condition, they died WITH it, and they had to wait until they died of some other condition, were totally incapacitated and in misery for the last few years of their lives.

I've had surgery 3 times on one hip and once on the other (and that one is beginning to look like needing re-doing). I spent 10 nights in hospital in December. The surgery was difficult and highly-technical, using recently-developed materials and techniques. All this costs.

This is only one example of what is possible now, the technical expertise, the development, the research, it all costs money.

Margaret Clare

CIS

In 2002 , according the report i read , a hip replacement op caost on average £4274, but in some areas cost up to £8000.

So with 4 op's done, thats £17000, probably around 10-15yrs tax for a lot of people.

margaretclare

CIS wrote:

In 2002 , according the report i read , a hip replacement op costs on average £4274, but in some areas cost up to £8000.

So with 4 op's done, that's £17000, probably around 10-15yrs tax for a lot of people.

Ah well, 2 of them were paid for by AXA/PPP when I could still afford to pay into their scheme. The revision is more complicated and therefore more costly than the original replacement, and a second revision even more so. In addition, 10 nights in hospital, how much does that cost in 'board and lodging'?

DH has had both knees replaced, one of them re-operated on and still painful and not working properly, maybe 3rd surgery on that knee later this year. The NHS doesn't question whether this needs to be done, doesn't say 'oh well, you're too old' (or not old enough, as I was told back in 1982!) You're just rationed by waiting-list.

claretmatt

Are investment bonds still disregarded when means testing for care home fees?

I remember reading an article about it a couple of years ago and wondered if this "loop hole" was still open

djohn2002uk

margaretclare wrote:

As others have intimated, make some plans yourself, don't just sit and whinge about what 'the gubbmint' will do, and as has already been said, don't shift the problem on to another generation!
Margaret Clare

But I accepted the problem when it was passed on to me by the last generation and happily so.
This government created merry hell when "Maggies" lot started taking peoples homes and they've had 9 yrs to put it right but like a good few other things they complained about in oposition, they've been happy to accept ever since.

margaretclare

djohn2002uk wrote:

But I accepted the problem when it was passed on to me by the last generation and happily so.
This government created merry hell when "Maggies" lot started taking peoples homes and they've had 9 yrs to put it right but like a good few other things they complained about in opposition, they've been happy to accept ever since.

I think this shows just how similar the political parties have become. No matter if you vote red, blue or yellow, the gubbmint that emerges as a result will be very similar the one that preceded it. There have been numerous instances such as the one you mention. Another one is the uncoupling of the link between earnings levels and state pension levels. Again, there was great shouting when this was done but no commitment to restoring it (although this is now being talked about, but only in the future when it will be too late for the present generation of pensioners).

Whenever we get newsletters from the council, either local or county, they always stress that they do everything possible to assist people to stay in their own homes, even with a package of care coming in to help them to do so. It costs less that way - it's the roof over your head, 'board and lodging' if you like, that costs a lot. It's even possible to sell your home and move into rented sheltered accommodation run by a housing association under the auspices of the local council. That way, you'd have a decent dollop of money to invest to live on.

I hear so often of older people who live in large houses in which they brought up their family but which have become unmanageable, stairs, unsafe bathroom, garden becoming a wilderness etc, and these are the houses they are worried about 'losing to pay for care'. Why not sell up and move to somewhere more comfortable and easy-care, do it while you still have the strength and energy, don't wait until it's too late. We're not planning to move anywhere because this place is comfortable and manageable and we continue to undertake 'big projects' but in a planned way.

Like I said, there are choices and decisions to be made at all stages of life, and it's too simple to talk about the gubbmint 'helping itself' to your savings.

Margaret Clare

djohn2002uk

Dora_the_Explorer wrote:

Those who have assets which can be used to pay for their care should use them. Otherwise millionaires would have their care fees paid by the gov and where's the justice or sense in that?

So, take this scenario:
Two neighbours living in council accomodation, "A" lives the high life and spends everything he earns on flash cars, dining out etc. and saves nothing all his life and relies on no more than state pension in his old age. "B" saves a deposit for his house and pays his mortgage and puts a bit away each week running an old banger most of the time and generally lives frugally.
They both need care in a care home in their latter years.
You know what's comming next, the government gives to one and takes from the other.
Now Dora, you tell me "where's the justice or the sense in that"

It seems to me that those that don't save are always in favour of those that have, being robbed of their assets or being denied any benefits or allowances. Seems we'll never get rid of the jealousy culture between the haves and havenots no matter how hard the haves have worked for their assets.

seven-day-weekend

djohn2002uk wrote:

So, take this scenario:
Two neighbours living in council accomodation, "A" lives the high life and spends everything he earns on flash cars, dining out etc. and saves nothing all his life and relies on no more than state pension in his old age. "B" saves a deposit for his house and pays his mortgage and puts a bit away each week running an old banger most of the time and generally lives frugally.
They both need care in a care home in their latter years.
You know what's comming next, the government gives to one and takes from the other.
Now Dora, you tell me "where's the justice or the sense in that"

It seems to me that those that don't save are always in favour of those that have, being robbed of their assets or being denied any benefits or allowances. Seems we'll never get rid of the jealousy culture between the haves and havenots no matter how hard the haves have worked for their assets.

I suppose it's just that one can afford to pay and the other can't. Regardless of WHY they can't, what do we do about it? They are both elderly people who need care. Do we become like America, and refuse or limit the care of the one who can't pay? (Although a friend of mine who has some high-flying job in the NHS forsees a future where this is precislely what WILL happen.).

I agree with you though, it doesn't seem fair, and I for one am trying to find alll sorts of loopholes so that I can pass my house on to my son without worrying that it will be sold to pay for care fees (as far as I know there aren't any loopholes!) - but the whole question of who pays for what has got to be sorted out PDQ.