Not spending income - adds to inability to claim benefits?

downshifter98

Becles wrote: »

My Gran was the same.

But when the time came when she needed to go in sheltered accommodation, the cash she had gave her a choice. She was able to look around and picked a lovely place with a room looking out over a park and she was very happy there.

If the state is paying, you don't have the luxury of that choice and some homes are awful. Gran was in a one for a week on respite care when my parents (main carers) went on holiday and she hated it so much, she "escaped" and walked three miles back to her flat in her slippers :eek: I wouldn't have liked it if she had been put in that home permanently as she was really miserable there.

Council paid for care still gives you the 'luxury' of choice albeit with a 'cap' on the cost and councils have to demonstrate that this cap provides suitable care. In addition care in the home is, I believe, far more common than in a care home and it's this area where having money saved up appears to be a waste of time. Obviously for those with serious money then better care will be found (the queen would be an extreme example) but for normal working class people who save hard and go without to achieve perhaps £100t I just wonder whether it's worth it in the current system.

Mojisola

downshifter98 wrote: »

Council paid for care still gives you the 'luxury' of choice albeit with a 'cap' on the cost and councils have to demonstrate that this cap provides suitable care. In addition care in the home is, I believe, far more common than in a care home and it's this area where having money saved up appears to be a waste of time. Obviously for those with serious money then better care will be found (the queen would be an extreme example) but for normal working class people who save hard and go without to achieve perhaps £100t I just wonder whether it's worth it in the current system.

I disagree. For instance, it made the difference between my parents having a council-arranged carer coming in to do their evening meal (15 minute visit, frozen meals in the microwave, clear up after yourselves) and a hour long visit from a private carer who cooked a meal from scratch, gave them a cup of tea, cleared everything away and had time to talk to Mum and Dad, make sure everything was alright and did any little jobs that Mum asked her to do. Worth every penny!

Dunroamin

helentay wrote: »

Yes I fully understand all of that. But I was actually thinking about the gentleman I know that has managed to save out of his benefits/state retirement pension over the past 23 years or so something in excess of £100,000.00.

He lives a very frugal life, hence his inability to spend any of his state pension.

I'm not thinking about inheritances - he doesn't actually have anyone to give it to.

I just find it difficult trying to understand that because he lives in that way his savings (which are entirely the state pension) will be taken off him to pay for a few years of care in a home.
Knowing him, he would feel completely out of his depth if the care home was anything better than what he has been used to in his lifetime.

Still I can see the other side, he should have either spent the money on himself over the past 23 years, burnt it, or have given it away to charities.

It seems that by his actions he will save the taxpayers the cost of the care home, in a way they will be recovering his pension as it was plainly not needed by him.

How can anybody save nearly £90 per week (for over 23 years) simply from benefits and/or a state pension?

Dunroamin

downshifter98 wrote: »

Council paid for care still gives you the 'luxury' of choice albeit with a 'cap' on the cost and councils have to demonstrate that this cap provides suitable care. In addition care in the home is, I believe, far more common than in a care home and it's this area where having money saved up appears to be a waste of time. Obviously for those with serious money then better care will be found (the queen would be an extreme example) but for normal working class people who save hard and go without to achieve perhaps £100t I just wonder whether it's worth it in the current system.

How many "normal working class people" can save £100k, unless you include their home?

downshifter98

Mojisola wrote: »

I disagree. For instance, it made the difference between my parents having a council-arranged carer coming in to do their evening meal (15 minute visit, frozen meals in the microwave, clear up after yourselves) and a hour long visit from a private carer who cooked a meal from scratch, gave them a cup of tea, cleared everything away and had time to talk to Mum and Dad, make sure everything was alright and did any little jobs that Mum asked her to do. Worth every penny!

I guess all experiences are different; Mum has Dad for cooking and chatting but needs 4 visits daily for everything else - the care Mum gets is fine for her needs and is council sourced but still costs £500 per week and probably adds up to about 90 minutes per day spread over the 4 visits - in this situation being frugal for the past 20 years would have meant little difference in care. Shame we can't all predict the future....

downshifter98

Dunroamin wrote: »

How many "normal working class people" can save £100k, unless you include their home?

Exactly. Perhaps I should have said 'upto £100t'. I guess the main thrust of this thread is what amount of money (assuming care provided at home) is worth the sacrifice to achieve it and be enough to guarantee better care. My opinion from what I've seen is unless you can accrue pretty serious money then it's not worth worrying too much; just enjoy life while you can. Funnily enough the same can probably be said for personal pensions (ie £75t saved will get you diddly squat as an income and exclude you from any extra help).

helentay_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

How can anybody save nearly £90 per week (for over 23 years) simply from benefits and/or a state pension?

He has, I've seen the passbook where his state pension is paid into. There have been deposits made and interest credited (he has the book made up once a year) for over 23 years. There have been no withdrawals in the whole of that time. Last time he showed it to me there was slightly more than £108,765 in the account and he's still with us and fighting fit!

He manages to live on a couple of small pensions, one from the MOD (war pension) and one from his old employer. On top of that he also gets his Attendance Allowance payment.

Dunroamin

helentay wrote: »

He has, I've seen the passbook where his state pension is paid into. There have been deposits made and interest credited (he has the book made up once a year) for over 23 years. There have been no withdrawals in the whole of that time. Last time he showed it to me there was slightly more than £108,765 in the account and he's still with us and fighting fit!

He manages to live on a couple of small pensions, one from the MOD (war pension) and one from his old employer. On top of that he also gets his Attendance Allowance payment.

You didn't mention he had other pensions - that explains it.

Dunroamin

downshifter98 wrote: »

I guess all experiences are different; Mum has Dad for cooking and chatting but needs 4 visits daily for everything else - the care Mum gets is fine for her needs and is council sourced but still costs £500 per week and probably adds up to about 90 minutes per day spread over the 4 visits - in this situation being frugal for the past 20 years would have meant little difference in care. Shame we can't all predict the future....

I think that one of the points that Mojisola is making is that, if you're paying for care out of your own money, you could buy considerably more (and probably better) than 90 minutes a day for £500 per week, which, after all, works out at £50 per hour. You wouldn't pay a private carer anything like that amount.

lovinituk

downshifter98 wrote: »

If people really think that a big chunk of cash will mean better care in old age they really are being very naive;

I don't have to think it, I can see it with my own eyes! Both my nans are in homes - one owned a property and had savings, the other had nothing. Guess which one is living in a very nice home with amazing staff and loves being there?!