Pensions and Care Home Fees

Paul_Herring

..as fewer die from heart attacks, strokes and cancer.

And smoking, drinking, eating salt and sugar, to go by the current public health tax-payer-funded lobbying.

Yet stopping people from smoking,drinking, eating salt and sugar is supposed to save us money somehow...

hyubh

Paul_Herring wrote: »

'Free' university education a few decades ago could be covered by the public purse because proportionally fewer of their peer group actually went, and when there studied largely useful subjects.

University a place, back in the day, for studying 'largely useful subjects'. Interesting theory. What were these subjects, out of interest?

Now that 50% of them a year are entering university to study Underwater Basket Weaving, Feminist Studies, and The Politics of Harry Potter via the Medium of Interpretative Dance, the public purse cannot bear the cost.

I confess I'm struggling to find actual university courses for two of three, but assuming you've researched this diligently, would it make a difference if 50% were studying theology instead...?

lisyloo

Paul_Herring wrote: »

And smoking, drinking, eating salt and sugar, to go by the current public health tax-payer-funded lobbying.

Yet stopping people from smoking,drinking, eating salt and sugar is supposed to save us money somehow...

Those people mostly don’t die but require treatment sometimes on going e.g. from type 2 diabetes.
There will also be costs in statutory sick pay and personal care for the elderly (free for those without means).

lisyloo

hyubh wrote: »

University a place, back in the day, for studying 'largely useful subjects'. Interesting theory. What were these subjects, out of interest?

When I was at uni 30 years ago people were studying engineering, computing, pharmacy, business, metallurgy.

Keep_pedalling

If you had any idea what it is like for those who need care but can!!!8217;t afford the options having the money to pay for their own, you should be insentivised to make sure you can self fund.

I hope neither of us will ever need it, but we are very happy to know that if we do we have the means to chose where and when that care is provided, and by who. We have funds set aside for this and if not needed there will be a nice bonus for our children and HMRC when we finally snuff it.

Alibert

Pension planning is largely about tax and benefits .. the government tells us that if we manage our money one way we pay this amount of tax and get these benefits , if we manage it a different way we pay a different amount of tax and get different benefits

Care home expenses are just another element of this to be taken account of.

If I say I am choosing pension over ISA to minimise IHT everyone says that is sensible
If I choose DC over DB to minimise care home fees .. no difference

Keep_pedalling

lisyloo wrote: »

When I was at uni 30 years ago people were studying engineering, computing, pharmacy, business, metallurgy.

And they still do. There were also lots of people studying the humanities back then as well.

My children studied subjects lots of old farts would regard pointless, but it has not stopped them finding good and worthwhile employment.

Keep_pedalling

Alibert wrote: »

Pension planning is largely about tax and benefits .. the government tells us that if we manage our money one way we pay this amount of tax and get these benefits , if we manage it a different way we pay a different amount of tax and get different benefits

Care home expenses are just another element of this to be taken account of.

If I say I am choosing pension over ISA to minimise IHT everyone says that is sensible
If I choose DC over DB to minimise care home fees .. no difference

There is a huge difference. Looking at the second only on the finances is nuts. If I need residential care my first choice is to have live in carers in my own home, no LA is going to pay for that. My second choice is going to be a high quality care home of a standant that is not going to be on the LAs approved homes that will receive LA funded residents.

One of the primary reasons we save should be that we have sufficient money to see us through our old age in comfort whatever life throws at us.

Alibert

I meant no difference in principle, or morals
If it's ok to avoid iht it's ok to avoid care home fees

If it's immoral to avoid care home fees it's immoral to avoid iht

Of course practically it might not work

lisyloo

If you had any idea what it is like for those who need care but can!!!8217;t afford the options having the money to pay for their own, you should be insentivised to make sure you can self fund.

Too right.
Our local authority recently tried to put my MIL and FIL in different homes to save some pennies.
They had been married 60 years.
He was bed bound and she cannot get into a car without specialist assitance so they would have been limited in seeing each other.


We also visited some homes that were awful.
I don't mean we are being fussy.
I mean dressings having off, stench of urine, dirty toilets etc. and family memebers saying "he's going in here over my dead body" and really meaning it.

Care home expenses are just another element of this to be taken account of.

But with a very human experience/wellbeing element as well to be taken account of.

If I choose DC over DB to minimise care home fees .. no difference

I beg to differ.
Massive difference if you will be split up from your spouse after 60 years, or put in a home where you are neglected, cold and sitting in your own excrement.