How to minimise Social Care costs?

tooldle

I know of many who did exactly as maman suggests, including cashing in pensions whenever they changed employment. Jam today rather than Jam tomorrow is a very difficult thing to deal with. It requires a mindset shift and willingness to change.
All generations have difficult times. My folks’ first house was purchased in the early 60’s at a price which might seem cheap to todays buyers. But, as ordinary people in ordinary jobs, it was a struggle. Certainly no inheritances to help them out.
All families are different and some generations will do better than others. Equally there will be winners and losers within the same family of the same generation. My sibling is in rented social housing and i own my home outright. Choices, ability or opportunity, or even a mixture of all three determine outcomes for many. 
The past is done and dusted, the here and now is all anyone can work with.

Gavin83

kuepper said:

I'm in good health fortunately and hope things stay that way for many years but today's announcements have woken me up about future worst case scenarios. Having been a more money-conscious person since retiring I'm getting really worried and depressed that all the scrimping and saving I've been doing in order to leave a decent inheritance (way below the inheritance tax threshold) for my family will have been wasted if I need to rely on social care. I couldn't see where this fitted in the forum but I'm surprised I can't find any advice on MSE about this in relation to how to minimise any future social costs, can anyone point me in the right direction?

Easy this one, don’t go into care. You can live with your children and they can provide the care instead.

seven-day-weekend

Many people, including myself, want to leave an inheritance for their children....it isn't just the children being 'greedy'.

However, it does beg the question of who else is going to pay for your care, should you need it.  I suppose I have to reluctantly accept that if I have the means, then I should pay.

However, we are helping our son out now, while we are relatively fit and healthy....we gave him the deposit for his flat, paid for the lease extension and have just funded a new kitchen.  We still have plenty for ourselves.

So although we might not be able to minimise care home costs, our son hopefully will not lose out either.

calleyw

I have not yet found the answer yet.  But at what age does everything become free?  I am looking forward to that.  Not sure why people think everything should be free when you go in to care.  If you lived at home you would still have bills to pay and maintance costs.  If you go in to care home and have means why should you not pay towards your care? 

And please don't come back with the I have paid in all my life.  60% of the adult population are net takers out of the system.  And unless you are paying 40% tax for almost all of your life most of you will never pay enough in tax/NI to cover the costs of your birth, schooling, any benefits you recieve, medical help and cover your state pension.  As pretty sure most who get a state pension never paid that amount per week in tax/NI. 

Nobody had a right to either leave or expect an inheritance. I probably wont live long enough to see my state pension age of 67 or probably higher if there is still one.  But I am still expected to pay tax/NI has is that fair? Also I am expected to pay towards someones care who has more assets than I have.  Still trying to work out how that is fair? 

elsien

There isn't an age at which everything becomes free. 
Social care applies to anyone at any age, according to their needs/health/disability. Some of whom live in care homes, some in supported living, and some who are being enabled to stay at home.  This has been, and will continue to be mean tested, up to the point of the cap. At which point some care will  no longer need paying for (although the detail of this is currently noticeable by its absence) and some which are accommodation costs rather than care costs will continue to be payable unless people are below the means test threshold. 

maman

elsien said:

There isn't an age at which everything becomes free. 
Social care applies to anyone at any age, according to their needs/health/disability. Some of whom live in care homes, some in supported living, and some who are being enabled to stay at home.  This has been, and will continue to be mean tested, up to the point of the cap. At which point some care will  no longer need paying for (although the detail of this is currently noticeable by its absence) and some which are accommodation costs rather than care costs will continue to be payable unless people are below the means test threshold. 

You've explained that well @elsien but I suspect that @calleyw knows that already and was just trying to put a point of view. 

What will happen this time is that people will see something like 'health  and social care levy' itemised on their pay slips although it won't mean much as almost none is going to social care to begin with. 

The tax system is complex and we have been paying in all our lives. But not just to income tax or national insurance but all the other taxes we pay every day whether that's council tax, fuel duty, VAT. None of them are ring fenced, they just go into the coffers. 

TBagpuss

Keep_pedalling said:

kuepper said:

Social care was free until the 1980s and that forms part of my mindset of not wanting to pay for it now as it was political dogma that stopped it being free. Wanting to save hard to maximise the money I leave for my family is no different to me to ppl saying they worked hard to pay for private education etc.

Back then there were actually few in care, more people were looked after by family. The sort of care people want now ( their own room, preferably on suite) was not the norm, things had only just about improved from the work house days (many of the early care homes were actually in old workhouse buildings) like the state pension social care offered by LAs is a safety net, as a nation we can easily afford to provide such a safety net, but how many of us are willing to put up with a absolute basic provision?

From the experience I had with my mother (council tenant with very low savings) I know that you have to become pretty decrepit before you can get past the financial approval hurdle, and although she was happy in the care home she went too and the staff were great, it fell well below what I would want if I ended up in care, so am more than happy to be in a situation that we have the funds to hire a live in career if required or to choose any care facility that meets our wants.

Not only were more people cared for by family but also fewer people lived as long, and the type of illness and the level of care they needed was different, too - advancements in medical treatments have a huge impact.

More people now survive things like heart attacks, strokes, cancer etc. - which is (generally) a good thing, but it means that you live long enough for things such as dementia to get you. We are not anything like as good, yet, at  treating those, and the level of care someone may need if they have advanced dementia is often greater, and continues for much longer, than someone who dies from cancer, for example. 

My grandmother survived cancer, which meant she lived long enough to suffer a stroke and to  need care as a result. 

Even 10 years earlier, I doubt she would have survived the cancer (so wouldn't have lived long enough to have the stroke) and I'm absolutely sure she wouldn't have survived the stroke, if it had happened 5 or 10 years earlier than it did.

She ultimately died of pneumonia after 2 years in a nursing home, because she had sufficient mental capacity to be able to make choices about her medical care, and she decided that that she didn't want to be given antibiotic if she got a respiratory infection. And of course, for many people in care homes they no longer have the capacity to be able to make those choices - if she had had dementia, then she would have probably been given antibiotics early on and would likely have survived the pneumonia (as she did when she got a chest infection the previous year, at which time she did not decline treatment) 

I, and the rest of the family, are and were very grateful that her house was worth enough that she could afford good quality care in a good home, for as long as she needed it, and that she was able to make, and express, her own decisions at the time that was right for her. 

Mojisola

TBagpuss said:

My grandmother survived cancer, which meant she lived long enough to suffer a stroke and to  need care as a result. 

She ultimately died of pneumonia after 2 years in a nursing home, because she had sufficient mental capacity to be able to make choices about her medical care, and she decided that that she didn't want to be given antibiotic if she got a respiratory infection.

The older members of the family say that pneumonia used to be called the 'old people's friend' because it let the frail elderly go quite quickly instead of lingering on in a slow decline with all the resulting indignity and frustrations.

pollypenny

Mojisola said:

TBagpuss said:

My grandmother survived cancer, which meant she lived long enough to suffer a stroke and to  need care as a result. 

She ultimately died of pneumonia after 2 years in a nursing home, because she had sufficient mental capacity to be able to make choices about her medical care, and she decided that that she didn't want to be given antibiotic if she got a respiratory infection.

The older members of the family say that pneumonia used to be called the 'old people's friend' because it let the frail elderly go quite quickly instead of lingering on in a slow decline with all the resulting indignity and frustrations.

I've refused the pneumonia vaccine for precisely that reason.  I'm at risk of macular degeneration and the thought of dragging out a life with virtually no eyesight and poor hearing is not a pleasing prospect.