Deprivation of assets vs just spending as you go along

Albermarle

Clowance said:

Does the same DOA rule apply if you spend all your money on yourself in your declining years and then rent a property so that you have no assets when requiring care?

Yes great idea. Spend your more vulnerable years in rented property where you can be evicted at any time, as opposed to spending the time secure in your own home. Just to possibly avoid fees for care, that you might well never need anyway.

Albermarle

Kirkmain said:

400ixl said:

Kirkmain said:

Brie said:

And no people cannot gift their children chunks of money to get on the property ladder. That's DoA.

No it's not, it's called supporting your children, which is the essence of why anyone gets up in the morning to go to work.

Where do you draw the line? Is buying them nice clothes instead of Asda George DoA, is sending your kid to private school or paying for private tuition DoA. Or a parent who pays for a cleaner and a car valet instead of doing it it themselves so they can spend more time with their kids, is that DoA?

You are comparing something you do when they are an adult vs something when they are a child.

Timing is also important, gifting money to your child as a house deposit when you are in your 40/50's in good health is one thing, doing it in your late 50/60's or even 70's especially if your health is suspect would be a whole different matter.

Some people have children in later life. If I have a child in my late 40s (not uncommon in this day and age), they won't be looking into getting on the property ladder until I'm in my 70s.

Most people have children late because they busy working and building a career. Again illustrating how the rules are set up to penalise the frugal or fiscally responsible. How is our society meant to prosper when it's clear to everyone its the feckless who get rewarded by the state.

It is too black and white to say there are the frugal and fiscally responsible on one side, and the feckless on the other.
Many people are born into prosperous circumstances and have had every chance in life handed to them on a plate, whilst others are born into poverty and have almost no chance of escaping it.
The former can easily afford to pay for care, and the latter can not.

Of course there are sad cases where people with less assets have to pay for care and it cleans them out ( from your previous threads it seems unlikely that would apply to you as you have substantial assets) and other cases where people have been feckless, but that is only part of a bigger picture. 

Kirkmain

Albermarle said:

Clowance said:

Does the same DOA rule apply if you spend all your money on yourself in your declining years and then rent a property so that you have no assets when requiring care?

Yes great idea. Spend your more vulnerable years in rented property where you can be evicted at any time, as opposed to spending the time secure in your own home. Just to possibly avoid fees for care, that you might well never need anyway.

Just illustrates the absurdity of the current policies that back people into making this decison

Kirkmain

Albermarle said:

Kirkmain said:

400ixl said:

Kirkmain said:

Brie said:

And no people cannot gift their children chunks of money to get on the property ladder. That's DoA.

No it's not, it's called supporting your children, which is the essence of why anyone gets up in the morning to go to work.

Where do you draw the line? Is buying them nice clothes instead of Asda George DoA, is sending your kid to private school or paying for private tuition DoA. Or a parent who pays for a cleaner and a car valet instead of doing it it themselves so they can spend more time with their kids, is that DoA?

You are comparing something you do when they are an adult vs something when they are a child.

Timing is also important, gifting money to your child as a house deposit when you are in your 40/50's in good health is one thing, doing it in your late 50/60's or even 70's especially if your health is suspect would be a whole different matter.

Some people have children in later life. If I have a child in my late 40s (not uncommon in this day and age), they won't be looking into getting on the property ladder until I'm in my 70s.

Most people have children late because they busy working and building a career. Again illustrating how the rules are set up to penalise the frugal or fiscally responsible. How is our society meant to prosper when it's clear to everyone its the feckless who get rewarded by the state.

It is too black and white to say there are the frugal and fiscally responsible on one side, and the feckless on the other.
Many people are born into prosperous circumstances and have had every chance in life handed to them on a plate, whilst others are born into poverty and have almost no chance of escaping it.
The former can easily afford to pay for care, and the latter can not.

Of course there are sad cases where people with less assets have to pay for care and it cleans them out ( from your previous threads it seems unlikely that would apply to you as you have substantial assets) and other cases where people have been feckless, but that is only part of a bigger picture. 

Kate Garroway's husband's care has left her £800,000 in debt. And that has been for only 3 years. If I need 10years of care, that would completely wipe out my £2million estate. Money I want my bloodline to benefit from. Yet if I had never worked, never invested, and just spent money frivolously on myself, my friends and my family, I would get my care paid for by the state. Make it make sense.

elsien

Kate Garroway used that money to keep her husband at home which is where he wanted to be. And to pay for additional therapies etc.  That level of care with all the extras would not have been an option with state funded care. 

Grumpy_chap

Kirkmain said:

If I need 10years of care, that would completely wipe out my £2million estate. Money I want my bloodline to benefit from. 

If your bloodline truly care, they will want you to have the best care available.
If they don't care, why are they worthy of your money when you are gone?
If your priority is for your bloodline to benefit from your resources, why have you not gifted far earlier?  For the majority, gifts later in life will make things nice but not life-changing whereas a relatively small gift younger can make a world of difference.

Kirkmain said:

if I had never worked, never invested, and just spent money frivolously on myself, my friends and my family, I would get my care paid for by the state. 

Never worked, etc. means you die penniless.
You have resources so can choose the best care available.  You may still die penniless - you can't take it with you.

SouthCoastBoy

HouseMartin567 said:

Kirkmain said:

Brie said:

Look at your bank statements to see who you made payments to.  Presumably they or someone will have authority to get all your bank statements back however many years and they'll just start badgering the people to whomever the payments were made.

And as much as we would all like to treat friends and family why wouldn't you want to be in the best facility you can afford?

That's the thing. I have seen friends go into facilities, paying through the nose. £1500per week in one case. In the room next to them, arguably with a nicer view. Getting the same care. The same activities, the same food. Only this fella gets it all for free. Why? Because he was smart enough to spend his money and live life, and treat his family as he went along. Never owned a property, only rented. But on chatting to him, this fella who gets his room for free has been on more foreign holidays than my mate who now has to pay with his estate when he dies. Make it make sense please

In my experience, the situation you describe is a rarity, and that local authority funded care is likely to be on the lower class/quality of care home.

In my experience I have seen this often, both in my mothers, grandmothers x 2 and grandfathers, so I'm not sure that it is that rare? Basically everybody I have visited who is in a care home has had both private fee paying and LEA residents in the same care home

mybestattempt

It makes sense of the expression  "you come into the world with nothing and leave with nothing".

Perhaps it's time to have a chat with your bloodline and establish what they want you to do with your wealth.

If they want every penny give it to them before you need care and live with the consequences.

If they want you to keep it so you can live the rest of your life as securely and comfortably as possible, be grateful that they love you and not your money.

Albermarle

Kirkmain said:

Albermarle said:

Kirkmain said:

400ixl said:

Kirkmain said:

Brie said:

And no people cannot gift their children chunks of money to get on the property ladder. That's DoA.

No it's not, it's called supporting your children, which is the essence of why anyone gets up in the morning to go to work.

Where do you draw the line? Is buying them nice clothes instead of Asda George DoA, is sending your kid to private school or paying for private tuition DoA. Or a parent who pays for a cleaner and a car valet instead of doing it it themselves so they can spend more time with their kids, is that DoA?

You are comparing something you do when they are an adult vs something when they are a child.

Timing is also important, gifting money to your child as a house deposit when you are in your 40/50's in good health is one thing, doing it in your late 50/60's or even 70's especially if your health is suspect would be a whole different matter.

Some people have children in later life. If I have a child in my late 40s (not uncommon in this day and age), they won't be looking into getting on the property ladder until I'm in my 70s.

Most people have children late because they busy working and building a career. Again illustrating how the rules are set up to penalise the frugal or fiscally responsible. How is our society meant to prosper when it's clear to everyone its the feckless who get rewarded by the state.

It is too black and white to say there are the frugal and fiscally responsible on one side, and the feckless on the other.
Many people are born into prosperous circumstances and have had every chance in life handed to them on a plate, whilst others are born into poverty and have almost no chance of escaping it.
The former can easily afford to pay for care, and the latter can not.

Of course there are sad cases where people with less assets have to pay for care and it cleans them out ( from your previous threads it seems unlikely that would apply to you as you have substantial assets) and other cases where people have been feckless, but that is only part of a bigger picture. 

Kate Garroway's husband's care has left her £800,000 in debt. And that has been for only 3 years. If I need 10years of care, that would completely wipe out my £2million estate. Money I want my bloodline to benefit from. Yet if I had never worked, never invested, and just spent money frivolously on myself, my friends and my family, I would get my care paid for by the state. Make it make sense.

What makes sense is that the local authority spends a fortune on adult social care, to the point many are nearly bankrupt. So they ask that people who have reasonable assets to contribute to keep the show on the road.

Some well off people would find it immoral to try and get the cash strapped local authority to pay for their care, when they could easily afford to pay for it themselves.

Others ( like yourself) see it as immoral that the local authority pursues people for 'family money' whilst happily funding the poor and feckless.

Both points of view are valid, and it all depends on your viewpoint on life, collective responsibility etc but of course that is getting a bit too political for a MSE forum.

On a  more practical point if the local authorities had to fund all care with no input from self funders, then the money would have to come from somewhere. Presumably from increased taxes, which tend to hit higher earners harder. So back to square 1....

kaysdee

As I’ve recently discovered, even if you don’t have funds to pay directly for your care, every single person will be expected to make a financial contribution to their care needs. Anything you receive in benefits, state pension, private pension, etc, will be used to assess your financial contribution and, in the case of residential care, the person will only be left with just a weekly allowance of £25 or so. Everything in excess of this and you’ll get an invoice from the council for your contribution.