Deprivation of assets vs just spending as you go along

lr1277

I object to your labelling people that are in care homes being funded by the LA as workshy, shiftless layabouts.

Some of them will have been in jobs that didn't pay much for example nurses, emergency service workers, retail employees and a whole host of other professions where the person has not had the excess cash to save and invest. Unlike you of course.

With that I am out.

EnPointe

Brie said:

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

No, it is not   , in general, 

however if a  Eldery or otherwise infirm person where there is a clear likelihood of them requiring care in the  short ot medium term  was to  gift money  it might be ... 

a fit and healthy parent in the r 50, 60s or even into their 70s  doing so  probably wouldn't be , where an cleqalry infirm 80 something year old giftign to grnadchildren mightbe 

EnPointe

amanda1024 said:

I’m worried by Brie’s story because (like most my generation) my parents gifted me some money to help buy a house. Or was the issue specifically that MiL sold her own home and the money came from that? I agree with Kirkmain! I suppose one thing would be to buy experiences - holidays etc - rather than gifting cash?

it is not  deprivation of  assests  especially if that  gift was made when the parent was in their  50s, 60s  or even into their 70s  and living a full and active lifet at that time 

Kirkmain

Also how can it be DoA if Brie used the money to buy a house. Yes I could understand if the MiL gave money for the sole purpose having it leave her estate. But clearly the primary purpose of the transfer of moneys was to help her family get along the property ladder. Therefore that is not DoA

mybestattempt

I feel pity for those who, as they grow older, cannot find contentment in having done their best for themselves and family rather than rage and contempt for those who they perceive as lesser mortals.

Keep_pedalling

Hal17 said:

Kirkmain said:

wow I had no idea. It was rage inducing enough knowing those who worked and saved had to pay when those who never worked or spent friviously get care for free. but to think the former are actually supplementing the latter. How can any reasonable person think this is fair? And DOA laws makes those who just want the best life for their descendants seem like criminals

My dad is currently paying £80K a year and I've been told unofficially that he is paying over £20K more as a self funding resident than the home receives for its many LA residents. And his fees will increase by another 9% next year. I don't have the heart to tell him how much it costs he thinks he's living there for free.

Most care homes can’t find enough self funders to fill their rooms, and they have a choice of leaving them empty and go bust to take in a number of LA funded residents to reduce their losses. I believe most still lose money on those residents but the income keeps them afloat. 

The OP says they have £2M so there is no way their entire wealth is going to go on care costs and with that sort of money they have the option of live in carers to keep then out of residential care. Our net worth is not that high but still I good deal over our IHT exemptions, so every £ spent on care reduces our IHT liability by 40p.

After my experience with my mother who was LA funded there is no way we are going to be dependent on a cash strapped LA. The worse aspect of it was the long wait for her condition to get bad enough to get past the funding panel. This was before Brexit and COVID, I dread to think how much things have gone down hill since those events.

captain_jep

I’ve read that the average length of stay in a care home is 3.5 years. Assuming a yearly cost of 70-80K you might spend 300K on end of life care. That means that many can fund out of household equity. And those who have 2M in assets probably have nothing to worry about.

Yes yes this is an average but people do get into the mindset that care homes are going to make them bankrupt. 

theoretica

There was bit of discussion a few years ago about an extra tax to enable paid for care for everyone without means testing https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk-ministers-looking-at-plans-to-raise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care

kaysdee

I wasn’t stating it was wrong that everyone is expected to contribute to their care, simply that those are the facts. The OP may be under the impression that if you had under £14,250 that meant all of their care would be fully funded.

in my case, my husband is under state pension age. He has dementia and is very much loved and part of our family. As he is younger, we have an under 18 year old and 2 other (barely) adult children, one of which is severely disabled. OH cannot be alone due to the dementia (young onset dementias are often rarer and more progressive) and although he cannot cope in terms of living skills and the danger his deficits bring, his awareness is there and he absolutely has the right to be a part of his children’s lives and upbringing. I effectively have to manage as a single person now. I’m not complaining, just saying there are all sorts of people in residential care and it’s not like he’s at the end of his life and waiting to die.

My eldest is now in supported living and about to go through his own financial assessment to determine his contribution to his care package. He’s 20 years old. He could live another 50 or so years but apparently he has to be satisfied by only retaining whatever the weekly allowed amount is for him to keep for the rest of his life. Here I am slightly bitter 😉. He has much he would love to do but will likely never get the chance.

Floss

JonnieF said:

I’ve read that the average length of stay in a care home is 3.5 years. Assuming a yearly cost of 70-80K you might spend 300K on end of life care. That means that many can fund out of household equity...

Unfortunately I am one whose property is not worth more than £110k so I will never be able to raise equity to pay for care.