What age to plan living to
Comments
-
I agree the minimum acceptable does need to be just that, but against that there is no magic money tree so there are always going to be tradeoffs, just continually raising tax rates is not the solution as this both discourages work and means that those more heavily taxed have less available to provide for themselves.Have you actually seen what is considered acceptable?
We went to about 20 care homes last year.
A significant minority were dreadful and I'm not talking about being fussy here. I mean dressings hanging off, stench of urine, filthy toilets.
My SIL said "over my dead-body" and really meant it.
This is where people who have no advocates or poor ones end up.
We had the experience last year when the LA wanted to split up MIL & FIL after 60 years of marriage. One was bed bound, the other would require lifting into a car or wheelchair taxi, so would not have seen each other very much if in different homes.
In principle I love your idea, but many (not just me) would say the minimum currently provided is not acceptable.I think....0 -
I agree the minimum acceptable does need to be just that, but against that there is no magic money tree so there are always going to be tradeoffs, just continually raising tax rates is not the solution as this both discourages work and means that those more heavily taxed have less available to provide for themselves.
What about people paying more for themselves i.e. scrap the property disregard?0 -
grey_gym_sock wrote: »it would be a lot fairer (and IMHO, more socialist, but that's a not the main point), if we had a national care service which was both high enough quality that everybody (who wasn't eccentric) would be happy to use it, and had no means testing or charging at the point of use. sensible people would be happier to pay in to support the system if they knew that they would also get something out if and when they need it.
this idea is directly modelled on how the NHS is supposed to work
Most people will get injured or ill or have a baby at some point in their lives, so the NHS is an easy sell because nearly all taxpayers will get some benefit out of it.
Most people would rather have a pillow put over their face than go into a state-run care home, so a National Care Service is an impossible sell because most taxpayers will never use it. Or like to think they won't, which for the purposes of this discussion (whether it's politically viable) is the same thing.0 -
Malthusian wrote: »Most people will get injured or ill or have a baby at some point in their lives, so the NHS is an easy sell because nearly all taxpayers will get some benefit out of it.
Most people would rather have a pillow put over their face than go into a state-run care home, so a National Care Service is an impossible sell because most taxpayers will never use it. Or like to think they won't, which for the purposes of this discussion (whether it's politically viable) is the same thing.
I don't think that this will get off the ground either for several reasons, there used to be a similar system- council run Care Homes for those not too badly dementing; Mental Health Hospitals (Asylums) with large numbers of Elderly Mentally Ill beds/ wards for those with dementia; Private Sector Nursing Homes for those that wanted more than the Council run homes or felt the stigma of having a relative in a NHS Mental Hospital was too much to bare.
A joint approach politically by the Tories and Labour, following lots of enquiries into abuses in hospitals and a realisation that the cost of each county having a 800+ bedded hospital and a realisation that there was money to be made for the private sector in privatising/ selling off Council homes and closing the old Mental Health Hospitals led to the closure of both (on the whole) and the political compromises to achieve this has led to the current set up.
The drive to save money still goes on but it seems IMHO that we just continually rob Peter to pay Paul endlessly and the answer has evaded people. What we need is an honest debate about what sort of system we want/ need and crucially how to pay for it!
A Society really can be judged on how it treats its' most vulnerable people.CRV1963- Light bulb moment Sept 15- Planning the great escape- aka retirement!0 -
Eventually we'll be allowed to kill ourselves without too much trouble if we've simply had enough of life. That still doesn't solve the problem of the demented who are in no position to make a judgement. Maybe we should all write a suitable letter before we get in that state. This would undoubtedly mean that some poor souls will be coerced into bumping themselves off by their children who want to get their hands on the money. Even then it would presumably lead to a large reduction in the sum of human suffering. We really can't leave it to the occasional Shipman to winnow the geriatric population.Free the dunston one next time too.0
-
I estimate max annual expenditure until I!!!8217;m 90 and how long I can live based on various annual expenditures.
They both go up while I spend less than that and while I still have earned income.
The problem is inflation. Apart from the old ns&i certificates it!!!8217;s difficult to know how to hedge against it. Even after retirement care fees could be 20 years away - who knows what the cost will be.0 -
one in 10 of my clients is expected to outlast even age 100, therefore they should be planning as thought this is a distinct possibility.
Is there a good source for the life expectancy and related statistics for the survivor of a couple? After all, many of us are as worried for our spouses as for ourselves.
If you take a couple of, say, 75 and 73, what is the probability that one of them will live past 90? (We could assume average health for their age and no family histories of unusually long or short lives.) I realise that the question is much more complicated than the probability of a single individual surviving, but it may well be more important too. And yet I've never seen it discussed.Free the dunston one next time too.0 -
If you take a couple of, say, 75 and 73, what is the probability that one of them will live past 90?
Almost evens. It's not difficult to work out from the ONS mortality tables. Assuming a 75 year old male and 73 year old female, and ignoring the fact that having your partner die decreases your life expectancy, there's a 24% chance that the man will live past 90, and a 33% chance the woman will. The chances that at least one of them will reach 90 are 1 - ((1 - 0.24) * (1 - 0.33)) = 49%.
According to research in America, having a wife die increases a widower's mortality rate by 33%, whereas having a husband die has no effect on the widow's life expectancy.0 -
Your mean life expectancy will change as you age so it might be a good number to revise......assuming that you are still alive of course.
Mortality curves are not "normal", but you might still apply probability levels based on one, two or three standard deviations. I you use 3 sigma normal curve criteria, ie you have less than a 1% chance of living longer than your target then a UK male aged 55 would have a mean life expectancy of 84 years and you'd need to plan to live to 101, for a woman aged 55 the mean life expectancy is 88 and you might want to plan to live well past 100. As a rule of thumb, if you are in good health I'd plan for at least age 95 and to be really safe 100.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards