BBC News Families hide their wealth to avoid care home costs

[miniman]

heppers75 said:

"I worked all my life and was told from a young age that my 'stamp' was to pay for my healthcare and state pension plus my care when I was elderly. I chose to live the life I did and leave a legacy for my daughter and her family and I am dammed if I am going to give that away to pay twice for something I have already paid for"

Amen to that.

[Deva Link]

heppers75 said:

Not withstanding the fact I will of course benefit from this.....

Well, assuming your missus doesn't use her new found wealth to divorce you!


Not that many elderly people go into care - it's around 20% and they only live for typically 2 yrs in care. So on average it's not that big a deal - if your MIL has reasonable pensions then she's likely to be there or thereabouts coving the cost anyway (all her income will be taken off her is she uses LA funding) so there would be little to no impact on her assets.

[heppers75]

Deva Link said:

heppers75 said:

Not withstanding the fact I will of course benefit from this.....

Well, assuming your missus doesn't use her new found wealth to divorce you!

Not that many elderly people go into care - it's around 20% and they only live for typically 2 yrs in care. So on average it's not that big a deal - if your MIL has reasonable pensions then she's likely to be there or thereabouts coving the cost anyway (all her income will be taken off her is she uses LA funding) so there would be little to no impact on her assets.

No in fairness it will be fairly even I think the MiL said she has no problem with her pension income being used to support her after all that is what it was for, but her savings and property she has taken a lifetime to acquire and paid all the relevant taxes on along the way during acquisition will come to my wife.

FYI (tries not to sound like a typical PHer here!) it is not a massive uptick for us so therefore we really do not need it and while it would be lovely do not get me wrong we would both rather she spent it! However for us and for any family in this situation I would rather it went to the families (in this case us) in question than the state!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If the threat of the state grabbing the elderly persons house to pay for care encourages more elderly people to blow their money and have a good time rather than leave it to their kids, surely that's a good thing!

For years it's been the thing to do to leave something for your kids. Why? It doesn't benefit the elderly person, nor does inherited wealth benefit society or the recipients. The country would be a far better place if the elderly blew their wealth in their final years on themselves. That way everyone would benefit, as they poured their money into the economy.

Everyone says "I don't want my parents money, I wish they'd enjoy it themselves." Well now the state is pushing them into that, everyone is up in arms that they might not get their grubby paws on their dead parent's house!!

Surely we should be thanking the state for forcing our parents to blow their hard earned savings. Equity release on the house and piss the lot up against the wall, that's my plan. Die broke. If I get it right, the last cheque I write will be for the undertaker and it'll just about clear.

[grantone]

heppers75 said:

..."I worked all my life and was told from a young age that my 'stamp' was to pay for my healthcare and state pension plus my care when I was elderly. I chose to live the life I did and leave a legacy for my daughter and her family and I am dammed if I am going to give that away to pay twice for something I have already paid for"...

The problem is that the politicians that promised this undeliverable goal are now long dead and the people picking up the pieces, future taxpayers, had nothing to do with it and will never benefit from the same levels of state help. The average person does not pay twice for state services, they don't even pay once, if they did we wouldn't have a trillion pound debt.

[littlegreenfairy]

My parents are doing this (and there are numerous threads asking advice) as they have given me the cash to buy a house. Although its a gift without strings, it is really as I'm going to be the one to care for them full time when they need it, and help with money should it all go tits up.

They said they'd rather pay me in terms of a house than pay the state to look after them. As such, I've not gone after a career so that I can be there to help them over the next few years without having to give it all up. Instead I work doing nice little jobs and a housewife. I'd have loved to have a career but am honoured to be there for family.

[Deva Link]

littlegreenfairy said:

My parents are doing this (and there are numerous threads asking advice) as they have given me the cash to buy a house. Although its a gift without strings, it is really as I'm going to be the one to care for them full time when they need it, and help with money should it all go tits up.

They said they'd rather pay me in terms of a house than pay the state to look after them. As such, I've not gone after a career so that I can be there to help them over the next few years without having to give it all up. Instead I work doing nice little jobs and a housewife. I'd have loved to have a career but am honoured to be there for family.

That's not very certain for them - what if (heaven forbid, of course) something happens to you such that you're unable to care for them?

[cymtriks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

cymtriks said:

Spend money on toys and holidays, the state pays for care
or
Stash money away for kids, the state pays for care.

You seem to think that its OK to do the former but somehow not OK to do the later? Why?

Because as a tax payer I don't mind elderly people enjoying their twilight years with cruises and whatever, and then paying for their care if they don't have the money themselves. But I do object to paying for their care so that their feckless lazy kids can go on cruises with the proceeds of the folks house, when they couldn't even be arsed to look after them in their final years!!!

I'm not suggesting looking after elderly relatives is easy. I know it isn't. That's why it's so damn expensive!!

As for what they were promised by the state, we've all had promises broken. The tories promised me they wouldn't touch child allowance but they are scapping it for people earning over £42K. The country is in a hole and sacrifices have to be made. Why should I pay to look after someone elses parents while their kids flog the house and get the money??

So now you think that there is some fundamental difference between:

Spending money on cruises, the state (as in the tax payers) pays for care.
and
Handing money over to their children, the state (as in the tax payers) pays for care.

Which isn't really any different from your first opinion but now it is fully justified by the assertion that the children are bound to be entirely uncaring, lazy and feckless whereas the cruise tour guides and baggage handlers are all presumably full time members of Help the Aged.

Oh, and regarding that assertion, have you any evidence at all that a majority, or even a significant minority, of people are too uncaring and lazy to care for their family and are feckless with any money they inherit?

You then make the further assertion that its all OK really because the government make and break lots of promises. Errr, no, actually, its absolutely disgraceful that so many promises are broken. You'd think that after the expenses scandal they'd be a bit wary of making agreements that they couldn't keep but no, they're at it again, and again, and again....

The answer to your final question is fairly obvious. The old folks have chosen not to spend the money on themselves but on their children which you don't approve of because, somehow, random people working in tourism are far more deserving than random beneficiaries of wills and it'll, err... cost you exactly the same either way.

[OzzyR1]

Have lived out in the far east (Japan and S. Korea) and people there are very surprised that we would put our parents into care homes.

Over there, it is normal for a son or daughter of a parent of pensionable age to give money each month to keep their folks going.

Must say that I agree with this viewpoint

[Victor McDade]

OzzyR1 said:

Have lived out in the far east (Japan and S. Korea) and people there are very surprised that we would put our parents into care homes.

Over there, it is normal for a son or daughter of a parent of pensionable age to give money each month to keep their folks going.

Must say that I agree with this viewpoint

+1

Many societies in the East think this way.

Parents work their asses off to provide for their children in early life, then they take over babysitting duties of the grandkids 20 or 30 years later. And in turn, when the time comes the family look after the elderly parents.

Unless the person in question needs 24 hour supervision, or ultra specialised medical/nursing care then its a shame so many OAPs end up in care homes whilst still having families out there.

[Countdown]

Most people aren’t paying twice over. In fact the majority of people don’t even pay enough tax “once” to cover their share of public expenditure.

It’s not the Government that pays for LA care homes, it’s the rest of us.

And, harsh as it may sound, transferring assets simply to satisfy the “means test” is benefit fraud.

[heppers75]

Victor McDade said:

OzzyR1 said:

Have lived out in the far east (Japan and S. Korea) and people there are very surprised that we would put our parents into care homes.

Over there, it is normal for a son or daughter of a parent of pensionable age to give money each month to keep their folks going.

Must say that I agree with this viewpoint

+1

Many societies in the East think this way.

Parents work their asses off to provide for their children in early life, then they take over babysitting duties of the grandkids 20 or 30 years later. And in turn, when the time comes the family look after the elderly parents.

Unless the person in question needs 24 hour supervision, or ultra specialised medical/nursing care then its a shame so many OAPs end up in care homes whilst still having families out there.

Interesting point but the obvious counter to that is for one there is a significant difference between care and nursing home (at least my my addled brain!), the second being the radical assumption that an 80 year old parent who is quite capable and to a degree independent will want to live with their children rather than in the company of a group of like minded people.

Also and I am not sure if this is a good analogy or not but was thinking about this on the drive to the office this morning a little and I thought. For those born in the 30's & 40's they were sold it as a genuine Insurance Premium (Pay your Stamp get these benefits) and to me the current situation is rather akin to taking out a policy on a car then 10 months into the policy making a legitimate claim only to be told by the insurer that they won't pay out as you won £50k on a scratch card a few weeks ago so can afford to repair it yourself!

[Countdown]

Types of support/care homes go as follows;

Living at home with community care support
Extra Care / Sheltered Housing
Residential Care

The main difference being the level of personal care provided (eg meals, bathing, going to the toilet, medication).

[cymtriks]

Victor McDade said:

OzzyR1 said:

Have lived out in the far east (Japan and S. Korea) and people there are very surprised that we would put our parents into care homes.

Over there, it is normal for a son or daughter of a parent of pensionable age to give money each month to keep their folks going.

Must say that I agree with this viewpoint

+1

Many societies in the East think this way.

Parents work their asses off to provide for their children in early life, then they take over babysitting duties of the grandkids 20 or 30 years later. And in turn, when the time comes the family look after the elderly parents.

Unless the person in question needs 24 hour supervision, or ultra specialised medical/nursing care then its a shame so many OAPs end up in care homes whilst still having families out there.

Blah, blah, other countries are better...

No they aren't.

Sending money is only done because these Eastern countries have much less state benefits, frequently none at all, it isn't anything to do with us being a less caring society, its just a difference in how we do things.

Surprisingly there isn't much difference in the actual portions of eldery in care homes around the world in developed countries. The reason for this is simple, the point at which full time care becomes essential and care moves beyond the ability of a family to provide is fairly equal around the world.

This nice cosy idea of generations looking after the previous ones in return for baby sitting only works in well established communities where strong family ties remain. The reason you see a lot less of it in the UK is because so many people live hundreds of miles away from their parents.

[Countdown]

heppers75 said:

Also and I am not sure if this is a good analogy or not but was thinking about this on the drive to the office this morning a little and I thought. For those born in the 30's & 40's they were sold it as a genuine Insurance Premium (Pay your Stamp get these benefits) and to me the current situation is rather akin to taking out a policy on a car then 10 months into the policy making a legitimate claim only to be told by the insurer that they won't pay out as you won £50k on a scratch card a few weeks ago so can afford to repair it yourself!

I don't think Universal free elderly care was ever promised, was it?

Even if it was unfortunately circumstances change. People are living longer. Much like public sector workers complaining about having to work longer and/or changes to their pensions

[littlegreenfairy]

Deva Link said:

That's not very certain for them - what if (heaven forbid, of course) something happens to you such that you're unable to care for them?

Who is to say that they'll get adequate care from the state? Nothing is certain.

[cymtriks]

Countdown said:

Most people aren’t paying twice over. In fact the majority of people don’t even pay enough tax “once” to cover their share of public expenditure.

It’s not the Government that pays for LA care homes, it’s the rest of us.

And, harsh as it may sound, transferring assets simply to satisfy the “means test” is benefit fraud.

First, yes they are. The ammount not being sufficient doesn't change this, the deal was made.

The deal was bogus from the start but its hardly the fault of those that paid in good faith.

The government is "the rest of us", they only have money of their own if they borrow it and we pay for that in the end to.

The means testing is state fraud! The deal was made, they're going back on the deal! They claim its fair but their definition of fair is to confiscate the vast bulk of your assets to pay for what those who contributed nothing, or those who spent every penny, get absolutely free.

In a post further up someone pointed out that its a bit like having car insurance, making a valid claim, and then being told that because you have some cash handy you can pay it yourself. I'd add that it's also like then being told that that same bit of cash is being confiscated to pay for an uninsured driver's accident!

[Simond S]

dvs_dave said:

One thing that puzzles me about elderly care is that more than likely the majority of people will need it, so why isn't it part of the welfare state system?

It just seems out of step with the whole point of the welfare state of not having proper provisions in place for when elderly people are no longer able to look after themselves. Old people are no less valid to society and have contributed a lot during their lives, so why abandon them during their time of greatest need?

This may be the case at the moment, but in 20 years it's fair to say a lot of those requiring care will never have worked and have relied on the social care system for their whole lives.

in 40 years we'll have the whole gammut of Blair's babies to contend with. Every non working, justice seeking self righteaous victim of the world who has never contributed but knows it is their right to have a place in a care home.

[Countdown]

cymtriks said:

Blah, blah, other countries are better...

No they aren't.

I would disagree

Other than where specialised medical care is needed I can't think why "care" by the State would be better than "care" by the family. The reality is that lifestyles nowadays do not permit care to be provided by the family without sacrifices needing to be made.

[roachcoach]

Simond S said:

This may be the case at the moment, but in 20 years it's fair to say a lot of those requiring care will never have worked and have relied on the social care system for their whole lives.

in 40 years we'll have the whole gammut of Blair's babies to contend with. Every non working, justice seeking self righteaous victim of the world who has never contributed but knows it is their right to have a place in a care home.

Would it be unfair to say that people fitting that category probably don't live the healthiest of lifestyles and therefore a diminished number would make it that far?