BBC News Families hide their wealth to avoid care home costs

[Elderly]

Deva Link said:

People go in private homes and they're funded by the LA - assuming the home will accept the LA rate, which is usually lower than the hame is charging people who are self-funding.

They can go pretty well anywhere if the family is prepared to pay the extra cost -

Hmmmmmm - that may have been the case but having just wanted to do this for an ancient relative,
the LA informed me that they no longer accept 'top-ups' from family because of the high number of family payment defaulters, leaving the LA having to pay the whole bill.

BTW I'm not sure how I got to this lounge (where I've not been before) so I probably won't come back .

[DSM2]

The system needs to be fair. Either no one pays or we all pay, no means testing.

The odds are that those with assets have contributed far more than those without so why should only the latter get the free care?

[scdan4]

I've told them, and i mean it.

Put me in a care home and i'll burn the fker down.

[M3333]

thinfourth2 said:

And if you want to top yourself rather then go into a care home then its illegal for anyone to help you on the way

I'd rather be dead then in a care home

This.

Having watched two grandparents put into homes with dementia i would not wish it on my worst enemy.

The move forward in drugs really does keep people alive but in a lot of circumstances of the elderly i am not sure it is for the best, they have NO standard of life.

The last time i visited my grandfather alive he was in a nappy crying his eyes out, blind with no speech - he lived like that for 2 years. An ex farmer and pure proud country man.

No thanks.

[loafer123]

If it helps, it was cheaper to ensure my grandmother had live-in 24 hour care from lovely handpicked nurses than it was to put her in a decent care home.

[heebeegeetee]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why should they be able to leave a house worth hundreds of grand to their kids whilst the taxpayer has to pay thousands to look after them??

As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.

You've got this totally wrong.

The money that will be inherited will pay for the grand-children's education and possibly give them a footing on the property ladder.

Or, the money can be taken by the government who will waste it by throwing it at every hair-brained, crackpot scheme they can think of and the money will be simply pissed up the wall. The government can take every penny off every elderly person in the land and they'll still spend more money than they take.

The last, I mean the very last people we should be giving money to is politicians, because they have got nothing but one very, very long track record of being nothing but totally un trust-worthy with our money.

[turbobloke]

heebeegeetee said:

The last, I mean the very last people we should be giving money to is politicians, because they have got nothing but one very, very long track record of being nothing but totally untrustworthy with our money.

Never were 37 true words spoken typed more truly.

Though I took the liberty of a minor change to make the count easier

[Tiggsy]

Bluequay said:

Good on them, the current system actively works against people who have invested responsibly for their old age, and who want to leave something to their kids.

ie Person 1 earns £500K during their lifetime, buy a house, invest in some savings. Have a house worth 250K and savings of £100K. The government will take all of this if they are in care long enough down to they have 23K left.

Person 2 earns £500K in their life time, spends it on coke and hookers, but somehow has managed to win £23K on a scratchcard, they will get their care for free.

That is not a fair system, why is person 1 being punished for being responsible?

This thinking is the same as those who think 16 yr olds with 3 kids and a free house get the same lifestyle (for no effort) as a hard working mum who gets a job. They don't, despite what the mail would have you think. They live in scumsvile. They drink and smoke because that's the highlight if their day!

If you take your example of two people needed care to get through their final years, one with 300k and one with 23k I can assure you, gbe one with money will get a better time of it. Will they use it up? Maybe, but their lifestyle will reflect that.

And the idea that our ni cont pays for long term care is as daft as the public sector muppets. Ltc is NOT required by most and staggeringly expensive, if you want ni to cover it we need to pay a LOT more in!

[Countdown]

heebeegeetee said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why should they be able to leave a house worth hundreds of grand to their kids whilst the taxpayer has to pay thousands to look after them??

As I said before, look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't.

You've got this totally wrong.

The money that will be inherited will pay for the grand-children's education and possibly give them a footing on the property ladder.

That sounds fine. However it means that other people's money will be used to pay for their care. "Other people" also have children and grandchildren

TwigtheWonderkid said:

look after your parents, expect to inherit, otherwise don't

Couldn't agree more.

[mattnunn]

cymtriks said:

Who'd have thought it?

BBC article

You can't really blame people for not wanting to pay twice (their current local taxes and NI) for something they've already paid for (oldies past NI) to get exactly the same result as if you never paid a penny.

The real problem is a truly warped sense of fairness.

This generation of retirees have not paid for their pensions, they paid for their parents and we, the workers, are paying for theirs. Taxation and NI and pension contributions are not savings accounts, it's a ponzi scheme in general terms.

[Countdown]

Bluequay said:

Good on them, the current system actively works against people who have invested responsibly for their old age, and who want to leave something to their kids.

ie Person 1 earns £500K during their lifetime, buy a house, invest in some savings. Have a house worth 250K and savings of £100K. The government will take all of this if they are in care long enough down to they have 23K left.

Person 2 earns £500K in their life time, spends it on coke and hookers, but somehow has managed to win £23K on a scratchcard, they will get their care for free.

That is not a fair system, why is person 1 being punished for being responsible?

I agree with you. However the answer is NOT for us all to adopt the morals of the "chav" classes and screw the system for every penny we can get out of it. What happened to pride and self-reliance? The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net and its funny how many PHers decry its abuse by other people but seem to think its acceptable when it's they who are the ones taking advantage.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

Bluequay said:

Good on them, the current system actively works against people who have invested responsibly for their old age, and who want to leave something to their kids.

ie Person 1 earns £500K during their lifetime, buy a house, invest in some savings. Have a house worth 250K and savings of £100K. The government will take all of this if they are in care long enough down to they have 23K left.

Person 2 earns £500K in their life time, spends it on coke and hookers, but somehow has managed to win £23K on a scratchcard, they will get their care for free.

That is not a fair system, why is person 1 being punished for being responsible?

I agree with you. However the answer is NOT for us all to adopt the morals of the "chav" classes and screw the system for every penny we can get out of it.

Agreed, particularly when you are part of the BBC which preaches sermons on a regular basis about not doing precisely this. Typical hypocrisy from the biased liberal-left that infests the BBC. Fat wallet socialism never has been particularly appealing.

[heebeegeetee]

Countdown said:

That sounds fine. However it means that other people's money will be used to pay for their care. "Other people" also have children and grandchildren

No it won't, not if the elderly have spent a lifetime paying tax. The fact that successive governments have blown their brains out with the enormous tax takes they've had over the decades is not an issue for those who paid into the scheme.

We've dispatched 5 parents over the years. Two of them received care for a short time. All but one were paying income tax up to the day they died, including my 80 year old m-i-l.

The only reason it might take other people's money to meet our needs is because we allow our politicians to be so free and easy with our money.

Most elderly shuffle off when their grandchidren are staring out into adulthood, ie early 20's.

I can't think of a better use of their money than to fund their grand-children's first homes and studies for a career etc.

You can take the money off the elderly and give it to the government if you like, but you might just as well set fire to it. Either way, no matter how much money any government has, they will still spend more than they have.

The worst possible person you can chose as a recipient of the money is a politician.

[Countdown]

heebeegeetee said:

Countdown said:

That sounds fine. However it means that other people's money will be used to pay for their care. "Other people" also have children and grandchildren

No it won't, not if the elderly have spent a lifetime paying tax.

Unless they're in the top 10% of taxpayers its unlikely that they've paid enough tax to cover the amount of public services they've used during their lifetime. And, if they are in this select band, I think its unlikely they would be relying on State aid in their dotage.

heebeegeetee said:

The fact that successive governments have blown their brains out with the enormous tax takes they've had over the decades is not an issue for those who paid into the scheme.

Successive Governments lied (and continue to lie). Ask anybody with a Public Sector pension The amount of taxation does not cover the costs of the Nanny State. Either we pay even more tax to feed this behemoth or we cut Public Services and ask people to start looking after themselves

heebeegeetee said:

I can't think of a better use of their money than to fund their grand-children's first homes and studies for a career etc.

That's fine. But is it fair to ask the rest of us to fund the costs of their care? Care costs are a means-tested benefit. Manipulating your assets to take advantage of this is no different to people fiddling any other benefits.

[miniman]

Countdown said:

That's fine. But is it fair to ask the rest of us to fund the costs of their care? Care costs are a means-tested benefit. Manipulating your assets to take advantage of this is no different to people fiddling any other benefits.

That's not quite true. Medical care costs (i.e. where care is essential to the person's survival) are not means tested. The criteria that are applied to assess the actual need, however, are vague and inconsistently applied.

Here's an example.

Criteria: Complex / unpredictable behaviour occurring on most days requiring urgent (same day) intervention.

Symptoms of patient:

• Disturbing neighbours in the early hours of the morning on multiple occasions
• Climbing out of the windows of the bungalow
• Wandering in the village searching for locations that do not exist
• Creating significant fire risks by forgetting to switch off gas and electrical appliances
• Removing clothes in public areas
• Damage to furniture and surroundings
• Removing medical dressings
• Demanding financial information
• Shouting and displaying verbally aggressive behaviour
• Believing that other residents were her daughter

Those are symptoms as recorded by healthcare professionals in a formal report relating to an application for continual (i.e. funded) healthcare. The application was rejected.

[mph1977]

heebeegeetee said:

Countdown said:

That sounds fine. However it means that other people's money will be used to pay for their care. "Other people" also have children and grandchildren

No it won't, not if the elderly have spent a lifetime paying tax. The fact that successive governments have blown their brains out with the enormous tax takes they've had over the decades is not an issue for those who paid into the scheme.

We've dispatched 5 parents over the years. Two of them received care for a short time. All but one were paying income tax up to the day they died, including my 80 year old m-i-l.

The only reason it might take other people's money to meet our needs is because we allow our politicians to be so free and easy with our money.

Most elderly shuffle off when their grandchidren are staring out into adulthood, ie early 20's.

not necessarily this assumes a 30 year gap between generations and each generation being relatively small

my mum is one of 6 children ( spread over 15 -20 years) and her eldest nephew is only 5 and bit years younger than she is, equally the youngest of her generation is only 4 years older than my eldest second cousin ... this makes things interesting from a family point of view in that the older end of my cousins are facing the same concerns that my mother and her next along sister has as people in their fifties meanwhile myself , my brother and my two cousins from the next youngest from my mum aunt have the same issues as my eldest 2nd cousins - as people in their mid 20s to mid 30s ...

never mind the 'underclass' where the average period of time between generations is <20 years

[quote]
I can't think of a better use of their money than to fund their grand-children's first homes and studies for a career etc.

You can take the money off the elderly and give it to the government if you like, but you might just as well set fire to it. Either way, no matter how much money any government has, they will still spend more than they have.

The worst possible person you can chose as a recipient of the money is a politician.

part of the problem is that the need for social care is so very variable, plus there's a perception it's a 'healthcare' issue - thanks in part to the hang overs from workhouse era of the long stay geriatric hospitals.

[heebeegeetee]

Countdown said:

1. Unless they're in the top 10% of taxpayers its unlikely that they've paid enough tax to cover the amount of public services they've used during their lifetime. And, if they are in this select band, I think its unlikely they would be relying on State aid in their dotage.

2. Successive Governments lied (and continue to lie). Ask anybody with a Public Sector pension The amount of taxation does not cover the costs of the Nanny State. Either we pay even more tax to feed this behemoth or we cut Public Services and ask people to start looking after themselves

3. That's fine. But is it fair to ask the rest of us to fund the costs of their care?

1. I'm trying to think of what public services the hard working people of my m-i-l's class and generation used. The benefits that people are getting now would have been beyond the imagination of those working in the '50s and '60s. The people I'm thinking of didn't draw the dole and there wasn't child benefit for the first child (which meant none at all in my m-i-l's case).

2. As indeed many did.

3. The current generations of elderly paid out for everyone else, so yes, i think it's fair. Many of the people I'm thinking of paid income tax between the ages of 15-80+, not because they were wealthy but because they were frugal.

[Countdown]

heebeegeetee said:

1. I'm trying to think of what public services the hard working people of my m-i-l's class and generation used. The benefits that people are getting now would have been beyond the imagination of those working in the '50s and '60s. The people I'm thinking of didn't draw the dole and there wasn't child benefit for the first child (which meant none at all in my m-i-l's case).

2. As indeed many did.

3. The current generations of elderly paid out for everyone else, so yes, i think it's fair. Many of the people I'm thinking of paid income tax between the ages of 15-80+, not because they were wealthy but because they were frugal.

1. NHS, Education, Police, Defence, Roads, And given the increasingly life expectancy most of today's pensioners have enjoyed these services for longer than previous generations.

3. I disagree. The current generation of elderly haven't paid enough even for themselves, let alone previous generations. That's why Govt debt is where it is. As you point out the level of public services for previous generations was significantly smaller. It now seems to grow with every change in Government. The culture of "entitlement" also seems to be growing.

To put it another way I've been fortunate and built up a large quantity of savings. It means if I'm out of work I won't get much in the way of benefits. Should I transfer those savings into somebody else's name so that I can claim? (After all I've paid taxes for >20 years. I'd much rather prefer to pass my savings onto my family rather than provide for myself. Plain fact is I shouldn't -because it's fiddling the system.

[heebeegeetee]

Countdown said:

1. NHS, Education, Police, Defence, Roads, And given the increasingly life expectancy most of today's pensioners have enjoyed these services for longer than previous generations.

3. I disagree. The current generation of elderly haven't paid enough even for themselves, let alone previous generations.

1. But that's true of every body. Thanks to longevity they will pay tax for longer than previous generations, and that tax funds the services they use, in the same way as it does for everyone else. It's a simple system and it's easily affordable.

3. That is a breath-taking statement. The current generation of elderly have *not* received the benefits of the modern age in anything like younger generations have/are. The dole was minimal, the child benefit was minimal, the wages were lower in real terms and there was little other benefits to be had. The health care was minimal in comparison to what we have now - yes, health care is very advanced now and the younger generations are going to benefit from that for the whole of their lves, but the elderly didn't.

The current elderly generations have played *no* part in building up our colossal debt. They did not borrow money that they had no hope of repaying and nor was anyone pushing any money on them that there was no possibility of them repaying. All the current generations of elderly have done is to pay into a system that following generation have been able to take unprecedented benefit from.

i can easily put a name to a couple of dozen people in their late seventies and '80s. They all worked hard all their lives, but own what they do through living frugally. I can name a good few people who worked hard all their lives but did not enjoy much retirement.

I struggle to put a name to any hard working young people. I can give names of plenty of young people still living at home. I can name youngsters who have a had a bloody good education but no prospective employment. Despite not working these youngsters have cars and phones and computers and all manner of lifestyle that was unimaginable to working people 50 years ago.

If anything, the only thing we can blame the elder generations for is producing grand-children who genuinely believe the world owes them a living.

[Derek Smith]

I had an uncle go into a care home after an operation that didn't work. He died after less than three months although his brain worked until they started pumping him with drugs.

My uncle, a war hero and a lovely bloke, worked all his life when he had the pysical ability, and even when he retired he worked as a volunteer porter at a hospital but he had no money, few savings and even these were stolen when there was a break-in when in hospital. Once when we went to see him he was chatting in the garden and he said that he was warned by the other inmates not to sign any documents relatives bring as he'd never see them aain.

There is no way I'd go into a care home if I had the ability to recognise how terrible it was. My wife used to work as a chef in a high quality rest home, we're talking top 10% here, all en suite, trips organised on a twice weekly basis where the inmates are taken out in an extended wheelbase Merc E class (then about 8 years old but low mileage) and would be walked around the village. Yet despite how nice it was my wife has made me promise to kill her rather than put her in a care home.

I've got to wait to near the time though.

As an aside, when my uncle died I had to clear his house out. We went into one room and found a cupboard with munitions in it. Parabellums, ammunition, live anti-aircraft shells, hand grenades (about half a dozen I think, all with primers, one was a German WWI kind with sorts of tassles on it) and incindiary devices, lots of them. In fact a wardrobe full, plus, as we found out later, a chest of drawers full as well.

The Lewisham main line railway was closed and there was a local evacuation. The Mets were very cool with it at first until their chap decided to call the bomb squad who, knowing what they were talking about, were somewhat more concerned.

As I say, my uncle was a lovely bloke. Full of suprises. His experiences were used in a war film.