What's this scheme called please

Maybe you're not judging A, but you are judging those who you describe as 'wanting to have their cake and eat it'. What's the difference?

Doodledog, I am not judging anyone, just describing how and why they end up in the penniless mess they end up in.

M0nica

Doodledog I would describe the lady you describe, as deliberately spending all her money and relying on the state, bacause everything you say about her shows conscious knowledge of the results of her behaviour. However, it is still true for me to say that I have never met anyone like that. All the people I knew who ended dependent on the state despite high earnings, were just feckless and improvident. Such peope do not usually lead extravagent lives, but just pay top dollar for everything because it never occurs to them to shop around, setting up an account with a taxi company, so they do not have to pay every trip, but then fail to keep a track on how much they are spending. never going into M&S without buying something. just thoughtless expenditure.

Yes, that sounds like A ). Buying three things to try and not getting round to sending two of them back, 'needing' the latest version of everything and so on.

But why not? It is her money, and we really don't want to go down the road of legislating for how people spend their salaries, do we? I don't think that her attitude is particularly unusual either. Yet people on this thread are saying that it is morally repugnant of B to object to having to pay for care when A gets it free. I just don't get it.

Witzend

A really lovely old chap who used to visit his wife (with dementia) every day in the care home where my mother was, told me that the cost was being ‘rolled up’ and would be taken from the sale of their house after he died, or had to go into residential care.

Particularly since they had no children, he was perfectly happy with this arrangement.
Might add that he had done his best to care for her at home - until one day he had collapsed from sheer exhaustion, after changing wet beds etc. twice or more a night. He couldn’t even get to the phone, and had great difficulty getting his wife to understand to bring it to him. Nor could she understand how to open the door when the paramedics arrived - they had to force it open.

Dh knew someone similar - an old family friend who battled valiantly alone to care for his wife with dementia - until he fell and broke a hip - they ended up in different care homes, since by then her dementia was advanced. When dh visited him, he said he was thoroughly enjoying life again, he wished he’d sought help sooner - but sadly lived only for a few more months.

I suspect that there are many who battle on alone like this.

I suspect that there are many who battle on alone like this.

This.

I'm one of them - though not yet at the point of exhaustion. I care for my partner with spinal stenosis. I've had two bouts of cancer, extensive surgery, with the concomitant chemo treatment. I'm left with what is now called a 'life changing' condition that limits what I can do and often prevents me from going out. I manage my condition through sheer grit and determination, a lot of research - and, fortunately, a kind and sympathetic consultant who has given me an 'open' appointment which means I can call his secretary any time I need to talk to him.

I'm coping OK, but have sometimes found it really hard, at age 80, to muster the energy I need. 'Help' seems to consist mainly of a plethora of leaflets detailing 'tips' on coping that most people have already discovered for themselves, 'phone lines, websites etc, where you can 'talk' to someone... but practical help is virtually non-existent. My partner's (we're second-time-around the block) adult children have emigrated, and my one son has done the same. With our blessings, there was little to keep any of them here. They do though return from time to time to help out when they can.

But I'm lucky compared to many - like those you've mentioned.

I understand 'fiscal responsibility', I understand inflationary pressures - but I also understand how a national economy works, and that's why listening to Truss banging on about tax cuts and "handouts" makes my blood boil - even tho' I'd benefit a tad from such cuts. I wish we could 'smash' the system and start all over again with a more fair and equitable society for all.

... that was a bit of what is called a 'rant', wasn't it .

also my glasses are now broken, not just lost and I can’t get out to order new ones as I now have covid.
Sorrows never come in thingies, they come in whatsits, BOB. I hope you get well soon.

Razzamatazz

My understanding is if you own a house, and need to go into care, you use savings and your pension to pay for your initial stay, and if necessary, sell the house to continue funding it.

That’s the way of it, yes . What is less straightforward is whether that is a fair way to arrange things when others get care free.

Doodledog

That’s fair enough. I didn’t mean to take it personally- it’s just that some of the things that are said in these debates are very personal, and also unfounded. If you think A you must think B because C, sort of thing, and it’s wearing.

... yes, I get what you are saying and, TBH, I've understood your POV because with the care system as it is, it does throw up some anomalies.

I really wish government would get to grips with it - it just isn't satisfactory the way it is in our very unequal and divided society.

As the National Audit Office pointed out in '21, the system has been weakened by years of cuts, failures to fix workforce shortages and a lack of central oversight.

A really lovely old chap who used to visit his wife (with dementia) every day in the care home where my mother was, told me that the cost was being ‘rolled up’ and would be taken from the sale of their house after he died, or had to go into residential care.

Particularly since they had no children, he was perfectly happy with this arrangement.
Might add that he had done his best to care for her at home - until one day he had collapsed from sheer exhaustion, after changing wet beds etc. twice or more a night. He couldn’t even get to the phone, and had great difficulty getting his wife to understand to bring it to him. Nor could she understand how to open the door when the paramedics arrived - they had to force it open.

Dh knew someone similar - an old family friend who battled valiantly alone to care for his wife with dementia - until he fell and broke a hip - they ended up in different care homes, since by then her dementia was advanced. When dh visited him, he said he was thoroughly enjoying life again, he wished he’d sought help sooner - but sadly lived only for a few more months.

I suspect that there are many who battle on alone like this.

My understanding is if you own a house, and need to go into care, you use savings and your pension to pay for your initial stay, and if necessary, sell the house to continue funding it.

I have just read through all the posts again and also looked at my will and trust details. We have been Tenants in Common for a very large number of years, done when we were living together rather than married. The Trust papers state that we can live there rent free on the death of one of us, so no problems there. So I do suggest that some of you keyboard warriors get your facts right. And yes I am aware that GSM has a wealth of knowledge and I have taken that into consideration.also my glasses are now broken, not just lost and I can’t get out to order new ones as I now have covid.

That’s fair enough. I didn’t mean to take it personally- it’s just that some of the things that are said in these debates are very personal, and also unfounded. If you think A you must think B because C, sort of thing, and it’s wearing.

Doodledog

*I think she - or any of us - have to accept that a scheme which might encompass "deprivation of assets" is going to elicit some criticism from those who believe that asking the State to pay for you so that your offspring can inherit your wealth is morally unacceptable. And it is a debatable issue isn't it? As is the assumption made by some that those without assets have spent lavishly throughout their lives when the reality might be that they have simply not earned enough to save anything because they worked doing essential but 'disparaged' jobs. The kind of jobs that most don't want to do but without which the whole fabric of society would disintegrate.*

That is a spectacularly one-sided view, masquerading as neutral .

Who has assumed that those who get free care have spent lavishly? I think I am the one who has posted most disagreeing with the two-tier system, and I have repeatedly said that this is not where I am coming from, and that in a fair system those who earn less would pay less, but we would all be covered if we need it, with those who are lucky enough not to need care subsidising those who do. I have not seen anyone 'disparage' a job on this thread - have you?

My comments were not directed at any one person, they really weren't. I'm talking more generally about the whole issue of Social Care - a topic that comes up on here sometimes, and on other social media sites. And there always are the different 'camps' (for want of a better word)... and certainly there are those who seem to genuinely believe that anyone who hasn't saved has been profligate - I've seen that observation so many times - but not particularly here on GN.

My comments were not masquerading as anything - I wasn't intending to be neutral! Only in so far as the aspect of there being a need for 'discussion' on the matter which the poster to whom I was replying appeared to think otherwise.

I'm not 'into' attacking people really for their views - I've got no special pipeline to 'the truth'... but topics meander and that seems to annoy some who think we should just stick to the point, and that does bother me a bit because it's such a rigid demand and limits what can or can't be said. Although I obviously have my own POV, I do like to hear what others think... it's the only way I learn anything about stuff that matters.

Thank you.

The assumption is always that objecting to one injustice (as I see it) is based on support of another, and that is simply not true.

Doodledog I would describe the lady you describe, as deliberately spending all her money and relying on the state, bacause everything you say about her shows conscious knowledge of the results of her behaviour. However, it is still true for me to say that I have never met anyone like that. All the people I knew who ended dependent on the state despite high earnings, were just feckless and improvident. Such peope do not usually lead extravagent lives, but just pay top dollar for everything because it never occurs to them to shop around, setting up an account with a taxi company, so they do not have to pay every trip, but then fail to keep a track on how much they are spending. never going into M&S without buying something. just thoughtless expenditure.

No, I haven’t.

I think she - or any of us - have to accept that a scheme which might encompass "deprivation of assets" is going to elicit some criticism from those who believe that asking the State to pay for you so that your offspring can inherit your wealth is morally unacceptable. And it is a debatable issue isn't it? As is the assumption made by some that those without assets have spent lavishly throughout their lives when the reality might be that they have simply not earned enough to save anything because they worked doing essential but 'disparaged' jobs. The kind of jobs that most don't want to do but without which the whole fabric of society would disintegrate.

That is a spectacularly one-sided view, masquerading as neutral .

Who has assumed that those who get free care have spent lavishly? I think I am the one who has posted most disagreeing with the two-tier system, and I have repeatedly said that this is not where I am coming from, and that in a fair system those who earn less would pay less, but we would all be covered if we need it, with those who are lucky enough not to need care subsidising those who do. I have not seen anyone 'disparage' a job on this thread - have you?

volver

If I have a million pounds in tbe bank and you have 20 pounds in the bank, is it OK for me to avoid paying for what I need so that my children can have the million pounds?

I just don't understand that morality, sorry.

It wasn’t for care home fees, but a friend of ours was awarded 50% of the cost of adaptations to his home, when he had 2 houses paid for (one was rented out) and well over £1m in the bank - which I know because dh was an executor just a few years later.

It’s not as if he’d paid loads in taxes either - most of his working life was abroad, mostly in Saudi Arabia, with salaries free from any kind of income tax.

I do still wonder why he wasn’t expected to disclose financial assets as well as actual monthly income.

What did Tony Benn set up which enabled his children to avoid paying inheritance tax?

That must have been legal but perhaps that loophole has been closed now.

Well said Dickens

Libman

Kate didn’t ask for opinions, she asked:
There is a 'scheme' whereby you can put something in place which means you don't lose your home if you have to go into care. We can't remember what it's called. Does anyone know?

...Kate did indeed get some good advice but she clearly felt under attack from some of the responses.

I can understand that she might have felt "under attack" however, considering the nature of social media - the randomness of individuals posting on it - and the 'moral maze' of Social Care, I think she - or any of us - have to accept that a scheme which might encompass "deprivation of assets" is going to elicit some criticism from those who believe that asking the State to pay for you so that your offspring can inherit your wealth is morally unacceptable. And it is a debatable issue isn't it? As is the assumption made by some that those without assets have spent lavishly throughout their lives when the reality might be that they have simply not earned enough to save anything because they worked doing essential but 'disparaged' jobs. The kind of jobs that most don't want to do but without which the whole fabric of society would disintegrate.

If I attempt to deprive the State of my assets so that I can hand them over to my son - who is now an independent person making his own way in life through his own endeavour and work - am I any different to the elite wealthy individual who avoids paying tax into the infrastructure that allowed / enabled him to accrue his wealth, offshoring it into a protected bank account? There's a principle involved here.

I'd love to be able to leave my property, intact, to my son and grandchildren. It may or may not happen. Fortunately my son is of the opinion that I should use my wealth (such as it is) to look after myself, and my partner, in old age. And, considering that a certain amount of luck got me to where I am now - it wasn't all down to my own hard work - I agree with him. Not everyone will get the opportunities I had - nor the luck. And, who will be picking up the tab anyway? The current workforce, saddled with years of Austerity, stagnating wages... and now the horrendous energy price increases.

Social Care is now a commodity - the service is an industry and it's subject to the market place rules. But that's a debate for another time.

Germanshepherdsmum

A loophole is a lacuna in the law which can you can perfectly legally use to your advantage . Putting money into a trust to attempt to avoid care fees is not lawful and therefore is not using a loophole. It’s attempted fraud.

I can see that if someone goes into care and then gives away their assets then it could be assumed that the two things were linked, but if I gave my savings to my children now, and lived on my pension who could say whether I had been looking ahead or just feeling generous? By this I don't mean that nothing could be proved, I mean that the intention could be one thing or the other.

It seems that there are so many inconsistencies (eg a couple with a joint account being treated differently from one with two separate ones) that it is impossible to judge someone's morals based on decisions that may or may not be based on a desire to avoid fees that may or may not be incurred in the future.

If Spouse D can’t sell the antiques etc sufficiently quickly then interest will accrue on the unpaid fees Cabbie. Yes, Spouse D might wish to use some of their own money to pay fees for a better home and that’s not unlawful but by so doing they may end up without much money and in the same home they paid to get their spouse out of. Sad situation.

Germanshepherdsmum

To answer your questions, Cabbie:
If the person needing care has accumulated antiques and collectibles, they are assets to be valued and taken into account when their care fees are assessed.
If the value of all assets is below the threshold, yes the LA covers fees.
The other spouse doesn’t have to contribute to the costs of the person in care out of their assets or income.

The Age UK site says that:

Personal possessions (chattel) cannot be included in the assessment, provided eligible capital is not used to purchase them to avoid care costs., suggesting that so long as they haven't been bought immediately before going into care, someone could have Ming vases worth more than a house, but they will be disregarded. Is that not the case?

Also, if a couple are joint tenants, does the non-cared for partner keep all of the assets when a single person would lost theirs?

A loophole is a lacuna in the law which can you can perfectly legally use to your advantage . Putting money into a trust to attempt to avoid care fees is not lawful and therefore is not using a loophole. It’s attempted fraud.

Thank you GSM for that clarification.
But to take that scenario a but further, I reckon a spouse with savings, Spouse D, would struggle to sell off their partner’s assets like collectibles, rather than a high end car for example, as quickly as is needed.
Or Spouse D might be very unhappy about the conditions in a council funded care home ( if partner has no assets to sell). Either way they might feel that their own money needs to be used to fund a better home for their partner, even if there is no legal obligation.
There is often debate about whether a married couple should have separate bank accounts. Many don’t, so half of their joint savings will be taken into account. Anyone who has put money into ISAs ( Individual Savings Accounts) will have separate savings. No easy answers.