Old people having to sell home to pay for care is discrimination and ageism

I can see both sides to this argument. My parents worked all of their lives, my dad was a low paid factory worker and my mum worked in a ladies clothes shop. They bought their council house way back for the princely sum of £6,000. Neither of them were drinkers or smokers however they did enjoy one holiday a year when my mum was fit and well. Moving on through the years my mum became seriously ill and was unable to manage the stairs in their home, which was by this time paid for in full and worth a modest £75,000. Cutting a long story short my parents had no choice but to sell their home and accepted £67,000 for a quick sale. They were offered specialist housing from the local authority in order to accomodate my mums failing ability and health. They moved into their bungalow almost three years ago and pay the full rent of £120 per week (over £7000 per year) plus full council tax etc. Now you dont need to be a mathematician to work out that their money will run out in the next few years. There is very little difference between this situation and selling up in order to go into a care home is there? My sister and I have never expected or desired an inheritance from our parents, we would both far rather they were happy, safe and comfortable for the rest of their lives.

I quite expect there is a generational issue - I suppose I was trying to say that those of our generation that have been sensible if we were able there is an upside

bluebell I think such worries are something confined to the older generation. My experience is that most young people expect the state to look after them and don't see any point in saving for their own old age. Most of them will think having £75k in their old age is not going to happen so won't provide for their retirement. I can see their point when my savings are not keeping pace with inflation.

The welfare state was never designed to keep us but to provide a safety net. We still have a duty to try to fend for ourselves as much as possible. That's why it's unfair that those who are thrifty are penalised. They followed the rules and put money by. My mum has a small private pension so pays tax, council tax and doesn't qualify for any of the pension extras. My aunt qualifies for pension top up and rent and council tax benefit. So through her taxes, my mum is paying for the upkeep of her spendthrift sister.

One advantage of having savings in older age is that it can give you more choices over the care you buy rather than just having to accept what the state provides - that might be an incentive to save, if you are able to. Also there is the security and peace of mind that comes from having savings and I enjoy helping out my DD. I have a friend who has behaved as described in some posts above although they had far more money than we did. She just spends all her time worrying about money now - I just couldn't handle being in that situation through choice - it must be awful though for people who haven't been able to save because of low pay, poor health etc and have no choices.

Barrow, this 95%, whose income are you refereing to ?

Thanks, VQ - I had your comments in mind when I used the word "frittered". Should have made my references clearer for Ivanhoe!

Like Ariadne I don't mind if my property has to be sold to pay for my care in my "senior" years. My DH and I worked hard and saved in order to buy property and make provision for our old age. I also have no problem with the state helping those who were, for one reason or another, not able to make the same provision.

My Mother is in a Nursing Home in Australia and there the state takes 95% of your income to pay towards your care home fees, with the state making up any shortfall. My Mother only has her state pension so is probably paying less than someone else in the same home. There is also, I believe, a cap on how much care homes can charge. This covers her care, and so called "hotel" element. Any extras, such as hair dresser, chiropody etc. she has to pay from the 5% left.

vampirequeen,

This is really odd, talk about the system setting people against each other.

When people are working they are paying their taxes and their contributions into State coffers the same as someone being thrifty.

But everybody working pays their taxes and other contributions and so we should all expect to get back from the State when we are old.

The system since Thatcher has been divisery, it has deliberately set our nation against each other.

That's my point exactly Movedalot.

The word 'fritter' is correct because that's exactly what my aunt and uncle did. They spent money today with no thought for tomorrow.

MY FiL lived in a council house all his life. He did not have a well paid job but saved into a pension as well as putting a little by for a rainy day. Most of his neighbours drank, smoked and spent all their money so when he retired he had just enough to live on but his neighbours claimed from the state. I don't see how anyone can think this is fair.

I appreciate that not everyone is able to buy a house or save for their old age but a lot more could than do. Imo it is those who do the most moaning about the 'rich' and who expect others to pay for them. I am happy to pay for those who really need it but do not understand why DH and I should be penalised for having worked very hard all our lives and achieved a home of our own and sufficient money to pay our own way.

If there is to be no reward for living frugally and working hard what incentive is there for future generations to do so?

Ariadane, ""There will always be people who have frittered away money""

Why use the word "frittered" ?

vampirequeen, no its not fair, and as I keep saying, we all pay into the system when working, so we should be looked after by the State when we are old.

It's not the genuine poor. I just don't think it's fair that people like my mum should have to pay. What's the point of being thrifty and saving for your future if it's just to line the pockets of some care home company? Mum and Dad could have lived a lot more comfortably if they'd spent all their money like my aunt and uncle did. It's like adding insult to injury.

I don't see why I should not use my house to pay for my care, should I need to. Equally, I have no problem if others can't afford to. There will always be people who have frittered away money, but there will always, too, be those who genuinely are poor.

What use is my house if I can't live in it?

"To each according to their needs" or something. (V. Marxist, but it fits.)

""My uncle and aunt did the opposite. They spent all their money""

Were they home owners or renters vampirequeen ?

Did they work ?

I see nothing wrong with what they did. Life in general is made up of different people doing things differently.

I believe the State should play a vital role in looking after us all in old age, not only by providing a State pension people can live on, but also residential care.

When the State takes our taxes and contributions, why should it not look after us in old age.

As mentioned by me in another post, it was in the 80's when Thatcher cut taxes and NI contributions for British workers, because Thatcher wanted to roll back the State system and have us all look after ourselves as individuals.

And we are only now reaping the consequences of this.

Wow I go to sleep and miss so much

My reasoning is simply based on the unfairness I see in my own family.

As I've said before my mum and dad scrimped and saved to buy their house and pay into dad's pension.

My uncle and aunt did the opposite. They spent all their money.

They went out every weekend....mum and dad went out for special occassions.
They had a car long before it was the norm......mum and dad used the buses.
They went on holidays in hotels and ate out every meal....we had 'holidays at home' or splashed out on a weeks caravan holiday which were self catered.
My aunt bought her clothes in Debenhams.....mum bought her clothes from C&A.

I could go on but my point is that they could end up in the same care home in adjacent rooms receiving the same level of care and my mum would have to pay whilst my aunt wouldn't. It's almost as if my mum is being penalised for having been thrifty.

Anno

Sorry girls.

anno

How nice. What a lovely girl.

vegas

Oh anno what lovely GDs you have! Perhaps we should set up communes where the young and the old can happily coexist.

My senior GD (21) indicated her intention to build me a granny flat. Mind you, she's still a student so this will be many years in the future, if ever. Younger GD (10), told her mother that granny should come and live in their spare room and she (GD) would arrange for me to work in one of the charity shops so that I'd have other old people to talk to. So that generation would seem to have my interests at heart.

Interesting vegasmags you're quite right. Now, it's a given that if you can't cope at home you go into a home...women working perhaps? Obviously there are cases when people require nursing care but not all. It was the norm in the past but then again, women didn't work outside the home in the same way.

Something that I find a bit disturbing is the way that many people - myself included - assume that residential care will be the solution when they can no longer manage. However, nearly 40 years ago, my old dad came to live with me and my young family and spent his last 8 years with us. Like lots of young mothers in those days, I wasn't in paid employment so I stayed at home and looked after dad and the kids.

Is it possible that residential care will become so expensive that people of ordinary means will no longer be able to afford it, and will have to rely on their families? Of course, this won't always be practicable, but I suggest there has been a shift in attitude in that younger people would be horrified at the prospect of caring for their elderly relatives, who in turn would be terrified of being a burden.

Maybe as the recession bites deeper we will all have to have a rethink. After all, many grandparents now undertake unpaid childcare to help out their families. Perhaps keeping it in the family will have to extend to the care of older people.

I'll just repeat Sel's question (again) as Ivanhoe hasn't deemed it worthy of a response:

'Ivanhoe GNP? What is your plan to increase this given our Debt?'