pensioners average income vs working age family income

1356

Comments

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Matthew 5.5

    Blessed be the snowflakes, for they will inherit the earth.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    JGSI wrote:
    This is like the 'haves' and 'havenots'.
    Plenty of pensioners who still fall into the latter as well.
    Those pensioners with pension and other income above threshold still liable to income tax and NIC, please correct if I am wrong, so still paying into the national treasure chest.
    My personal situation is that I am probably in the deep doo come the time I cannot work due to health reasons or whatever.. I could never stick a job long enough to accrue a decent salary or pension rights after leaving the Army , a long long time ago... my Veterans pension will just about stop me having to sleep rough -- I am almost not joking .

    In the end we have all been let down badly by our so called betters - of all political persuasions..

    Pensioners don't pay NICS. The basic state pension should give you £7k. I have no idea if army service helps with making that bigger.
  • lesfirth
    lesfirth Posts: 1,382
    JGSI wrote:
    This is like the 'haves' and 'havenots'.
    Plenty of pensioners who still fall into the latter as well.
    Those pensioners with pension and other income above threshold still liable to income tax and NIC, please correct if I am wrong, so still paying into the national treasure chest.
    My personal situation is that I am probably in the deep doo come the time I cannot work due to health reasons or whatever.. I could never stick a job long enough to accrue a decent salary or pension rights after leaving the Army , a long long time ago... my Veterans pension will just about stop me having to sleep rough -- I am almost not joking .

    In the end we have all been let down badly by our so called betters - of all political persuasions..

    I have every sympathy for anyone with health problems but to say we have all been let down is b0llocks.

    I am 70. When I left school you chose what job to do.If you did not like it you left on friday and started another on monday.
    Scrapping together a house deposit was a bit of a problem and when wife left work to have kids money was tight. Apart from a few blips during my working life there was full employment, if you wanted a job you could get one. When kids left school you and wife had 15/20 years of two incomes and a tiny or no mortgage. If you did not have a company pension you had time to sort your own. The only pensioners moaning now are the low life who have lived off the rest of us when they could have been working.It might be the circles I mix in but I do not know anyone around my age that needs a winter fuel payment or a triple lock state pension.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    lesfirth wrote:
    JGSI wrote:
    This is like the 'haves' and 'havenots'.
    Plenty of pensioners who still fall into the latter as well.
    Those pensioners with pension and other income above threshold still liable to income tax and NIC, please correct if I am wrong, so still paying into the national treasure chest.
    My personal situation is that I am probably in the deep doo come the time I cannot work due to health reasons or whatever.. I could never stick a job long enough to accrue a decent salary or pension rights after leaving the Army , a long long time ago... my Veterans pension will just about stop me having to sleep rough -- I am almost not joking .

    In the end we have all been let down badly by our so called betters - of all political persuasions..

    I have every sympathy for anyone with health problems but to say we have all been let down is b0llocks.

    I am 70. When I left school you chose what job to do.If you did not like it you left on friday and started another on monday.
    Scrapping together a house deposit was a bit of a problem and when wife left work to have kids money was tight. Apart from a few blips during my working life there was full employment, if you wanted a job you could get one. When kids left school you and wife had 15/20 years of two incomes and a tiny or no mortgage. If you did not have a company pension you had time to sort your own. The only pensioners moaning now are the low life who have lived off the rest of us when they could have been working.It might be the circles I mix in but I do not know anyone around my age that needs a winter fuel payment or a triple lock state pension.

    yeah many over 60 or 65 its true, you were in a generation of full employment but many have seen their pension schemes made worthless or worked very hard but in low skilled low paid work or maybe women who got divorced and couldnt work to bring up kids.
    i know my mum, a nurse, went back to work when the youngest was 11 (following divorce) she worked nights until she was 70, 5 days a week, her total pension pot was 210 per week, how the xxxx could she have afforded to pay rent out of that? (her parents left her a house)
    Bit of a sweeping generalisation to say the only pensioners moaning are low life work shy, infact its bl00dy insulting.
  • Garry H
    Garry H Posts: 6,639
    lesfirth wrote:
    I have every sympathy for anyone with health problems but to say we have all been let down is b0llocks.

    I am 70. When I left school you chose what job to do.If you did not like it you left on friday and started another on monday.
    Scrapping together a house deposit was a bit of a problem and when wife left work to have kids money was tight. Apart from a few blips during my working life there was full employment, if you wanted a job you could get one. When kids left school you and wife had 15/20 years of two incomes and a tiny or no mortgage. If you did not have a company pension you had time to sort your own. The only pensioners moaning now are the low life who have lived off the rest of us when they could have been working.It might be the circles I mix in but I do not know anyone around my age that needs a winter fuel payment or a triple lock state pension.

    What did you do for a living?
  • taon24
    taon24 Posts: 185
    The big problem is that previous generations have elected governments that have kept taxes low, the generation has benefited from rises in house prices and benefitted from pensions where the contributions were disproportionately small to the expected pay out. Clearly some haven't benefited from this but equally many have.
    The current generation has trouble affording a house (so can't benefit from rising prices), no reasonable rent protection (so renting long term isn't an option), poor pensions (in general), less secure employment and the prospect of tax rises having to pay to maintain public services (such as social and health care) which disproportionately benefits the older generation.
    While serial governments have some responsibility people have elected them on and it isn't those who have just turned 18. Pensioners may have paid in their whole life, but have they paid in enough for what they expect to recieve for their contributions or have they simply been agreeing with politicians who promise the future will pay their expenses?

    A move to encourage renting - notice period to vacate equal to length of tenancy might mean pensioners could remain in a rented home without being asked to move out at a couple of months notice. This would need to be matched to a limit on the rise on rent while occupied by a tenant.

    Secondly more tax needs to be raised to cover the costs. Ideally at least some of this come from the older generation and an obvious source of tax is inheritance, as this will charge costs to people after they die and no longer need the money.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    Don't worry snowflakes.
    You will soon profit in inheritence from rich coffin dodgers.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Don't worry snowflakes.
    You will soon profit in inheritence from rich coffin dodgers.

    As I said above.

    Matthew 5.5

    Blessed be the snowflakes, for they will inherit the earth.

    Trouble is, they want it all and they want it now.

    Bless.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTB2DlGPJlI
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,093
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Don't worry snowflakes.
    You will soon profit in inheritence from rich coffin dodgers.

    That's what this country needs, more reliance on inherited wealth.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Don't worry snowflakes.
    You will soon profit in inheritence from rich coffin dodgers.

    That's what this country needs, more reliance on inherited wealth.

    a Tale of Two Friends

    first friend has just seen her parents entire wealth built up through hard work and sacrifice given to the council in Care costs,

    Meanwhile the other friend whose parents lived in council housing all their lives, worked but never bought their own place, had nice cars and holidays are getting their care paid for by the state, one at home and the dad in a nursing home.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mamba80 wrote:
    lesfirth wrote:
    JGSI wrote:
    This is like the 'haves' and 'havenots'.
    Plenty of pensioners who still fall into the latter as well.
    Those pensioners with pension and other income above threshold still liable to income tax and NIC, please correct if I am wrong, so still paying into the national treasure chest.
    My personal situation is that I am probably in the deep doo come the time I cannot work due to health reasons or whatever.. I could never stick a job long enough to accrue a decent salary or pension rights after leaving the Army , a long long time ago... my Veterans pension will just about stop me having to sleep rough -- I am almost not joking .

    In the end we have all been let down badly by our so called betters - of all political persuasions..

    I have every sympathy for anyone with health problems but to say we have all been let down is b0llocks.

    I am 70. When I left school you chose what job to do.If you did not like it you left on friday and started another on monday.
    Scrapping together a house deposit was a bit of a problem and when wife left work to have kids money was tight. Apart from a few blips during my working life there was full employment, if you wanted a job you could get one. When kids left school you and wife had 15/20 years of two incomes and a tiny or no mortgage. If you did not have a company pension you had time to sort your own. The only pensioners moaning now are the low life who have lived off the rest of us when they could have been working.It might be the circles I mix in but I do not know anyone around my age that needs a winter fuel payment or a triple lock state pension.

    yeah many over 60 or 65 its true, you were in a generation of full employment but many have seen their pension schemes made worthless or worked very hard but in low skilled low paid work or maybe women who got divorced and couldnt work to bring up kids.
    i know my mum, a nurse, went back to work when the youngest was 11 (following divorce) she worked nights until she was 70, 5 days a week, her total pension pot was 210 per week, how the xxxx could she have afforded to pay rent out of that? (her parents left her a house)
    Bit of a sweeping generalisation to say the only pensioners moaning are low life work shy, infact its bl00dy insulting.

    he is guilty of a sweeping generalisation but you can not say that 1960-2010 was a period of full employment.

    Your Mum is on approx £17k a year. There is a chance that our friend gets a similar amount and is very happy on it.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,093
    mamba80 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Don't worry snowflakes.
    You will soon profit in inheritence from rich coffin dodgers.

    That's what this country needs, more reliance on inherited wealth.

    a Tale of Two Friends

    first friend has just seen her parents entire wealth built up through hard work and sacrifice given to the council in Care costs,

    Meanwhile the other friend whose parents lived in council housing all their lives, worked but never bought their own place, had nice cars and holidays are getting their care paid for by the state, one at home and the dad in a nursing home.

    Is there an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve the government paying for everyone or kicking the second set out on the street?

    One thing that absolutely shouldn't be happening is care providers charging private payers more to subsidise those paid for by the taxpayer.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Don't worry snowflakes.
    You will soon profit in inheritence from rich coffin dodgers.

    That's what this country needs, more reliance on inherited wealth.

    a Tale of Two Friends

    first friend has just seen her parents entire wealth built up through hard work and sacrifice given to the council in Care costs,

    Meanwhile the other friend whose parents lived in council housing all their lives, worked but never bought their own place, had nice cars and holidays are getting their care paid for by the state, one at home and the dad in a nursing home.

    Is there an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve the government paying for everyone or kicking the second set out on the street?

    One thing that absolutely shouldn't be happening is care providers charging private payers more to subsidise those paid for by the taxpayer.

    privately funded care costs are the new inheritance tax.

    I would give everybody a budget that they could top up
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    lesfirth wrote:
    JGSI wrote:
    This is like the 'haves' and 'havenots'.
    Plenty of pensioners who still fall into the latter as well.
    Those pensioners with pension and other income above threshold still liable to income tax and NIC, please correct if I am wrong, so still paying into the national treasure chest.
    My personal situation is that I am probably in the deep doo come the time I cannot work due to health reasons or whatever.. I could never stick a job long enough to accrue a decent salary or pension rights after leaving the Army , a long long time ago... my Veterans pension will just about stop me having to sleep rough -- I am almost not joking .

    In the end we have all been let down badly by our so called betters - of all political persuasions..

    I have every sympathy for anyone with health problems but to say we have all been let down is b0llocks.

    I am 70. When I left school you chose what job to do.If you did not like it you left on friday and started another on monday.
    Scrapping together a house deposit was a bit of a problem and when wife left work to have kids money was tight. Apart from a few blips during my working life there was full employment, if you wanted a job you could get one. When kids left school you and wife had 15/20 years of two incomes and a tiny or no mortgage. If you did not have a company pension you had time to sort your own. The only pensioners moaning now are the low life who have lived off the rest of us when they could have been working.It might be the circles I mix in but I do not know anyone around my age that needs a winter fuel payment or a triple lock state pension.

    yeah many over 60 or 65 its true, you were in a generation of full employment but many have seen their pension schemes made worthless or worked very hard but in low skilled low paid work or maybe women who got divorced and couldnt work to bring up kids.
    i know my mum, a nurse, went back to work when the youngest was 11 (following divorce) she worked nights until she was 70, 5 days a week, her total pension pot was 210 per week, how the xxxx could she have afforded to pay rent out of that? (her parents left her a house)
    Bit of a sweeping generalisation to say the only pensioners moaning are low life work shy, infact its bl00dy insulting.

    he is guilty of a sweeping generalisation but you can not say that 1960-2010 was a period of full employment.

    Your Mum is on approx £17k a year. There is a chance that our friend gets a similar amount and is very happy on it.

    17k...? :shock: try 11k and paid tax/ni on that for almost all her retirement years too, my point was in reply to the guy who said any one struggling was a work shy lay-about, i helped out my mum for hols and unexpected bills etc. if i hadnt/couldnt, she d have been in deep doo dah to quote jgsi.

    not full employment true but an era of relatively cheap housing, an abundance of social housing and in skilled work or civil service style jobs, v good pension schemes and early retirement pay-offs, obv education was still very poor :lol:
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    privately funded care costs are the new inheritance tax.

    This.

    Without going into too much detail, it's been sad to see the rather large amount of money my grandmother saved be entirely spent on keeping her alive for the last 10 years in what can only be described as an incredibly low and generally pretty awful quality of life. Not from a money perspective, more how tragic those last years can be.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    privately funded care costs are the new inheritance tax.

    This.

    Without going into too much detail, it's been sad to see the rather large amount of money my grandmother saved be entirely spent on keeping her alive for the last 10 years in what can only be described as an incredibly low and generally pretty awful quality of life. Not from a money perspective, more how tragic those last years can be.
    10 years? That gives her 3 years to sort out her financial planning.
    As long as there is an NHS. I am in the same boat parent health wise so this is not bashing.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    privately funded care costs are the new inheritance tax.

    This.

    Without going into too much detail, it's been sad to see the rather large amount of money my grandmother saved be entirely spent on keeping her alive for the last 10 years in what can only be described as an incredibly low and generally pretty awful quality of life. Not from a money perspective, more how tragic those last years can be.
    10 years? That gives her 3 years to sort out her financial planning.
    As long as there is an NHS. I am in the same boat parent health wise so this is not bashing.

    I don't get that.

    My Aunt is in a similar situation but in rapid decline - we really need to face up to the need for letting people/families end it at an appropriate time
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    I don't get that.

    My Aunt is in a similar situation but in rapid decline - we really need to face up to the need for letting people/families end it at an appropriate time
    Simple. You can gift the money away to take her below defined thresholds. As long as the person in question lives for more than 7 years then no tax is due. At least that was the case the last time I checked. You need an NHS though.
    It won't work in cases of rapid decline. We are discussing financial matters, not health issues.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    privately funded care costs are the new inheritance tax.

    This.

    Without going into too much detail, it's been sad to see the rather large amount of money my grandmother saved be entirely spent on keeping her alive for the last 10 years in what can only be described as an incredibly low and generally pretty awful quality of life. Not from a money perspective, more how tragic those last years can be.
    10 years? That gives her 3 years to sort out her financial planning.
    As long as there is an NHS. I am in the same boat parent health wise so this is not bashing.

    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    I don't get that.

    My Aunt is in a similar situation but in rapid decline - we really need to face up to the need for letting people/families end it at an appropriate time
    Simple. You can gift the money away to take her below defined thresholds. As long as the person in question lives for more than 7 years then no tax is due. At least that was the case the last time I checked. You need an NHS though.
    It won't work in cases of rapid decline. We are discussing financial matters, not health issues.

    I was reading it as she is 10 years in rather than 10 to go
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:

    I don't get that.

    My Aunt is in a similar situation but in rapid decline - we really need to face up to the need for letting people/families end it at an appropriate time
    Simple. You can gift the money away to take her below defined thresholds. As long as the person in question lives for more than 7 years then no tax is due. At least that was the case the last time I checked. You need an NHS though.
    It won't work in cases of rapid decline. We are discussing financial matters, not health issues.

    I was reading it as she is 10 years in rather than 10 to go

    Yes it has been going on for a decade.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.

    Mate. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

    Living in a care home, which lots of old age diseases require, is chuffing expensive, and will annihilate all but the biggest savings.

    That's the point. It's not about financial planning. It's about care homes being really expensive. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a long, drawn out illness, which is increasingly the case for many older people, where you need long term support in a care home, it's incredibly expensive.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.

    Mate. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

    Living in a care home, which lots of old age diseases require, is chuffing expensive, and will annihilate all but the biggest savings.

    That's the point. It's not about financial planning. It's about care homes being really expensive. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a long, drawn out illness, which is increasingly the case for many older people, where you need long term support in a care home, it's incredibly expensive.

    I guess in this scenario an integral part of the financial planning would be leaving your elderly relatives at the mercy of the local authority.

    Am I alone in thinking that baling out money to avoid care home fees is akin to dodging tax and is morally wrong?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.

    Mate. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

    Living in a care home, which lots of old age diseases require, is chuffing expensive, and will annihilate all but the biggest savings.

    That's the point. It's not about financial planning. It's about care homes being really expensive. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a long, drawn out illness, which is increasingly the case for many older people, where you need long term support in a care home, it's incredibly expensive.

    I guess in this scenario an integral part of the financial planning would be leaving your elderly relatives at the mercy of the local authority.

    Am I alone in thinking that baling out money to avoid care home fees is akin to dodging tax and is morally wrong?

    Probably. I don't know the ins and outs, since my parents have been handling it. But the bottom line is, she lived a long way away and was really suffering mentally, so we took the decision in her own best interest to have her closer to home. That seemed the sensible thing to do for her. Ultimately it's her money, not ours, and we are more interested in looking after her than her bank balance.

    Ultimately, my parents aren't that fussed about the money per say, they're in a position where they're not counting on it, but I mention it as an illustration of how expensive care is, especially for the types of illnesses that are increasingly common. That's all.

    It's not meant as a comment on how great my family's financial planning is, and more an illustration that long term old age care, the type which is difficult, if not impossible, to do at home, is incredibly expensive and will only become more burdensome on society as a whole as bigger proportions of the population enter that age bracket.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,499
    edited February 2017
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.

    Mate. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

    Living in a care home, which lots of old age diseases require, is chuffing expensive, and will annihilate all but the biggest savings.

    That's the point. It's not about financial planning. It's about care homes being really expensive. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a long, drawn out illness, which is increasingly the case for many older people, where you need long term support in a care home, it's incredibly expensive.

    I guess in this scenario an integral part of the financial planning would be leaving your elderly relatives at the mercy of the local authority.

    Am I alone in thinking that baling out money to avoid care home fees is akin to dodging tax and is morally wrong?
    No. But as Rick has pointed out, that's not what he was getting at.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    You're assuming a) she's been in a fit mental state to make arrangements and b) that her care is paid for by someone other than herself.
    A bit of a detour but...Once ill health presents itself it is time for hard decisions, and planning. Medical issues aside...
    Power of attorney is one of the first steps. Financial planning if there are savings are the next. The state pays for care if savings are below a certain level. Research good care homes in their area, they exist.
    Of course this will come with the benefit of hindsight to most, by which time it is too late and why it is best to consider your future early.

    Getting back to the OP, just as well all those pensioners are rich.

    Mate. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

    Living in a care home, which lots of old age diseases require, is chuffing expensive, and will annihilate all but the biggest savings.

    That's the point. It's not about financial planning. It's about care homes being really expensive. And if you are unfortunate enough to have a long, drawn out illness, which is increasingly the case for many older people, where you need long term support in a care home, it's incredibly expensive.

    I guess in this scenario an integral part of the financial planning would be leaving your elderly relatives at the mercy of the local authority.

    Am I alone in thinking that baling out money to avoid care home fees is akin to dodging tax and is morally wrong?

    Probably. I don't know the ins and outs, since my parents have been handling it. But the bottom line is, she lived a long way away and was really suffering mentally, so we took the decision in her own best interest to have her closer to home. That seemed the sensible thing to do for her. Ultimately it's her money, not ours, and we are more interested in looking after her than her bank balance.

    Ultimately, my parents aren't that fussed about the money per say, they're in a position where they're not counting on it, but I mention it as an illustration of how expensive care is, especially for the types of illnesses that are increasingly common. That's all.

    It's not meant as a comment on how great my family's financial planning is, and more an illustration that long term old age care, the type which is difficult, if not impossible, to do at home, is incredibly expensive and will only become more burdensome on society as a whole as bigger proportions of the population enter that age bracket.

    I was agreeing with you. I am in a similar position with an elderly aunt and we took the attitude that it is her money so we will spend it on her quality of life.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I know you were. Others weren't!
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,286
    Options for life with an eye to old age.
    1. Live off the state.
    2. Work, piss it all away, live off the state.
    3. Work, give it to your children, live off the state.
    4. Work, be supported by you family. Which means them giving up work.
    5. Work, give all your money to a care home.
    6. Be born into an ultra rich family or become ultra rich.

    Everyone make their decisions based on their opportunities and morals but there are only two options that benefits the family.

    This was a debate about incomes. I am not debating health or moral issues. Just as well these pensioners have such a high income so as to lower the burden on their children.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Options for life with an eye to old age.
    1. Live off the state.
    2. Work, wee-wee it all away, live off the state.
    3. Work, give it to your children, live off the state.
    4. Work, be supported by you family. Which means them giving up work.
    5. Work, give all your money to a care home.
    6. Be born into an ultra rich family or become ultra rich.

    Everyone make their decisions based on their opportunities and morals but there are only two options that benefits the family.

    This was a debate about incomes. I am not debating health or moral issues. Just as well these pensioners have such a high income so as to lower the burden on their children.

    depends which part of the family you are benefiting.

    My aunt got divorced 40 years ago and bought a small bungalow in Suffolk, worked all of her life and retired. She has no children, one sister and three nephews one of whom had been granted POA. So she had a small pension and a bungalow worth £200k. Upon developing alzheimers her own funds were used to keep her in her own home with increasing levels of care provided. As she deteriorated she moved into a care home and her bungalow was sold to pay the £1k a week fees.

    Is this right?
    is she rich?

    We will all have dealt with similar situations so I will not bang on about the emotional side of things but I believe we did the right thing for our family ie her. I am a long way from being a saint but the thought of baling out her assets and leaving her at the mercy of the state was never an option.

    I do not believe that you should take every penny that you can from the state but understand why people do and would never criticise them for it.

Categories