Enlighten us William. How wisely would your family spend your wealth? If the 'something' that happened to you resulted in you needing residential care would they wisely pay for the best home they could find for you and your wife? Or would they scream and shout about the 'unfairness of it all' and try to stop your own money giving you a better life? What would you expect them to do?
Care funding
- Thread starter moggies
- Start date
- Status
Enlighten us William. How wisely would your family spend your wealth? If the 'something' that happened to you resulted in you needing residential care would they wisely pay for the best home they could find for you and your wife? Or would they scream and shout about the 'unfairness of it all' and try to stop your own money giving you a better life? What would you expect them to do?
My Mom paid everything she was asked to all her working life and still continues to do so. If she had been asked to pay more when working she would have done so and as an honest woman really wouldn't have had much choice.
In return for her hard work the deal was that all the services you have mentioned and the ones you missed out, would be available to her and at the end of her working life she would receive a state pension which would be just enough to live on and if she ever became ill then the NHS would be there to treat her if at all possible.
She was encouraged to save, in whatever form she choose, pension, property or bank to enhance her life in the future and she fully accepted that even that money will be taxed whilst being saved and also when she came to spend it.
That was the deal she entered into.
Now she is ill with Dementia and needs help from the Government and NHS she is told that the rules have changed with not even a "sorry" for not letting you know sooner.
Because she did all that was asked of her she will now have to pay for all of her care herself. Taxed again just for getting ill.
But she won't be able to get too comfortable, because when that money runs out in a couple of years time the state will then step in and move her somewhere more "basic" and that small private pension that she saved and scrimped hard for, to improve her life in later years, will go to help pay for that.
The deal my Mom entered into has been changed and fortunately from this forum I have learnt that the deal I entered into has also been changed. The more people that know that and realise that there are perfectly legal (and in my view morally right) ways of protecting what you have worked hard for the better.
If I had realised that I could/should have changed the ownership of Mom's house so it was disregarded from her capital I would have done the day I started caring for her. Not for my benefit but too be able to afford to keep her comfortable and have some control of where she lives the rest of her life.
You may not like the way WILLIAMR presents himself but I for one wish I had heard him and others saying the same thing much earlier. I would imagine my Mom wished I had too.
And there really is no need to shout.
I would hope my daughters would take the councils usual rate and pay top up if I did not qualify for CHC funding.
That said compromise sometimes has to happen.
When my step mother went in to care there was a choice of 2 homes.
The best one décor wise etc was just over 30 miles away. The one we chose was 9 miles away which was still very good but I would not say excellent like the other.
Looking back probably we should have chosen the best home as she only lived for a week but at the time of the decision we thought she had 6 months to live so a 60 mile round trip a day could start to become a problem in the longer term.
William
Hi everyone,
A reminder that Talking Point members are free to share their experiences and opinions, but we ask that members' posts are respectful, relevant to the discussion, and in line with our forum rules.
Thanks,
A reminder that Talking Point members are free to share their experiences and opinions, but we ask that members' posts are respectful, relevant to the discussion, and in line with our forum rules.
Thanks,
My Mom paid everything she was asked to all her working life and still continues to do so. If she had been asked to pay more when working she would have done so and as an honest woman really wouldn't have had much choice.
In return for her hard work the deal was that all the services you have mentioned and the ones you missed out, would be available to her and at the end of her working life she would receive a state pension which would be just enough to live on and if she ever became ill then the NHS would be there to treat her if at all possible.
She was encouraged to save, in whatever form she choose, pension, property or bank to enhance her life in the future and she fully accepted that even that money will be taxed whilst being saved and also when she came to spend it.
That was the deal she entered into.
Now she is ill with Dementia and needs help from the Government and NHS she is told that the rules have changed with not even a "sorry" for not letting you know sooner.
Because she did all that was asked of her she will now have to pay for all of her care herself. Taxed again just for getting ill.
But she won't be able to get too comfortable, because when that money runs out in a couple of years time the state will then step in and move her somewhere more "basic" and that small private pension that she saved and scrimped hard for, to improve her life in later years, will go to help pay for that.
The deal my Mom entered into has been changed and fortunately from this forum I have learnt that the deal I entered into has also been changed. The more people that know that and realise that there are perfectly legal (and in my view morally right) ways of protecting what you have worked hard for the better.
If I had realised that I could/should have changed the ownership of Mom's house so it was disregarded from her capital I would have done the day I started caring for her. Not for my benefit but too be able to afford to keep her comfortable and have some control of where she lives the rest of her life.
You may not like the way WILLIAMR presents himself but I for one wish I had heard him and others saying the same thing much earlier. I would imagine my Mom wished I had too.
And there really is no need to shout.
Pete R,
I have to say I couldn't agree more.
A few months ago even the owners of this forum referred to the " Dementia Tax " in the national media, their words not mine.
It seems there are people who are happy to use Alzheimers Society Talking Point forum, but can't seem to agree with the society's ( owners ) thoughts.
If they don't agree with the thoughts of the owners and the people who do see it as a " Dementia Tax " I wonder if they should create their own forum to peddle their own views and push their own agenda.
As a forum for " legal and financial " advise, I am sure that one of the reasons people are attracted to this forum, is so they can learn how to save and conserve their money, not how to spend and deplete it ??
To me the " Dementia Tax " is nothing more than paying for private health insurance, and should not be needed considering the promises made by previous governments.
One of the things I can't understand in the argument for self funding for this brain disease, is a comparison with car insurance.
If you drive a car on the road you are " required by law " to pay car insurance, similar to compulsary taxes ( a form of insurance ) to pay for the NHS
If you develop Alzheimers, it seems some people expect you to pay for your own care and not claim on your insurance policy ( NHS )
It's like having those same people buying a new £20,000 car, having it written off by some hit and run driver, then saying, I won't claim on my insurance I will fund it myself.
I really can't see them saying or doing that.
As I say, I consider your thoughts spot on, because I also fully remember hearing the same things being said, that your mother, my mother, my father and millions of others heard over the last seventy or eighty years.
I can only assume that some of these people didn't hear the same thing that we did, or aren't bothered that the goalposts are continually moving, and that if they have this problem it should be taken out on the people who are moving the goalposts and not the people trying to get what they were promised.
Do you know, it seems strange that so many of the people who complain about losing their 'inheritance' here, are the offspring of those needing the care.
I have yet to see many of the people who have their husbands and wives needing the care moaning about losing their means of living in comparitive comfort ,yet they are the people who are hardest hit by the cost of care.
Many have to exist on half the income they were used to. I speak from experience.
Inheritance is a comparitively new phenomenon for ordinary working people and has mainly come about through the rise in the price of homes over the past decades.
My mother inherited £100 from her mother and my father got a rocking chair!
I have yet to see many of the people who have their husbands and wives needing the care moaning about losing their means of living in comparitive comfort ,yet they are the people who are hardest hit by the cost of care.
Many have to exist on half the income they were used to. I speak from experience.
Inheritance is a comparitively new phenomenon for ordinary working people and has mainly come about through the rise in the price of homes over the past decades.
My mother inherited £100 from her mother and my father got a rocking chair!
Taxes aren't by any definition a form of insurance. Insurance is the payment of a periodic or one off sum where the charge is based on the risk-taker (insuerer's) perception on the insured's leve of individual risk of undergoing an event which may or may not occur. Taxes are sums of money where the requirement to pay is imposed on individuals or organisations by law based on a formula where risk is irrelevant. There are arguments for saying healthcare should be funded out of general taxation and there are arguments for saying it should be funded separately, but whatever one's views on that topic, tax does not equal insurance.
Now I'm more supportive of (partial) separate funding of health than funding it solely by general taxation (making it a little more like your insurance example and also offering the advantage of reserving (what economists call hypothecating) a particular income stream for healthcare, which is part of the idea behind the "dementia tax" - it gets round a fundamental legal and constitutional problem with taxation. However, one issue I have difficulty with is the idea that all aspects of care for someone with Alzheimer's (or any other chronic or progressive illness) should be 100% publicly funded. This is at the heart of the original 1948 distinction between health care and social care - while the clinical element of care can be justifed as a matter of public (NHS) funding it is harder to justify funding all aspects (including accommodation charges) since individuals would have to meet some aspects of those charges if they were otherwise healthy. Many may not like that argument, but it was the original reason for maintaining the distinction from 1948 onwards. And the present system has many faults, but if an individual requires care and has (or ends up with) low income and depeleted or minimal capital the public purse does bear the full cost (including accommodation).
I also share what I understand from the views expressed by Saffie over inheritances - I will inherit nothing for a variety of reasons (little or nothing left and and choice (disclaimer of interest) in one case), but ultimately it is the potential beneficiaries who stand to gain most if more public funding is provided. I would also question the morality of a change to system so that taxation, including that levied on the lowest earners, ends up being used to fund what is essentially a wealth redistribution in favour of those who may (under the present system) have adequate assets to fund some element of their own care.
And to answer the OP's question: her actions would amount to both unlawful deprivation of assets and as she has have described them, potentially amount to theft (regardless of whether the savings are individual or joint).
W
Last edited:
PeteR said:
I'm wondering how you owning part of your Mum's house could be construed as 'Not for my benefit but too be able to afford to keep her comfortable and have some control of where she lives the rest of her life.'
How does that work then?
vernumamy said:
What's that all about?
AND it isn't a forum for legal and financial advice...it's a forum for people who suffer from dementia and their carers, with a sub section about financial advise.
ALL (Capitals for emphasis!!!! ditto exclamation marks) people who need long term care contribute to the cost of that care.
Perhaps you didn't know that fact.
This is a forum to support people with dementia so the PROVIDERS of the site are obviously going to support their own cause..i.e Dementia but it doesn't exclude all other groups in our society who have similar funding issues.
And OBVIOUSLY doesn't exclude a variation of opinions.
Well, it's obvious to me at least.
The goalposts are NOT continually moving...it was ever thus.
But then I have personal experience of people for whom I care needing long term support and care with differing illnesses and disabilities, so my experience is not quite so blinkered.
Sometimes the goalposts do move, and this can make it hard to plan sensibly. An example...I missed a few years NI when living abroad. Worked out when I came back I would still have more than 30 years needed for full state pension, so not worth paying for the missed years. Of course under the new rules you need 35 years so stuck as too late now to fill in the gap.
This happens in the private sector too, for example insurance companies who promised that endowment policies would generate enough capital to pay off mortgages and offered guaranteed pension schemes which they couldn't fulfil.
However, the original age for receiving a state pension was set at a time when life expectancy meant that a significant number of people would never live to receive it. Same with health and social care; in 1948 it would never have been envisaged how medical science would advance and how many more of us would need both expensive medical care and social care support. We are living in a different world now and we have to face up to that.
The system is struggling to cope with unprecedented demand and we have to accept that it won't survive unless we are all willing to put more into it.
And in response to verumamy, I would say that many people who post on this subsection of the forum are just seeking understanding of how the rules work, because they are so complex. They want to do the right thing, and aren't interested in anything other than protecting their relative and getting them the best care and support they can.
This happens in the private sector too, for example insurance companies who promised that endowment policies would generate enough capital to pay off mortgages and offered guaranteed pension schemes which they couldn't fulfil.
However, the original age for receiving a state pension was set at a time when life expectancy meant that a significant number of people would never live to receive it. Same with health and social care; in 1948 it would never have been envisaged how medical science would advance and how many more of us would need both expensive medical care and social care support. We are living in a different world now and we have to face up to that.
The system is struggling to cope with unprecedented demand and we have to accept that it won't survive unless we are all willing to put more into it.
And in response to verumamy, I would say that many people who post on this subsection of the forum are just seeking understanding of how the rules work, because they are so complex. They want to do the right thing, and aren't interested in anything other than protecting their relative and getting them the best care and support they can.
Quite simple really.
It is only a small house value of around £150,000. In her current Nursing Home, almost £900/week & self funding that will last a little over 5 years if the charges do not rise. Ha! Fat chance.
Sate funding will not keep pace and she will be forced to move which as we all know can be quite catastrophic.
I have put quite a lot into the house over the 11 years I have cared for my Mother, without any state help (my fault I now know for not knowing the rules). The only reason I mention that money is that if I still had it I could use it in the future to "top up"
If the house was disregarded or in my name I could use it to secure capital to pay the "top up" so she would be able to stay where she is for many more years.
When state funded her small private pension will be taken from her. Surely that should be used towards any "top up". Otherwise what is the point of saving for the future.
My Mom has Nursing needs and has Dementia. Her care should be funded by the NHS. Her state pension should be used towards the cost.
The rest should be hers to with what she wants.
As I said quite simple.
Thank you for not shouting.
Most of the people I have helped have been widowed and early retired.
They had also inherited part of their parents home which makes sense when they moved in, expenses are reduced and they have more time to care for their parent.
In most of the cases the offspring become carers later.
In some cases the parents needs become beyond the capabilities of 1 person.
Social workers know the offspring have been caring for years and the only thanks they get is to be told they must now sell their home and the LA'S don't care what happens to them.
No acknowledgement is made of the fact that care would have been needed earlier had the offspring not been there.
William
They had also inherited part of their parents home which makes sense when they moved in, expenses are reduced and they have more time to care for their parent.
In most of the cases the offspring become carers later.
In some cases the parents needs become beyond the capabilities of 1 person.
Social workers know the offspring have been caring for years and the only thanks they get is to be told they must now sell their home and the LA'S don't care what happens to them.
No acknowledgement is made of the fact that care would have been needed earlier had the offspring not been there.
William
No! The system is struggling because of bad planning by those that knew that the demand would increase.
I do not mind putting more into the pot and neither should any normal hard working citizen of this country.
However those, like my Mom, who did the right thing at the time should not have what they saved for taken away from them.
I take great acception to the above part of this post.
This is a forum for those living with dementia and their carers. No where in the terms and conditions does it say we have to agree with anyone else be it Alzheimers Society or Joe Bloggs. We have to be polite and respect each other. i have been a member on here for 9 years and you are saying I should go elsewhere because I don't agree with you, thank you for that. Not much respect there is there?
Legal and financial advice should be sought from professionals but of course that costs money. We can all give our opinions but that is all they should be ,opinions, we are here to support each other not give free legal advice and of course we are not qualified to do so.
I am not convinced that the forum attracts new members because there is a sub heading legal and financial but again I might be wrong, it is only my opinion.
I have no agenda, We have lived with dementia for nearly 10 years and I will continue to care for my husband, I won't covert his assets and nor will our children and hopefully I will continue to give and receive support from my fellow members here as I have for many years.
It is so sad when we are dealing with such a horrible disease that affects us so badly, that when money is mentioned it brings out the worst in us, sad, very sad and in some cases disgraceful. Again my opinion and If I don't agree with your thoughts I am sorry.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
