I’m posting a discussion after an OP’s question about inheritance. OP’s siblings opposed a facility for mother, perhaps in order to keep their own inheritance intact. Most of the answers stressed that children had no right to any inheritance, and mother’s savings were always intended for care in her old age. First comment yes, second perhaps not.
I think the generation now older than retirement age did NOT save money for their own old age. They had prided themselves on giving their children ‘a better start’ than themselves, and that included leaving them with an inheritance to be grateful for. And in the economic circumstances of the 1950s to 70s, lower income earners were doing the best ever financially and that was quite realistic.
That generation’s past experience was of a much shorter average length of life. Older men had always retired at 65 and often only lived another couple of years (‘what a pity he never really got to enjoy his retirement’). Even when life expectancy increased, the old fat&sugar diet together with fewer medications gave the 1950s and 60s many many sudden heart attack deaths. There was almost no expectation of living to age 95 and requiring around the clock personal hands-on care 24/7/365. That generation’s youthful memories of their own aging family members, if any, were that they were cared for at home by a handy daughter or daughter-in-law who didn’t go out to work.
My DH’s parents (and their mates) took the line that they had paid taxes all their lives, and when they got to retirement age they would live frugally but comfortably on the age pension. Their taxes meant that the government would pick up any other costs. They certainly expected to leave their savings to their children.
When older people in the 1950s to 70s did spend their money on their own retirement, they frequently did it with a trip around the world. The older American tourist was everywhere when I was in my 20s in Europe. Saving money for a nursing home was NOT their expectation.
Saying that the parents’ money should be to fund their own old age is a huge change in attitude, and not everyone (including their own children) has caught up with it. Things haven't changed if your friend’s parents die from cancer or heart issues before they turn 80 – they leave a nice inheritance. It’s just happened in my own family. If some of the siblings have planned their own retirement expecting a lump sum to arrive, it can be difficult if they are faced with the opposite – nursing home charges to age 100. It’s understandable that siblings who aren’t carrying the heavy caring load themselves, are not keen on the idea of institutional care. None of us react well to suggestions that turn our own plans on their head.
The world has changed, without this aspect being acknowledged. Now it is important to save for our own old age care. However our expectations may have been formed in our own childhood, based on much older people who grew up in another world. I’ve never seen this all set out, and in fact I found it quite tricky to work out where in several generations the expectations and the realities changed.
What do you think?
In my extended family, there was a terribly mentally ill elder who was thought to be wealthy. Her direct descendents catered to her shamelessly.
My parents constantly made the point to, as very young children, that there would be no inheritance from them forthcoming, that they intended to spend it all while alive, either on travel or care. That they would never be a burden on us, but that we needed to make our own way. It was a powerful message, one that guided many choices of all of our lives.
Elderly lady died broke. Very dissapointed "heirs". A couple of sad life stories ensue.
I say constantly here that your children are not a retirement plan; if you think they are, you need to tell them that.
My parents saved so as not to need our support. Not to give us an inheritance.
My husband and I have taught our children to never live in debt (or beyond their means) so they have a healthy fear of owing money. Not only that, but always have enough saved in case of emergency to cover several months of expenses. The two sons who are now in careers are already saving in 401ks *in their 20's*, something that amazes me. We have told them that we intend to spend our money on comfortable living and great care, with as little hands-on burden on them as possible. If anything's left over for them -- great!
For me I am saved FOR MYSELF, but that being the case I did that so as to NEVER burden my children with my care. This was also the case for my brother. All of our lives our parents did the same and they made it clear they never wanted to be a burden to us, were proud that they never had to and were able as they aged well into their 90s keep up a level of care comensurate with their needs. So my bro and I being raised that was did the same. I have two children. It is my prime imperative NEVER to be a burden to them. At the same time I have been lucky (and hard working and diligent) in being able to save very well, so that I could "help" my kids AND keep a good cushion for my old age.
I am now going to be 80 on my next birthday. I have enough that I doubt I can outlive my needs, so enough to my care, if my money manager is careful, until I die, even if memory care is needed. I have also been able to "help" my kids. I have only one grandson who I have been able, with his other grandmother, to support through his college, and from which he graduated. I can provide my two children with an occ. check to help with this or that.
But as to my money, I dearly hope that, like my brother, I pass before I descend into needs for memory care. And in that case my children will inherit some funds. But I am not in control of that, and I have worked hard to control what I COULD control so that my children won't be burdened financially with my care while I live. This is all something that I have always discussed with my children in a very upfront manner. As I had my children young they themselves now approach retirement age. I think it is harder (as in MUCH) for children today to save in the manner I did. I consider that I lived in great times to progress and to be able to save if you were willing to work hard. That is not now so much the case. NOW it seems BOTH my kids and their spouses must work just to keep a household together and moving forward. Of course the manner of life is much changed, the waste, the things our children consider a part of normal life in terms of cars, of tech, of vacations, things they do that we did not do, and we instead saved money.
So many thoughts in your discussion. So much has changed in terms of normal life, of expectations and of realities over the last generations. In terms of waste I can still recall my Mom growing a garden, canning, never wasting a single thing. The times they are a changin.
I keep coming back to this question. Today everything is so much more expensive than 1960's America. It takes a million dollars to buy a house in many parts of the country. Food prices, utilities, gasoline and its probably not going to get better anytime soon. So yes you should save for your old age. Most people have their head stuck in the sand. Sorry for being such a doom and gloom person. The other day I spoke to a family member who has done nothing for herself. This person has not saved a dime. This person is well into her 60's. Her retirement and old age plan is her younger daughter.
And they did it on one income. Dad was a blue collar union tradesman. That kind of achievement was possible for lots of working class folks then, white folks mainly, but many made it, clawing their way into the middle class.
As the last living kid I was the caregiver and later POA then guardian/conservator for my folks as they aged and passed away. When I started looking after them I had a vague idea that they were financially comfortable but really no idea what or where the funds were. The weren’t “Living Large” that’s for sure. When I sold the house , As Is, it contained the sofa that was there when I was in high school. I graduated in 1972.
Turns out they saved a nice little bundle. I was able to provide them with very good assisted living care and later memory care for about 5 years and myself and the grandkids all inherited modest sums.
But I think these days are gone. My generation, at least some of my generation, are the last of the boomers to do as well or better then their parents. The generations behind mine are working much harder, longer hours, worse conditions, and in multiple jobs. The GIG economy and all that. Reagan started crushing unions in the 80s and that regression has only gotten worse through the years. Are the next generations going to have enough for retirement after Walmart, Amazon and the dollar stores ? Any $ left over for their own elder care? It doesn’t look like it. BTW, I mean no disrespect to anyone who works in these jobs. When McDonald’s workers shut the joint down in twelves cites it makes my day. That takes courage.
To what extent younger people have of the reality of caregiving for their parents I don’t know but from reading this forum for the last few years it would appear lots of folks have put little thought into the matter.
I think sometimes the reluctance to place a parent has to do with wanting that inheritance.
But I think there's a large demographic that isn't always talked about. I often see here "spend down until the money's gone, and then apply for Medicaid". But what if your LO will NEVER qualify for Medicaid? My husband and I never will. We will simply make too much between our pensions and Social Security to ever qualify for Medicaid in NY. So what if you have a LO who makes too much to qualify but doesn't make enough to cover the cost of a facility? I can see reluctance to place a LO and burn through their money, only to run out in however long and have to take them in to live with family anyway. And there are states that are still "filial responsibility" states - and while it might not be common for these states to actually enforce those rules what happens if/when they start? Then you, as the surviving family member, are now on the hook for vast sums of money - what then? I can see all of these circumstances being part of driving the decision whether or not to place a LO.
And insofar as getting LTC coverage - well, I was able to purchase a policy, but my husband's health issues are such that he was denied. My policy will provide care for approximately 4 years, but I will still have to cover about half of the projected costs for myself, and clearly if my husband needs that sort of care, we will have to cover the costs on our own. Which we are saving for. I am hoping to never need to make that decision, but if it gets bad enough, I certainly won't let my kids "inheritance" stop me from making the decision that is best - and safest - for myself and my husband.
I just read recently that if my generation wants to leave a financial legacy to our children, we should consider paying for their higher education, and tell them THAT'S their inheritance. It made me chuckle at the time, but as I though about it, I thought that's not the craziest idea I ever heard.
When my folks passed, I was so surprised to see how much money they had saved, just from one income. They were pretty frugal. Mom could make clothes last for 50 years. She was still wearing the parka I had in high school [1960's].
I was glad my folks saved for a rainy day, as that lessen the financial stress of Mom living in a nursing home, and Dad living in a senior facility. But it also irked me that it looked like they were saving money mainly for me, instead of using some of it for their older years of paying others to help them around the house. Mom didn't want strangers in the house, and refused caregivers.
My folks could have hired a driver on retainer instead of having me as their chauffeur. I had to take time off work, using vacation days, sick days, and days without pay to take them to doctor appointments, or to pick up things at the store, or pick up prescriptions. Got to a point where I hated to drive.
Today it is so expensive for the younger generation to save as all the new technology is expensive. The cost is like having a second car payment. When when you drive by a college parking lot and see students with much newer vehicles when what you are driving, you know they aren't saving much money.