Is Fair Deal really ‘fair' if it is effectively taxing savings from already taxed income?
Personal savings are taken into account when calculating the weekly cost of such care – savings made from hard-earned pay which had already been heavily taxed at source.
As non-smokers and non-drinkers, who lived modestly during our 60+ years of marriage, and who regularly saved 'towards the rainy days' all during those years, we now find ourselves punished by the authorities for having done so – i.e. our taxed savings are being taxed all over again.
In retrospect, my advice to others considering putting money aside would be to think again. There must be some fairer way to manage your affairs other than leaving the tax man the opportunity to have a second bit at your hard-earned, taxed pay.
READ MORE
Mr D.D.
I think there might be a basic misunderstanding here of the nature of Fair Deal or, to give it its more formal title, the Nursing Home Support Scheme. It could also be argued that there is a confusion on the purpose of savings as well.
The first thing to note is that there is absolutely no compulsion on anyone to avail of Fair Deal. It is not compulsory, any more than private health insurance is.
But if you choose not to avail of it, you eliminate one financial option to meet the cost of long-term nursing home care should you eventually need it.
No one I have come across would proactively opt to live in a nursing home where there was an alternative. I have heard there are such people – mostly those living alone who yearn for company but, certainly in cities, they are few and far between.
But if you get to a point where you can no longer live independently, you have limited options. You can apply to the HSE for home carer hours but these are inevitably constrained for budgetary reasons with waiting lists in some part of the State.
Even if HSE approves hours, it is likely to be no more than one or two hours a day: if you need more than that, you will be relying on family or on paying for private home care – presumably from those same savings.
If home care is no longer an option at all, you are looking at a nursing home. According to the HSE, this will be the reality for one in 20 older people.
Nursing homes in Ireland are run by the HSE, by voluntary groups and by the private sector. The one thing they share in common is that they will all cost you. How you pay is up to you. You can avail of Fair Deal which charges a portion of your means, or you can pay privately from your own resources.
According to HSE figures, the cost of care in a public nursing home will vary from €1,100 to €2,300 a week, depending on the individual nursing home. Costs for most tend to be grouped around the €1,800 to €2,000 area.
Private nursing home costs are around the same to be honest. And the private nursing homes would be delighted if you decided not to go down the Fair Deal route because they will get less under Fair Deal than they do if you pay privately.
Frankly, given the cost of care, whichever route you choose will involve you tapping your savings. So why bother with Fair Deal then?
Well, if you go privately, you are obliged to meet the full weekly cost regardless of your means. If that means paying over all your income and then topping that up from your savings – which is likely given the weekly costs – then that is what is required.
And there is no cut-off. If your savings run out, you will need to raise money from the sale of your home, taking out a lifetime loan secured on the home or some alternative. And, if you survive long enough in nursing home care, it could dissipate the entire value of your savings including the value of your home.
If you go via Fair Deal, they take a maximum of 80 per cent of your income plus 7.5 per cent of the value of your assets annually. But not all your savings. The first €36,000 is ring-fenced and not taken into account, lowering the charge to you. Also, the charge levied on your family home is stopped after three years, ensuring you retain a minimum of 77.5 per cent of its value.
If you have a spouse of partner still living in the home, the rates of deductions are halved to 40 per cent of family income and 3.75 per cent of assets. And the ring-fenced amount of savings is doubled to €72,000.
The balance between whatever figure your contribution comes to and the actual cost of your care comes from the State.
The choice, obviously is yours, but Fair Deal is an approach that allows people who would never otherwise be able to meet the cost of nursing home care to access that care when they need it, regardless of their financial status. To me, anyway, that seems relatively fair.
I'm guessing from your comments that you think the State should simply provide long-term nursing home care free of charge to those who need it. That's certainly an option. The question is whether you are prepared to pay the higher taxes that would be required to fund such an arrangement.
Doing so would, of course, inevitably have impacted the size of those savings you feel so strongly about.
Or should the State simply borrow the money to pay for it and inflict greater debt and fewer financial options on succeeding generations?
Coming back to the issue of the savings, the question that comes to my mind is what exactly are you saving for?
For most people, savings are money set aside either to allow them do something in the future that they would not be able to afford from their day-to-day income or for the rainy day – to meet the cost of unanticipated expenses should they arise.
We'd all love to spend the money on otherwise unaffordable treats, trips and experiences but, if that's not possible, it seems only fair that some of the money would go to meeting some of the cost of personal care in your later years, if required.
If it's any consolation, the average life expectancy of people in nursing homes is around three years. On that basis, over three-quarters of your savings will still be in your name ... not that you'll be around to enjoy the money.
Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to
dominic.coyle@irishtimes.com
with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Census 1911: Dublin housing was in crisis a century ago with one-room tenements comprising 60% of homes
It will not provide much consolation to those caught up in Dublin's housing crisis , but the situation was even worse more than a century ago. Data from the 1911 Census, which has been released online by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), shows that 60 per cent of all homes in the capital then were one-room tenements. The city, which consisted of the area between the Royal and Grand canals, along with parts of Cabra, Crumlin and Ballyfermot, had a population of 304,802 at the time. There were 35,477 homes, 21,133 of which were one-room tenements. Nearly 70,000 people, almost a quarter of the population, lived in tenement buildings. In Dublin , 132 families lived in a one-room tenement with 10 people or more. Five families lived in a one-room tenement with 12 people in them. READ MORE Before independence, Dublin had a reputation of having some of the worst slums in the United Kingdom . The housing situation was one of the principal motivations behind the Dublin lockout of 1913, with two tenements collapsing in Church Street causing the deaths of seven people that year. A government inquiry, published in February 1914, showed that many elected councillors on Dublin Corporation were complicit in the abject state of housing in the city. It found three members of the corporation alone owned 46 tenement houses between them, while 10 other members of the corporation owned or partially owned one to three tenement houses. They were able to avail of tax rebates in relation to the housing they owned despite the substandard nature of much of the accommodation. The government report revealed the 'want of a firm administration has created a number of owners with but little sense of their responsibilities as landlords, and that it has helped much in the demoralisation of a number of the working classes, and increased the number of inefficient workers in the city'. [ Housing target should be revised up to 60,000 homes per year, Dublin Chamber says Opens in new window ] Slum clearance did not really begin until after Irish independence, but it took until the 1960s for all the tenements to be vacated. No other city in Ireland came close to the number of tenements. In Belfast , then the biggest city on the island, only 1 per cent of homes were one-room tenements. One-room tenements were also found in rural districts, mostly situated close to the Atlantic coast. Belmullet in Co Mayo, for example, had 14 one-room tenements per 100 houses inhabited.
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘Where are you from?': Adopted people face microaggressions and jokes, report finds
People who were adopted from other countries by Irish families often face microaggressions or jokes at their expense, sometimes from their own relatives, according to new research. The Lived Experience of Intercountry Adopted Adults in Ireland, a report on a study conducted by the Adoption Authority of Ireland (AAI), was launched by Minister for Children Norma Foley in Dublin on Wednesday. As part of the research, nine women and two men aged between 20 and 38 participated in in-depth interviews to discuss their personal experiences. Four participants were from eastern Europe, four from southeast Asia (Vietnam and Thailand), and three from Asia (India and China). Several participants reported that they faced casual 'jokes' or comments because they were 'visibly different to their immediate families'. These remarks often came from strangers but were also 'very likely' to come from people the participants knew well including friends and members of their extended families, the report notes. READ MORE [ Surge in applications to adoption authority for birth information and to trace relatives Opens in new window ] One participant recalled that, when she was teenager, her parents planned to bring her on a visit to her country of origin, prompting some of her relatives to make jokes about it. She said: 'Some of the family were kind of weird about it. They kind of just like 'Oh you're sending her back? You don't want her anymore?'.' Another participant recalled some of the comments directed at her in secondary school, such as 'Oh you're so exotic looking' and 'You're Asian and your eyes are so narrow'. In response to such remarks, some participants said they struggled with their identity and became reticent about forging new relationships. However, others noted that some people in their community would stick up for them, asking the person who made the comment: 'Why would you say that?' One of the participants, who was born in China but grew up in Dublin, told The Irish Times she has very supportive family members and friends, but has experienced many microaggressions over the years – such as being told her English is 'very good'. The woman, who did not wish to be named, is a Gaeilgeoir and went to an Irish-speaking school. She has a traditional Irish name and some people have told her 'that's not your name'; others have asked her if her name is Mandarin. People often ask her where she is from. 'When people ask, 'Oh, where are you from?', they mean, 'Where are you from, as in China?', they don't mean, 'Where are you from in Dublin?'. 'So, sometimes I'll answer and do the whole spiel of, 'I'm adopted from China, but I've been here all my life, mostly'. And other times, if I'm not so generous, I'll be like, 'Oh, I'm from Stoneybatter'. If they ask, 'But where's your family from?', I'll say Finglas.' Sarah Eames said people don't always realise the "impact" of their remarks. Photograph: Órla Ryan/The Irish Times Sarah Eames (36) was adopted by an Irish couple when she was two years old. She was born in Romania. Ms Eames said she is 'lucky' in that she rarely experienced negative comments when growing up in Dublin. 'In my school, there would have been people from all walks of life and all sorts of nationalities. I'm lucky in that way, but definitely I resonate with what other people are saying in terms of feeling different.' Ms Eames is a therapist and often works with other adopted people, many of whom have experienced discrimination. She said people may not realise the impact of making a 'throwaway' comment about someone. 'Your words do matter. If you don't have something that you know is nice to say, just maybe hold it – because you might mean it as a compliment or as a throwaway remark, but it can really resonate with the person.' Speaking at the launch, Dr Judy Lovett, author of the report, said nearly all participants in the study 'experienced racism and discrimination' often via microaggressions and jokes at their expense. Dr Lovett noted that these comments often came from 'adults in the participants' lives, so maybe family, friends or extended family, who ... feel a bit free to speak, kind of, maybe more glibly'. [ Patricia Carey: 'I've had good experiences of being adopted, but that does not mean that adoption is not difficult' Opens in new window ] Orlaith Traynor, chairperson of the AAI, said it is 'quite disturbing' that some adopted people still have to deal with remarks related to their appearance or background, despite the fact Ireland is now 'seemingly a multicultural society'. Ms Foley welcomed the publication of the report, thanking the participants 'for their honesty, for their courage and their willingness to speak about these deeply personal aspects of their lives'. More than 5,000 children have been adopted into Ireland from other countries since intercountry adoption was first legislated for here in 1991. The annual figures peaked in 2008 and have been in decline ever since, reflecting a similar global pattern. The report notes that the research involved a small sample study, so 'caution should be taken when generalising the findings to the rest of the intercountry adopted population'. However, it adds that the findings suggest a need for greater promotion of support services for adopted people and their families. The findings 'also suggest a need for adoption awareness and sensitivity education among the general public, and among service providers such as teachers and healthcare professionals'.
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
Most of the women in my life dread the eight-week primary school summer holidays
It's that time of year again. The one most of the women in my life have been dreading. The eight-week primary school summer holidays. The other day I high-fived an 11-year-old on reaching the final days of fifth class and mere seconds later commiserated their mother on the long slog ahead. Of course, it is 2025 and I'm not attempting to invoke misandry, but it is the majority of the women in the heteronormative couples I observe who organise the childcare. It's they who know where the children are at all times, where they're supposed to be, and who is dropping, collecting, carpooling and weeding out potentially deadly allergens from party bags. For those working parents without full-time childcare year-round, the school holidays thrust them into a logistical nightmare of summer camps, working from home with liberal time theft, grandparent help and annual leave. I'm firmly of the 'school is not a parenting substitute' opinion, but it is at least a notionally safe space which keeps the kids on site for a portion of the traditional nine-to-five working day. It is demonstrably berserk that there is such a disparity between the time a child spends in school and the hours a working parent spends at their job. A school near me finishes up at 2.15pm, meaning hours of after-school clubs, minders, nanny shares and reciprocal play dates. And then the holidays roll around and all the parents in a workplace are battling to secure the same tiny time frame of annual leave while attempting to fill the gaps with the art camps and forest schools and football frenzies, mostly manned by disinterested teenagers on their own interminable summer break. [ Children's summer camps: From the cost to the hours – are they working for you? Opens in new window ] Don't get me wrong, I think summer holidays are the business. For the kids, for the teachers, for the blessed reprieve in traffic. It's the relentless grind of the capitalist machine and the insistence of this arbitrary 40-hour-a-week, year-round labour system that's the issue. READ MORE To be able to afford to, say, own a family home, two incomes are a necessity for most these days. The crazy expense of childcare obviously eats into those incomes, but the childcare is also a necessity because of the discrepancy between schooling and working hours. Ideally one parent would provide the childcare, but then you're back to square one and not being able to afford a home. It's almost like … it's designed this way. Even for those rare set-ups where one parent is available to provide full-time childcare or at least combine it with working from home, there's the intense fear of the 'I'm bored' refrain. I spent so much of my childhood 'bored'. Pre-TV streaming, pre-devices and phones, and a rural setting meant assuaging the boredom required a lot of creativity, invention or just being okay with reading a book for five hours. It also came with increased perceived safety and freedom so that heading off on a bike for three hours at the age of 10 didn't come with any particular anxiety. The children of 2025 know that there is an ever-present salve for their boredom: screens. In the summer months it becomes a battle of wills between conscientious parents and their offspring, the former delivering the message that it's okay to be bored and the latter retaliating with an almighty round of door slamming and I-hate-yous. I get it, I really do. If I was a child living through this age of tablets and gaming consoles and endless Netflix Kids I'd be agitating for 12 hours of screen time a day. This is one of the many, many reasons I don't have children. I'd find it difficult to deny a child their right to develop square eyes if it meant that I could keep up my own unhealthy daily scrolling habit. [ The summer juggle: How to work while the kids are off Opens in new window ] A friend has managed to secure the holy grail of summer camps – one that keeps the children even longer than the school day. Of course, it's costing her the equivalent of several weeks at a luxury all-inclusive resort, but I believe many parents would sell a kidney for just a brief reprieve from being talked at and questioned from sun up to sundown. There are the snits who will say 'don't have children if you don't want to spend time with them', but the expectation on parents these days to be ever-present in their children's lives while also working the 40-hour week and keeping a brave face amid the general horrors of the world is frankly deranged. Bring on the six-hour working day and the four-day week. Give parents a chance.
