Who is caring for an aging parent?

[GoodSteward]

I'll weigh in on this. Due to the financial state of my parents and his mother, my parents moved in with my grandmother. The house at that point was paid for, but my grand mother was nearly out of money in her last IRA, and SS wasn't enough to maintain the home. After being there a while, my grandmothers health started to decline. Eventually, she was no longer able to drive. Once she got to the point where she needed 24/7 help my two aunts took her in. They were able to care for her until she passed. None of them had a lot of money, but thankfully she didn't incur any debt and my aunts were able to take care of her.

However, things are not looking so good on my parents and inlaws. I'm not sure what will come of this. My dad isn't in the best health, and they have a lot of debt. Still around $80k because of refinancing the house to pay off credit cards(but not all). While I admire his desire to pay back what he owes, all his available money has been spent on credit card payments and other debts like the house payment. Knowing what I know now(I was in my early 20s and deep in debt myself when they did most of this) I would have advised him to just file bankruptcy and go 100% on saving for retirement. He doesn't have enough time left now to pay the debt and build retirement. So, instead, he will be carrying debt into retirement with what appears to be only an annuity that will bring around $1k a month, and he currently has around $30k in a prudential mutual fund. All work provided. He has never put in on his own. He has life insurance at work that would just cover his debts, but nothing outside of that if he can no longer work. He is in his mid 50s. My mom is in worse shape financially with maybe $12k in a work provided mutual fund.

My in laws I don't know much about, but I do know my father in law who makes well over six figures doesn't have much of anything for retirement and my mother in law has only just started saving in a 401k and has a lot of debt. Both in their 50s as well.

My prediction is that all of them are going to run into financial problems in their 60s or 70s, and will fall on family to pick up the slack. My brother might can help by that point, but he has a lot of catching up to do as well financially. Only one brother in law might can help with my inlaws, but I don't think he is very savvy with this stuff either. It's ugly.

[GoodSteward]

These replies are exactly why I get so frustrated when people think their choices on finances don't affect anybody else, or is nobody else's(kids) business. If you make poor choices, you will eventually be a burden on those that love you and it will be their business. People need to learn to make better choices, not just for their future but for the future of those that will care for them later in life. If you are not careful, you will rob your own kids future by being a financial burden from little or no planning. This isn't the same as unforeseen major health, but speaking more to those who simply don't care or don't plan and have nothing because of it.

[TexasHusker]

These replies are exactly why I get so frustrated when people think their choices on finances don't affect anybody else, or is nobody else's(kids) business. If you make poor choices, you will eventually be a burden on those that love you and it will be their business. People need to learn to make better choices, not just for their future but for the future of those that will care for them later in life. If you are not careful, you will rob your own kids future by being a financial burden from little or no planning. This isn't the same as unforeseen major health, but speaking more to those who simply don't care or don't plan and have nothing because of it.

This is a sticky wicket. Many parents are broke because they paid $300K to get their kiddos through college, gave them money to buy a home, cars, etc.

I know a pastor who cannot afford to retire (he's 80 I think) because he has no retirement. But several times, he helped his son out in a huge way to try to get a successful business started. Never worked out for his son, but his dad is the one who really paid the price.

[GoodSteward]

This is a sticky wicket. Many parents are broke because they paid $300K to get their kiddos through college, gave them money to buy a home, cars, etc.

I know a pastor who cannot afford to retire (he's 80 I think) because he has no retirement. But several times, he helped his son out in a huge way to try to get a successful business started. Never worked out for his son, but his dad is the one who really paid the price.

There are exceptions and variations to this, but based on the accounts I've seen first hand and what I am seeing currently, lack of planning has the most to do with it.

The pastor above would, IMO, fall under lack of planning. If he made a choice that put him in that spot, he didn't really have it either. However, in the moment, you don't think that way. That's a sad situation.

I agree with you. The reasons for this are numerous, however, the trend I see is that people keep tieing up money in debt (cars, houses, borrowing to cover expenses because of no savings) so they never can afford to work on retirement. All of the reasons you gave would fall under lack of planning, or lack thinking long term to me. We often do things to be a help to our families now, but it can come back to bite them later if we didn't plan right.

[TexasHusker]

No question and I agree. I also think that many baby boomers were/are caught completely off guard by the transition away from defined benefit retirement plans to defined contribution. My dad is 77 and has a $3100 a month pension. His buddy had a defined contribution plan, and he's literally broke now except for his $1000 a month SS.

It's asking a lot for that generation to plan their own retirement financing - the shift away from defined benefit was a show stopper for many. Not that I disagree with it, but it was a huge paradigm shift nonetheless.

[Outdoorsygal]

People are not only suppose to plan for their own retirement but have some to give to their own kin.
And the ability to help out family members as needed. Not sure when this changed.

But as someone mentioned, our great grandparents and such lived very simply.
They didn't have granite countertops, homes were simpler.
Harder to do nowadays as homes are built much bigger and sold for much more $$.
But where we can live simply, we should.
Even if we have the means to live beyond that, it really isn't natural or conducive to mental health, imho.

[scfr]

It has just begun for us. So far, what we have done is small. For my mom: ordered groceries and other supplies for home delivery when she was homebound after a fall, bought a walker, provided funds to purchase a new bed, and just recently started doing things like reminding her about Medicare open enrollment and research assistance devices. For DH's mom: DH takes her grocery shopping whenever he visits and pays for the groceries, takes her out to eat and for a little R&R, and gives her a little cash (she has enough to meet basic needs but we want her to have a little for small extras). We were going to rent an electric wheelchair for his dad but sadly he was never able to recover enough to operate one and passed away recently. DH stayed with his mom for a couple weeks and helped her through the post-death processes.

Both DH & I are sounding boards for our moms. There are limits on what we can physically do because we live far away from them, but we talk to them 1-3 times a week.

Now that DH's father has passed, we expect that assistance will move from small to medium. We are seriously thinking about buying a condo for his mom to live in. The idea is that we would purchase and own the condo. We would pay property taxes, and she would pay HOA dues & utilities. We think this would allow her to live in a better place than she could afford on her reduced income, and would be a better move for us financially than just giving her cash to pay rent.

DH's mom is really good with money but experienced some unfortunate incidents beyond her control that left her and my late father-in-law in a very tight financial situation heading in to retirement (and DH & I just learned the extent of how bad things are after his dad died). My mom has never been great with money and has lived what I consider above her means. She has no debts but also has only very limited assets. As long as she can stay at home, she'll be OK with just a teeny bit of help here and there, but if she ever needs to go in to a nursing home . . . God help us. None of my siblings are in a position to help financially, so any assistance will need to come from me and DH.

Our situation and yours and the others described here are what concern me when I hear so many 30-and-40-somethings talking about early retirement or waiting to save until later. You just can't imagine what is going to happen in your life and the life of the people you love down the road. Although a little sad and challenging, DH & I know that we can help out a little without swamping our own boat. (We have no children so we'll be on our own when we get old.)

[FLA]

I'll weigh in on this. Due to the financial state of my parents and his mother, my parents moved in with my grandmother. The house at that point was paid for, but my grand mother was nearly out of money in her last IRA, and SS wasn't enough to maintain the home. After being there a while, my grandmothers health started to decline. Eventually, she was no longer able to drive. Once she got to the point where she needed 24/7 help my two aunts took her in. They were able to care for her until she passed. None of them had a lot of money, but thankfully she didn't incur any debt and my aunts were able to take care of her.

He doesn't have enough time left now to pay the debt and build retirement. So, instead, he will be carrying debt into retirement with what appears to be only an annuity that will bring around $1k a month, and he currently has around $30k in a prudential mutual fund. All work provided. He has never put in on his own. He has life insurance at work that would just cover his debts, but nothing outside of that if he can no longer work. He is in his mid 50s. My mom is in worse shape financially with maybe $12k in a work provided mutual fund.

My in laws I don't know much about, but I do know my father in law who makes well over six figures doesn't have much of anything for retirement and my mother in law has only just started saving in a 401k and has a lot of debt. Both in their 50s as well.

My prediction is that all of them are going to run into financial problems in their 60s or 70s, and will fall on family to pick up the slack. My brother might can help by that point, but he has a lot of catching up to do as well financially. Only one brother in law might can help with my inlaws, but I don't think he is very savvy with this stuff either. It's ugly.

since all are in their 50s is there any chance they could read Dave Ramsey or that ilk and pay down the debt while meanwhile contributing more to 401ks or Roths. They have some time to turn the ship around and as their children, who are wary about them being a financial burden when they are older, I think you have a right to provide some guidance to perhaps make the future a little brighter. It's sad when you have to teach your parents good financial habits, especially if they are only in their 50s. I would be very frustrated.

[FLA]

I am currently responsible for my dad who has Alzheimer's. He is 77.

When his Alzheimer's gets more advanced, i.e.: he can't dress himself, he can only say a few words, has a 10% wt loss and a bunch of other signs, he can get home hospice care for free. This is a good addition to a caregiving situation. Even if he's in assisted living or a nursing home, he can still have a hospice team. They are wonderfully supportive and an HHA a few times a week in addition to what his home provides is so helpful. And hospice supports the whole family.

I am sorry you are dealing with Alzheimer's, that is a long, tough road that often lasts way too long compared to quality of life being lived.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

So my parents have lived through this and are doing it now. So my grandmother is 88 and living with one aunt. She moved in 4 years ago. Until then she lived in my parents spare home and the rent was whatever Section 8 paid. Way below market value. My grandparents were poverty level and still are. Anyway she makes $700/month SS and that's it as her widow portion. She never worked.

So my mom bought them cars through the years and paid for medical and gave them cash. As soon as I hit college and had money I gave my grandparents whatever cash I could spare. My DH and I when we dating bought my grandmother tickets to visit us where we living and paid for trips so they could see us as well. She was 15 years younger and very active.

So now she lives with my aunt and they use her SS to pay for adult day program. Medicaid pays for an in home aide 27 hours a week for bathing. But my mom and sisters chip if what she can't cover. I don't know what happens when she goes to nursing home but since she has no house, no money I suspect medicaid/welfare.

My parents are well off and my in-laws. Sorry TH but I've always said that taking away pensions has screwed most of america. Truth is most people can't and won't be able to retire without a pension because they didn't save and weren't responsible.

My mom and MIL retired with pensions. My mom had $300k in a Roth IRA I think when she retired at 55. But a $4k/month pension. So you can see how easily it was done by the generations before to retire when they had these pensions that paid out way more than they took in.

I figure within the next 5 years I'll probably manage my parents accounts. And my DH now is cleaning up a HUGE mess with his uncle's estate. VERY messy. 6 months after death a will shows up. So we're in court again for the 3rd time in April after he dies in July. ugh

[Nutria]

Sorry TH but I've always said that taking away pensions has screwed most of america. Truth is most people can't and won't be able to retire without a pension because they didn't save and weren't responsible.

Problem is that the ever growing number of retirees means that the ratio of workers to retirees keeps shrinking, and eventually that kills the company (like what happened to the Big Three auto companies back in the 1990s).

The only solution that's viable in the long term is Defined Contribution.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Problem is that the ever growing number of retirees means that the ratio of workers to retirees keeps shrinking, and eventually that kills the company (like what happened to the Big Three auto companies back in the 1990s).

The only solution that's viable in the long term is Defined Contribution.

NO the answer is if you want a pension you have to be forced to save more like in other countries. I think I asked my MIL in Canada and she was forced into saving 20% into her pension to get what she collects now. Is she happy? Yes. Likes getting the monthly check.

I don't think people want to hear that they have to contribute so much to a pension but that's one way to fix the problem. That you would have enough to fund a pension fund. But at the same time companies shouldn't be allowed to not properly fund pension funds and pay CEOs what they do. Let's start by taking away their golden parachute and instead properly funding pensions.

[Nutria]

NO the answer is if you want a pension you have to be forced to save more like in other countries. I think I asked my MIL in Canada and she was forced into saving 20% into her pension to get what she collects now. Is she happy? Yes. Likes getting the monthly check.

I don't think people want to hear that they have to contribute so much to a pension but that's one way to fix the problem. That you would have enough to fund a pension fund.

IOW, "mandatory 401(k) with some percentage of company match".

That's the very definition of "defined contribution".

But at the same time companies shouldn't be allowed to not properly fund pension funds and pay CEOs what they do. Let's start by taking away their golden parachute and instead properly funding pensions.

While I whole-heartedly agree with fully funding pensions, they require hundreds of millions each year while golden parachutes are usually tens of millions once.

IOW, the math behind your emotions fails miserably.

[sv2007]

Even if we have the means to live beyond that, it really isn't natural or conducive to mental health, imho.

I think we should just live what's comfortable <-- best for mental health.
If you want a big house, then go for it .

Money is a means to an end; it isn't all that useful all by itself. Use it to support your preferred life style; that's really what saving is all about.

[Outdoorsygal]

I think we should just live what's comfortable <-- best for mental health.
If you want a big house, then go for it .

Money is a means to an end; it isn't all that useful all by itself. Use it to support your preferred life style; that's really what saving is all about.

You can live an exorbitant lifestyle but I've never met anyone who has done it and been happy. That's the problem. I grew up very wealthy and married into a wealthy family who lives that way. Also had wealthy friends, professionals (mostly doctors and lawyers). Never met a one who is happy who DOESN'T live a very simple lifestyle

I just don't think it is possible. Probably has to do with greed. But people who live simply, especially those minimalists (not on the extreme end) are just happier, healthier people. I wish I've seen differently but just haven't. I've been around wealthy professional people all my life
I don't care what your weaith is, live simply and naturally and you'll be happy. It also appears people need to be grounded to be truly happy.