Talk

I'm confused too, about the difference between the current policy which strips you down to £23k ish and the new policy which leaves you £100k. Surely this is better?

I believe the former scheme didn't involve property, just other assets. Google The Guardian's 'Social care, what are the Conservatives proposing?'

Personally, I don't have a problem with the basic premise. Tho I won't be voting Tory!

It sounds better. The £23k is really hard and needed some change. However, I would like to know about what happens when a death occurs In a joint partnership.

It's not better at all , homecare did not previously have to be paid for from the value of your home.
Any partner can stay in the home , however should they wish to downsize or move to be nearer to a real active for care they will no longer be able to.

I broadly agree too although again, I won't be voting Tory. My parents, like many live on a generous final salary pension, have shares in the public utilities when they were sold off and have two houses mortgage free. I doubt they paid £100k £100k for both those houses together, but they live in London so have increased massively in value. £100k would be enough to give my children a good start, as they are the ones who will likely never have a mortgage free home and leave university with massive levels of debt. I'd rather the state helped the young, who won't have pensions or homes to fall back on in their old age. It is a short-term probably one generation issue because of this.

River yes, that's what I think. I 'get' that we haven't answered the question the OP asks about surviving spouses, though.

I used to so tire of my elderly mother's 'We worked hard for this!' lament, when in fact, they bought 'this', their house, in 1967 on a 2.5 multiple of my dad's 9-5 middle management job, with mum only ever working part-time, if that, in piece rate manual jobs; dad engineered his own redundancy in 1989, aged 57, with a £70,000 pay off and pensions that, at the time of his death aged 73, were paying £26,000 pa, reducing to £21,000 for his widow.

Mum died 2 years ago and we sold her house for £450,000. In about 50 years that house's value went up £443,500.

Now, My siblings and I were 'lucky' inasmuch that neither of my parents needed 'care', but I understood then, as I do now, that that money is not owed to me or my siblings. My parents, upon majority, entered into a 'social contract'. Someone did the maths and worked out that if they contributed this much over this number of years, they'd get that much back.

No one foresaw the massive leap in longevity that then occurred. Yet, the idea that there needs to be a rethink in that maths is greeted with horror (though the increasingly apparent hole in maths of my own public sector pension allowed 'them' to extend my working life, up my contributions, and reduce my entitlement, I note, from when I started 30 years ago!...no sanctity, there!).

Instead, the elderly, or, rather more obviously, the boomers set to benefit from the house-price inheritance bonanza of their parents' generation, expect our kids to pay up, before they've even started earning.

God, the 18-30s had better vote!

I do think that there will very shortly be a slew of wealthy baby boomers carefully transferring their assets to their offspring with some kind of contractual obligation to look after the parents in a certain way to the end....

Indeed. I am reminded of a NewsThump thing on FB with TM saying "Don't worry, I'll ensure there are plenty of loopholes!!

If a partner is left in the house will interest on the debt keep incurring after the recipient of the care has died? In which case the person left is being charged for his/her partner's care. Say the recipient of the care only lived for a year but the partner who is left continues to live for say another twenty. A relatively small proportion of the house value could grow to an enormous amount.