Government scraps cap on care costs to help tackle spending ‘black hole’

And me. I can fund myself for years, if needed, but if my relatives ever got that worried about their anticipated inheritance, (which they’re not), they would have to provide the care.🤷‍♀️

As i ve said before and backed up by numerous studies, good quality care isn't available for all and even if you can afford to pay, in some parts of country, it still isn't available... as i ve recently found out :(

What we need to do is take more money from people who can afford it in the short term and have some sort of insurance scheme for everyone else.

Bear in mind most people don't up in residential care

7% of estates are subject to IHT.

Labour in 2010 did a white paper suggesting 10% off everybody’s estate to go into a national care fund. I would support this. Ain’t going to happen though. Currently it’s a lottery and those with illnesses like dementia that need a lot of care long term take a huge financial hit.

Well that may be fine for you but what about people without assets?

People without assets get state funded care. Now whether the bar for qualifying for that is in the right place or if it’s of a high enough standard is debatable but those problems won’t be solved by making it free for people who have the means to pay.

All estates are subject to a tax - inheritance tax?

Well that may be fine for you but what about people without assets? dementia is a medical condition and so called social care is nothing of the sort, these things should be treated on the NHS, free at the point of use.

But slowly, what used to be the norm in this country, is watered down, eventually, only the wealthy get the best treatment, its happened in dentistry and care for the elderly, eventually it will extend to many other sectors of care.
More and more people are using their hard earned savings or even going into debt to pay for operations and dental treatments previously free.

& Labour wont change this either, once something is taken away, its rarely given back, whoever gets into power.

Care homes for people with no money are limited, can be miles away from where family live.
Find it very odd that you don't agree care packages and CH's are in short supply and/or aren't always the best, LA's often have to place patients out of area too.

There is an acknowledged national crisis in care for the elderly, its widely publicised, known about & causes issues in hospitals with discharge of medically fit patients who either need care at home or a CH place.

As someone who’s highly likely to get dementia if family history is any guide, I’m perfectly happy to pay for my own care. The increase in value of our house is unearned and untaxed, why should our kids inherit money they don’t need and the taxpayer pay for our care? We’ve made provision for a rainy day and if we need residential care it’s time to put the umbrella up - that’s what the money’s for.

Im an adult social worker and I disagree,

There are poor care homes, of course but there are many I visited who accept self funders but also have local authority rate beds. So people on LA beds are paying much less than the self funders and getting the same quality of care/amenities etc.

Clients and theiir are family usually get given a choice of two care homes by the local authority and they have the right to suggest a care home which accepts LA rate.

We always advise self funding client to pick a CH which accepts LA rates as, when the funding runs out…they be at our door.

I agree with others, the system is not fair but we all know so enjoy your money and life as you cannot take it with you to the grave. I be looking to put my house into a trust and will be enjoying my savings in later life.

Yes in an ideal world, much like dentistry, this should be available to all but we don't have the money or in the case of dementia care, the staff.

Yes taxing assets is the way forward, the average earner can no longer afford the current tax burden, let alone pay more, so the wealthy either before or after death are going to be taxed more or we accept even worse public services, which Labour or Tory in power seems to be what will happen.

"Anyway, what would you do with those who been feckless? leave them on the street, maybe bring back the Poor House?"

I'd pay for everybody to have that basic level of care for what is, ultimately, a medical condition. If people look at that offering and decide to go private, that's their choice.

How we would fund that is another question. Perhaps all estates should be subject to an £xk tax that's taken off the top so that those suffering dementia aren't unfairly punished compared to those that don't.

Not really, he wont get the choice of a CH, he may well find himself stuck in hospital for many weeks, waiting for a care package & even if you get one, it can be unreliable and can be withdrawn.

The care on offer for those who cannot pay is limited and can be poor, sit around bored senseless waiting to die or have music, dance, story telling, staff that care...

Then of course, many people never had the opportunity to have a FS scheme.

Anyway, what would you do with those who been feckless? leave them on the street, maybe bring back the Poor House? seems that was the direction of travel of the last gOvt.

The people getting dementia now have lived through a period of final salary pension schemes. If they've opted out of those schemes and spent the money, it's pretty gauling for them to receive care for free, while sensible people get screwed.

A former colleague opted out of the generous company scheme (we paid 5%, the company paid 10%) because 'the future will take care of itself'. It looks like he's right, doesn't it?

How do you decide who was feckless and who never had a chance to save.

A large chunk of the population are a couple of missed shifts from being unable to pay their bills. Many more have only enough 'put by' to last a few months.

Why should the feckless get free dementia care (for a medical condition) but those that have been prudent get fucked by the system?

Where is the incentive to save? You might as well save nothing and then claim pension credit in your old age or spend the lot in early retirement or immediately after a dementia diagnosis.

As the OP says, you might as well head to the casino as soon as you're diagnosed and stick it all on the roulette. Heads you win, tails the taxpayer loses.

But the person being cared for is in a care home and has heating, food and care. They are not struggling. It’s just that family members want to inherit the house. Family members could actually care for the person themselves if they wish.

Yes, thank you. Inheritance is what is left over, it's not a right and the money should be spent on the person who actually earned it first, no?

I feel like @FiddlyDiddlyDee hasn't a single clue how it all works with funding elderly care and leaving the country/selling all their stuff/pensions actually work.
I'd suggest they talk to an accountant before making any crazy moves, otherwise they may find themselves in trouble.
If seven years have passed since a gift was made there is no IHT, whatever the situation.
If however you have ring fenced your money/made a trust/moved the asset to a husband or wife then you may well have to surrender that asset.
Obviously if you put your last £200K ( wow you are rich going into retirement with a £200K pot) on a roulette wheel, then yes, those of us who pay tax and most of us who gamble also do this! will pay for your care.

@FiddlyDiddlyDee Okay. I'll bite. You're an obnoxious cunt winding people up for pleasure. Fuck off! I 😂

Theres rules about moving abroad and then coming back for care or NHS treatment too but you don’t seem concerned about those.

I’m sorry for your dementia diagnoses. I can see why you might be in a bad mood.

Dementia doesn’t kill you OP. My Grandad lived 12 years after his diagnosis.

7 years was a reference to IHT.

Sorry OP I must have missed the information pack handed out at the start of this exam.