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

Yes but this so called cap was never introduced by the Tories as it’s just not financially workable . This penalises the rich not the poor ( and I speak as someone whose mum has been in a care home neatly 6 years ) I’d rather know under the Labour govt that’s it’s never going to happen than the tantalising “ it could happen but just not yet” we’ve had for the last few years

They have family here, and I would go over there and when they travel there already it is first or business class, usually on Emirates.

My children are thinking of moving over there and I would follow.

I take that as no countries then.

if you can’t answer the question just say, no shame.

For me it is the fact that it's a complete lottery. I would be happy to pay towards my own care costs and other people's care costs, but I would like there to be a system where we can pay in more equally.

For health care we have the NHS which is funded equitably (ish) via taxation, and if there was no NHS then presumably we would have health insurance instead. I think we should have something similar for social care costs - so we all pay in (either via extra tax or a specific insurance or some other route), and it pays out as needed, same as for health care.

I want to avoid a situation where person A (from age 80-90) has various health issues all paid for via the NHS and dies in their own home having paid nothing, whereas person B (from age 80-90) is in a care home with dementia and has to pay £900k. Whether I end up being person A or B, I'd rather it was made fairer.

@FiddlyDiddlyDee I never claimed chancellors are clever. I asked what countries operated the easy model you proposed. You didn’t answer that question though.

Could have tried understanding what the thread was about before you came in here.

I understood your OP but disagreed with it.

Your subsequent posting have been confusing.

Why should people pay for care for wealthy people who can pay themselves?

People with a high level of assets are almost always business owners. That’s how they create wealth. These businesses are generally pretty mobile. If they move elsewhere, so does their business (and the employment and taxes it creates).

you tube creators (being your example) generally would only very very rarely generate sufficient revenue to pay a wealth tax. But I suppose it’s a creative business and for those who are very successful they are paying a lot of tax. They generally employ others - camera men, guest bookers etc. It’s a very mobile business they could do from anywhere so rather than give 10% of their wealth every year to pay your care, they will likely go live elsewhere. But it’s very rare to make much from you tube

@Avabiscuits I said similar, the idea it was protecting the poorest is a nonsense.

The cap was very unfair to people living in the north.
The average property price in the North East last year was £177k. So half the house price would be used to fund care.
The average property in the South East was £520k, so about 17% of the value of the property would be used to fund care.
I am really pleased that this policy has been scrapped.
People should fund their care to a percentage of their wealth. Then it would be fair throughout the country.

Considering much of the west is facing economic challenges & shifting demographics I really don’t understand how taxing key workers hardly anything or nothing will fix things. You are clearly far more intelligent than me.

This isn't really a change to anything is it though. The change was that a cap was due to be put in place and now won't be. My grandfather needed care and it had to be paid for, I think this is fair enough, yes perhaps disappointing to potential beneficiaries, but fair enough.

Oh genius chancellors. Is any country in the western world of our size actually not in trouble right now?

Whats that got to do with the question I asked?

Also how is it fair that people who live recklessly and spend everything don't pay for their care, and people who live within their own means do?

So your basic argument is someone with a household wealth of 550k (your figure of the average lower middle class person) shouldn’t pay for their care & should be able to leave an inheritance although in an ideal world you would tax inheritance heavily.

Someone with a higher household wealth should pay because they are wealthier.

Someone with less should also pay because they were reckless.

👍

Look at the studies of all the failed wealth taxes globally. Also above £3m won’t raise much anyway.

it’s not fair that people who don’t work or contribute have others pay for them. But what’s the alternative- let them starve? Life isn’t fair. In a decent society we take care of people who can’t care for themselves. However if you can pay for care but just would rather keep your money, that’s a want not a need.

you can’t expect the taxpayer to pay for services for you so you can give your money to your children. Public services and finances are in crisis. Giving money to wealthy people isn’t an option.

@CitrineRaindropPhoenix don’t bring logic here!

But we don’t live in a meritocracy.

It comes from the high tax on paper wealth generators

Is there enough of them in a meritocracy?

How do you know nobody has thought of it? Have you read every book and paper on this subject?

Well our chancellors clearly haven’t. Does any country in the world have this model?