To consider the Conservatives' manifesto pretty decent on the whole?

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Pretty decent in terms in principles, that is ... as so often with manifestos it's too thin on costings

Main points here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

Full version here: www.conservatives.com/manifesto

The Tories are getting a disproportionately hard time for this

They're not really though are they? They're in government, they're meant to be given a hard time for their policies.

Tis politics after all.

What happened to the Care Cap that was supposed to come happen in 2020? One assumes this negates it.

Yes.

This new system is fairer on the bottom half of the wealth than a cap tbh.

Eg £150k house

With the proposed £75k cap the state would leave £75k alone, with new proposal the state will leave £100k alone.

However, if house worth £300k, under the cap the state would leave £225k alone, under the new proposal the state will leave £100k alone.

The more your assets total, the more you will contribute to your own care - everybody will have the same amount ring-fenced.

No change at all under the new proposal for anyone with under £23k of assets.
People with £23k to £100k worth of assets better off under this proposal (as opposed to a cap)
People with over £100k of assets are affected by this (as opposed to a cap).

It's the fairest way to apply it really - those that have more assets contribute more to their care, everyone that has assets worth over £100k can leave £100k to their beneficiaries.

As for keeping 100,000, this seems unlikely as if you're in care the local council isn't going to take over payments whilst you still have funds in the bank.

The £100,000 includes the value of your home and any other assets - I read it as a way of staying in your home to receive care or to receive care in a care home and for the remaining spouse to stay in teh home until they died. The Govt would presumably take security over the estate down to a value of £100,000 which remaining relatives would inherit on the death of both OAPs.

So the old rules wouldn't apply anymore once your asset base, including your home, reaches £100,000 (ie. 4x higher than it is at the moment). I read it that even after paying for social care, you would have £100,000 of assets remaining.

In 2013 the number of homeowners with no mortgage exceeded the number with a mortgage for the first time. Most of these people are older. Younger people are struggling to get on the housing ladder. It's been labelled inter generational inequality. Therefore this proposal asks the older generation to use some of the housing market gains they've been lucky enough to enjoy to fund their own care down to a value of £100,000 for the remaining assets, rather than the state to pay and their relatives receive an inheritance well in excess of £100,000 - which for those lucky enough to inherit continues to perpetuate the inequality.

I think the problem is that there is no cap on care costs - it should be for example that if you have sufficient assets you pay for costs between £100,000 and say £500,000. This would encourage insurance companies to develop products that you could buy to insure yourself should your care costs exceed £500,000 in my example. I also think it seems illogical that 'physical' illnesses like cancer are covered by the NHS but neurological illnesses like Alzheimers are not.

An interesting summary from December last year about the challenge of social care:
www.economist.com/news/britain/21711928-sticking-plaster-solution-system-needs-quadruple-bypass-taxes-will-rise-fund

A summary of how they pay for social care in Japan
www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2014/mar/27/japan-solution-providing-care-ageing-population

What we can all agree on I think is that it is a complex problem that is only going to get bigger over time with the ageing population, longer life expectancy and advances in medicine.

What is so difficult to understand about this. On poster in particular is really struggling with this.

The first £100k is RING FENCED.

If your house is worth £400k and your care is £1 m then £300k go towards your care and the additional £100k can be left in your will to whomever you like!

I also don't like the people who think they will just spend, spend spend. As though the good old 'state' with provide for them once again. You do realise the 'state' are the working population..

I also thinking that not all older people have paid in, paid their taxes etc. In my DM's generation it was not common to work full time. We are all living longer so please lets not trot out the old 'I have paid in therefore I am entitled'.

"People with £23k to £100k worth of assets better off under this proposal (as opposed to a cap)"

Is that right? person with £100k of assets. Surely under the cap they would have paid up to £75k? Now they pay £100k. Getting confused...

Yes, dawndonna the previous cap idea due to come in 2020 is now abandoned.

TwoforOne makes a good suggestion. Lets have a cap and insurance should it go higher. We HAVE to do something. Both my DH parents and my parents are still alive, all in their mid 80's.

The more we allow and expect the state to take over the more we will reduce our personal responsibility. Do what you like, spend what you like, stuff yourself full of junk food. Someone else will pick up the tab.

"The Govt would presumably take security over the estate down to a value of £100,000 which remaining relatives would inherit on the death of both OAPs. "

Not sure - a poster this morning linked to a report that it would be done by private insurance products. Not an unproblematic prospect.

*"People with £23k to £100k worth of assets better off under this proposal (as opposed to a cap)"

Is that right? person with £100k of assets. Surely under the cap they would have paid up to £75k? Now they pay £100k. Getting confused...

Yes, dawndonna the previous cap idea due to come in 2020 is now abandoned.*

Under a cap of £75k, with care costs totalling £100k

1. House worth £100k

Care costs £100k Therefore you will have £25k to leave your kids.

1. House worth £150k

Care costs £100k Therefore you will have £75k to leave your kids

1. House worth £200k

Care costs £100k Therefore you will have £125k to leave your kids

Etc etc

Under the new proposal, with same care costs:

1. House worth £100k

care costs £100k Therefore you will leave £100k to your kids

1. House worth £150k

Care costs £100k Therefore you will leave £100k to your kids

1. House worth £200k

Care costs £100k Therefore you will leave £100k to your kids

Etc etc

Basically, £100k of your estate is ring-fenced & the state can't touch it to pay for your care costs.

Complicated isn't it?

Why not what Beveridge said:

We each contribute and then when we need it, it is taken care of.

Social insurance.

Yanbu. I've never voted for them but it's actually not bad.

Complicated isn't it?

No!
It's really really really really simple!

£100k of your total assets is ring-fenced.
Across the board.
Applies to everyone.

Really, really uncomplicated in fact!

Not complicated at , i think it's great!

Make wants to increase taxes for everyone who is working today to pay for the social care of the baby boomers who have assets >£100,000. As I said earlier, I'm very happy for your taxes to subsidise my inheritance Make , when I sell their mortgage free house that has grown in value because of the rise and rise of house prices after their death, and for your taxes to fund my parents' social care so they don't have to contribute.

Is this what you think is fairer?

If my parents had assets

Well it's just that on the other thread someone has posted something about the insurance industry developing complex ways of manipulating this. That private concerns will see ways of economy involved.

Becoming involved

Make, ironically the Tory proposal is much, much fairer and more progressive than the other parties approach to it.

Basically, if your estate is worth £100k or less you will contribute nothing towards your care costs.

The more your estate is worth, the more proportion of it you will contribute.

Really laughable. If you need 24 hour care say u are bedbound. At the present time 1 carer will cost about £135,000 for a year. You will require 2 carers if you are bedbound so cost would be £270,000 for a year. If you are bedbound for 5 years which is totally possible if you are paralyzed care would be above times 5 equals over a million. Do you honestly think the government are going to allow you to run up that amount of care costs to stay in your home? No they will not. Social services will say we can't afford this, much cheaper to put you in residential st £1000 a week, In Which case you will have to sell your house to pay for it. Your family, therefore, will never get the £100,000 so called ring fenced amount. You won't be able to take out private insurance to cover cost of care because the costs could never be calculated before you actually need it, if you ever need it at all. Unless you are prepared to pay an exhorbitant amount for insurance just to leave your kids £100,000. And that is the point. People will have to take insurance out if they want to stay in their own homes. First step to privatisation of social care.

So charm, you are saying these questions about insurance and equity groups being involved are baseless? That we shouldn't worry about it?

Just asking.

Make, that's all speculation at the moment - nothing has been announced other than that the less well off will be better off.

Sostenueto, you are still not getting it.

£100k is the floor limit.
They are not able to take any more once you are at that floor limit.

Just bear in mind that in 10 years time there will be about 3 million people in this country with some form of dementia who will require care. You have a one in three chance of being one of them. You could require 20 years of care before you die. Best get that insurance out now.

Your family, therefore, will never get the £100,000 so called ring fenced amount.

Yes. You. Will.

The government picks up the bill if it costs more than the rest of your equity AFTER THE RING FENCED 100K.

Sorry but numerous posters have told you this and I don't see why you aren't getting it.

"nothing has been announced other than that the less well off will be better off."

Not if they currently have care in their own home.

Current position for those cared for in their house - home owner with house worth £150k and cash savings of less than £23k doesn't pay.

New position - home owner with house worth £150k and cash savings of less than £23k does pay.

(I realise they may be better off than under the Dilnot cap, depending on value of house, but not better off than under current position.)

Devil's advocate - It doesn't reflect the fact that people haven't paid in equally over their lifetimes though. E.g. DF has worked since he was 16. He's now 76 and still works full time. His last tax bill was for over £100k and he pays tax twice a year I think. That's 60 years of paying tax, 40 or so of them at higher rates. He's always kept himself fit and paid for private health care so hasn't used the NHS much, and DB and I won scholarships to private schools so didn't even use state education. Most definitely a net contributor. But he'd still have to use his estate for social care when someone who hasn't worked at all wouldn't pay anything.

You're never going to get a system that everyone thinks is fair!

I get it alright. And all of you will get it soon. You have no idea about the care system. I worked in it for 30 years doing palliative care my dd works in it and has seen what happens. You will pay for all your care over 100 k that us a given in the manifesto. Oh but you will be allowed 100 k no matter what the cost of your care. That is absolutely not viable as I quoted above.