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

also cont based ESA is not means tested. Is it possible to have a combination of these with the state pensions, not sure? Also, attendance allowance.

Notalottery Jeremy Hunt was asked about this on Today. He said the Cons had decided Dilnot proposal was not fair because people with houses worth £1-2kmn would not have to pay their eg £200k care costs because of the Dilnot cap and the taxpayer pays them instead.

Obviously there wasn't the time for a philosophical discussion on Today! but it does raise the question why someone with a house worth £2mn doesn't have to pay NHS costs, or costs of state education, for instance.

On a more practical level, anyone with cash savings of £23k was already paying for domiciliary care. I know there is an asset rich, income poor segment, but I do wonder how many people with a house worth £2mn has less than £23k in savings and is under the income threshold. I suspect they were mostly paying anyway. Maybe I am wrong!

Interesting 117, the conservatives getting the rich to pay more! Yes, a universal cap on the amount is more like social insurance. One solution to the ageing population and the cost of pensions and health spending IS to get them to pay more IF they can afford it.

It could be argued that the minimum residual asset guarantee is better protection that at least you'll be able to leave your children something.

The conservatives should re-think the fact that not providing a cap is hampering an insurance market though, that's a worry.

Dilnot was rejected because the wealthy were largely unaffected, they said. Old care is so random...you get a little extra help for mum and then that expands a bit then maybe she needs someone to stay overnight etc etc Making decisions, finding a carer, whether to go into a home, claiming allowances etc. It's confusing and emotional and sometimes the options are horrible. We need more debates about what we want old age to be like.

"Interesting 117, the conservatives getting the rich to pay more!"

Yes, presumably that's the idea but a) many of the rich were already paying anyway; and b) it also gets the 'not very rich at all' to pay more - someone with savings of less than £23k but a house worth £150 k, for instance.

I don't know about insurance. I would not buy insurance at age 30 - too much risk that you would pay either monthly premiums for 30 yrs or a very high one-off payment, only to find later on that you are excluded for some reason or other when you want to claim. But i agree that it would be good for those who want it.

Surely though it will be very difficult indeed to work out an insurance to cover care costs when you don't know what they will be? You may never need it and what if by then you have to also have insurance for health care? There is only so much you could afford for insurance.

Sost I think the point about insurance is that if there were a cap on costs (a la Dilnot) insurers would only have to insure up to that cap - say, £35k or £70k. It would be much easier to pool risk on that basis.

Whether private insurers would have excluded some people, or charged higher premiums, on basis of family history of illnesses that require social care, is not known - and looks like it never will be, as Dilnot proposal has now gone!

Will the rich pay more though? There are a lot of ways to get round inheritance tax and most well off people that I know are fully aware of them and have taken advice on this. I don't think it would be difficult to organise your assets so that the greater part of them could not be touched in the event that you would need end of life care. The more well off in society will almost certainly take advantage of any loopholes leaving the lower middle class to carry the burden.

A cap and a tax for care was fairer. Yet again a (better) labour policy. Agree 117 that people who can afford probably do anyway.

I think we all as a society should take responsibility for the elderly. Families should do more as in other countries. It us often so easy to get a carer in because you are too busy with own lives to do a bit yourself. It is really hard I know and difficult when everyone has to make a living. But care for the elderly is a universal thing and should be solved universally.

Don't think for a moment May won't tackle inheritance tax!

Bolshybookwork indeed if you analyse the figures it may turn out that it is to a large extent precisely the lower middle class who are being brought into paying for domiciliary care when they didn't previously.

I don't know. But will reiterate ad infinitum that anyone with cash savings of more than £23k was already paying! - which is the majority of those whom most people would describe as well off, I would have thought.

I suppose there will be a segment of people who have property worth large amounts who don't also have cash savings of £23k. But I do doubt that there are many owners of £2kmn properties, as cited by Jeremy Hunt, who are in that position.

She may make noises to that effect, Citroen, but I don't think she has either the nouse or political will to do so. This manifesto shouts that it's targeting the rich but it's squarely targeted at people on low to middle incomes I.e those that can't afford "wealth managers".

This is a radical policy because funding old age care is a huge issue for all of us. It might be seen as a vote loser for Tories but that's not May's target. She's going after disaffected labour voters and saying the rich have to share this burden (or at least, they can pay their own bills) is not unappealing.

Bolshy cross post there...She absolutely has the will. Totally share you doubts about the nouse.

Citroen at the moment the cons are differentiated from labour on inheritance tax - lab will reverse the recent increases in iht threshold, cons haven't said they will (that is different from not doing it i agree!). But i don't think that will be just yet - to do that along with the other changes re pensioners would be too risky. It may be that TM considered it and decided it was too electorally unpopular.

But anyway the rules on deprivation of assets are different from iht. For one thing there is no 7 yr cut off point as there is with iht.

I think the talk of avoidance of care costs by the very rich is a red herring by the way - they were paying anyway!

why do people not then think if you are extremely well off you should pay for your cancer treatment and heart surgery as well?

Perhaps because of the ongoing expectation that medicine is free at the point of use? Also - and sorry for being blunt - that things such as dementia care are likely to go on for a lot longer than the needs of someone with a critical disease?

Also let's not forget that, when the NHS was created, it was much more common for women to stay at home to look after the family - and the means didn't always exist back then to keep elderly people alive way beyond what would have been their normal lifespan

As so often, it's a complicated situation ...

"It might be seen as a vote loser for Tories but that's not May's target. She's going after disaffected labour voters and saying the rich have to share this burden"

Yes I think that is the aim - but does it work? Who are the disaffected labour voters who will now vote con? Anyone who does not own their own home I suppose - but huge numbers of pensioners are owner occupiers (75%?). And they do still need the con pensioners to turn out to vote, and to vote con. I think if the threshold had been £200k or £300k it might have been more effective re lab voters.

"Perhaps because of the ongoing expectation that medicine is free at the point of use?"

Yes, I think you're right - it is just a matter of our societal expectation. Whether that will last...
You are right, it's complicated!

You're probably right about that l17, although I know some pretty miserly rich people

I would just like an honest approach to old age. We're all going to get old, none of us can predict how we'll age so let's start preparing for this in a long term, sustainable manner, rather than relying on inflated house prices. Tax or insurance for people above a certain age and income, specifically set aside for social care for the elderly. No loopholes, no uncertainty, no crazy finances.

Where have the sensible people gone in politics sighs

Conservative-leaning thinktank the Bow Group on the £100k house swipe.

'It is a tax on death and on inheritance. It will mean that in the end, the government will have taken the lion’s share of a lifetime earnings in taxes. If enacted, it is likely to represent the biggest stealth tax in history and when people understand that they will be leaving most of their estate to the government, rather than their families, the Conservative party will experience a dramatic loss of support.'

I don't believe it's incredibly expensive to setup trusts, one unintended consequence of this policy maybe the elderly releasing or passing on assets to their children ahead of time.

In that sense, it could as a whole be socially optimal as most people inherit when they themselves are too old for it to be a life changing difference.

Also the really unfair thing of course is that not all seniors will need lots of long term expensive care - I do feel the other impact of the attention on the expensive of the ageing population will be pressurising people into assisted dying/writing living wills to limit the chance they're kept alive.

I'm not sure what the fair answers are across all generations.

*one unintended consequence of this policy maybe the elderly releasing or passing on assets to their children ahead of time.

In that sense, it could as a whole be socially optimal as most people inherit when they themselves are too old for it to be a life changing difference.*

It seems like an obvious thing to do to me tbh.

And it surely is a good thing - instead of just the concept of money (house value) it becomes real money - and if its other assets (savings etc) then surely that's better off being spent and generating vat income etc than just sitting in a bank?

I know what I'd do, me and dh would be escaping to a small cottage in the Scottish highlands to love an ageing version of the good life and plonking housing wealth over to our dc to make their lives.