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

I can't see why the tories didn't go for a cap and a floor - cap to allow a private long term insurance market to develop, floor to provide a minimum asset guarantee.

I agree there are questions about this policy - I've got a hell of a lot more questions/fears about Corbyn's unprecedented policies though. The brexit bil? Toss it onto the pile of things the rich folks will pay for.

I'd like answers too little
It's being touted as a tax on elderly people with dementia but it won't just be old people not having an inheritance for their middle aged children.
If you're disabled in middle age you could end up being unable to move house, downsize etc. You could be paying a mortgage on a house you can't afford or sell. You could have widows or widowers tied into huge paid for houses because they'd get 100k if they sold; not enough to buy a flat round here.

a private long term insurance market to develop, floor to provide a minimum asset guarantee.
Bad luck to anyone already diagnosed or with a genetic risk then.

What I don't understand is how they think councils can wait for payments due on care costs till after death? Council budgets for care in the home are stretched to the limit now. How are they going to afford to wait for payment? Surely equity release will have to happen? Or are council tax bills going to go up more to find the shortfalls, because it could be years before people die and the council has to foot the bill till then.?

Just heard on t.v Boris Johnson let slip it may have to be reviewed shortly (social care changes).

Nolotterywinyet this thread is full of people trying to avoid paying the care costs or ways to try and avoid taking the house out if the equation. Some of these people I imagine, no, quite a few could well afford the cost but are determined to keep the money within the family. It has been pointed out to me that certain things like free school dinners are.not a God given right which I agree with, I more than agree that goes for inheritance too. The poor have their taxes took directly from their paypackets, the rich employ money managers to avoid tax.

I think I heard on the radio that there will be a consultation on the details - so my guess is that the principle that people with assets fund their care until they reach assets of £100,000 and then the state steps vs tax for all and universal care for all regardless of wealth is what is up for debate. But as for the questions raised below, I don't know.

on the whole exploded you'd hope that if you cannot get private insurance, at that point the state pays, I agree. Personally, I'd exempt anybody from the social care asset grab if they incurred a long term disability before retirement age due to the unfairness of that happening to a person.

Let's hope it's implemented sensibly - as with any policy really, the devil will be in the detail.

I agree sostenueto, nobody has a right to inherit, the tories will have to get serious about cracking down on trusts - but, if people downside and gift their middle aged DC assets, there is nothing they will ever be able to do about that.

Yes true nolotterywinyet no way to stop that. But do you think this may be one of the reasons May did it? To encourage people to downsize the get markets moving?

You'd hope but right now I'm my 40s with 2 dc at primary school, a six figure mortgage and a neurology appointment before the election, I'm not feeling great.

So basically those with properties more than say £500,000 will be able to afford to downsize to avoid a lot of care costs but those whose house is worth say £200,000 will not be able to downsize so pays up to last 100 grand for their care. Still an unfair, unjust system where yet again the rich compared to ordinary working class people ( Mays words) come off a lot better and by various means keeps the money in the already privileged family.

I don't get the school meals thing. Okay breakfast itself is much cheaper than a hot meal but it's not staffed currently, so won't finding a whole new set of staff cost money? will breakfast clubs now be free? If you are a disfunctional family who struggles to get your kids to school on time are you going to get there early for a free meal? Plus replacing hot meal with sugary cereal and white bread is hardly like for like.

Social care, can see the pluses for levelling the playing field of inherited wealth and getting the housing market moving, but there are so many way in which it will be difficult to implement. Something like the Dilnot approach were you socialise some of the risk would encourage an insurance market to develop. There is a rumour going around on Facebook though that there has been pressure from the banks to bring this in, which makes more sense. You'll need to fund your care by purchasing a complex equity release product that will mean handing over the keys to the bank as soon as you die.

The thing that really frightens me though is the need for ID in polling stations. Electoral fraud is rare here. Why would they bother? It will certainly make it harder for the young, poor and disorganised to vote.

Sad to hear it exploded cloud. I developed neuro condition about 8 years ago when I was 56. I tried to carry on working for a further 3 years part-time but eventually was 'let go: because they could not accommodate my disability. I also contracted the big C for the third time recently. I am a waspie cannot even get my pension now till I'm 66 and that will be £30 less than today's pensioners and triple lock now going too. I am severely disabled and I had 5 years left on my mortgage. I had to sell up real quick before I got repossessed losing mist of my equity on my very small modest property. I gave my dds most of what was left which was a minuscule amount and after all that came out with just what I wore proverbially but I did not owe anything. I have no savings low income and I could get all my care free but I choose not to have it at the moment. I pay for a lady out if my small care component of DLA which will probably be took away from me soon. I know I will need care a lot in the near future so i will try to ease the burden on the care system till then. If I can do that why can't the rich psy their way?

could well be an accepted side effect of this policy - i imagine a lot of people would be grateful if their parents advanced xfer'd money to them if they're currently facing massive mortgages.

Complete justice is always going to be an impossible dream - Corbyn may promise justice but many of his policies are subsidies to the middle class/middle earners - I should be voting for him, he'd save me £60k on tuition, that'd offset 30 years of the tax rise he's committed to on higher earners so far. The min wage policy will not help the poorest either.

Sost - you make fair points and it illustrates how difficult this is. The problem is going to get bigger ( did I hear 2 m more 75 and overs in 10yrs time??). There is inequality via a North/South divide and inter generational. In addition many taxpayers are struggling with the cost of living and many homeowners from the baby boom years are sitting on asset wealth created by the housing market rise. Many interlinked issues.

I think this is a policy that has tried to address some aspect of these issues but I do wonder why a cap wasn't put on.

Otherwise the option is to increase taxation for all current taxpayers and keep increasing it as the social care budget increases over the next 10-15 years. That does not address some of the issues at the beginning.

That is the problem nolottertwin yet. There really isn't a good choice between the parties that will solve it. May has NOT promised a freeze on tax and insurance and that will definitely be going up very soon. As for private insurance his on earth are the ordinary working class going to afford that?

I agree about the fees - would save me around £90,000 and I'll get to inherit after the state has paid for social care for my parent with a neuro condition.

It would probably "make me richer" to vote labour than conservative - doesn't make sense

I don't think the working classes can afford private insurance - my point was we should let people that can afford the insurance have a product to buy by putting a cap on, and that reduces the number of people then in desperate need for the state to pay for.

On the whole, the tory approach to giving benefits to the people that really need it rather than universal benefits we can't afford is one I prefer.

I don't think there is a solution that avoids higher taxes to public spending - the drivers of NHS spending increases and pensions increases due to an ageing population are going to mean higher taxes, it's simply a question of what we want to pay for with the remaining taxes.

My main concern is that I see the NHS & pension spending consuming tax money I'd rather was spent on primary and secondary education. Corbyn's policies don't go near resolving this massive issue, and May's are a start at least.

Press are saying a cap is about to be announced......

Today's newspapers report a freedom of information survey on existing care which is interesting. Some local authorities have only negotiated this charge over assets with a few - FT " But, according to 140 freedom of information replies to Royal London, the effectiveness of the scheme varies hugely from area to area. About 10 local authorities have not entered into a single such arrangement since the scheme was introduced in April 2015. "

Little: these are my guesses:-
"I imagine a fairly common scenario will be a couple living together and one accumulates large care bills, then dies, leaving ta partner/spouse. Surviving spouse decides to downsize/ move nearer the kids etc so sells up. Will the care bill become payable at that point? if so, how can the surviving partner move - because if they are retired they are unlikely to get a mortgage."

Under current rules I believe the charge the local authority has is paid back when you move so yes it is not and will contiue to be an issue if the surviving spouses choose to sell to move near children although it will not affect their half of the assets and they could instead pay the charge out of savings if they have any.

"Will the surviving spouse also be entitled to keep back £100,000 of their own to give to THEIR children - especially relevant if they had children from different relationships. So is it £100,000 each or £100,000 per couple?"
I would have thought so - I think it was Somerset Webb writing in yesterday's FT who said it is likely particularly as the Government has moved thankfully to separate taxation of individuals in recent years. Each spouse has their own capital gains tax allowance, IHT allowance etc.

"What happens when siblings etc buy a house together and one accumulates care costs? Will the surviving sibling lose everything they have put into the house?"
No, I believe it very likely each co-owner will have a £100k. The charge is over the deceased person's estate.

"Will it be better to own a house as tenants in common (where you separately own a portion of the house) rather than joint tenants (where you jointly own the whole thing?)"

Probably but as a smal number of people will be subject to this charge i would not take the decison about the charge on those grounds alone.
Eg my father moved to tenants in common as he feared our mother might leave the house after he died to a charity not us (she never would have done but that was his fear and the change certainly meant he covered himself against that risk.

"Will there be any difference between married and unmarried couples?"
I doubt it if each person who co-owns a house has the £100k band.

U turns already...May has announced a cap. And there's an ad. “Only by getting a good Brexit deal will we be able to continue to fund our public services, like social care”. Unbelievable. We could better fund our public services if the wealthier contributed more and the 'brute luck' burden was shared. It really isn't rocket science. For someone who actively campaigned on the Remain side BECAUSE Britain would see financial meltdown if they left the EU, May is really taking hypocrisy to new levels.

Omg! A ruddy great u turn from our strong and stable idiot of a Priminister! And how dare she tell me not to vote for anyone other than her because it will let JC win the election! The personal attacks were horrendous and there stood a very worried weak and unstable leader if ever I saw one!

You do make a lot of sense nolotterywi yet but it is Mays intention to privatise social care anyway as I said a long while ago. It will be big business and Tories that will make money and loafs of it out of private insurance.

The EU, with Macron and Merkel, is strong and stable. The Brexiters were the unicorn sellers.

as with any policy really, the devil will be in the detail

Exactly - and now it seems there may be a cap on care bills, which together with the £100k "base" sounds to me like a pretty good way of handling it

Whatever our individual views, at least the Conservatives are actually doing something to address the difficult issues around social care - which is a darned sight more than I've seen from anyone else