To think older people need to sit up and take notice of this

[OwlOfBrown]

So the Tory manifesto includes a plan to make (elderly) people pay for their own social care costs until they are down to the last £100K of their wealth. Andrew Dilnot, who chaired a commission on social care costs during the coalition government which suggested a cap of £35,000 on care costs borne by individuals, has condemned this plan.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-19286845/andrew-dilnot-on-social-care-cap-and-inheritances

I know a lot of MN'ers will say that this is fair, and I do have some sympathy with that opinion. Why should someone be able to sit on hundreds of thousands of pounds of wealth when the state pays for their care? But is it really fair? What about when others have the same amount of wealth but enjoy the good fortune of not needing social care so get to keep their wealth? After all, we don't make people with long-term illnesses pay for their medical treatment (yet...) so what is different about social care?

Debate away - I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on this.

Unfortunately that's what would happen though Drudge, people would shamelessly jump on any mooted plans to enable assisted dying and politicise it as being wholly down to the costs of care.

For me, they're 2 completely separate issues - some people wouldn't want to choose to die, that's their prerogative to choose to live - I however wouldn't want to carry on in those conditions (dementia etc, or Parkinson's like my granny).
I'd rather choose the time of my passing if diagnosed, so that I don't become what my granny did.

It has nothing to do with costs, but sadly that would get completely lost in any cheap political point scoring.

As if I'm not screwed enough being disabled under the tories, this will mean that my parents would have to sell my home, as they are my landlords. Fantastic.

OhTheRoses, so sorry about your DGM, people don't seem to understand that dementia isn't just getting old and it isn't someone popping in with a meal for you.

Dementia is treated differently. I was a senior manager in a home for people with mental illness. The NHS paid their fees, £2k a week plus. Some people were in the home for 20 years plus, not only didn't they have to pay fees the also received all their benefits ESA, DLA even winter fuel allowance when they didn't pay anything for the heating. The sort of care they needed was similar to many people with dementia, the only difference was the physical deterioration that goes with dementia. They get looked after by Psychiatrists and MH nurses just the same.

This isn't about inheritance to me, my parents and PIL are all long dead and none of them suffered from dementia, two dying very young and the other two not living to advanced old age. None of them paid a penny for the care they received in hospices, hospital or at home. For me it is about a system that isn't fair, old frail people might need social care but when people have dementia it goes beyond that.

I don't mean kill to save money, as I said, gran left nothing. I mean the artificial extension of an existence. It stops being a life after a point and that terrifies me. My child's last memories of me should be good. Not of a dependent incontinent screaming in terror shell of a human. We would let a beloved dog slip away before experiencing such abject horrors. The choice of the individual should be respected. Death is inevitable. Years of no dignity and pain and frustration shouldn't be.

Pay for your own care, why should the tax payer. Its not an accident or emergency its OLD AGE, save up, get insurance or use your house to pay for your old age. Why should we pay for any condition then? It's just cancer sell your house, HIV well buy your own medication, schizophrenia and you've got no money well lets leave you to die, cheaper for everyone.

Piglet yes you are of course right about the third category- the voice of reason! What was wrong with the Dilnot proposal for a cap? was it just judged too expensive?

granny to mine yes that's what I don't understand about the logic. You could extend this argument to every social need really.

There seems to be so obvious loop holes.

1. If you are married or in a civil partnership, transfer the house from the person that is ill health to the partner that is good health. Upon death, the house outside the estate?

1. If you have children that you trust start taking advantage of Potentially Exempt Transfers. Providing you survive 7 years then it is outside your estate.

What am I missing?

Well, people can arrange their own care. My neighbour has a lady round to help with general shopping, cleaning and care and she found her through a small ad in the local shop. She is quite wealthy and pays for this herself. But what I mean is you can do it yourself.

Also know a lady with MS who was fed up with the care arranged for her by local services, ditched it and did the small ad approach herself.

"There seems to be so obvious loop holes.

1. If you are married or in a civil partnership, transfer the house from the person that is ill health to the partner that is good health. Upon death, the house outside the estate?

1. If you have children that you trust start taking advantage of Potentially Exempt Transfers. Providing you survive 7 years then it is outside your estate.

What am I missing?"

1. Maybe they would include it if one spouse was ill, in their policy.
2. they may change this rule, possibly.

What was wrong with the Dilnot proposal for a cap? was it just judged too expensive?

A floor limit is fairer than a cap in my opinion.

It will affect the very wealthy more than the middle & will not affect the less well off.

Everybody gets to 'leave' £100k in inheritance (if they have assets of that value).

"Some people were in the home for 20 years plus, not only didn't they have to pay fees the also received all their benefits ESA, DLA.."

Suprised at this. I was told they stopped these benefits if in hospital more than a few weeks. (PIP anyway and ESA)

Some councils already look back further than 7 years, I thought? It's not IHT so different rules apply.

"If you have children that you trust start taking advantage of Potentially Exempt Transfers. Providing you survive 7 years then it is outside your estate."

If you stay in the house without paying market rent I think that is treated as a gift with reservation - so ineffective for iht purposes. The same rule will presumably be applied. And of course there are already the rules about deprivation of capital if you do it with the intention of avoiding fees.

Plus it's risky to transfer your house to dc if you still need to live in it - if they divorce, go bankrupt etc, or even just fall out with you, you may find yourself out on your ear!

Re entitlement: there are parents who financially plan inheritance so their children are not a burden on the state for reasons relating to their children's ability to earn and look after themselves because until now they believed their own care had been covered by their own work life. Effectively shifting the goal posts and the burden being decided by lottery has a disproportionate effect. It needs to be evenly spread otherwise it will devastate families who have tried to be responsible and look after their own. This is not entitlement but savvy planning based on what people thought their financial position was as a family.

Yes care needs to be paid for. However it needs to be paid for by those who can afford it and this needs to be done in a way that doesn't disincentivise responsible planning for other family members or encourage more tying up of estates to where the tax man can't reach it because this then puts the burden of the cost of care on people further down the chain of wealth anyway.

A sudden 'shock' to the system will not solve the problem for this reason. It will just encourage different types of financial planning. Far better to spread the costs so there is less fear about losing everything.

Personally I will be making phonecalls today to ensure my relative is protected against his mother dying as otherwise he is going to have a serious problem in the future. One that ultimately will be at the expense of the state anyway. Far better for him to be in control of his situation. He has no heirs (the closest relative likely to still be alive when he dies is me) so it will all eventually go to the state anyway (I certainly don't expect anything nor want anything). I don't gain anything from this. Neither does the state ultimately lose out. If anything in this case, it's probably cheaper for the state in the long run.

It really surprises me how selfish some people are. The larger and larger group of wealthy elderly still expect the smaller and smaller group of poor working class families to pay for their care. Its really the epitome of the liberal elite wanting to keep wealth inside their little family dynasty so their poor little snowflakes dont have to work and experience what most people do. You have to work hard to get a house, not expect struggling tax payers to give it to you.

"The larger and larger group of wealthy elderly still expect the smaller and smaller group of poor working class families to pay for their care.
Its really the epitome of the liberal elite wanting to keep wealth inside their little family dynasty "

Not sure. Any pensioner with savings of £23k - which would be most wealthy elderly, liberal elite types - already had to pay for his/her care at home anyway.

The people who this new policy will affect will be pensioners who own their own home but have savings of less than £23k. I don't think that group is likely to be 'the liberal elite' - those pensioners tend to have more than £23k so are paying anyway. (guessing here, but it is my impression)

"If you have children that you trust start taking advantage of Potentially Exempt Transfers. Providing you survive 7 years then it is outside your estate."

The children have to live with you during those seven years, and everyone needs to contribute to expenses. Or it may not work like that. My mum did this some years ago, and the solicitor warned her that people still get caned for IHT even if they have split the house.

I kept a bank account at mum's address and contributed to her bills, and could prove that I had by showing bank statements with that address on. It was enough to protect my inheritance.

Any pensioner with savings of £23k... already had to pay for his/her care at home anyway Not if they had put all their savings into a millionaires mansion.

"If you have children that you trust start taking advantage of Potentially Exempt Transfers. Providing you survive 7 years then it is outside your estate."
And if you trust your children's spouses and any future spouses (if they have them)! Judging by the many mil threads on here, that may not be wise...

True Jamie, I meant financial savings. I think many of the 'liberal elite' generally have more than £23k in cash, shares etc - maybe I am wrong but that is my impression. Depends on how you define liberal elite I suppose.

But anyway those with substantial financial savings would already have paid for all social care - it's a different group that's affected here.

paid mortgage from 1976 (age 25) lived in caravan before that, till age 60, in 1983 mortgage rate was 16%. Most I earned per annum till retiring just over a year ago was £18.000 caring for folk in their own homes, so they could stay put. working full time nights. Always bought "doer uppers". 15 years ago we didnt have central heating. The people with the council/housing assoc places were the ones who had the holidays abroad, flash cars. We downsized as soon as the kids had left home, 2 bed bungalow, hoping we will not need social care. I dont think wealthy pensioners should get winter fuel allownance, parents on £100.000 child benefit, and people on benefits who choose to have 13 children should get child enefit, they seem to have a better standard of living than us, we have one TV, zero smart-phones tablets, just this one PC. I have worked bloody hard for what I have! Where is Jeremy Corbyn going to get this free money from to pay for all these goodies he has offered, I shall be asking this same question 5 years down the line, if he becomes PM and it doesnt happen!

I think it's unfair to take people's assets to pay for their care, we work hard to buy our houses and then just hand it over to the state. If I rent then the state pays. However, with an ageing population I do realise it will eventually bankrupt the state! Maybe the mega-rich should start coughing up tax.

If pensioners are sitting in mortgage free houses, there's every likelihood that these were bought decades ago, and the pensioners have had the benefit of insane house price increases - particularly if living in the south east/London.

Houses in my home county area sold for £350k in 1995 (where rightmove data goes to). These are values are well over £1m today. That's unearned wealth - so seems entirely reasonable to use that to cover your care costs.... otherwise we're taxing the majority's income to subsidise the minority's inheritance. Which can't be right.

My parents paid 3k for their house in 1961, and it went for 1.4 million when I sold it after probate was granted.

I'm an only child.

I have already taken steps to protect that money for my kids.