Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

720 replies

OwlOfBrown · 18/05/2017 16:06

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.

OP posts:
peaceout · 19/05/2017 10:05

I don't think it is reasonable for elderly people to continue living in large properties where doing so makes caring for them at home more difficult

Imo we need a cultural change whereby people take responsibility for downsizing at the right time, and of course suitable accommodation for people to move in to

icy121 · 19/05/2017 10:06

@hoddtastic this is my point!!! It's "free" wealth. And in pretty much every area a house that was bought in the 70s has gone up. Looking at nationwide data, average house price in early 70s was £10k. In "real" terms, that is £90k. The same, average house today would be worth £205k. So, adjusting for inflation you've had just over £100k for free. Not adjusting for inflation you've had £195k free! It's not "hard work" or "scrimping and saving" - it's bloody good luck and good timing.

I don't see why people going out to work should be taxed on their incomes to protect that free wealth increase for a small minority.

£100k inheritance sounds good to me - and in the example above, in real terms, is about what the pensioners paid for. The rest is lucky bunce.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 19/05/2017 10:06

It doesn't say it would be done by equity release firms though.

It could be that the 'product' is the government having a charge on your house for example.

Wynona · 19/05/2017 10:07

Are there products available so that I can take out life assurance of say £100,000 (hopefully enough to cover care costs) so that in the event of myself of my DH needing care we can use that fund? I accept the premium would be quite high but I really don't want to have to sell my home or feel trapped when I can no longer manage.

I think Major had it spot on. I'd like choice. I don't mind paying for care, I don't mind saving up for a fun to be able to do that.

I17neednumbers · 19/05/2017 10:10

True piglet, we need to know the detail, as always.

The report in the Guardian referred to 'products' which always suggests to me private insurance - but I may be misinterpreting. On the other hand you can see why govt would not want to have to incur the costs of administration of the charge and recovering it - that itself will be quite expensive.

Wynona · 19/05/2017 10:11

sorry I mean fund not fun. I think I need to find my glasses Smile. Fun and my age - how very daring.

halcyondays · 19/05/2017 10:11

Nobody is getting 24/7 care in their own homes paid for by the state while their family never visits. The most they will pay for is 4 visits of around 15 minutes each for things like getting washed and dressed, heating up meals. Anything else such as shopping or cleaning has to be paid for by the elderly person or done/paid for by family. If the max 4 visits isn't enough to meet their needs, e.g they have frequent falls and aren't safe on their own, then the only alternative would be to go into a home unless they pay for extra care themselves.

Many old people are very resistant to the idea of going into a care home even though they aren't safe in their own home and they can't be forced to do it if they're of sound mind.

RedToothBrush · 19/05/2017 10:11

AstrantiaMajor this is precisely why I'm having discussions with my parents over their future.

My in-laws have tied everything up for the grandchildren. They are loaded and are expecting the state to pay for their care which will now fall on the state (and by its nature their children who they have written out of the will. This also means that they have painted themselves into a corner over their care. MIL says she won't care or understand if she's demented which boggles my mind. Especially when this woman goes on £80k cruises and manages to do little but find something to criticise.

On the other hand my parents have been dealing with the care system for my grandmother. She is a difficult lady who has managed to get herself sacked by her care company (she's just difficult rather than having behaviour issues relating to her age and has always been like this and her care needs are related to none dementia conditions). My MIL is very similar. The gap between her expectations and the reality is ridiculous. This will end up falling on her children who have been written out of the will as she will expect them either to pay to top up her care or fill in the gaps in care themselves.

At the same time we may face having to deal with my own parents care needs. This may well coincide with when DS is set to go to university.

My parents are trying to help us work out a way to stop us getting hit in a perfect storm of timing where we have to consider supporting both my parents, a share of my in-laws and our son. Bearing in mind we are struggling with our own pension and mortgage already. And that's without consideration for the welfare of my other close relative with learning issues who will probably fall to us too.

The reality is this. If we do happen to get any inheritance, it will go on care for others in someway. It won't be 'ours'. And that's probably the better case scenario. If the timing and order of deaths falls badly we will be very stuffed. This is why my parents are trying to do a trust for DS's university to ensure that he has the money at the right time.

In all honesty, we won't get anything. My grandmother has already decided that the whole family is only after her money (my mother regularly does expensive 500miles round trips to sort out the mess she has made with her care) so is leaving it all to charity. My in-laws aren't giving us a penny because of trying to dodge tax. My parents will be responsible for my other relative before me and they aren't worth a great deal in the first place.

This proposal actually creates another obstacle to being able to plan responsibility for the needs of our whole family. It makes it difficult to look after your own if you are prepared to do that. That's the crux of it, it encourages people to NOT look after themselves and their own and to skip a generation who are already being touted as the lost generation due to the implications of Brexit.

I despair of it all. I really do. DS will be fine provided his grandparents die at the right time. But for my generation? The loopholes cause so many problems that probably don't remove the burden of the cost of caring for our parents anyway and they potentially make it harder to plan.

brexitstolemyfuture · 19/05/2017 10:14

Sanoffyhighstepson your gran sounded lovley Flowers

Smellbellina · 19/05/2017 10:15

I really don't think it's a good idea for pensioners to have to buy equity release from private providers
I agree with the proposal over all, but not the involvement of private equity firms.

80sMum · 19/05/2017 10:18

Stillwishihadabs "In some societies people care for the elderly in their families - just saying. fucking selfish babyboomers"

As a 'baby boomer' I take great offence at being labelled as "fucking selfish"! Both my mother and MIL are still living in their own homes (they're both in their 90s) and neither wants to move in with their adult children. They would hate it! They want to be independent for as long as possible and they dread the thought of going into a care home. So we "selfish" children drive hundreds of miles to visit them, arrange home carers, cleaners, panic buttons etc etc - whilst at the same time supporting our adult children by giving financial contributions to them for house purchases and other capital items, also of course helping them out by babysitting, diy, cleaning etc. All of this we do gladly - and we are both still working full time.

So, which bit of that is selfish??!

I17neednumbers · 19/05/2017 10:22

"As a 'baby boomer' I take great offence at being labelled as "fucking selfish"! "

Better get used to it on mn, 80s mum! (I am one too.) Not everyone by any means, but there is a thriving anti bb contingent! Many a vigorous debate to be had.

Sanoffyhighstepson · 19/05/2017 10:23

Brexit she was amazing. My dd has her name as a middle name instead of my mum. She was a hard working pure socialist. The last time the council popped round to offer her right to buy she sent them off packing with a rant about social housing being for everyone Grin 5 foot tall and 7 stone of pure grit and belief. And she was right. A family of 5 got her house after she died. They'd previously been in a 1 bed flat and were delighted. Small town so we know them. They put a wee angel statue in their garden for her which was nice. It's still the only council house in the whole scheme Grin

RedToothBrush · 19/05/2017 10:25

Best solution seems to similar to Japanese model. Extra ring fenced tax for young on income. And taxing pensions above a certain level of income bearing in mind many pensioners have higher income than workers and they technically haven't fully paid up their share to the state despite what people think.

I suspect this would be thought of even worse but it would allow better planning and omit the equity company vultures who look set to make a killing. It also makes it harder to dodge and hide money.

Then you need a more reasonable and fair inheritance tax on top of this.

This idea is for the benefit of care companies and equity companies and not society as a whole.

peaceout · 19/05/2017 10:35

In some societies people care for the elderly in their families - just saying. fucking selfish babyboomers
In Those societies the elderly are a minority and tend not to live for decades requiring 24 hour care
The situation in modern societies is not the same, the demographic is different, life trajectories are different, the solutions from 'the good old days' can't just be transplanted onto modern life

In the societies that you referr to elder care would be left to women and girls, severelying restricting their life options

Wynona · 19/05/2017 10:39

neednumbers

I think there is frustration from 'generation rent'. There are just so many obstacles to overcome.

  1. Even on a really good wage, with a sizeable deposit buying a house is not possible. Lenders are far stricter on the criteria used to get a mortgage.
  1. It is so difficult to build up a pension. There are no guarantees, no define benefit pension.
  1. Wages in the public sector have been frozen, but pensions have continued to rise.

I can see both sides and the frustrations and worry of never being able to afford a house.

peaceout · 19/05/2017 10:45

This idea is for the benefit of care companies and equity companies and not society as a whole
The elderly have most of their wealth tied up in property, said wealth is actually the accrued rent from society as a whole, property has increased in value not through the efforts of the owner

Rather than releasing wealth from the property bubble back into society as a whole the government wants to allow private companies to asset strip the elderly.
Your demented elderly parents, empty shells of people are kept alive as long as possible so that they can act as conduits to transfer money into the coffers of care companies and equity release companies....I guess they'll be foreign investors?

I17neednumbers · 19/05/2017 10:45

Totally agree wynona - I feel very sorry for a lot of people in the under 30s group.

House prices out of reach, tuition fees, jobs requiring graduates that used to be done by school leavers so people feel they have to go to university, unpaid internships, zero hours contracts. To name but some of the problems. Most bbs I know are equally concerned.

RedToothBrush · 19/05/2017 10:53

Just to reiterate. If you were born before 1971 you have not 'paid your way' and can now cash in. You are net takers from the system. If you were born after 1971 you are already set to be net contributors over the course of your life time and that disparity looks set to get worse not better.

Many young people face the reality of having to rely on inheritance not because they are in any way lazy or entitled but because of the way the demographic is stacked against them politically and economically.

Their parents have pensions they can only dream of and they are paying for. It's these pensions which were set up in another time and don't reflect the reality of life expectancy now that are the real problem.

Wynona · 19/05/2017 10:54

I deeply love my baby boomer parents. I expect nothing from them, if they spend their last penny then that is fine by me.

The Tories are right to focus on the younger generation. I'm still cross about BREXIT and it is only right that a fair contribution is made for care costs. That said, I don't want my parents to feel trapped in house that is not suitable or worried about a care debt.

RedToothBrush · 19/05/2017 10:55

Oh and many of these pensions are considerably higher than the incomes of the young which doubly add to that frustration.

I17neednumbers · 19/05/2017 10:57

" If you were born before 1971 you have not 'paid your way' and can now cash in. You are net takers from the system. If you were born after 1971 you are already set to be net contributors over the course of your life time and that disparity looks set to get worse not better. "

Doesn't that depend on how much you earned, paid tax, used health care etc? I wouldn't have thought you could generalise so completely.

I agree with you about why young people need inheritance to buy property but would add the growth of buy to let and failure to tax second ownership sufficiently differentially. Interestingly i read yesterday that the stamp duty surcharge has led to a reduction in new btl mortgages which is a ray of light!

Wynona · 19/05/2017 10:58

I do wonder if we could make the buy to let market fail a bit more...

If only the supply of houses increased and house prices came down many of societies problems would go away.

makeourfuture · 19/05/2017 10:59

Isn't the real issue here the broken housing situation?

Wynona · 19/05/2017 11:00

makeover I think it is.