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.

But as someone pointed out if you now take measures to reduce house prices, like more additional tax on non principal private residences, you may plunge some areas back into negative equity. There is no simple solution now - which is why it was such a failure to allow this position to develop in the first place!

Because they like their house and can afford to heat it properly?
Depending on house prices in the area, downsizing won't necessarily release a load of capital if you want a nice flat.

Ime people only tend to downside if they're already experiencing health issues such as restricted mobility. If not they tend to prefer to stay in their houses as long as possible.

"Indeed, and yet many do insist on what seems like the worst option
Why do they??"

Emotional attachment to their houses can be very strong - if you've lived there a long time. And the immense hassle and slightly less immense costs of moving. But I think the next generations are perhaps more likely to be pragmatic - we know from the outset that we will be moving in due course. In the past I think some people even saw it as a failure to move - it was because you couldn't afford to stay.

I feel that it is really important that everyone actually understands the true implication of this new Social Care policy being proposed by Theresa May.

Releasing equity from a property worth more then £100,000 may seem like a reasonable solution. What it actually does though is totally screw over the younger generations to come, and before people start shouting about the next generation getting less inheritance, it's really not about this.

At the moment property is disregarded from any financial assessment when a person is in receipt of social care at home. Individuals with more then £23,250 have to pay full cost, but the property is not taken into account.

If someone then needs to move into Residential / Nursing Care, the value of the property does then become relevant and the property then has to be sold to pay for residential or nursing care if required.

Due to‪ ‬mass privitisation of social care delivery by Maggie Thatcher most of these Care Homes are private, and the public sector have no control over fees charged. Your average Residential placement costs anywhere from £750 - £1500 PER WEEK!!!

Councils are given enough funding to pay approx £450 a week. This leaves a pretty big gap. In most cases not a massive issue as the house is sold and this pays for the fees for several years. If the money runs out then something called a '3rd party top up fee' comes in to play. This top-up fee funds the gap and has to be coughed up by family.

What this policy does is suck all the money out of that property first, leaving nothing to pay for res / nursing care, leaving the person's family to find anywhere between £300 and £1050 a week.

Yes she is proposing an increase in the threshold to £100k, but at the moment cash under the threshold is protected and cant be used to self top-up. Even if they did allow this it gives a very short period of comfort time - less then 2 years if the top up is a large one.

Please realise that this policy is only going to put greater financial pressure on those like me and you who don't have several hundred pounds a week to pay these top up fees.

She is not proposing a solution, just a new problem........

Zero SDLT on downsizers would be a really good place to start. I'd also like to see an end to the council tax single person discount if you have 2 or more spare bedrooms. We need to give incentives.

You should shop him astrantia...

My grandmother has done well being in retirement flats. She has a social life and good quality of life. It's more independent than a home. People tend to think of them in the same way but there is a vast difference. She's 91 and probably stayed healthy longer because of it. (Which might not be such a good thing for society!).

I do think a lot of these issues are easier to solve than they appear on the surface. The problem is more political will and resistance to change. When the demographic is stacked in such a way that makes it even more difficult to achieve though.

I think the idea of taxing higher pensions coupled with a responsible and reasonable inheritance tax is liable to cause more anger than this idea of a dementia tax ultimately because of who profits and who can dodge the system. It shouldn't.

I'm fucked if I'm paying more for social care, possibly whilst paying less for other important things like education, maternity care, cancer treatment, while the children of the people receiving it can inherit hundreds of thousands that's not been touched.

This

I think the govt needs to make a huge push towards enticing pensioners to downsize.

A phased reduction of the PPR exemption on CGT would do this nicely.

What this policy does is suck all the money out of that property first, leaving nothing to pay for res / nursing care, leaving the person's family to find anywhere between £300 and £1050 a week.

I don't think that is true. Otherwise only those who had a house would ever go into care homes.

The gvt usually takes over the cost when the assets are depleated. It is what happened for my GP.

Downsize, release a load of capital and then live a better life..., or keep your wealth tied up in a rickety old house, which you can't afford to heat properly and death trap stairs...?! No brainier!

YY icy

That's my plan too!

As soon as the kids leave home I'll be downsizing as soon as poss.

I'll only need a 1 bed, but would want a 2 bed so I've a spare room - I've never lived above my means/needs when it comes to house space, and don't intend to ever do so.

Moving is traumatic but failure to downsize means that relatives have to deal with the consequences of an elderly person in unsuitable accommodation.
If your parents know that you won't pick up the pieces they you fail to take responsibility for themselves then I they will have a much bigger incentive to do the right thing.
Perhaps adult children have been too willing to run themselves ragged for parents?
it's all very well them saying I did it for my parents and now you have to do it for us but for example my grandparentson all died early 70s, these days people are much more likely to need care for extended periods

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.

So what happened in 1971 (or later) that has meant that anyone who was born before that date is a net taker? Interested as my brother and I fall either side of that date and I genuinely can't think of a benefit that I have received that he has not.

Emotional attachment to their houses can be very strong - if you've lived there a long time. And the immense hassle and slightly less immense costs of moving. But I think the next generations are perhaps more likely to be pragmatic - we know from the outset that we will be moving in due course. In the past I think some people even saw it as a failure to move - it was because you couldn't afford to stay.

I think there is definitely a generational split in emotional attachment to bricks and mortar.

A house is just a house - a home is what you make of that house.
The younger generations (and by that I include people currently in their 40s & 50s) do appear to be more pragmatic about this and are a lot more willingly mobile.

Releasing equity from a property worth more then £100,000 may seem like a reasonable solution. What it actually does though is totally screw over the younger generations to come, and before people start shouting about the next generation getting less inheritance, it's really not about this.

I recognise a lot of this. My grandmother is at the point where she needs more care. This involves her moving from her assisted flat to somewhere else. However the equity she has is running out and of course she can't get a mortgage. Who covers the short fall in private accommodation? At the moment the council cover half her care costs. There are no space in the public sector and my grandmother has certain expectations that my parents aren't willing to stump up (cos they can't afford it). They are both 65 themselves and need to consider their future options. At what point does the council stop providing half the costs? What happens to my grandmother? She can't go on forever but my parents also have to consider they might live as long too, without additional help.

They have an awareness and reality my in-laws don't and I think that's a huge difference between them.

So what happened in 1971 (or later) that has meant that anyone who was born before that date is a net taker? Interested as my brother and I fall either side of that date and I genuinely can't think of a benefit that I have received that he has not

I believe it's down to earning potential, pension changes, taxation, ability to get on housing market and increases in housing prices.

As a matter of interest which out of the two of you is older? (Is it you?)

YY peaceout.

It sounds awful written down, but my mum was quite definite in telling her parents she wouldn't be prepared to 'wipe their arses' if they were unable to do so themselves - my granny had worked for years as an auxiliary nurse & care assistant and told my mum (and my auntie) that she didn't want them wasting their lives caring for her if she ever ended up like that.

My granny was diagnosed with Parkinson's after moving into her assisted flat (with my grandad) and eventually ended up in a home for her last couple of years - grandad is dead too now, but he was able to stay in their flat up until he died as there was in-house assistance.

They had a much better quality of life than they would have had staying in their old house (they were council tenants so it wasn't an equity release situation, just that they realised they'd be better off in the assisted accommodation - cheaper & more sociable for them).

The younger generations (and by that I include people currently in their 40s & 50s) do appear to be more pragmatic about this and are a lot more willingly mobile.

I also think this internal mobility within the UK has fed into the Brexit vote as it goes. Places where people have moved in and out more readily are much more pro EU. In part I suspect because they are more used to mixing with new and different people. The circles of ABC1 is much wider geographically and culturally. They often commute further too.

It's also reflected in gentrification patterns.

There is of course the flip to that too. It's causing certain conflicts.

I do think it needs someone to have a good look at this. Free movement of people is blamed. I rather think it is much more internalised within the UK.

Cross referencing conversation on other thread with you (which I know isn't the done thing on MN but to hell with it). This conflict is in essence the irony and problem for the A LDS in a nutshell. They effectively had two groups: the more localised community focused older generation and the younger abc1 professionals who want to remain. Their policy focus is actually good for both generally but Brexit and second ref killing it now (despite the fact that the LDs can only influence rather than set policy even in a best case scenario which means second ref is actually fantasy land). They've alienated one part of vote and been squeezed out by a polarization on the May v Corbyn thing pushing people to Labour in desperation to keep out Tories.

Anyway I digress, but I think is relevant to points made here.

Surely setting the limit at £100,000 means that there is discrimination between people living in the North and the South?

I don't think you can even buy a studio flat here in Dorset now for under £100,000, any body who owned their own home no matter how small would be able to leave it to a relative.

Whereas in the North I am told that there are some properties that are still worth less than £100,000.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_591ec206e4b094cdba531e5a?
Carer Slams Theresa May In Call To LBC Over Tory Manifesto

Anna, from Putney, London, lives with and cares for her mother full-time.

She claimed if her own health failed and they were made to pay for her mother’s care then when she died she could be left homeless if their house was sold to cover the cost.

This is going to turn into bedroom tax #2 isn't it?

Persian it depends on where you are in the north. Some places you'll not get much change out of £200k for a tiny two bed. Others you can pick something up for £50k still quite easily.

Bungalows are about the same price as houses in my village

I think the only people who think it is possible for families to care for elderly relatives are those who've never had to do it.

My grandfather had Parkinsons and in the 9 months it took him to get into a suitable care home it took our entire family to look after him. This included my father and uncle being called out in the middle of the night many times a week to get him back into bed as he'd got up to go to the toilet having forgotten he could no longer walk.

He also went from being the kindest, sweetest gentleman to being aggressive, physically and verbally violent in a matter of months. He couldn't be left alone and so we took it in turns to be screamed and shouted at to give my dear grandmother enough time to get away.

This is the reality of looking after your elderly family for many people in the UK - it's not popping round to have a cup of tea and bringing in the shopping, it is physically and emotionally exhausting labour that leaves the rest of the family on their knees.

She is not proposing a solution, just a new problem........ Too right!

The Social Care where my DF lived is shambolic with huge waiting lists months-long leading to 'bed blocking' in HD Units at the local hospital. The system is at breaking point. Many of you seem to assume that there are or will be nursing homes to send elderly ill people to.

This crisis has been caused by underfunding and complacency.

Also, having gone through this experience all our family agree that:
a) we do not want continued medical care if we get a dementia diagnosis
b) we will all spend every last penny we have to go into a home so that we don't do the same thing to our children.

Surely setting the limit at £100,000 means that there is discrimination between people living in the North and the South?

Not as clear cut as that now as it has been in the past tbh.

Persian it depends on where you are in the north
Thanks, still a big gap but I imagine then there are some homeowners who this policy would not affect in the North.

In this part of the South, every single home owner would be affected.