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.

Not as clear cut as that now as it has been in the past tbh
Do you mean because there are a lot of properties in the North now that are over £100,000 and in the past there weren't?

Or have I missed what you are saying??

Bungalows are about the same price as houses in my village
I think that is because a 3 bedroom bungalow takes up more land than a 3 bedroom house.

Also bungalow are very desirable to developers.

Loads of bungalows around here are being bought up and turned into sets of 4 flats.

The problem where I live is - young people can't afford to leave home. We are actually considering buying somewhere bigger, so we can provide our DC with homes for the next 10+ years at least. If this goes on, what if one of use has dementia/parkinsons etc. Will the house have to be sold upon our death to pay back for the social care we've received - even though that will make 3 or more people homeless? (And no inheritance to help them buy their own homes.

And don't forget that higher earners have paid a lot more in Tax and NI over the years.
It is a Dementia Tax.

Redtoothbrush Yes, I'm the elder of us.

persian

I wouldnt mind but in my road the bungalows sit on plots with huge back gardens and are much smaller than my house

For the same price!!

But yes i do agree with what you've said

OneFlewOverTheDodosNest

That is mine my DP, parents and IL view (although it won't matter for me as I won't get to that age).

Both my DM and FIL had their GP with them when their dementia took hold. It really affected their childhoods.

They explicitly have said they don't want that to do that to their GC.

What's the alternative? People being taxed more to protect other peoples inheritances? An inheritance isn't a god given right. If people have the means to pay for their own care, then they should. If they don't, the state should pay. Im not a tory but don't particularly see what's wrong with this proposal.

The apparently attractive argument put forward:

"why should the working young pay for care of the wealthy elderly?"

surely also applies to all treatment on the NHS?

This new proposal creates an unjustifiable disparity between old people suffering from different illnesses - some will have to pay for their own care (if it's deemed social) and others will get it free (if it's deemed medical). Maybe there is an argument that anyone over 70yo with assets has to contribute towards any treatment on the NHS but that is rather a radical proposal! It would certainly reduce the NHS bills.

I'm not sure that I follow when others say the elderly want to leave their houses to their children. Of course they do! And lots of money if possible. But if they need to spend that money before they die, then I am not sure why others who may not have parents with houses to leave, have to pay for that other stuff for them so that their house can be inherited by someone who has done nothing to earn it other than being born. You save to support yourself when you are old. You can only leave what is left over to your (by then middle aged) children. If you need expensive care in later life, then that reduces their inheritance. I am not sure why other taxpayers (who may never inherit) have to make up that deficit.

Last radical idea: over 20% of the NHS budget is spent on negligence pay-outs. Perhaps when people accept free care, they also have to accept the risk it might go wrong. They would be free to self-insure, and medical staff and hospitals should still have disciplinary procedures to discourage negligent work but there would be no pay outs. That would put the NHS back in the black in one fell swoop. Also radical, though!

..but something radical needs to be done. It's all falling apart as is.

Owl I bet that's the reason. Gender.

No one would want to be kept alive once dementia advances beyond a certain point, we need a cultural change to reflect changes in life expectancy and health expectancy

neonrainbow said it much more succinctly than I did! Giving a house to your children that you only still have because others have subsidised your later life is not a god given right and, frankly, it is grossly unfair on those without house-owning parents.

although it won't matter for me as I won't get to that age
I am sorry to hear that.

Please shout at me if I am being inappropriate but how do you cope with knowing that?

(Sorry for wording it so poorly)

Perhaps when people accept free care, they also have to accept the risk it might go wrong. They would be free to self-insure, and medical staff and hospitals should still have disciplinary procedures to discourage negligent work but there would be no pay outs. That would put the NHS back in the black in one fell swoop.

There's lots to reflect on in this bollocks.

Point one being ITS NOT FREE.

I'll park it there.

Itisnoteasybeingdifferent
Spending money on beer and skittles?
Getting obese and developing diabetes?

So your at it on this thread aswell.
You sound like a moron

it is grossly unfair on those without house-owning parents
What about people who have been frugal all their lives to save up and own their on home compared to those whose parents spent money and lived large and their children had the benefit of it then?

The problem is that there is no hard line between the two.

Problem is people assume that instead of going to inheritance the money would go to social care. Except that's not how humans behave. The money would be pissed up the wall somehow rather than 'Let the state have it's.

Income tax on pensions harder to dodge. Hits most wealthy most. But yes needs to be offset with some sort of inheritance burden but one that people feel fair enough to stop them behaving in a particular way that doesn't solve the problem and still places burden on young. And the young need to be taxed for their own provision too.

Well the people who have saved up and own their own home have had the lovely surety of knowing their home is secure. Those people who frivoulously spent their money on rent have no security at all. I don't feel sorry for people whose assets will be used to pay for their care after death, or their children. Inheritances being protected and passed down over generations is part of the reason why there is such a huge divide between rich and poor. Why should someone be able to sit on a big pile on money and the state pay to look after them for 5, 10, 20 years? That won't work going forward.

The money would be pissed up the wall somehow rather than 'Let the state have it's.

If the money is released early (by accessing the equity or selling & downsizing) then it's actual real money being spent in the wider economy, which is good.
(As opposed to the conceptual 'value' of a home which is not worth anything in actual tangible money in the here & now)

(Agree with your Brexit related musings re mobile communities btw Red, as a generalisation. Although I'm one of the exceptions in that I've been uber mobile throughout my life and yet still voted Brexit! )

Charmageddon, then it needs to be incentivised it the right way, to actively promote that behaviour directly rather than it being a side effect of another intention.

(And there is always one awkward one! )

Yeah if pissing up the wall introduced money into state coffers via discretionary spend not money for care, that could still be beneficial.

I am 66 own my own house , 4 beds large garden and just little old me. No desire to downsize, thought about it rejected it, house and garden keep me fit and active and I love having dcs and dgcs to stay. I have equity released to provide dcs with house deposits, if I need care then the government can have what is left as long as it is not a Tory one! Rather stick pins in my eyes. I am not a miserable oap, do not class us all together I am left wing rebellious , we did not make the rules and can't help being baby boomers. I have worked virtually all my life paid into a private pension . Would have happily paid into an insurance for care if it had been available, although we were told that was what NI was for. I have told my dcs no care home for me, if fragile but sound of mind I will take care of my demise, if totally ga ga would love someone to put me down the way we do with our pets. Have a living will so am waiting for legalised euthanasia, .

There is nothing wrong with buying a house and making it a home I did not hear phrasing like "starter home" investment and "housing ladder" when i was growing up. My parents bought it in 1968 when it was still a hole in the ground. They intended it to be their forever home.

If it is to be used for social care then fair enough but they will not be bullied into moving. They are 81 now and the stress would kill them.

It seems to be ok to tell someone what to do with their own house in a way that it wouldnt for any other item of property.

Supported living is no gurantee either. Google Frances Cottee Lodge.

One of the main problems with this policy is the concept of 'fairness'.

Fairness and equality are the two words that are dominating this election most apart from the word Brexit.

People have very different reactions to the two words. Inequality tends to be viewed more negatively - especially amongst older votes - and its the word Corbyn uses, whilst May talks of fairness a lot more. This idea of 'ordinary working families' having a fair deal.

This is one of the reasons that this is going down like a lead balloon in many quarters. Its perceived as unfair and is in conflict with the rest of the message that particular type of voter who likes May.

In their eyes, they have done everything right: worked hard, saved hard, provided for themselves and have tried to provide for their children. Many believe they have already paid for their social care needs. They have been responsible. They have been 'perfect citizens'. This is what they planned for and what they were led to believe was the way to behave and do. Its pure conservatism really.

So taking away from their family the security they thought they had built up, is 'unfair'. It throws a curveball at what they thought was a given and makes them feel aggrieved.

Instead of tackling the problem that actually our society has misjudged and underestimated costs to help people understand why this policy is even being proposed its come out of the blue to many. Even though the problem has been known about politicians for ages, this hasn't really been communicated to the public well. The whole thing needs to be better explained to the public. Which is no small task.

On top of that the policy is actually unfair in how it affects some but not others. Which only amplifies anger about it.

our society has misjudged and underestimated costs

And that this awful housing crisis has occurred (although it may be a manufactured crisis).

It seems like one issue here is that there are an awful lot of people who cannot afford to buy....sort of jammed into relying on nanna to die.

It is grotesque in a way.

I'm of two minds about this.

I can see how it creates a reverse lottery effect where one family will be able to pass on a house and another won't, based on a bad stroke of luck that the NHS is theoretically supposed to protect against.

On the other hand, I think the UK needs to entirely reconceive elder care, particularly residential care, separately from the NHS. It makes sense for the state to provide a basic no-frills residential guarantee for its citizens while advancing the concept of medium or high-end care delivered privately, through insurance e.g. risk sharing.

I don't agree with subsidising inheritance which is broadly what I think this measure prevents.

At the same time I think it prevents older, affluent people from being economically active which is not good.