Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
GardenGeek · 20/05/2017 15:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

QuentinSummers · 20/05/2017 15:02

garden don't think that analogy really stacks up. Firstly people die at all different ages. Secondly care costs are really variable.
If we have a proper insurance system (not NI) then every person would pay for their own care. If they didn't need to use it, well there you go. That's the point of insurance.

makeourfuture · 20/05/2017 15:02

Plenty of houses in this area are worth £1m or considerably more - why should he taxpayer have to fund anyone with such assets?

Why shouldn't anyone sitting in a house like this pay for say their healthcare....road usage?

JamieXeed74 · 20/05/2017 15:03

Lot of people with their heads in the sand here. To think a cheap insurance scheme will give every older person a luxurious health and social care in their home forever and allow them to pass on their mansions to their children, is just fantasy.

The NHS should be for accidents and emergencies, universal necessary health care within reason. Old age happens to us all and we should provide for ourselves if we have the assets. I dont see what else is sustainable in a world where we could keep living longer and longer. Unless your prepared to accept that after a certain age (maybe 70?) we stop trying to use very expensive medicines to keep people alive.

I am far from being alone in having an adult child living with me. What happens if I need to go into a nursing home and my flat has to be sold to cover the fees? DD will be homeless or have to house share like she did at university 10 years ago!

a) Flat wont be sold until after you pass (which could be decades from now).
b) DC has already had 10 years living rent free to save up for their own place.
c) DC will get at least a £100,000 deposit for a new place.
d) DC could probably get a good mortgage with all that and buy the property.
e) You could sell the flat to your DC now and sort all this out before it happens.

So sounds like DC is well set under this policy.

makeourfuture · 20/05/2017 15:06

It's the £1m houses driving this issue as much as the care question.

GardenGeek · 20/05/2017 15:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

makeourfuture · 20/05/2017 15:10

But a pyramid scheme of human beings I despair at the idea of.

This has perhaps been the model going back to cave man. Are you suggesting a radical new approach.

I think there needs to be one, but it is going to be a damned hard pill.

QuentinSummers · 20/05/2017 15:12

To think a cheap insurance scheme will give every older person a luxurious health and social care in their home forever
Never said it would be cheap. Or luxurious.

I agree with make. By that logic why am I paying for other people's pensions? Why am I paying for other people's benefits? Why am I paying for other people's childcare? Heating? TV? Medical care? In fact why am I paying tax at all?

I am happy paying tax because I want a fair society.
This policy is not about wealthy people. This policy is about home owners. As usual it will be the people who follow the rules and don't play politics who lose the most. You can bet the super rich will have a trust fund/asset management loophole sorted in no time. And they get to fleece us with loads of expensive equity release products. Whoopee doo

JamieXeed74 · 20/05/2017 15:13

A solution to the 'pyramid' scheme is to have anyone needing more than 1 person to care for them should be in a care home where one nurse can look after multiple patients.

or of course make families responsible for their own parents.

makeourfuture · 20/05/2017 15:17

make families responsible

The lash?

JamieXeed74 · 20/05/2017 15:26

This policy is not about wealthy people. This policy is about home owners. Confused ummm They are usually the same thing.

By that logic why am I paying for other people's pensions? Why am I paying for other people's benefits? Why am I paying for other people's childcare? Heating? TV? Medical care? In fact why am I paying tax at all? Because we thought it was the best way to have a fair and functional society. But because of changes in demographics its no longer a working model. Universal everything for everyone doesn't work when the population is age top heavy, the working class is being replaced by robots and the middle class is struggling.

grannytomine · 20/05/2017 17:05

The NHS should be for accidents and emergencies, universal necessary health care within reason. Old age happens to us all and we should provide for ourselves if we have the assets. I dont see what else is sustainable in a world where we could keep living longer and longer. Unless your prepared to accept that after a certain age (maybe 70?) we stop trying to use very expensive medicines to keep people alive.

Well old age happens to most of us but dementia doesn't. Your chances of developing dementia increase with age but it doesn't happen to everyone and it can happen to much younger people.

sleepyowl12 · 20/05/2017 17:06

@JamieXeed74, though I agree people of working age should not have more tax to pay into a social care fund I support a social care tax on everybody's estate. This means all ages ultimately are contributing to it and I don't think it's unrealistic to still advocate a universal scheme which shares risk avoiding nobody having huge costs.

I17neednumbers · 20/05/2017 17:12

"This policy is not about wealthy people. This policy is about home owners. ummm They are usually the same thing."

Well, it is all relative of course, but is a home owner who currently has a house worth £200k and cash savings of say £500, and does not exceed the income threshold, really that wealthy by Uk standards? She will now be brought into paying whereas at the moment she gets free care.

The thing about this policy is that it makes the 'rich but not very rich' worse off - the very rich are unaffected because they already have to pay anyway.

makeourfuture · 20/05/2017 17:18

The thing about this policy is that it makes the 'rich but not very rich' worse off - the very rich are unaffected because they already have to pay anyway.

And not a damned thing for the rest.

caroldecker · 20/05/2017 18:19

Quentin The fairest society (following your argument to its logical conclusion) is that everyone pays 100% tax and gets given what they need.
We, as a country, have chosen to do that with heatlhcare and education to 16. We have not chosen to do that with social care.
There is no real reason that social care should be treated this way and other essentials (heat, water, housing, food) should not.

QuentinSummers · 20/05/2017 18:52

"This policy is not about wealthy people. This policy is about home owners." confused ummm They are usually the same thing.
Don't be disingenuous. There are loads of home owners out there who are not wealthy at all. Lots of people in low paid jobs work hard and scrimp and save to buy. They arent wealthy. This attitude of pitting low to middle earners against each other really bugs me.

HelenaDove · 20/05/2017 21:13

Make families responsible? But we know you mean women.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2017/05/good-daughter

sleepyowl12 · 20/05/2017 21:34

I don't favour even more tax/NI than we have now. It's high enough as it is. I would rather take a risk I am one of those with dementia and suffer later than pay even more tax now.

I think this attitude is perhaps easier to have if one is financially very comfortable as even if care costs become quite high in the last few years of life there still might be quite a lot money left to pass on. For others it could swipe out all their assets. I just would prefer to not have the situation like now where if someone is unfortunate enough to get a bad illness in the last few years of their life and need lots of care they then lose the vast majority of their estate on top. Sharing the risk across the population still is the option I would prefer.

toconclude · 20/05/2017 21:51

akaWisey

It's simply not true that those who have paid NI have 'already paid for their care'. From the start of the Welfare State, so that people got benefits at once, before contributions had begun to build up, we have been paying for care and health spending from general taxation, government borrowing and reliance on future generations' future contributions.
We really need to quash this "I've paid in all my life.." thing. It wouldn't even touch the sides when the cost of care comes in anyway. Same for the bs people spout about "oh, let's not pay any foreign aid and pay for the elderly instead", Social care is really, really expensive.

/social care professional

toconclude · 20/05/2017 21:52

NI is more of a Welfare State joining fee really

toconclude · 20/05/2017 21:56

Also, almost no-one gets "free care" [short term enablement and NHS continuing health care excepted) now. Social care is chargeable, meaning a contribution is due from your income if home care/short stay/direct payment and you are below the savings threshold and all assets if residential. Has been for many, many years.

I17neednumbers · 20/05/2017 22:03

toconclude i thought there was an income threshold already - odd that people don't mention it much.

So how much money is this policy even going to save?

caroldecker · 21/05/2017 00:13

Th savings will come from people who brought houses (mainly in London and the South) cheaply but do not earn a lot/have a big retirement income.
It will not affect the people who have care in any way, only reduce the inheritance they leave.
The losers are people looking for an unearned house inflation related inheritance.

caroldecker · 21/05/2017 00:14

There are gainers in those whose parents are in care homes as well,