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.

The losers are people looking for an unearned house inflation related inheritance.

YY

And by the size and volume of the backlash, it appears that all these 'left-leaning, I'd happily pay more tax to help the needy' types are not so benevolent after all.

Once their property/inheritance wealth is threatened they're as selfish as the 'nasty Tories' that they bang on about.

Very socialist of the Tories just the same. It evens out. I am amazed.

I'm not sure it's particularly 'socialist'. The money isn't being taken away from the wealthy to give to the poor. The policy will simply ensure that people's wealth goes not to their families, but to a different set of elite recipients (equity companies, large profit-making social care companies, etc.). It's not socialist, it's 100% capitalist.

But I guess if your wish is to make everyone poorer except for a few wealthy (and possibly overseas) shareholders, then it's a great idea. A genuine race to the bottom for us all.

And of course, without large inheritances to help them buy expensive houses, over the years more and more people won't reach so far over the threshold and so the government's liability will increase.

@OwlOfBrown

What is the current situation regarding funding for care?

I don't know which is better, but it was always there for those who had the funds, at least now they will have a minimum to leave behind.

No one should rely or depend on an inheritance anyway.

Call me cynical but I suspect this policy is a way of making people delay asking for help with social care, especially in the earliest stages as they would now start chipping away at their estates for costs of care in their own home. Delaying care will of course only cause greater problems in the long run when people will have to reach a severe crisis point e.g. being hospitalised before even accepting care and the subsequent costs. It's scary.

Due to the housing crisis people do now rely on inheritance to pay for a place to live. Or they could rent all their lives and get free social care when the time comes. Except how do they ever retire with private rent to pay?

FGS if the money is there it should be spent to help your family member surely.

Unless someone wants their inheritance to be untouched and intact.

And maybe the ill person cannot dictate what they actually want.

Sad to me anyway.. But what do I know.

Due to the housing crisis people do now rely on inheritance to pay for a place to live.

Yes - middle & upper income earners are able to leave their offspring an inheritance as a leg up.

Their children will still be able to get their inheritance - it will be a minimum of £100k.

I'm shocked at the amount of people that apparently live their lives waiting for relatives to die tbh.

This is sad, but just goes to show that the care of old people is a problem for nearly everyone, not just the old. I mean we all have someone we care about who is getting on in life or are getting on ourselves.

That's the thing about having a good welfare system, it is reassuring for all of us.

That's the thing about having a good welfare system, it is reassuring for all of us

Hear hear!

So that's the end of the end of the Bank of Mum and Dad then???
In the same way that the council can go back years and years to recover assets given away to avoid care home fees there will be a similar system to do the same to recover assets given away to avoid social care fees?
I think Dilnot should have been implemented. A cap is fairer.
The proposed new system is a tax on dementia and long term neurological conditions and it does not just affect the elderly . As pointed out by previous posters it is not just the elderly who use social care services to support them to live at home in dignity. If you are in your thirties and forties and have a motorbike /car accident or develope a condition which means you are unable to work and need help to manage daily life such as washing yourself and taking medicines etc then you will be affected also by this new proposal. The year off unpaid care leave for a family member will not solve your care issues.
I predict a rise in informal unregulated home care with some of the risks that brings as people try to avoid the £20 an hour (that care agencies charge .
I also think extended families will put even more pressure on female family members to give up their careers and take on the role of being a carer

In the case mentioned of a younger person, such as my friend in her 40s with MS. She gets PIP /ESA and then can use this money and also a friend or relative claims carer's allowance. The first two benefits are not means tested. Carer's is. I take it these things will continue?

Lovely I think you underestimate how much care costs and how little the PIP care component will pay for. If someone needs a carer to keep them safe and watch over them just for the 12 hour day shift a care agency will charge something in the region of £20 an hour(the worker will get approx £8) for a 12 hour day shift that is £240 just for a day. The night shift will cost more. IF someone has high care needs but does notreach the threshold of NHS continuing care (as is the case for many people with dementia) then any money in the home will soon go. What then? when you have quickly reached the baseline, ...a shift into a shitty profit driven care home funded by the local authority for your last years?
I am starting to believe that the hidden policy objective here is for the women of the family to give up their careers , take a financial hit on Carers allowance and their own future pensions and move back and
look after sick relatives

when you buy a house you pay a mortgage so you are not just paying the asking price of a house, you probably pay twice the price at least.

There may be some pensioners living in council accommodation renting who had good jobs and have managed to accumulate savings or invest money, presumably they are hit too.

I agree about the companies making the profit cleaning up. It's not helping anyone else.

The government needs to enable the younger generation to have affordable housing whether to rent or buy to enable them to have a family. In our case we don't need an inheritance for us but our dc do. We cannot afford to give all 3 1000s for a house deposit itms.

Antiotia yes that would tie in with the recent Tory policy about giving a year's unpaid leave to family members to care for a relative. Nt sure how they are meant to afford this though,

woodhill, it will be interesting to see which assets they apply it to. I have neighrbours with a lot of gold for example, some have £100k cars.

Antiopa, I don't agree it will stop parents helping children with properties - quite the converse. If you give your money to your children then you ensure later you ge state care (if you trust that the rules won't change over 30 years). I just did that to mine. Hopefully as I'll die in 30 years they won't have inheritance tax to pay on it nor will it affect these care rules under the old system or the proposed new one.

(I am unusual however in that I also have additional equity in my house and will probably work at a fairly high incomie for most of those 30 years as I work for myself and am happy to work until death as it mostly just involves typing).

Janet currently if you give money to your children or sign over your house or part of this can be seen as "deprivation of assets" in terms of assessment for care home fees. If now under this new policy of paying for care given in your own home your house will be now taken into account and I can see that the same principles on deprivation of assets will apply. Otherwise some home owners who once they become chronically sick or have untreatable or terminal cancer will take steps to avoid paying long term fees for care in their own home. It will be unworkable if everyone can deprive themselves of assets to avoid paying social care fees

But it depends on the time. Eg I gave my children money recently. There is no way in 30 years time thta can be seen as deprivation of benefit. today mumsnetters will pay for their chidlren's food and university costs. That is not deprivation of benefit.

I absolutely agree that if you give your assets away and next week want a care home place the local authority will look into that and are likely to deny you care.

We did on MN recently look at what is the time period under current law for "deprivation of assets" and there seems to be no legislative rule which is not helpful for people. If I pay my twins' costs at university over 3 years (I am about to and it will be £150,000) is that going to be deprivation of assets if I get early onset dementia in my 60s for example?

if I sell up the house next year and travel round the world on some of the proceeds and give the rest to the children (I won't) and then in 10 years need local authority care would that be deprivation of assets? I divorced their father and gave him a lot of money -presumably divorce would not be so although the principles in bankruptcy law sometimes have a similar effect - that if you give your wife a massive divorce settlement of 80% - 100% of assets when you are about to be made bankrupt that can be taken back for creditors.

We certainly need much clearer rules.

Inheritance tax (not this lady's issue as estate is under the limit) is another topic again - we know the rules a bit better there - that if you pay a market rent and live in the house you gave to the children you are not caught.

Another possibility for older people might be equity release schemes which they DO often lawfully use for things like house repairs, even just to fund their food and perhaps help an adult child get a deposit on a house. Then if that were not done in contemplation of later care home needs you could draw out all the equity down to £100k - give the £150k to the grandchildren, live in the house still, need care in 5 years time - would that be caught by the new rules - perhaps not and if it is if you had drawn out £150k to spend on cocaine, a funeral package and new windows?

people's wealth goes not to their families, but to a different set of elite recipients (equity companies, large profit-making social care companies, etc.). It's not socialist, it's 100% capitalist.

Well this housing crisis - you know these equity types have been drooling like a pack of hyenas on the fringe of a antelope herd. They have found their way in.

Say you use an equity release and take most of the equity from your house....spend it on holidays generally having a good time, shortly afterwards you are in need of care, will that be considered deprivation of assets?
The money can't be recovered so will you just be left to rot in your expensive house which is now owned by the equity release company?

It's about taking cost away from the state by encouraging people women to care for family members more. It's about creating a profitable business model where interest will be part of the loan equation. This ultimately makes it more expensive for society as a whole. The lottery of it, makes it hard for people to plan for their future, or their children or grandchildren's future. There is a very conservative (small c) idea that you do try and help other generations and this is an achievement. Instead some people will be hit where others aren't. Getting Dementia will be 'failing in life's and will make a difficult diagnosis even harder to cope with. It increases the gap between free care and paid care and for some this disincentivises a long term plan for their care.

If you've got assets of £600,000 then have you wasted your life working hard when you could have assets of £200,000 and have the same outcome? When your neighbour might never face the same thing. Pooling the risk means that everyone with £600,000 assets has the same hit. It means that there is a reason to try and aim to get £600,000 in assets.

In some ways this system is better than current one, but worse than the one that was proposed and supposed to be coming in. It doesn't address the underlying problems of the lack of carers and bed blocking.

It's created a lot of anxiety because of the pressure it will create between generations. People are suggesting this is about greed. I beg to differ in that it's about undermining the goal in life lots of people have, it makes them fear more they might become a burden and you have people who are younger who had planned in a particular way now for their own future wondering how they will juggle kids, parents and perhaps grandparents and other relatives as well as their own care needs. The lottery aspect of it makes it even harder to do responsible planning. It undermines people's security.

In order to ensure that, there needs to be certain 'knowns' which is why spreading the cost makes more sense. It allows people to plan calmly rather than planning out of pure fear and uncertainty to 'hide' or 'lock up' their assets and security for subsequent generations in a different way.

Saying that people shouldn't rely on inheritance rather misses the point that there is a desire to look after your own that won't go away here. And also a fear that you won't be able to look after yourself never mind your kids if you are now middle aged. Maybe this is something that they have taken for granted but these are people who perhaps have been brought up with that expectation. They now find themselves wondering if they will 'fail' against that expectation because the plans they had in progress have been dealt a huge blow and they don't believe they will be able to fill in that short fall in the time they have before reaching retirement themselves. They will not 'achieve' the ambition of previous generations.

The policy isn't just about finances but also about cultural attitudes and beliefs and how this might shatter those and redefine people as 'successes' or 'failures' against how they were brought up to provide for other generations.

It's not just about money, though people will characterise it as such.

drooling like hyenas...

yes and they are picking off the weak and vulnerable first, the chronically sick, and the disabled .

www.aprilking.co.uk/2017/01/30/deprivation-of-assets-guide/ is enlightening on deprivation of assets, so Janet we could be stung for paying for uni fees!