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.

Another way of thinking about is all these people who were socially mobile might end up slipping back as a result of this. Those wealthy enough to pay for care or hide care stay wealthy. It's those in the aspiring lower middle class who have that dream shattered. You might say it's a reversal of the last generation.

I think Red that it is an acknowledgement that care will have to be funded somehow, and this is the start of a way to find how to do that equitably, given current levels of longevity.

It's fine expecting 'cradle to grave' care, where life expectancy was shorter, but not now. My maternal grandparents were both dead by the time I was 13 in 1979; Gran at 76, Gramps at 78. My Mum turns 77 this year, has three adult grandsons (or so they claim), and will be in uncharted territory for her, as she will beat the age at which her parents died by some margin I hope.

When fil went into care, it was funded by a combination of income and savings. He died after about three months, as he was terminally ill anyway. Mil is currently trying to hide her half of the house (tenancy was split in their wills and fil's half left to dh and his siblings well before fil needed care, and their half in trust) to avoid care fees as she may need it sooner rather than later of family reports are to be be believed (we are NC).. We are not signing anything. If she can't see it's better to pay for good care as opposed to whatever the council will provide, it just confirms she is batshit.

Rapidly swelling numbers of elderly dependant people
Decreasing birth rates, few people willing to do care work
It's all new for humanity, who knows what will happen
Hopefully the robots will look after grandma for us

Mil is currently trying to hide her half of the house
Is she covering it in branches, growing some large trees in front, or painting it to match the surroundings
😆

No Peace she's trying to hide it via an asset trust to avoid care fees, as was her stated intention some time ago. We are not playing.

Several people in this thread have asked how the manifesto proposals compare with how care funding works currently so here are my thoughts (I work in this area):

The capital floor is actually increasing, from £23,250 to £100,000, so those in residential care would actually be much better off! And by definition, those in residential care tend to be the most unwell and vulnerable. Certainly, all of my clients with mid to advanced level dementia are in care home environments as they need proper 24 hour care with specialist nursing staff, due to the risk of wandering, neglect or injuring themselves/others.

As it stands, those in nursing/care homes are expected to self-fund and eat through virtually all of their capital (down to £23,250) and all of their income in order to fund their care. Once their assets reach £23,250 the local authority may then make a contribution towards their care costs (although this won't necessarily cover all of the shortfall). As such the so-called 'dementia tax' is already in full force and has been for years.

The biggest difference in the Conservative manifesto is that the means test for non-residential, at-home care would now include property; previously the property had been excluded, irrespective of whether it was worth £100,000 or £1m. What this meant was that people sitting in £1m houses with minimal savings (usually after having gifted away capital to family and/or trusts ahead of time) were getting their at-home care paid for by the Local Authority. Essentially the Conservatives are proposing to even the playing field between those receiving at-home care and those in residential care - I've always felt that the huge discrepancy in how the means test is applied is rather unfair on those with with the highest level of needs.

Also, the concept of rolling up the cost of care against a property & this being repayable on death is NOT new - councils already offer Deferred Payment Agreements along similar lines for those who are in residential care but don't want to sell their property.

In any case, those with a primary healthcare need can apply for fully funded NHS care via NHS Continuing Healthcare, which is NOT means tested. So those who are most unwell should be exempt from a means test anyway, irrespective of the location in which their care is provided.

To be fair, the Conservatives have done a really poor job of explaining the changes so I'm not surprised that the press is being hysterical about it.

To be fair, the Conservatives have done a really poor job of explaining the changes so I'm not surprised that the press is being hysterical about it.

It is very complicated and complex.

So if you have an accountant and a solicitor you perhaps make out OK. It makes planning very difficult doesn't it?

I have to say I feel differently on that front - the proposals will in theory make it less complicated as there won't be two different means tests running alongside each other, as currently.

Not to say I'm in agreement with all of the proposals, not by any means, but I do agree that the system needs simplifying.

I cannot understand all those writing to the press saying they will give their money away rather than fund their own care. Why, when you have slaved hard all your life to have a nice home and a nice life would you want to have a lower standard when you are at your most vulnerable?

To me it is like saying, I will have my holidays in an old tent in a muddy field, with no facilities rather than stay in a hotel. That way my children can have more money and nice holidays.

I agree uncomfortablebadger, it seems much, much more straightforward and simplified to me - and an equal playing field for at home vs residential care.
Also a lot of the most vulnerable (care homes) will be better off (higher ring-fenced amount).
It really has been represented and explained spectacularly badly.

Also agree with Astrantia, the holiday in a tent analogy is spot on.

Suspect property owners' confidence in their wealth will be a lot shakier once property starts diving in value. Will Hutton in the Guardian is predicting that "June 2017 will be when house prices reached real time highs not to be equalled for decades". The issue is not tackling the toxic property market (which is applauded) but the attitude to social care. Instead of implementing social insurance - where we all share the burden of all age and acknowledge that some are simply luckier than others in avoiding Alzheimers or other long term health issues - in May's universe, he says, "all luck is deserved and social insurance is only another way of raising taxes." So many reasons for not voting Tory but surely this is the clearest.

The group hardest hit will not just be dementia patients but young people with chronic care needs who do not meet the very high threshold for NHS continuing care. If there is no saving advantage to keeping chronically sick people at home with social care input compared to going into a residential placement then maybe some families will coerce the disabled/chronically sick person to enter a care home. Think what your home means to you, it's not just bricks and mortar or an investment to leave your kids but it is much much more than that.

We all know that we will get old and probably infirm in later life, most of us are willing to pay from our income and savings for the care we need at home . However to put the additional stress of utilising the home as an asset to pay for care at home when you have suddenly become disabled at a much younger age through accident, war, crime, unproven medical negligence or just bad luck is an additional burden for someone to bear when they have lost the ability to provide for their family.

Well, so many questions have been raised - just here - in the last day.

It seems simple on the surface....but extremely convoluted and complex upon examination.

Baffling realy.

Pretty sure we will have euthanasia by the time I'm elderly, 40 or so years from now

“Tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society” said May in her election campaign for leader, but there seem to be very many definitions of a 'civilised society' in Toryland. Cuts to social care affect the neediest, but worst of all, are simply inefficient.

Continuing health care is extremely difficult to get. My mother lost it on two points, doubly inconitent, but can empty her own bowels into a pad, and on behaviour, Unchallenging.
The fact that she can't do anything without assistance, almost immobile (feed herself with a spoon, with her one mobile hand) can't talk, no capacity.
The battle between the NHS and LA needs sorting.
My mother is self funding, as her needs are classed as social care.

I hope it makes people plan for their old age which ime they certainly aren't now.
You could rent out a room and use the rent to pay towards a carer.
You could allow a carer to live in a room rent free in return for care.
You could downsize so that there is only a couple of hundred thousand in your home and share out dosh to DCs.
You could sell up live with a rellie and share all the money out long before you need care.
You could pay a family member to care for you.
You could rent out your home to pay for care home fees.

None of my now deceased elderly rellies made any plans so a great deal of savings went on care home fees.
I am planning to share my money out to my DCs long before I need care (hopefully) then live downstairs in my home whilst the carer/s live rent free upstairs. (I'll keep a decent sum to pay their wages but the rest can go).

I am planning to share my money out to my DCs long before I need care (hopefully) then live downstairs in my home whilst the carer/s live rent free upstairs. (I'll keep a decent sum to pay their wages but the rest can go)
Sounds like a reasonable plan and I applaud the sentiments behind it, however we none of us know how long we will require care and so there is no way of knowing what would constitute 'a decent sum to pay their wages'
It's not in your interest to give your savings to your children (unless you are very wealthy) you might need the money yourself

Will there be enough live in carers to go round?
It's not a job many people will want to do

scary, thanks for the link to that law firm page on current deprivation of assets. It sounds a bit unclear -that if there is no intention of deprivation of assets eg a parent just choosing to fund university or the fact I paid school fees over 30 years ago for my oldest child or indeed contributed to the cost of my own parents' care (!) had I done then you would be okay. The bigger issue is likely to occure (if we ever need to go into a home or have care - plenty of people don't) is likely to come when people give a house to a child for inheritance tax reasons, pay the child rent ( so no IHT due on it) but then need care. If you think there is a good chance you will need care you would be better off selling the house years before, living a rented place perhaps paid for by your child. That might be also because you want to move to live by the sea. There are lots of reasons people in their 50s and 60s sell a house (and some of us me included have sold a house at a loss - we sold our last house in London in the 90s at a loss - so in a sense that is not deprivation of assets it is reducing losses so increasing assets by not holding capital in property which is reducing in value).

Anyway even 30 years ago this area was a nightmare to know the rules on - I remember with a relative on the other side of the family - their bunglalow was sold and later they needed care and I think in the end the local council decide there had been on deprivation of assets. That was similar rules at least 30 years ago so none of this is particularly new at all except the sum seems to be increasing to £100k that you can keep.

it is quite hard for the left to criticise these very socialist policies of May. The other one is free school meals - being retained for the less well off and in addition they also get a free school b reakfast - so they get more not less than now.

Vote Conservative next month.

You should also be aware that there is no limit to how far back an LA can look, in terms of deciding whether you have deliberately deprived yourself of assets in an attempt to avoid paying for care. It's been tested in court - and whilst there haven't been many cases so far, you can bet that they will increase as the strain on council budgets and the NHS increases. There simply is not enough money currently to pay for quality care for the number of people who are living for years and years with chronic health issues.

Sorry not read the whole thread so this might have been mentioned.

Due to our broken housing market, more and more people are facing up the fact that they'll never buy a house, and will just rent for the rest of their lives. All very well proposing that equity release schemes can pay for elderly care for home owners NOW but there may come a time when the only people who have any equity are landlords. The problem of getting a deposit together to buy a house will only get worse if people can no longer rely on an inheritance coming their way in order to do so.

I think we need to be looking countries where the majority of the population rent all their lives and seeing how THEY look after their elderly. Because the way things are going we can kiss goodbye to home ownership for the majority.

Are we going to end up in a situation where multiple generations live together with granny getting shoved a meal a couple of times a day because no-one can pay for her care. There is fat chance of an adult in a household being able to stay at home to look after her anyway, because the rent needs paying and renting costs more than a mortgage.

I think we can look forward to the scenario where we're all squashed into a little house - granny, mum and dad in their 60s and both still working, and 20 somethings on zero hours contracts/part time minimum wage, who can't afford their own place and who are stuck in their parents' house caring for granny.

We need to fix our housing system, and quickly.

Gloria some of your suggestions may work if the sort of care you need is just someone to do a bit of shopping, cleaning and monitoring your medicines, maybe take you to the odd medical appointment. I think you are underestimating how much social care a lot of people need. A family member gets Carers Allowance only after doing 35 hours caring a week and for some it can be more like 100 hours a week all for £62. If you employ someone privately to do that you must pay them the minimum wage and give them holiday pay, sick pay etc and give them time off during the week. This will not be covered by renting a room out which round here is approx £100 a week bills included. Having someone living in your home when you are vulnerable is a risk for you. If you have a live in paid Carer and need help during the night your wage bill will escalate even further. Renting out many homes will not cover the high costs of residential care which is why the homes have to be sold.
Maybe a cheaper way all round avoiding the high cost of domicilary care agency fees and the pitfalls of demotivated staff on zero hours contract is for the state to pay family Carers at least the minimum wage??
There would be less bed blocking, less admissions to hospital, family Carers could get an occupational pension, the family finances of the Carer would not take a massive hit and the person who is unable to look after themselves can stay at home for as long as possible.

Question for those saying the need for social care is a lottery, so the costs should be shared.
How much of the recent house value increase was a lottery based on where and when you purchased, or ability to get BTL loans. Should that unearned wealth that was only by luck be shared?
What about the family you were born into or the education you got - was that wholly earned or a lottery.
What about being able to work all your life rather than take time out for illness?
There appears to be an attitude that you fully deserve your wealth but illness/care is a lottery. So keep the wealth, but make others pay a share of the costs.

In Italy they have a system of "badante". People pay for a lady (usually Ukranian) to come and look after them in their own home. You see them walking round with their elderly charge, and on Sundays all the badante congregate in the town. The Ukranian ladies are all middle aged and are commonly working to send money home to pay university fees for their children.

This works in Italy because they have identity cards, and the work permits are given for someone to work in one particular setting. In the UK this wouldn't currently work because without ID linking them to a location and employment setting a worker could up sticks and disappear.