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.

I imagine they get their state pension when they reach pensionable age instead but I don't know if that matches their benefit payments.

They can get both. You don't lose PIP once you reach retirement age.

Thanks for answering my questions, sorry I didn't respond last night, I fell asleep.

I agree with whoever said some private companies will be running their hands together as they plan how they can make a lots of money from this. They always do.

I just read an article about the plans by the Editor of Accountancy saying there will be a Green Paper and more details still need to be fleshed out on this. One point she made is as we have stated above and is obviously to anyone if you provide care as a local authority or an outsourced company and the state pays and if not then there is a mortgage over a house with a load of equity in it you could easily bumkp up your care charge per hour which of course could be wonderful for carers who could even get double the current hourly rate but could be a licence to print money for the local authorities and any companies they hire to provide the service. All the better for people to keep in with their families who can do the care or do all they can at my age (50s) so as to be less likely to get sick later or save to pay for care or give your assets away 30 years before you need care as I have started to do. Although things like funding your children at university and with a property when you yourself are 30 years away from needing care and which is clearly not done being you are almkost on death's door I think will be very hard to prove was intentionally done to avoid paying care costs later particularly in cases like mine when I hope to work until I am 75 or 80 anyway (I work for myself).

In care homes those with savings are already subsidising what the council pays for 'their' residents.
Problem is if there are few private payers, and, as is expected of them as it is taxpayers money, the council pay the minimum they can get away with, then the private payers are getting poor care and a poor deal.
So the payers are already being fleeced by a large amount. 10,000 a year extra it says online. Really the council should pay the true rate then fewer of the homes would go out of business.

makeourfuture do you believe that's because the government knows care is underfunded and many crucial services are on the brink of collapse yet state cannot afford to / will not adequately fund the costs, or from a commercial perspective whereby they want companies to become more profitable?

There is a real risk is that costs are increased but services are not improved which I feel would be a betrayal to all.

I agree there is that subsidy although it will depend where you are. In some areas most people have very little money and mostly rent so a lot of people in care homes will be local authority funded. In others I am sure as there are countless care homes where I live (fairly well off bit of SE) there will be care homes which simply take no one funded by the local authority as there is such demand from private payers.

The care does cost a lot. The £130k on my father at home (privately arranged and paid with some of the carers from agencies and some not) was not over priced. 2 people all day and 1 at night. Even if it were £10 an hour which is obviously above the minimum wage is about £147k a year. That is constant day and night care at home. His lawyer said about £100k for at home care was common in the NE so the £130k was not that out of line. Going into a care home is cheaper. Someone I know hired two lovely ladies from Zimbabwe who lived in in the top floor with his aged mother and they and she were very happy on that top bit of the house and I bet that was cheaper. They also sent money home to Zimbabwe.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c5145dd8-3e69-11e7-a09b-a4ae022938a6
Social care crisis threatens to scupper Theresa May’s reforms
Homeowners are denied deferred payments

Theresa May’s plans to overhaul social care could be wrecked by poorly performing local authorities, amid further signs that Labour is closing the gap with the Conservatives.

Research suggested that people in some parts of the country were struggling to exercise their legal right to defer residential care payments until after their death, with some authorities making it difficult or impossible to strike a deal.

Freedom of information responses from 140 councils revealed a disparity in how they offered residents going into care homes the legal right to delay payments, which was introduced in April 2015.

Problem here for May. With the row bubbling up, Tory HQ have to quieten the story. They either stir something else up or they dampen fears.

But this article makes it more difficult. There is currently a legal right to defer. But councils can't accommodate it.

If this angle gets picked up more how does May deal with it? It's difficult for May to admit the role of equity firms politically in the middle of an election.

She can't u turn on the proposal during a campaign centres on her personal strong and stable leadership going into negotiations with the EU.

She is painted into a corner.

Expect the smoke and mirrors distraction method. Tory MP are already quoted in newspapers that May needs to get the debate away from the manifesto and back onto attacking Corbyn and the fear of Corbyn.

Just so you know it when you see it. This is what will happen. That's not the grown up politics that we need. It says something in its own right - strong and stable = attack attack attack to avoid facing up to difficult questions that are politically sensitive. Something that will happen a lot over the EU talks. When May's government goes on the attack in this way it's because they are hiding a weakness.

If it's not policy, it's not politics.

I just read an article about the plans by the Editor of Accountancy saying there will be a Green Paper and more details still need to be fleshed out on this.

Whatever shape the policy takes in the end will never be just a few lines on an election manifesto; the major take-away point from this is that whatever is in the manifesto the HoL (by convention) will not completely overturn.

By including this proposal on care, the Tories have indicated that there will be change, and it may be very unpalatable to some.

If they then get voted in, then there can be no uproar about "you never said you'd do this!" as with the NIC debacle as & when they tackle the social care issue over the course of their parliament.

It may be watered down, it may not - but the broad brush outline is there, and that's what's important.

My parents are in their 80's. About 15 years ago Dad put their house in trust for us to avoid paying care bills and avoid inheritance tax. So he deliberately deprived himself of assets - that's very clear and obvious because he has continued to live in supposedly "our house" without paying rent, the council could easily demand his care costs are paid and they have the law behind them....or the house really does belong to us but we already have a house so will have to pay massive capital gains tax on the house as it has appreciated significantly in 15 years. Haven't shared this with Dad because he likes to think he has pulled a fast one and he paid lots of ££s to get this nonsense set up.

Anyway I'm not a Tory but I do support this approach to dealing with the massive problem.

Lots of people already have ad hoc arrangements for care, both organising and paying it for themselves...we did for years and years...but when we needed professional nursing at home, in the last week, because mum really really wanted to die at home, it came through and was brilliant. Couldn't believe the paperwork and personnel involved and definitions of care plans and assigned budgets, and whether there was a primary health need etc etc etc but the care itself was fantastic. The broad stroke of expecting people to pay for care if they have equity in a house is fair but the deferred finance detail for local authorities and insurance etc needs more support. Maybe this is another the market decides approach from the Tories and who are always the losers there?

With equity release plans to pay for care, how many years down the line will it be before we see another mis-selling scandal?

Peregrina with this one who will be alive / legally competant to dispute it? And will children due to inherit even be considered victims?

It's got its own in built safety net if it applies particularly to dementia patients...

sheepskinshrug it's an offence classed as fraud to try to hide or divert assets for the purpose of avoiding care costs. I would be very cautious what I said and wrote if I were you.

fruitbox it was a perfectly legal thing to do when my dad did it - since then parliament have given councils addition rights to revoke trusts and back dated the law too -he can't be done for fraud, his assets aren't hidden but the council can take him to court to reclaim their costs if they decide it's in their interests.

Christopher Hope @christopherhope

"Dementia tax" will not apply to Welsh pensioners. Left hand page is Welsh Tory Manifesto. Right hand is English one

If this is true...

Seriously?! Has this been confirmed?

I don't know. I saw this JUST as the news of the U-Turn hit. Hopefully this will be followed up, because its today's big story now. I hope if this is true it doesn't get over looked because its just as important as weak and wobbly.

"Welsh conservatives want to protect £100,000 worth of assets for those in residential care" - that's the same as the English policy

Someone I know hired two lovely ladies from Zimbabwe who lived in in the top floor with his aged mother and they and she were very happy on that top bit of the house..

I have seen adverts for this kind of thing locally- lovely area where people from abroad want to come and learn English. For a helper for an elderly person and the board came as part of it. Good idea. Guess would depend on the level of care need though. Would be good for a companion / shopping / cleaning type role.

I wonder if they will add a cap as well. So keep the 100K and also only pay up to 100K...something like that. Or what it was going to be with Dilcot (?) - 85K was it?

Who looks after the old people in Zimbabwe then or do they all helpfully die at a young age to release their careers to come to the UK ?

Kind of smacks of the two tier system in The Help , but I suppose it has its merits.

Not sure how we convince the elderly population that they need foreign carers when the majority of them seem to have voted Brexit to reduce immigration.

It's on the news they are going to have a cap...

Dilnot says new cap on social care costs should not be much more than £72,000

Sir Andrew Dilnot, who chaired the commission that first produced plans for a cap on the amount people should have to pay for social care, has welcomed Theresa May’s U-turn. This is what he said in an interview with Sky News.

Dilnot welcomed the Conservative U-turn, saying it would provide “a great deal of reassurance to people”.
He urged the government not to set the cap much higher than at the £72,000 planned by the David Cameron government. Originally his commission proposed that the level should be set between £25,000 and £50,000 (in 2010 prices), which would be equivalent to a maximum of £65,000 today.
A figure around that would seem reasonable. So I do hope that when the amount is fixed it is not set at a significantly higher level than the £72,000 that was put into legislation by the last government and was in the last Conservative manifesto.

He said the government could afford to set the cap at around £70,000.

What about some of the elderly immigrants, in all honesty have some of them made a full contribution of NI stamps?

Well it's all over the place now.

I don't suppor the change of having a cap but it is certainly a difficult issue.

On the father above if the house is not over inheritance tax level then for IHT he will be fine and secondly he may well never need care so again the transfer works although if prices rise (they may well fall and are in London at the moment) then there will be capital gains tax to pay if but only if the annual CGT allowance has not be used by those inheriting and the gain is less than that allowance so I don't think the father has messed it up. if the house is over the IHT limit all he has to do is pay a rent to the children - he might well make presents to them from time to time which he could change to a regular monthly rent and bob's your uncle - IHT issue is covered.