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.

It really seems like the country has a severe case of head in sand. There was no cap before on care home fees and people had to sell their homes to pay and the most they could keep was 23,000 or thereabouts.

Now everyone has their knickers in a twist because they might have to pay with no cap when there wasn't one before!?. Yes, it will include more people as it includes home care, but no one knows beforehand which they will need or whether both? So why all the hysterics? If anything the increase to 100,000 of remaining money is a big improvement.
I think the Tory move has just forced everyone to face their possibly less than happy old age.

I doubt if 72,000 is enough. Residents were celebrating their 100th birthdays when my DM was in a home so could have had decades of care.
100,000 is more sensible but probably still too low.
Two years of care would be about 68,000 by present costs.

No CGT if it is considered in his estate at death, which it will be as it was a transfer with reservation of benefit.

I agree GloriaV, unfortunately the blatant twisting & scaremongering that went on completely obfuscated the actual policy.

She had no choice really but to add the promised cap, as there was a load of grannies being told 'The Tories are Taking Your House!' everywhere they looked.

There's a risk that this could cost them the election, so they caved (sensibly).

I find it ironic that loads of 'left-leaning' types have been up in arms about wealthy people having to contribute to their own care tbh.
Does that mean 'I'd willingly pay more tax' was just blatant virtue signalling after all?
Safe in the knowledge that their accountant had tied up any prospective increases in their tax bill in a pretty (legal) avoidant bow?

Care in the home or in a care home should be fully funded. Even if that means paying more national insurance. If we have to pay more then I would like this additional payment to be seperate such that it is properly ring fenced. The proposed policy will mean people who really need care will put this off for as long gone as possible so to leave as much as possible to their children whilst concealing illnesses. Furthermore this policy discriminates against those who work to purchase a house. Those that don't save or buy a house out of choice are immune to this policy. It makes me angry that we spend our lives paying in to the welfare state and then we are told we are not covered and must pay, if the cupboard is bare then increase the contribution! Why do I suspect that several private companies are going to make a fortune out of us?

I might have bought my house originally cheaper, but we have paid well over the actual asking price with a mortgage of 30 plus years, we downsized had a little money which was meant to be our pension I gave my notie to retire DH came home 5 days later told me his company had liquidated, no job no money no pay for that month either, I had to stay at work for the next 4 years doing almost 100 mile round trip, he meantime applied for over 50 jobs was out of work a year. We had downsized moved to a cheaper area, so property not worth a huge amount. I used to pay for private insurance/medical treatment myself.Herehere,eningeersthumb, we went without a lot to afford a modest house, and yes we live in the SE

People who rent have paid more than mortgage holders over a lifetime. It has also provided you with a home.
Why people think a leveraged investment which provides an unearned income is equivalent to working hard for money I do not know.
Basically anyone who opposes this policy is lying if they have ever said they would pay more tax for better services.

Basically anyone who opposes this policy is lying if they have ever said they would pay more tax for better services.

YY.

It really seems like the country has a severe case of head in sand. There was no cap before on care home fees and people had to sell their homes to pay and the most they could keep was 23,000 or thereabouts.

No, my issue was that we were changing from one rubbish system to another rubbish system, and ignoring the Dilnot Commission's recommendations to set a cap. Some people did seem to jump to the conclusion that criticism of last week's policy automatically suggested a preference for the previous one. Not so.

Basically anyone who opposes this policy is lying if they have ever said they would pay more tax for better services.

Also not true. I'm happy to pay more tax for better services but believe that the burden should be shared across the population, not just borne by those requiring the help.

I think that I was very clear that additional costs should be collected through national insurance means but ring fenced /seperate. Have people who rent paid really paid more? Ownership include the cost of maintenance and the general cost of money. Why should someone who has rented pay disproportionately less for care through old age than a person who bought a property? Also why don't I sell my home when I retire spend the money travelling the world and then get the state to pay my care bills? It doesn't reward saving does it?

I'm not lying. But I'm at genetic risk of developing a horrible neurological disease which will take up to 25 years to slowly kill me, so I am somewhat biased. On top of that I won't be able to leave a roof over my sons head for him, and because of the genetic risk he will never get a mortgage. Oh well, there's always dignitas

Owl So the burden of your healthcare is shared, but your estate goes to your children? if I contribute to your care, why do I not get a share of your inheritance?

"So the burden of your healthcare is shared, but your estate goes to your children? if I contribute to your care, why do I not get a share of your inheritance?"

All I know is that I am glad to be healthy and when I need healthcare, I will be the one suffering the burden.

Carol
We pay into the welfare state all our lives with the expectation that it will provide cradle to grave care. We all pay, we all take, if the system needs more funding let's pay more in through life. Why should someone who saves pay disproportionately more than someone who spends carelessly or is lucky enough to qualify for social housing?

Engineers, the issue is that, as a group, the current generation of "old people" did not pay enough into the welfare state during their working lives (because they were paying for the previous generation, who did not live as long and need as much care). So the burden of paying for them is too high for the current generation of workers, and meanwhile they have been able to save up more. It's an issue of inter-generational fairness.

the burden should be shared across the population, not just borne by those requiring the help

It's not being shared across the population now. Many pay no tax. Many pay no Care Home Fees - a few subsidise the many.
It seems no one bothered to think this through in the past to realise they may have all their money except 23,000 go on Care HOme fees.

In all this complaining and worry it looks like the population is wanting this unfair scenario to continue, the young being expected to subsidise the elderly with their taxes. However their taxes are not enough. So this is a solution. But everyone seems to want to keep it as it is as no other party has come up with anything. And they are being allowed to get away with not coming up with anything, let's hear how they are solving this major funding problem.

This is not a young vs old dilemma! We are being set up to be taken for a ride by large private organisations. If there is not enough money in the pot then put up contributions for all. Bring care back into public provision so the money doesn't leak out via shareholder dividends. It's terribly unfare to only place the bill on those that have been prudent through their lives. It poses a much wider question of how we view the elderly. Some comments suggest that they have ripped us off, forgetting that they worked, paid in, raised children and contributed to the country based on an understanding that care would be provided now you want to take what they managed to amass over a lifetime.... who is being ripped off?

I think the burden should be shared. What's annoying about this, is that it's been sprung on people. I agree too that it will just be equity release firms making a killing, and that sooner or later there will be a mis-selling scandal surrounding them.

The Govt. could do other things e.g. not exempt anyone from NIC, or not have an upper limit on which they are payable. Or if there was a state sponsored non-profit making insurance scheme, it might work. As always, we need a proper debate. Theresa May thinking up policy on the back of an envelope isn't debate.

At a wider level, I believe it is a young vs old dilemma.

You're focusing on two old people who have behaved differently during their lives and are being treated unfairly because of it.

But if you ignore these two hypothetical individuals and look at groups of people, the bigger picture is that the current generation of workers simply can't afford to pick up the bill for the current generation of old people.

If you stayed in an hotel, you would expect to pay for the room, and any food and drink consumed. Your room rate would cover cleaners,admin, laundry, building maintenance, utilities etc. If you were living at home you would have similar costs. Therefore, why, if you go into a care home for whatever reason, should you not pay those costs?

Most of us have always expected to pay for our old age care. People have for decades in the UK. I am surprised anyone is surpsied by this at all. Only the very badly off have not been paying for care home for decades and most who can afford it pay for their daily carers already as it is.

Anyway May has said she will put a cap on the amount even those rich enough to have £100k of equity in their house will pay plus in some ways the proposal was more generous than the current law so I really don't see the problem. In a sense I agree with the left on this - we meet round the back in a circle somehow - I think on the whole people should try to provide for themselves.

I don't agree that those of us with equity in the house have had massive gains from house prices rises by the way in all cases, not at all. Every penny of equity in my house has come out of income taxed at 40%+. Secondly we sold our last house at a loss. Also in many parts of the country houses are not going up in value. The idea everyone in a house has just been handed masses of cash is incorrect although some people have had equity gains which exceed inflation gains.

We need to go in for a heavier inheritance tax - that way all old people of means get hit regardless of whether they get ill or not. The transfer between those who have benefitted from a crazy housing market and therefore hold quite impressive assets to those who cannot access it it now and yet they have to work and are taxed to support the old needs to happen.

If you stayed in an hotel, you would expect to pay for the room, and any food and drink consumed.

If you thought you had paid in advance and then were suddenly presented with a bill, you would thing you had been swindled. People have paid their taxes and NICs, sometimes for decades, so they feel they have paid in advance. Hence the annoyance.

Anyway May has said she will put a cap on the amount

It's not in the manifesto and only last week the Tories were saying that a cap was unfair. Now that has all changed, when either May has been shamed into it, or has realised what a vote loser it is.

Weak and wobbly indeed.