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.

This is not a young vs old dilemma! We are being set up to be taken for a ride by large private organisations

Exactly.

I do understand that if you are having your care paid for you don't get your old age pension. What about an occupational pension? You might have £23K of savings left, but what if you're collecting a £20K pension every year?

Peregrina My taxes have funded education, defence, HMRC, the FCO, the Civil Service, the Police, UKBA etc. My NICs were supposed to build up an entitlement to a pension, but even as a teenager in the 80s, I had worked out that unless NI was ringfenced and invested, this was a ponzi scheme.

Paying for care has been going on for decades, and I was a care assistant in the 80s before I did my degree, (and worked as a Nursing Auxiliary on the psycho geriatric ward of one of the old mental hospitals post A levels). If people bury their head in the sand about the need to pay for care, then they will get a shock imo.

At the very least they should be expecting to contribute to their food and accommodation if in care. True, the charge should be more reasonable, but something should be paid.

The cap will help create the insurance market (so there's a risk max) but also wonder about the amount now being enough. The IHT implications have not been announced...could easily be an extra social care tax. You pay for your old age care AND you make a contribution to others. And won't there will be a BREXIT tax? Would have much preferred Miliband's death tax. And this does not address the social care structure or funding. Still going to worry many oldies.

Lady, unless you are entirely self funded the council will make a full investigation of your finances. They will want to see bank statements, etc. With very good reason they will not just take your word for what you have.

Lady You could use your occupational pension to defray costs. If mil needs care, then we reckon she has income of about £25k, plus savings. That would defray a large part of her care costs, with the rest being taken once the house was sold.

CarolDecker

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?

I don't have any genetic illnesses, I don't have cancer, I don't have any other long-term or life-limiting diseases (at present). Yet I am happy to share the burden, through taxation, of other people's healthcare costs when they need it. Why should my own healthcare needs be different?

As I said, I'm happy to pay more in the way of tax to fund this, thus reducing my income and therefore any inheritance I may be able to leave to my children. I'm happy to do that, even though I may not need care later on, because I believe in sharing the burden. I could take a risk and hope that I don't need care and keep all my money myself, leaving you to pay the full whack of your care costs with no help from me. It's probably not even that much of a risk as I'm a healthy 50 year old, with healthy 80 year old parents, and no history of dementia or serious or life-limiting illness in my family.

May's policy doesn't acknowledge the structural problems in social care or future financing of it. Maybe Dilnot's cap did that but the 100k floor seems a bit of a random figure. It won't affect those who pay for their care privately already (which already happens and where there are also quality and availability considerations). It will immediately affect those who own a house but have limited income and suspect there are millions of those because how many houses are under 100k? I'm not saying that equity should not be taken into account - I think it should - but rather that this is a rushed and ill-thought out policy where May is simply stating her principles in the manifesto, not her costings, because she is expectant of a thumping majority. She's gone rogue with this policy without consultation - is that a good indicator for Brexit? She's been surprised at the doorstep reaction (out of touch with RL), and she's flip flopped: acknowledged Dilnot, comprehensively rejected Dilnot, ok, back to Dilnot again. She's tried to pretend that the green paper was in the manifesto all along and her shaky defensiveness was weak and wobbly. There are no costings in the manifesto. Enough already. Totally agree with Owl. It's a natural urge to want to leave money to your children but if that comes from equity in a house that happened to be bought at the right time while contributing to a property market that has squeezed out younger generations, that's more luck than fairness. The burden (and the luck) should be shared.

I think the big problem now is that May has mentioned the concept of a cap, but without any detail on what the cap could be. Obviously there are a wide range of possibilities and it's pretty difficult to make a call on this before she announces exact figures! I think that must mean it's likely to be high!

Hmm, maybe. I just read it will not disclosed until after the election.

I suppose overall, the good thing about all of this is that it has brought the current situation into focus, and hopefully it should mean in improvement on that in future- if they get is sorted out. I mean the current situation of 23K and selling the house.

At the moment social care is NOT part of the NHS provision. I don't think people realise that at all. For 30 or 40 years old people have paid for their social care. This is not a big change.

janetbrown2015 no social care is free but a local authority can cover the costs of some or all of it which is means tested. If you owned a house, and care was provided at home, it isn't included but it will be in the future.

It's a huge change! Many thousands more will be paying for care and executing the policy for local authorities may be tortuous. Tory claims of a new proper plan to fund and provide social care 'stretches credibility' according to the King's Fund.

My 'raising the floor' to 100k, May has managed to hugely enlarge the pool of people she doesn't have to bother about which is probably a good thing since local authorities are nowhere near able to meet existing needs anyway.

I wonder if the change will alter peoples decisions about care homes. One of my friend's looked after her Great Aunt (carers came in 3 times a week which the GA paid about 1/2 the cost to the LA for) on the basis she would get left GA's flat (as it was not included in means test). The GA would probably need a care home under the new rules. I also know DC who live at home still and have become carers for their Aged P's - they will now be looking at having to move on after their parents death with not enough to buy a flat in their area (SE) and unable to get mortgages - when the money runs down through private renting they will need help and perhaps care themselves.

Re the Tory care proposal, the Reform think tank suggested something very very similar in March...

www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2017/03/under-used-solution-care-funding-problem

I wonder how well known it is that Chancellor Philip Hammond has major stakes in nursing and care homes. This is how he made most of his millions.

If children/relatives are looking after their relatives at home then surely they can 'charge' the parent/relative for this care thus enabling money to be passed directly to family members. I realise this doesn't work where specialist care is needed and it sounds harsh but for some families this could work well.

I also wonder how many families will get caught out where no lasting power of attorney exists and councils seek to push funders into care homes to subsidise those that don't contribute.

upwards - I have been surprised too that the media have not jumped on Hammond's and other senior Tories connections with companies that will be affected by their policies. I think they are being given an very easy ride - is it due to Corbyn hate/bias in the media?

prettybaubles I think there are pitfalls/room for abuse too.

We just aren't given enough detail on what we are voting for - all "broad brush strokes"

Wormulonian they do. But only certain media seem to matter. If Daily Mail readers don't like your policy, it must be chucked, even if it is in your manifesto. Happened with the care cap and also Hammond having to do a U-turn on NICs? As for Brexit..."A parish council wouldn’t get away with that level of unaccountability" according to the Guardian.