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 trouble with this policy is that the truly wealthy have the means to get round it.

They will employ accountants to find the loopholes and, in all probability, have the house and funds transferred to themselves in good time. Just like they do now.

'You get cancer it is all paid for, you get dementia you pay if you have money. I don't understand why they are treated differently'

For real?! Cancer will kill you quick most of the time, particularly once you exhaust treatment options or decide on no more treatment. You don't usually wind up in a nursing home requiring 24hour care for years if you develop cancer, some of them, common ones, too (leukaemia, for example) will carry you off in weeks with no chemo. You can't see the difference?

Not BOTHERED to save for a house ? Like everyone has the same opportunities in life ! Try being on a low wage and married .. Oh we had a house then of our own . Then get divorced and end up in private rental as no social housing . Save up for a house was the LEAST of my concerns .
I'm not thinking about people who would have saved if they could have afforded it (though I worded it badly - apologies), I'm thinking of those that have plenty of money but "waste" it on cars, holidays and that sort of thing i.e. they're having a whale of a time knowing that at the end of their days they'll be taken care of by the state. The rest of us meanwhile do our best to make sure that we can support ourselves & our families (even if circumstances are such that we can't achieve it) and then get effectively screwed at the end. Ideally we'd all be eligible for care in old age if we needed it so that any savings / property we'd managed to put by could be passed on to the next generation to give them a head start / fighting chance. But that would cost a fortune with increasing numbers of old people. Of course we could use the foreign aid budget.....

Tanith for sure.

There are people in their 60s and 70s now who will be living till 120, because of medical advances. But they will not be living healthy, active lives. They will be just living. And at what cost? A huge cost that you can't possibly burden taxpayers with. Everyone would have to be taxed at 90%, and if this were to protect the inheritances of the aged population then I think society would collapse.

Dsis told me she saw a programme (in Europe) saying that every Western country would be bankrupted within 50 years by longevity.

It makes sense to me tbh. The state cannot afford to be paying for care for people who can afford to pay for it.

I actually thought this was already a thing? My gran when she went into a home 5 years ago had around 200k in savings. She was having to pay just under 1k per week for substandard care and in her better times...when she actually understood stuff (sometimes she was totally gone, mental wise) she would have a right moan about how Mary in the room next door didn't have to pay anything as she had no savings because she spent it all before getting ill and such.

My DM and Uncle had this discussion 6 years ago, walking through a council estate, "we were sensible, we saved, bought a house, It's not fair, they squandered all their money and get bigger gardens (to grow veg), we'll have to pay for our care........" They are even more out of touch now, "we've paid for our pensions", couldn't even comprehend no, they paid for the pensioners at the time, we are now paying their pensions and being babyboomers, clues in the name, they are taking more than their fair share, I was laughed at for saying I'm not expecting 100% that I will ever get a pension, it could be all over by then.
As for dementia, if you need specialist care, and I mean extremely specialist care, then you will be given a section 3 and get NHS care for life. This is not the same as slowly drifting off into old age getting increasingly dotty. You get old, you may need some help, why should the government with limited money pay for the inevitable of the one group that has the biggest wealth as a group and had a lifetime to plan for it, much better to let our dc's education down.

I agree, expat. Dementia in itself is not life limiting. People can go on for years physically in fairly decent shape. Fil has been in a care home for, I think, six years. Three full meals a day and quite fit. He has no idea who his dcs are, however,

I notice it says about care in the home as well - I wonder how that would impact on benefits such as Attendance allowance, PIP...would if just be for the elderly or others as well requiring care? Care by family members, who claim Carer's Allowance (which as far as I know is means tested but on income not on assets).

I think it is about the amount of care, ongoing required for dementia though.

Many years ago I briefly worked as a 'carer' for folk in their own homes mostly with dementia and Parkinson's.

Those whose spouses were still alive and living with them were actually doing most of the caring for nothing and saw it as what they signed up for when they married. Many of them got an hour respite once a week if they were lucky (which they paid for).

I was paid to be in and out and on to the next 'client' as quickly as possible and it did my head in. I can't see how that will be different under a new tory rule. except that I think 'care' will become a lot more expensive to buy and those spouses will still being doing the vast majority of the caring. For those living alone, we've already heard news reports about old age and loneliness and carers on zero hours not being afforded enough time to sit and chat with a person as part of the total package.

I think it's a pile of shite all round.

I think your claim (1) can't be claimed. Unless you have the official facts to show.

I'm not generalising, but you seem to be. I'm talking about one person whose circumstances I know inside out.

My post wasn't aimed specifically at you, though. It's just that whenever threads like these happen, there are always, always, always posters who say social care should be funded because the recipients have paid for it already. This clearly isn't necessarily true.

But are you seriously asking for citations about our system being one where your taxes and NI go towards paying for people who need it at the time you pay, rather than into a special account for you to draw down on when you need it in the future? And most people being net takers? Like, really? Because that is literally what you are asking when you dispute that most people haven't paid for their own care (I leave out those with insurance to cover it).

I have a house worth around £400,000. When the DCs are older I intend to sell this house, split the money three ways and that will allow the DCs to buy a small flat each (or at least a sizeable deposit each).

I'll then buy a small house for me and DH as we won't need a big house anymore.

That way, they get to inherit.

You don't get 'given' a Section 3. It's not some get out of jail free card FFS.

It is a thing wankingmonkey but they're talking about expanding the number of people who'll have to pay, and not taking the money until after their deaths. As well as increasing the amount people can pass on. So we have the principle already but this is a change in the remit and execution.

I'm assuming that those saying family should take care of their ageing parents have great relationships with those parents - or at least cordial relationships with them? I know of at least one person who would rather go to jail than care for her "parent", if ever there was compulsion to undertake caring roles.

I know is an awful, terrible, thing to say, but there are a lot of toxic parents out there who've physically, emotionally, sexually damaged the children in their care. It's not even rare... and can have lasting repercussions into the adult lives of their children. Social/family pressures often mean these adults keep up contact with their parents. On the surface it may look like happy families. For that reason I would NEVER judge anyone who felt unable to provide care.

The sad reality is women (and in my experience, it is almost always the women) get pushed and guilted into caring roles to the detriment of their selves, their jobs, children, and marriages. Fine if you choose to do that, but don't assume that others CAN, or SHOULD.

WRT assets of the parents- it's their money, yes it should be used for their care, including the house.

The first thing they piped up about was how 'young people don't want to work and live within their means'.

Yes this seems to be a prevalent view among OAPs. From what I have heard from the older people in my life anyway. The young don't want to work...we worked 60 hour weeks and didn't get loans, we bought houses when young, the youth of today don't even want to own houses (ignoring that houses used to be what...a years worth of wages for most?) kids have no ambition and want to sit around collecting huge amounts in JSA (70 per week ). Young people are just lazy and if they really wanted to earn more they could easily do so, could easily switch jobs as there are loads of jobs around... and so on. Its a bit demoralizing.

My mum and dad aren't OAPs, 55. But they have the 'the young are just lazy' attitude about them too. its awful. They genuinely do think that its easy to get a high paid job, that uni qualifications aren't needed, just ambition and such.

Oddly enough, this view seems pretty common among those of my friends who are in steady (likely job for life type jobs) jobs. That everyone else just doesn't want to work and so on.

My mum is in a care home with dementia - she funds her own care and her house has been sold. I think every penny in her account should be spent on her care until it's run out. Perhaps enough for a modest funeral.

I don't expect to inherit anything. She needs the money now - I wouldn't have begrudged her not getting dementia, selling the house and spunking all her money on cruises, or taking up heroin or giving it all to an otter sanctuary. Unfortunately she did get dementia and the money SHOULD be spent on her care.

I'm assuming that those saying family should take care of their ageing parents have great relationships with those parents - or at least cordial relationships with them? I know of at least one person who would rather go to jail than care for her "parent", if ever there was compulsion to undertake caring roles.

I do think where possible family should help. However carers allowance needs to be raised a hell of a lot to help people actually..be able to live whilst caring. 60 quid a week is a joke really. It is.

My dad tried his best to look after my gran when she went downhill. he moved her into his house and he and my mum split caring responsibilities, culminating in my mum going part time to care more often. So they had a huge drop in income because of that, but it was fine as it was to look after family and my dads wage was more than enough to live on and my mums wages tended to go mainly on 'treats', holidays and such. However it turned out that even with people watching her most of the time, it wasn't enough and there was 24 hour care needed so she did have to go in a home eventually.

Yet people would still look at the situation and see my dad just shoving her in a home as he couldn't be arsed or something.

I just wonder how demographically, people think this is an option. Of course there are some families that can do it. But it clearly can't be replicated across the population. The societies where elder care within the family is more common than ours almost always have very different population pyramids: nowhere near as many older people, many more younger people to care for them. And also usually worse healthcare than ours, meaning people are less able to live for a couple of decades in increasingly poor health. There are some exceptions but the people doing the caring are often cheap foreign labour instead.

You basically need multiple people young and healthy enough to do the caring, living close enough to the person needing care, whose work, commute, housing, benefits and children situations afford them time to do it. That's just not most people's reality, I don't think.

Can anyone explain how this would work with couples

If one person goes into care and there's a spouse still in their home they don't have to sell it.

Expat , this is exactly the attitude my DSis encounters. Is it unthinkable for people to re-think their choices when an elderly parent needs care ? I accept what you say about dependant children, a problem of delayed parenthood perhaps ? Most people don't need care until at least 75, more commonly 80. To still have dependant children (under 16) means 2 generations not having dcs until after 35, not that common I would think, but maybe I'm wrong.

Cross posted there re benefits, but wankingmonkey is right to mention Carers Allowance. There do exist people who would like to be able to stop working to care for elderly family members who need it, but aren't able to because they have expenses CA won't cover. It's possible it would work out cheaper all round for us to increase CA a lot. If it could be shown that people needed care homes later in these scenarios, perhaps it would be a politically palatable solution.

In the Indian community that I see, the women look after the elderly and the dcs. They have an extended network of company and it is very cost effective for them.

But... just look at MN. Endless threads about awful mils and telling mils to step back and they've had their time and how dare they buy clothes for gc and and and... The women of MN giving up their jobs to care for demented mils just ain't gonna happen.

To still have dependant children (under 16) means 2 generations not having dcs until after 35, not that common I would think, but maybe I'm wrong.

Wouldn't it just mean two generations having had a child after 35? Ie they could've had one earlier than 35 also? I'm not sure that's especially unusual.