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.

'Is it unthinkable for people to re-think their choices when an elderly parent needs care ?'

For many, um, yes. They have to still work FT to provide for themselves and family. They cannot afford to move or they have a partner or spouse who cannot move (perhaps that partner or spouse also has an elderly relative who needs care in the area), they have dependent children (keep in mind how uni funding works, too, the 'dependent children' can be in their 20s). It's not a matter of choice for many, no matter how much you don't want to see that.

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.

Have you asked the women doing the caring how they feel about this?

You don't get 'given' a Section 3. It's not some get out of jail free card FFS.
You do get given a section 3 if your dementia is extreme enough. It's not a get out of jail free card it's a get into Broadmore, or the equivalent, free card. They are still waiting for my DF to remain stable enough, for long enough, that they can do a proper assessment and decide which secure facility to lock him up in. It nearly broke my DM, this all happened within the space of a year, he couldn't be left alone at all. We all feared for DM safety, DF is a big strong confused man.

It's possible it would work out cheaper all round for us to increase CA a lot

I wouldn't say its possible I would say its for sure tbh. Carers save the country a hell of a lot of money and are so under appreciated. But people wonder why more people don't care for ill/elderly family members? Because they cannot afford to. 60 pounds a week is a pittance. Hell its even less than JSA. Even raising a LOT, say to 250 per week (just for an example) would result in a net saving as 24 hour care costs a lot more than that...

And of course, as I mentioned earlier, often you'd need multiple people to do the caring. Some people requiring care do not have needs that one person can manage. So there might already be someone in the family claiming CA anyway.

And another thing about all these able-bodied 50-60 year olds who 'refuse' to care for their elderly relative, has anyone considered what happens to their pension contributions if they jack in work to become a carer to their elderly relative, especially now the retirement age has been increased. Ever considered they cannot jack in their job to provide care as it means they won't then qualify for their work pension or will not have enough to provide for themselves when they can no longer work (I don't think there will even be state pensions soon enough).

I'm not saying it's always possible, but it is frequently dismissed oit of hand. As for "dependant" 20year olds. I think people need to take a long hard look at who really needs their support.

My elderly grandparents are now In a home after my grandfather had a series of health problems and now Alzheimer's, my grandmother is blind so they decided to go into a home together at the same time.

They sold their house for £240k and the money is being used to pay for their care.
Before that they paid for home care out of their £20k savings.
They have no savings left and my auntie says the money's running dry.
To top it off my grandmother has now developed dementia.

My auntie didn't bother to look into what help they could get.
Where would they have stood in terms of financial help??

If you think about it though, this is most designed to appeal to older homeowners in areas where house prices are lower- the Northern traditional Labour areas- rather than those with higher housing assets who would have more to lose.

It seems directly aimed at the Labour heartlands don't you think?

In Anon's case above, it would mean could have saved 100K of that and not had to worry about maying care costs until the relatives died.

Well we are thinking ahead, our next house move will have a " granny annexe" for who ever needs/wants it. 2 late teen dcs, me and dh would probrably be able to care for an elderly parent between us. As I say only if that's what they want though.

I'm not saying it's always possible, but it is frequently dismissed oit of hand. As for "dependant" 20year olds. I think people need to take a long hard look at who really needs their support.

Agreed. There's a decent chance it'll be the 20 year old in a nightmare job market and limited ability to access state support rather than the elderly relative receiving a pension/pension credit and perhaps sitting on a large wodge of equity they could cash in to fund care.

"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."

We're also in this position. I think they may try and claim it back though but think it may depend on if you die within a certain number of years, asset deprivation? If you are long lived though it would be OK!

'but it is frequently dismissed oit of hand. As for "dependant" 20year olds. I think people need to take a long hard look at who really needs their support.'

You have no idea if that is true unless you're familiar with the personal finances of the people in question, and yes, the government considers a 20-year-old a dependent for purposes of student loans unless the student is married or is able to prove independence of finances for a year or more, so it's not a matter of a parent just saying, 'Oops, Granny's got dementia, you'll have to stop paying your rent now we can't afford to top you up. Sorry you're on a degree course (like medicine) that doesn't allow you to work during term, you'll just have to stop your degree so I can provide 24/7 care for Granny, who doesn't even know who the hell I am and we can all live on fresh air for a while.'

Not to mention, a lot of people in their 50s and 60s are quite tired after work, time has a nasty way of catching up with us all.

If you are rich and savvy enough you'll just get round it

just ask george

We'll downsize in our 50's to a two bed worth about 90k, then combine all other assets and buy each child a house, giving them their inheritance before we die, if this goes through.
Surely, that's what most will do.

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.

I agree that changing demographics mean that there will be diminishing number of people who are able, even if willing, to take on care within the family. My own DGM recently died in a care home at the age of 100. She had been there for five years, after being diagnosed with a combination of Alzheimer's and vascular dementia - prior to that she had piecemeal care at home, propped up by my DPs, but they're both in their '70s themselves, and my dad has recently had a quadruple heart bypass. My DGM's dementia meant she was doubly incontinent, barely slept and spent most of the day screaming and hallucinating. There is no way she could have been properly cared for at home - even just trying to navigate the ridiculously complex system, deal with power of attorney and secure decent care for DGM nearly destroyed my mum.

I'm 36 and expecting my first child, who (because of our ages and the fact that it's all we can comfortably afford) is likely to be an only. DP is 43. Both our sets of parents are now in their late '70s (they were also 'late' having me, as my mum was 34 and my dad 41). I have one sibling, but he has emigrated to Canada. Lots of my friends are in the same boat - scattered around the world for work, having kids late, only just made it on to the property ladder, needing two incomes in order to stay there, and with already ageing parents. Maybe we're not exactly typical (yet!) but I think we're part of a wider trend, and I do worry about what will happen if any of our parents turns out to need long-term care. I think as a wider society we urgently need an honest debate about what kind of old age we want, and what we are prepared to do/pay in order to achieve it.

Well we are thinking ahead, our next house move will have a " granny annexe" for who ever needs/wants it. 2 late teen dcs, me and dh would probrably be able to care for an elderly parent between us.

And you still don't consider that that is not an option for many, many people. An increasing number of people don't and will never be able to afford a home to sell, much less one with enough space for a granny annexe or able to arrange their work schedule to provide 24 hour care. Some might even be lone parents.

Some inevitable responses here:
Yes it sucks that anyone with property gets shafted while those that haven't bothered saving to buy a house get away paid for by the state but unfortunately that's how it works. Unless you want to vote for Corbyn who will pay for absolutely everything out of his amazing never-ending magical pot of gold (and will give you a free unicorn every year too).

Haven't bothered, or have absolutely no disposable income because of sky-high rents and low wages? (FWIW, I'm lucky enough to 'own' my house - with mortage - but that's because I could get a 100% mortgage at the time. Without that, I would fall into your 'couldn't be bothered' category, I suppose.)

lovely bath I think you are right - though £100k is still low, even given the difference in property prices - might have been 'safer' at £200k.

I wonder if TM has miscalculated the impact on voting in Con strongerholds though - we will know in 3 weeks time! I'm not sure why they have made the threshold for domiciliary care quite so low - how many people do run up a bill of a hundred k on domiciliary care? Are there so many of them that this will be a significant saving? Maybe it is more than I realise. Would be interesting to know the figures.

Obviously I realise care homes are very expensive - that is a different issue.

Seems utterly reasonable to me. I am financially not well off but do own my own property which if/when the time comes that I need care (and I haven't taken myself off to Dignitas before then) it will be sold and the money spent on a reasonably decent care home as opposed to one which smells of pee and cabbage.

A Section 3 is an order to DETAIN.

It is used to enforce people to accept treatment under strictly defined and determined circumstances. I assume your DF is ill, doesn't know he's ill, is refusing all treatment and is therefore going to be detained under the MH Act until such time as he accepts treatment he might need or the situation changes in some other way.

So he won't be given a Sec 3. He will be DETAINED. Different things altogether.

And I'm sorry it's come to that for your family. Really, I am.

the problem is that his generation did not have to support the massive burden of elderly people that the current / future working population will have to support (due to the ageing population)

Ok, so they got us both ways didn't they? When we were young we were told we should have small families because of population growth. So now it turns out we have to pay for an ageing population and we don't have a load of children who can help pay for and provide care. We really fell for it, didn't we?

We'll downsize in our 50's to a two bed worth about 90k, then combine all other assets and buy each child a house, giving them their inheritance before we die, if this goes through.Surely, that's what most will do.

Well there's a significant minority of homeowners won't have the equity to do this. But assuming people do downsize earlier to free up cash as a response, I'd expect to see even more restrictive clawback rules on gifts.

Although tbh I don't know that everyone who could do this would. Depends how much you want to put yourself out to give money to your kids. There are a lot of people who just want to stay in their home until they die and don't give much thought even to downsizing in their own interests, let alone someone else's. It would also mean a move in region for some people to secure much cheaper housing, which not everyone is going to be willing to countenance.

We all feared for DM safety, DF is a big strong confused man.

My late DF was the same, although not violent. It was physically almost impossible for me and DM both tiny 5ft 2 people and DM riddled with arthritis, to physically care for him. In a care home or hospital they would have hoists and specially adapted baths, chair lifts etc.