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.

As I said I freely admit it isn't always possible, it is often not even contemplated. Oh and I stayed at home while going to university to save money, which is what I would advise a dc in that situation to do. It's the normalisation of institutionising old age I struggle with. Some people will end up needing 24/7 care, but lots just need some help washing, dressing, some one there when they shower, meals cooking etc. I believe you can judge a society by how they treat the most vunerable.

Yes it will include care at home. I work in home care and the average period of care is 2 years, average bill about £600 a month, so average payment will be about £15k, so not a huge amount out of the equity of the house. At present the cash poor but asset rich (think house worth £750k) pay nothing. this will be a much better system.

Miss Bennett I agree, some people become very attached to their homes and neighbourhood and stay long after others are thinking 'wouldn't they be happier somewhere easier to manage?' Plus selling and buying itself is expensive - estate agent, solicitor, removal firm etc.

"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." Even people without children younger than 16 still have bills which may require 2 salaries.

Even if you were to have 1 non working partner , some elderly people's needs are beyond the capabilities of of their family. As people have said , suitable accommodation, knowledge , and in the case of my FIL it would have taken just more sheer physical strength than I had. I am not sure "most" people could do the job in certain circumstances that a care home could provide.

That said - ( apologies if I am mistaking you for another poster ) I am sure there are people who could do more for their elderly relatives but this is not the same as proper caring at home for someone with complex needs.

Oh and I stayed at home while going to university to save money, which is what I would advise a dc in that situation to do

What, in a situation where they've left for uni already and made their choices based on parental support? Because quite a lot of 20 year olds are there already.

This also assumes the parents will have the money and space to continue housing them, which clearly is not always the case and is even less likely to be so if they reduce paid work for caring duties and/or move the elderly relative in.

That's very interesting Miss Constance.

If those figures are representative, that's what I mean - TM has taken a huge risk with her voters for the sake of an average of £15k per person using social care. She could have achieved almost the same thing by saying 'everyone will be expected to pay the first 15/30/45 of domiciliary care' and still almost achieved the same result. (Along the lines of the Dilnot recommendation, now ditched, in fact.)

Instead she appears to have infuriated many of her core con pensioner vote (judging by below the line comments all over the internet). Interesting political positioning.

I wonder if it will be a Government department that administers the proposed scheme ,working out assets ,versus care home fees or if it will be outsourced to a private company ...G4S anyone ;-)

My parents are in their 70's. They have just sold family home and bought 2 bedroomed flat. They have given each of us an early inheritance. We are using that money to convert our garage into a granny annexe and would absolutely have any one of our 4 parents live with us if the need arises. If one of us had to drop our work hours and we could not afford to live, the parent could make a reasonable contribution to the care/housing they were receiving from us to enable the arrangement. This definitely does depend upon good relationships all round but I do think people are not creative enough about this.I work in the NHS and am daily struck by the contrast of families who will be sacrificially caring to the point of almost breakdown and those who appear to think that it is all the governments job to look after their ailing relative. I know the point at which I could no longer manage care at home and that is when I no longer get to sleep at night. Most other needs can be met with day care/personal care/volunteer visitors/family support etc.

MissShitty

I'm 50 and will do this immediately if cons win the election.
Our home is already too big and we still have one two dc at home, although one will be gone in a couple of years.
We have a 13 year old and were going to do this, buy her a property and then she can rent it out to help pay uni fees.
You can't give to one and not the others and me and dh believe in helping our dc when they need the help, not when they are established and the money will be nice but only flittered.
So we had sort of decided this anyway, we'd just be bringing it forward a bit.

I think some people have misunderstood the proposal. You dont have you sell your house to pay for the care. You have the care paid for by the state and then when you die the house is sold and the bill is paid out of the sale.

If you are a couple it's after the widowed partner dies - nobody is being forced to sell their home when they are alive, and nobody is being evicted.

gillybeanz

I dont believe you can own a house until you are 18.

Social care was introduced for the elderly to prevent them tipping into poverty. I don't understand how someone who owns a house worth hundreds of thousands could possibly expect someone who can't afford to even get on the housing ladder to pay for their care. I think this is far less fair than preserving the inheritance of someone who has not (necessarily) done anything to earn that money, but just expects to receive it as their right.

Miss Bennett I agree, some people become very attached to their homes and neighbourhood and stay long after others are thinking 'wouldn't they be happier somewhere easier to manage?'

I think people go and leave it too late. They need to think about it in their late sixties, or so. Instead they leave it another 10 years at a time when their health can suddenly collapse.

This is a horrible policy. Elderly people will just not seek the care they need as most would rather leave their children what they have worked for their whole lives. It really does making people wonder what the point is, especially when you pay tax on anything and everything your entire life.

If this is going to happen then councils need to really clamp down on deprivation of capital. In fact the policy needs to be the same across the board.

All local authorities have their own methods, some go back many years, some a few. It's another postcode lottery. In my line of work I've met tonnes of people who have given away property and lump sums specifically because they want to avoid care costs.

Having to prove you didn't know you would need the care should no longer apply as these days most will if the live long enough!

I don't know where I am with this policy proposal though. It's certainly a disincentive to save money and invest. I'll be putting things in place for my DS now rather than later etc. I'm only having one child partly so we can afford to give him a good start and help him out later. The stories won't stop that.

I think that there should be a significant increase in inheritance tax that is then used to fund social care for the elderly. That way the cost would be shared more fairly between all dead, wealthy people, rather than depending on whether you were lucky or unlucky when it comes to needing social care. There should be a limit on how much any individual needs to pay. That's what social insurance for - you shouldn't be penalised for needing expensive care and you don't have any control over it.

Instead, this like an inheritance tax that only the unlucky have to pay. What's fair about that?

Basically everyone is best off distributing their wealth or spending it on holidays etc and keep £100k worth- enjoy your money or pass it on to your loved ones or it will be seized by the government.

Whack as others have said very few people will have paid in enough to cover their care. The manority of those in their late 70's or 80's who own homes have seen incredible house price inflation in their lifetime. They absolutely have not worked for the equity in their homes. In the majority of cases already a crisis occurs, usually percipitating a hospital admission and then discharge home is not feasible. It is not the case that old people are voluntarily going in to care.

I think it's right but aren't parents being encouraged to help fund youngsters onto the housing ladder via equity in their own home. Surely it wouldn't cover both.

I wonder if this will be the beginning of the end of home ownership for all but the very rich. If more houses have to be sold to pay for care, perhaps property will up in the hands of companies who rent it out. Home ownership is already falling. What will be the answer when most of us rent and have no property to fund our care? General taxation seems more sustainable.
I also wonder if some families will try to avoid the loss of inheritance by providing care for their relatives themselves, but not be able to do it adequately. We've already see one poster talk about Dignitas (for herself tbf) - it is not out of the question that some families might try to persuade their home owning relatives down that path so that they didn't have to pay for care. I would be fine with ending or taxing inheritance out of existence, but I think social care should be paid from general taxation and this plan has real downsides.

My parents are 81 and struggling to get up the stairs in the 3 bedroom semi i and DB were brought up in. Im trying to persuade them to get a stairlift put in. It would break their hearts to move.

I live in a social housing flat. IF i inherit anything later on (and i would rather they have decent care in their old age than inherit) that may free up a social housing flat. If not the house gets sold to pay for care and we keep our assured tenancy and stay where we are.

I work in the NHS in as a HCP in older adult care... while the average amount (and by average I'd suggest this is probably most common) might be £15,000, there are a huge amount of packages (both nursing home and care in the community) that cost well over £1,000 per week and it's not unusual for people to have had these packages for 5+ years.

I don't have an answer - but the £35,000 cap was never even going touch the sides. Someone needs to have a serious conversation about how this is going to be funded... bearing in mind we have an aging population it's not sustainable to suggest that we keep taxing younger generations (although this is what quite a few of the people I have worked with have suggested should happen as they feel that this is what they have been "promised").

I don't like the Tories - but this is a massive issue and someone needs to come up with some radical solutions as to how we're going to solve it.

I don't know, but just wanted to say, especially considering what Helena just said, there's also a thread on here at the moment where the OP is to inherit 100k and they're asking how best to spend it. They live in social housing. They claim as 100k won't buy them a house outright, they'll be staying in social housing. Last time I looked at the thread no one seemed to be too concerned about that situation. Madness.

The manority of those in their late 70's or 80's who own homes have seen incredible house price inflation in their lifetime. They absolutely have not worked for the equity in their homes.

Yep. That's another important point here.

People who have housing wealth have, unless they only purchased very recently, almost certainly not done anything to earn the large sums in equity they have. They just were born at the right time to buy at the right time. That's by no means exclusive to the elderly, but they're one of the groups who had the chance. There are a few elderly people whose houses have earned more than they ever did. If you were modestly paid all your life, but happened to take the opportunity to buy a terrace in a then dodgy area of Zone 1 or 2, the increase in value is like a lottery win and likely more than you could ever have made from your labour.

The idea that they shouldn't have to contribute any of this unearned largesse to the costs of their own care, after they're dead ffs, is thus not a very persuasive one.

"I think people go and leave it too late. They need to think about it in their late sixties, or so. Instead they leave it another 10 years at a time when their health can suddenly collapse."

Yes Peregrina, or late 80s, when rhe disruption of moving would just be too great.

"Instead, this like an inheritance tax that only the unlucky have to pay. What's fair about that?"

Yes, that was the Dilnot point - he recommended a cap on the total anyone would have to pay.