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.

YY Judas i hope that came across as intended. I think i would be "in the wrong" whichever way it eventually goes.

I think house price inflation is only really a think in London and the south east. My DPs houses in the north, and Wales didn't increase much in their lifetimes - about in line with inflation. Not surprising really, being in impoverished areas with little work.

For any asset other than the family home you would have to pay capital gains tax when you sold it. Given how much house prices have gone up in the last 20 years, this is a massive tax break to homeowners.

DH out-earns his DFs highest salary by more than 100% but there is no way we could buy their house (his DM was a SAHM). House prices are insane and as PPs have said, why should I have to pay higher taxes so that old people get to pass on their houses when I cant afford one...

They have accrued wealth in the form of an asset, that asset happens to be a house, would you be objecting if someone was renting and they had 100,000s of art or cars? Which by the way they would need to pay tax on. They don't have to leave the property and the bill doesn't get paid until after the house is sold (after they die).

Money isn't 'seized by the government'. It's used to pay someone to physicall look after you and/or to provide you with a warm, safe environment. That isn't and shouldn't be free. The misconception that it should, is part of the reason why older people revolve unnecessarily in and out of hospital through A+E because they won't spend money they have 'saved all their lives for' on their own well being. That happens already at great subsequent cost to the NHS.

I'm hope I'm not foolish enough when needing care to prioritise my DC inheritance over my quality of life.

Rhyader

You can live in a house that is to be yours when 18, it's held in trust.
So you gift the house at any age, but the child can't sign as owner until 18.
It's still their house in their name.

Peregrina thats why the 100K is quite clever, in those areas that might still be the majority of the equity.

It's not peregrina. My gran owns a home in the north worth about 80k. The value when she bought it in the 80s was about 9k. Would've been a lot less had she bought young rather than middle aged. I've an aunt in NI who purchased for 11k, in the late 70s. Now about 120k. These are by no means desirable areas either. We're not talking Harrogate and Malone Road.

The sums involved are nowhere near what you get in the south east, but the percentage increases are still pretty significant. There's very few areas of the UK where houses aren't worth lots more in real terms than they were 30, 40, 50 or more years ago, even where they're still not worth enough to make much of a dent in care. I'd be interested to hear figures and times for the relatives you mention- perhaps they died a while before the current lunacy set in?

Why pay for care but not for health? What's the difference?

If you have cancer all your treatment and care is free but if you have alzheimers none of it is - so if you end up in a care home it could cost £4 - 5K a month, whilst a hospice is free.

And for 1 in 5 people the cost of their care will cost more than £100K - it can be a lot more than that.

At the same time, if you simply add extra on the tax bill as Labour suggest then thats more that the younger working population will have to pay - when they are struggling to save for homes themselves. I think Labours unrealistic about the affordability of more and more taxation and borrowing.

On balance I favour a social insurance scheme, or inheritance tax, or 1p on NI to raise funds for those with the highest level of care needs and a cap on the maximum you have to pay.

Its like the Dilnot report never happened. Years of consultation and consideration wasted.

Clearly Mrs May has no fucking idea about how social care works. I wonder if she dreamed this up on a mountain too.

I would love to know how she intends to fund social care in between the current system (upfront payment) and the proposed system (delayed payment for all?) Social Care is already on its arse without a few years delay for delayed payment/ waiting for hundreds of 1000s of properties to be sold.

Also, it is not only older people who use social care. The highest costs are usually associated with funding shared living for people with learning disabilities. They are generally not going to own houses, and the state will still have to pay for their care.

There are lots of younger people with physical disabilities who require social care e.g. because of MS, MND, Huntington's Disease, Strokes or ABIs. If they don't have property, the state will generally still have to pay for their care.

Contrary to popular belief on this thread people who get cancer and have social care needs still have to pay for their care unless they are eligible for NHS care. The only condition that is automatically eligible for NHS funded care is v.CJD.

The current system is far from perfect but making social care funding all about property ownership is utterly wrong.

I would love to know how she intends to fund social care in between the current system (upfront payment) and the proposed system (delayed payment for all?) Social Care is already on its arse without a few years delay for delayed payment/ waiting for hundreds of 1000s of properties to be sold.

That's a very good point.

Of course it's not fair. Someone with wealth of say £500k who gets dementia and whose spouse gets dementia will easily use up £400k in care costs. While someone worth £2million might be lucky and not need much care at all, leaving their estate intact for their heirs. I think a death tax of x% is much fairer - everybody pays the same proportion of their wealth into the system after they no longer need it, and everyone knows they will be cared for according to their needs.

Agreed GardenGeek, paying interest on the debt is the 5th biggest expense for the country. That is money that we could be spending on other things. £39BN every year that we could be spending on education, health, housing etc.

Dementia is the issue. A cousin spent the proceeds of the sale of two posh family houses to fund one parent's latter days, because he needed caring for 20 years, until he was 93. Physically in great shape, but nothing left upstairs; he recognised no-one. It's hard not to resent that, surely, no matter how much you love a person?

I don't get why dementia is treated differently either.

I also think it's a bit shit for my generation (I'm 62) who paid for decent care and pensions for at least two generations above us are getting shafted when it comes to our turn.

And as for families providing care, what about those of us who haven't got kids?

My parents both had dementia, and different types, so I'm quite convinced I'm going to get it. I've got quite a stockpile of codeine, tramadol, diazepam etc and rather than spend my last years crazy and freaked out in a care home, I'm going to go in a time and manner of my own choosing. AIBU?

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.

Sounds good on paper but this would be political suicide for any party who proposed it surely. There is already hell on about inheritance tax to begin with, nevermind raising it. I actually don't really get the issue people have with inheritance tax..I mean, its not something you worked for or anything, and most of it (for this generation anyway) stems from being lucky enough to be able to buy a house before prices exploded. And I say this as someone whos parents own a fairly decent house and would probably stand to inherit a fair chunk...unless the housing market crashes in the near future of course. Maybe I just don't understand it enough, its not something I give too much thought to as it upsets me to think of my parents no longer being here...can't imagine sitting stewing over inheritance when they are still here

'I don't get why dementia is treated differently either. '

Because unless something else carries you off (and unless you have a Living Will or sometimes perhaps someone has medical POA for you, which you must do before whilst you are still of sound mind, then HCPs are bound by law to treat that something else), it can takes years to die, all whilst you are deteriorating and developing a need for greater and greater (often 24 hour) care. Few other illnesses cause this. Dementia is also more common the older you get so again, it's often a disease of people living longer and longer.

But I don't think you are unreasonable at all to end things how and when you see fit. I plan on doing the same.

There is no solution that everyone will regard as fair - but I have no issue with this proposal for now at least. A step in the right direction imo.

hatgirl totally agree. Trying to get the money from deceased estates will be a nightmare even if a charge has been made on the estate (in advance) = they will need to hire in a whole new civil service division to try to administer it and pay care agencies upfront or perhaps they will devolve that as yet another thing that local councils have to find the resources to fund and run.

What seems strange is that they are doing this and there is also an increase taking place in the amount of estate that can be left before inheritance tax kicks in. Wouldn't it be better not to increase the threshold?

That reads badly... I don't mean you begrudge the care or the cash to provide a dignified existence but more why do we prolong meaningless life? Please be in no doubt, this individual was beyond recognising his nearest and dearest for his last 15 years, but was keen on his food.

I am happy for the value of my parents' houses to be used to fund their last years in comfort and security. I would get the hump if their balance were transferred to Mrs Smith whom I had never met.

Dementia isn't treated differently.

Anyone who is over the age of 18 and has a social care need is currently subject to the same financial assessment whether they have a learning disability, a physical disability or a mental health condition.

The current proposals assume all social care users are elderly people who own property. It is a dangerous assumption to make if the genuine aim is to properly fund the social care system.

I am voting tory for first time this election because we need to reduce our deficit urgently.

...hasn't our debt rose under Tory rule?

And I think dementia is treated differently as its 24/7 care for a fair amount of time in many cases. where..if someone got cancer and went to a hospice, they are unlikely to live too long. My mother works in a care home for people with Alzheimers and some of the people she cares for have been there 20+ years.

I don't think this is a very satisfactory answer to the care problem at all. It does seem like discrimination against the elderly. No-one else is charged for care only diseases of old age like dementia. Neither Labour or Conservative appeals to me very much and I've almost decided not to vote for either of them. Not keen on the Lib Dems either. Hardly worth voting although I've never not voted in a GE before.

Young people should sit up and take notice:

• do not buy a house - rent
• do not save - eat, drink and be merry

That way your care in later years will be paid for.

The reason I find these proposals unacceptable is that when the older generation started paying NI contributions, it was not meant to be a stealth tax, but was an insurance system - you pay in and it is invested for your future care. What has happened is that governments have treated it as tax income and spent it, so, people have paid into a system and they are not getting the rewards that were promised - indeed, not only not getting them, but being required to pay for them. That is just dishonest.