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.

OhTheRoses

It is discriminatory to fund care for a physical illness not for a mental illness. It contravenes the Equality Act (2010)

which is precisely why they are both treated the same under the current system and presumably will be under any new system (although the proposals are so flawed they are never going to get off the ground)

if you have a stroke, or get multiple sclerosis, or you are born with a learning disability or a physical disability and require long term care you are financially assessed in exactly the same way as someone who develops one of the dementing diseases.

I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself.

Sorry to hear about your Grandma roses.

n 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

There is a very strong cultural expectation that DIL will care for their elders. Their choice is to comply or to face being virtually ostracised from their community. I have a lovely, lovely friend who has been married for a couple of years. The day after the wedding both of her PIL packed in work - despite being in their early 60s and otherwise fit and healthy - and they sat expectantly, waiting for her to make room in her house so that they could move in for her to care for them for the next 20-30 years. And when I say 'care' I mean do absolutely everything - cook, clean, keep company, drive around as a taxi, pick up prescriptions, prepare the house right down to drawing a bath and ensure towels are warmed.

As you might guess she is utterly miserable. She's managed to persuade them to stay in their own home, for now. But she has to spend every single weekend with them. If she doesn't go over then they are on the phone crying and shouting about what a bad DIL she is, how she is shaming them in their community by not looking after them. She is dreading the day when they move in because her life will be finished. It's made her so unhappy she's been suicidal because she feels trapped. She loves her husband but she cannot object because he's been brought up with the cultural expectation that his wife will care for his parents. She feels she can't leave because divorce is virtually unheard of in her community so not only would she be ostracised but her own family would turn their back on her.

So forgive me if I don't fall over with enthusiasm at the old trope that other cultures care for their elders at home so much more compassionately and effectively than we do. There's a lot that goes on behind closed doors.

Not having a means test is totally unaffordable for us all.

There is a universality about it now though based on means isn't there.

Cannot see a problem with that myself, but I stand to be corrected.

In principal I agree with the idea that care costs could be deferred and paid from the estate upon death. But.. Care should not be a profit making industry. At present the profits of shareholders is given more importance than the quality of care provided and sure as anything costs will soar and greedy individuals will get very rich.

Do you also know that the elite and super wealthy will be able to wriggle their way out of paying their fair share? They are up to their necks in every kind of tax saving scheme going. Family trusts and offshore trusts that their clever accountants and financial advisors manage. I worked in financial services dealing with high net worth clients in another lifetime and there were plenty of MPs, doctors, tv and sports personalities at it and all legal. Never paid any inheritance tax. The rich keep getting richer and richer.

It just seems to me that it is discrimination against the elderly when they have paid taxes all their lives, worked and saved. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay anything at all but this new idea by the Tories is simply dreadful. I thought an earlier proposal of a cap of £75K to be taken from an estate was fairer. Though that would massively favour rich people. Hmm not sure now.

I thought an earlier proposal of a cap of £75K to be taken from an estate was fairer.

So the pensioner with a £150k house would only leave £75k of their estate.

However, under the proposed Tory scheme, that same pensioner would be able to leave £100k of their estate.

I think the Tory option is fairer on the middle & poorer lot to be honest.

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.

What PaulDacre said (never thought I'd write that! ) That's not what I want for my daughter. Nor, thankfully, is it what my own elderly parents would want for me.

I agree with "0htheroses". I have voted Conservative in the past but now dislike immensely both Tories and Labour. I feel we are in a race to the bottom with regard to social policies. The person who said unthread about the elderly in houses that are now worth thousands through no effort on their part, what about paying a mortgage for 25 or 30 years and going without holidays etc to pay for a roof over their head. We really to have the politics of envy in this country.

Tory socialists FTW.

It is a no brainer that those who can afford it pay.

Those who cannot will be supported.

EVERYONE will be left with at least £100k.

Am I missing something here?

Honestly haven't a clue how this is going to be resolved so it's fair for all, I doubt it can be.

My Nana has Dementia had all her children (don't want it to be identifiable but it's more than three) plus a team of carers look after her round the clock - they lasted half a year before they were all on their knees because it was too much with either their own health issues or to fit around full time work. She then went into a care home, the money is coming from her estate - it's nearly £800 per week and I think she's being neglected but that's another issue I don't know what's going to happen when it all runs out.

Vivienne Surely this is fairer as the rich pay more. How is it fair to take all the income of a poorer person and only a small % from the rich?

Well, I guess this means if I get diagnosed with dementia or terminal cancer I should go out and have the holiday of a lifetime, spend it all, then return and let the state pay for my future care needs ... just like everyone else who didn't save in the first place and spent it all along the way...

I think some are over thinking this.

For me, I want to be cared for. I will live my life best I can, but no one has a blast every day of the week to be fair! So I will live well in the meantime.

So if I need care in the future, I offer a portion of my assets up in return for this.

Will have at least 100k to leave behind. So be it.

An inheritance is not a right either is it.

So what do you think.

Three points that don't seem to be mentioned in this thread:

1. Many conditions are hereditary. That means if you are unlucky enough to have something like Huntingdon's in you family then not only do you have to deal with that, but you also have the financial implications this policy brings. The idea of getting people to pay for care out of their assets is not necessarily awful but the risk should be spread across society so that it is not born by unlucky families due to a condition lottery

2. What this policy does not talk about is situations such as a child who has always lived with their parents. Whilst this is unusual it does happen. I have a close family member in this situation. He is in his 40s, never married and lives with his mother. He almost certainly has some form of autism and has struggled to find a job in the past, and after being made redundant a couple of years ago is now unable to find another. He instead is now his mother's carer and receives a small benefit for this as a result. She is in poor health, and it is entirely possible she will need to go into care at some point. He would stand to lose his home as he is not covered as a spouse. His mother's assets are the only thing he has, and he will struggle to get another job. His mother has been aware of his problems and had planned to help him through his inheritance which he may now lose. Instead he would become dependent on the state.

3. Whilst I appreciate that type of situation is unusual, it does highlight why stacking the burden of care on individual families rather than pooling it within society ultimately is both unfair but also creates situations which have implications for families as a whole who have financially planned across generations only for that planning to be potentially ripped up. It creates uncertainty because families have no way of knowing if their family will be unlucky or lucky and there is absolutely no way to plan for this or offset the risk.

As I say, I do think that people should pay for their own care - despite the attitude that people have fully paid their bit, the reality is that anyone born before 1971 technically hasn't. Anyone born before 1971 has been a net beneficiary of the state whilst those born after will eventually put in more than they take out. The real issue is how you do this in a fair way, that spreads the burden. This method disproportionately affects people in a middle band - not the richest - because the richest are much more able to protect their assets from this plan than those in the middle bracket. And as others have pointed out already it does encourage people to blow their money in the knowledge that their children have a fair chance of getting bugger all anyway.

No the rich don't really pay more. They will have their trust funds and so on. And signing over their house to family members and hiding funds in foreign bank accounts. There isn't an easy answer. But I've decided not to vote Tory or Labour as I now can't stand either of them. And the Lib Dems are no better. Maybe the election outcome will be nowhere near the Tory landslide they are expecting. Teresa May gets worse by the day or should I say hour. Corbyn on the other hand was quite good the other day I thought.

Who pays for it at the moment?

Just wondered if it is the squeezed middle, you know, those who pay for everything with no supports.

The rich can avoid, the poor can avail of free care,

Middle income people need to get a bit of a voice here IMO.

*I think some are over thinking this.

For me, I want to be cared for. I will live my life best I can, but no one has a blast every day of the week to be fair! So I will live well in the meantime.

So if I need care in the future, I offer a portion of my assets up in return for this.

Will have at least 100k to leave behind. So be it.

An inheritance is not a right either is it.

So what do you think.*

YY.

agree with Carole Decker

Interesting to see comments about people who "didn't" save, no thought for those who "couldn't" save. How about Betty who worked a minimum wage job in a factory from the age of 14, raised her 3 children alone after her husband died. She worked from the ages of 14 to 64. She worked hard, she contributed to society and volunteered at Scouts every week. She has Alzheimer's Disease now and she cannot even recognise those precious babies that she raised all alone. Still, let's make snide comments about the Bettys of the world. It doesn't make you look pathetic at all.....!

It seems to me that the two choices are raising taxes across the board or insisting that assets are used to pay for long term care costs. If taxes are raised, you are effectively saying that people poorer than the elderly person (with assets) should pay for that person's children to receive an inheritance. That's a transfer from the poor to the rich. Not very fair. The alternative is that relatively more wealthy people fund their own costs: i.e. the rich pay more.

The welfare state was conceived in order that those people who could not pay for themselves would be paid for. Not so that everyone would be paid for. It was a safety net for the poorest, nothing more.

Wow! I wasn't expecting so many responses.

The problem with this proposal from my point of view is not the change from the current system (because actually people will get to keep more in some circumstances) but rather the dismissal of the recommendations given in the Dilnot Commission. Why employ a panel of experts to look in to the social care issue and then ignore their recommendations? Introducing a floor, rather than a cap, is likely encourage social care costs to balloon in the private sector.

I think the real issue though comes from the lack of choice people needing care have, and I can see the possibility for some decidedly morally-dubious practices. Everything about social care is geared towards keeping people alive for as long as possible. We try to extend life, even when that life no longer has any quality to it. That's the be all and end all of everything. Personally I would like to see an assisted dying law passed. I, for one, do not wish to use my assets to pay for care simply to keep my body going when I no longer have any quality of life. Why should I be forced to pay for something I have no choice in? Why should I be forced to line someone else's pockets in those circumstances, rather than those of my own family?

Personally I would like to see an assisted dying law passed. I, for one, do not wish to use my assets to pay for care simply to keep my body going when I no longer have any quality of life.

Another vote for legalizing euthanasia here too. Nothing to do with costs or anything, I just think that a person should be able to make the choice. Also I do not want to be in a situation that might arise, as my mother told me a few years back that if she ever 'lost herself' would I help her to end it all as she does not ever want to be in a position of just being alive rather than living. Was a lovely conversation :(

I'm in favour of legal assisted dying too.

I would hate to lose who I am.
My granny had Parkinson's and she faded so quickly after diagnosis, but staggered on for a good few years getting worse by the week; it was horrid.

I'm fearful of my mum going the same way & she is as well - I'd definitely not want that for myself.

Blimey, what a load of misinformation. Houses costing a year's worth of wages, yeah right.