to support Conservative social care proposals

[morningtoncrescent62]

Labour voter here. Could someone explain to me what's wrong with the Tory proposals on elderly people with assets of more than £100,000 paying for their care? I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftie and seldom see anything in a Tory manifesto that I would support, but this seems sensible. Why should taxpayers pay for social care for people with accumulated wealth, simply so that they can pass it on as inheritance? And yes, I get that if you have a slow, lingering illness such as dementia then you'd end up paying whereas those who die from a relatively short-lived disease wouldn't (or not to the same extent), but that really is one of life's many unfairnesses. Could someone explain to me the problems with this particular proposal? I've a feeling there must be something that I haven't understood.

Ignoring the issue of inheritance/what's fair/what's enough/etc.

And yes, I get that if you have a slow, lingering illness such as dementia then you'd end up paying whereas those who die from a relatively short-lived disease wouldn't (or not to the same extent), but that really is one of life's many unfairnesses

One of life's unfairnesses?

I don't want to live in a society that financially penalises people who are unlucky. That completely undermines the basis of a welfare state.

If we recognise that people can require state support by dint of circumstances (in this case, health) entirely beyond their control, we need to decide, as a society, whether we pay for that support or not. The former is my political position; the latter is something I suspect only a hardcore psychopath would assert.

What kind of person can say "Yes, bad luck old chap, should have got cancer instead, huh, the NHS would have paid for all of that".

The discrimination between hospital-based and home-based care is by far my biggest problem with this issue. I don't see there should be any discrimination. It worries me that by blurring this particular line with a move which for many seems somehow intuitive (?!?), there becomes less of a problem in twenty years time when the next suggestion is those with cancer - or, if you like, a proper illness (sarcastic italics) - stump up for their own care.

I have a feeling that there will be lots of people refusing care in the home because they don't want to risk losing their house. I am also unclear as to how that care will be regulated and who will decide that if care is needed is that person going to be forced into residential care. Wheres the autonomy for the person involved? Yes, social care needs to be financed but this proposal in my opinion has not been thought through. I expect there will be knock on consequences for GPs and the emergency services as they are called upon when people who have no care in place can't look after themselves.

I fully agree with maidofstars

It'll screw so many people over, but it makes sense. People who retired at 60-65 could easily live another 30 years without paying any NI.

Toffeelatte that's not how it works, the new policy would guarantee £100k of the estate left.

Can you imagine someone getting diagnosed with dementia but having moments of clarity (as do many with degenerative brain conditions) and grabbing a bottle of pills to kill themselves so that their kids and grandkids can have their house that they slaved their guts out for instead of the govt getting it? I certainly can imagine people doing this.

There is something about "the family home" getting taken that doesn't exactly sit well with me. I was always brought up to believe that getting a roof over your head was the most critical thing and that you should never ever risk it in any way. In the event of money coming your way (eg we inherited £15k a few year ago) the money was to go straight off the mortgage. We had 2 bed house, we stuck the entire £15k to pay down the mortgage as we had both been brought up to believe was the no1 priority. We couldn't afford a holiday or any luxuries at all (of course we could have done with the £15k but we didn't) and still we chose the mortgage so would further secure the roof over our heads. If the house was to be taken for care anyway, we would have spent the money on a holiday or 5. Also, I can imagine the policy leading to people aged 55+ remortgaging/doing equity release plans to get the money out of their house to a) give to their kids/grandkids and b) spend on fun like holidays. So basically once they die/need care, the bank would be taking the house. Nobody is incentivised to own their home (or more than about 5% of it) if it's getting taken. I have not put this well, but I just think it is wrong and people will not stand for it. I know someone who owns the house their parents live in (to avoid tax? Not sure of the ins and outs of that one) but this sort of thing will get more common.

So atm there are 4 in our family and we live in 4 bed house. We have no other assets other than valueless car. So. When my dc leave home, surely the best plan to avoid the govt nicking our house if we need care would be for me and dh to sell our house and buy a flat each for the dc. Me and dh would then live in a rented flat. Nothing for the govt to take if we needed care.

I think it hasn't been thought through and is just a desperate grab for money and for TM to get labour voters to vote for her. I won't be voting for her.

In my charitable moments I wonder whether this is Theresa May looking at the enormous problem about to hit government finances and realising that a proper debate about this has to start sooner rather than later.

I'm really v confused by what some of you are saying. Dotandstripe are you saying that they are going to leave 100k but you are expected to pay ALL of the rest? As I thought it was like the following if you had a house worth 115k you would be expected to spend up to 100k and have just 15 left over. Am I entirely wrong?

As I thought it was like the following if you had a house worth 115k you would be expected to spend up to 100k and have just 15 left over. Am I entirely wrong?

Yep. In your scenario you would pay £15k and keep £100k which is obviously more than the current £23k you get to keep. The crucial difference as I understand it, is that the new proposal would count the value of your house towards home are whereas this isn't the case with home care currently.

If you believe they will leave your children with 100K you are deluded. This will be sold as a private finance venture, buying some kind of policy to ensure you ' keep ' the 100k. Private equity company will take over ownership of the house, and in the case you are in your own home for the care - all kinds of costs will be added to your ' health bill ' , your carer stays an extra five minutes to help you get dressed, that won't be covered by the insurance equity arrangement, other things won't be covered, then when you do finally die they will sell it as quick as possible and your children / the dog charity will get a pittance. If you are in a care home it will be even worse, those little extras, a different meals, nicer room, none of that will be covered by your ' insurance ', there will be feck all left. Don't be naive.

People are crying "dementia tax" and unfair on those with dementia, but the problem is that dementia will probably bankrupt the Western world. People will increasingly live to well over 100 but with little brain function. Dementia is not always life limiting.

I know this quite well as mil lived for about 15 years with increasingly severe dementia: doubly incontinent, screaming, then vegetative. Fil also has dementia and is physically quite well but again has no memory at all. Care for them has topped £500K - and in a very basic care home. I think it's fair that this was paid (even though we are not going to inherit anything!) but it should be the case that deprivation of assets is absolutely hunted down so that schmucks who didn't/couldn't pay for advice aren't unfairly clobbered.

Has it been clarified if people will be able to downsize to a more manageable property once care has started? It's a big concern that people may be trapped in unsuitable houses because there is a charge on them.

I have a disabled child with learning difficulties, our house was our only security for her future. There is a history of very long life and dementia in my family. As soon as I start to notice myself losing it in my 80s, I'm fucking off to dignitas.

"Do people think this is better or worse than the changes that were coming into force in 2020; where care bills were to be capped at £72k?"

Its much, much worse.

Most peoples' care will be over 72K, therefore they will lose more money.

It should be a cost shared by everyone, including pensioners- put a penny on income tax for everyone, this would pay for it all.
It doesn't penalise people who have a long term illness.

And this isn't just for old people- image if your 40, have a car accident and then need long term care at home- YOUR house will be targeted too!

because the really rich and wealthy will use all sorts of legal jiggery-pokery to get out of it

I don't think the "rich" by any reasonable definition are likely to be much affected by this in the first place, they can afford to pay for care out of their spare income.

It's the people with a paid-for home and 15K a year retirement income who will be affected, not those who are higher-rate taxpayers in retirement.

(I am in favour of the measure.)

"Can you imagine someone getting diagnosed with dementia but having moments of clarity (as do many with degenerative brain conditions) and grabbing a bottle of pills to kill themselves so that their kids and grandkids can have their house that they slaved their guts out for instead of the govt getting it? I certainly can imagine people doing this."

I have already told DH this weekend that I will do this.^^ I wont think twice about it.

I don't know what I think about it. Life is inherently unfair.

But I do know that we cannot support people properly with the current model and it's breaking the NHS.

Everything is unfair but perhaps it does make most sense for you to pay for your own care and for us to have less obsession with the inheritance of wealth.

The answer to me seems to be that if you are lucky enough to have some wealth, you should get rid of it before you become infirm/die!

MaidOfStars, but people are already being financially penalised penalised and have been for years .Whether this is right or wrong is up for debate. But either way under these new proposals you'd get to keep much more money than you currently do.

No doubt the very rich would find a way to fiddle the system but then they probably already do.

elevenclips You do that, and then you can deal with the vagaries of the private rental market in your old age. Entirely your choice.

Those bleating 'unfair' are being disingenuous at best. Where is the fairness in you getting their assets while the struggling taxpayer pays the bills? You are just displaying your selfish human nature. That is all there is to it. There are no 'higher' arguments to be made, except in a relatively small number of cases where younger people are concerned, and exceptions can be made in these cases.

Well the first problem is calling it social care - it's not if people are paying for it is it...?

And as some others have said, we don't make people pay for their healthcare, education or any other state-provided services until they only have a certain value of assets left and we should absolutely treat care in the same way as those things.

I think it is a terrible idea as it is all down to how lucky or unlucky you are. It makes people needing care feel like a burden so may increase suicides or result in people who need care simply not taking it. It also isn't clear if it applies to younger people with long term conditions which require life long care.

It would be fairer to lower the threshold for inheritance tax to £100,000 and everyone pay a certain percentage of assets at time of death on anything over this amount (say 10-20%) up to the current threshold when 40% kicks in. This would raise significant revenues as a lot of people own homes under the the current threshold. I think this would be simpler to administer too. Obviously, with spouses/partners and dependent relations living in the house protected over the course of their life time.

If I never needed care I really wouldn't begrudge paying inheritance tax in the same way I don't begrudge people who use the NHS more than me.

I do begrudge well off people who can afford solicitors to manage their affairs to get out of paying their inheritance tax (and other taxes).

It also means if you wish to leave money to your children, you will only have a percentage over 100K taken, not everything.

the problem is that dementia will probably bankrupt the Western world + But I do know that we cannot support people properly with the current model and it's breaking the NHS

put a penny on income tax for everyone

It would be fairer to lower the threshold for inheritance tax to £100,000
I avoided the inheritance tax argument earlier. But in principle, this is my position, although maybe the threshold is up for debate.

Why take assets off people that require Care package 1 but not Care package 2, citing that this still allows an inheritance to be passed along.

People requiring long-term residential or home care are being told they are only able to leave £100k. Healthy people can own £325k before they even have to worry about checking it out. People with cancer or other financially-costly medical issues that require hospital-based treatment can own £325k before they have to worry about checking it out.

If 100k is deemed "enough" for people with dementia, it should be deemed enough for everyone with assets to leave.

So much for me being charitable, Theresa May is currently doing a U-turn over this. It looks like I was more accurate with my comment:

governments will realise that since it will be political impossible to get people to agree to it in anything other than a watered-down form

Ah well, lucky for you they've u-turned then.