Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to support Conservative social care proposals

188 replies

morningtoncrescent62 · 22/05/2017 10:13

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.

OP posts:
charlestonchaplin · 22/05/2017 13:18

Why Spam88? I'm sure people better informed than me can make a long list of reasons why old age care should be treated differently, but I'll start with a few.

We'll all die, we are living much longer so old age care is a probability, not a small possibility. We have plenty of time to plan for it. Asking younger people to pay for health and other services at the point of need would introduce a great stressor into their lives when money is typically quite tight.

But people can't take their wealth to the grave so asking the elderly to pay from their estate after death isn't a great stressor. Any stress comes from a misplaced sense of obligation, from within, not from external factors. It's not fair on society to pass the wealth onto adult children while the taxpayer is struggling to meet costs.

People just want to eat their cake and have it. Dementia care isn't rocket science. I've done it for many years. If you can't or don't want to do it, someone will have to be paid to do it. Where your parents are concerned, if you don't want to 'pay', then they should, not me.

MotherhoodFail · 22/05/2017 13:19

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

MaidOfStars · 22/05/2017 13:21

If you can't or don't want to do it, someone will have to be paid to do it. Where your parents are concerned, if you don't want to 'pay', then they should, not me
Do you feel that way about cancer treatment?

MaidOfStars · 22/05/2017 13:23

I wondered whether May was actually using it as a means of losing the election and scuppering Brexit. Too Machiavellian?
(Remainer)
Oh god, I hope so. I've always said that the only thing I have left to cling to is the premise that the Tories are more underhand/evil/psychopathic/whatever than I'd ever hoped Grin

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 22/05/2017 13:23

Maid the Inheritance Tax threshold is due to go up to 1 million, for couples soon. So wealthy people will be able to pay for Thierry own care then pass on £1m, without any tax. Whilst the middle lot will be left with 100,000 to pas on. It makes me so angry that yet again the wealthy get to hold on to their wealth.

Original poster
morningtoncrescent62 · 22/05/2017 13:23

I think I've u-turned as well! Some good arguments on this thread - and I do still think the proposal is better than more or less anything else in the Conservative manifesto (bar Scottish independence - I'm in Scotland and emphatically don't want IndyRef 2).

But I've thought more about the unfairnesses pp have pointed out, and also the principal of universal services, so I'm withdrawing my support for the proposal, in favour of a lower inheritance tax threshhold and higher inheritance tax rates. Plus measures to sort out our completely broken housing market which has resulted in unearned wealth for some (mainly older people) on the one hand, together with a housing crisis (mainly affecting younger people) on the other, and is largely responsible for people feeling they have to hold on to the wealth now tied up in houses for the relatives left behind.

OP posts:
maddening · 22/05/2017 13:24

I don't agree with it when the person is living in their house receiving what is likely minimal substandard care as opposed to those residential care

teapotter · 22/05/2017 13:24

It's not perfect but it deals with three big issues:

  1. The unearned housing wealth of people who have been lucky enough to buy at the right time and place, which isn't taxed at present.
  2. The incentive for pensioners to stay in big houses (rather than downsize) to avoid paying for care under the current system.
  3. The fact that homeowners with no savings get care whereas tenants who use, say, 50k of life savings to pay their rent have to pay for care!!

It isn't perfect, and I'd rather see a big hike in inheritance tax as that would remove the health lottery element. But at least it starts to tackle the problem. I wish labour would put forward a decent proposal to fairly fund care from housing wealth.

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 22/05/2017 13:25

Excuse typos!

nauticant · 22/05/2017 13:29

If you can't or don't want to do it, someone will have to be paid to do it. Where your parents are concerned, if you don't want to 'pay', then they should, not me

Do you feel that way about cancer treatment?

One difference between much social care and medical care is that a family member can do the former but often not the latter. But if you have a situation where the family member could do the social care but chooses not to and then expects the State to do it for them while guaranteeing that they get their inheritance, then there's something off.

charlestonchaplin · 22/05/2017 13:33

Where the elderly are concerned, it doesn't matter to me why people need home or residential care. Where hospital care is concerned there would be administrative difficulties that could make the whole process not worth it. Yes, it would be difficult for people to digest initially but we'd eventually get to the stage of understanding that this is how things are for elderly care, once a certain age has been reached. People can plan accordingly.

charlestonchaplin · 22/05/2017 13:38

I talk about 'the elderly' not because they are not valued as a group but because if they have significant assets they can't take them to the grave, so we are really talking about providing an inheritance. They shouldn't be passing on those assets to family when they have needs to be met.

ExplodedCloud · 22/05/2017 13:40

It's not just about the elderly though.

charlestonchaplin · 22/05/2017 13:43

I know. I support different measures for younger people. But for those who want to pass on their wealth to their family I say, you need to pay your bills first.

ExplodedCloud · 22/05/2017 13:55

Got no issue with my parents house funding any care they need. Never seen it as my 'inheritance'.
This proposal is for social care. No exemptions given for younger people afaik. I would therefore assume there are none. Our house isn't my 6 year old's inheritance. It's his home.

MaidOfStars · 22/05/2017 14:09

I support different measures for younger people
What does that look like as a policy?

Age cutoff? Disease type?

And why? Why should a younger person with, say, a brain injury that requires home-based care be allowed to keep their assets intact?

charlestonchaplin · 22/05/2017 14:34

Because of the great impact on a spouse/long-term partner and actual children (rather than adult children, usually very mature adult children rather than those just starting to make their way in the world). For a single person the usual rules would apply.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 22/05/2017 14:40

I think these issues look a little different if you have a child who won't be able to live independently. I'm consulting legal advisers about tax efficient ways to make over assets to ds so they can be used for his benefit when I can't be there for him. Totally agree social care needs funding and I'd happily pay extra tax hypothecated for that purpose now. I want to have certainty as to what I can leave ds after my death, not have to worry about assets being taken when I'm not there to protect him.
God thinking about this makes me want to weep

nauticant · 22/05/2017 14:58

I'd happily pay extra tax hypothecated for that purpose now

I wouldn't be happy about paying extra tax if the reason for this was to protect people's inheritance of unearned wealth (through vastly increased house values). I'm not really a fan of hypothecation either, it just encourages politicians to play games. It's better for the State to decide how much money needs to be raised through taxes to run necessary services and to raise it.

AppearingNormal · 22/05/2017 15:23

You and me both Karlos.

nigelsbigface · 22/05/2017 15:24

I get that these plans de incentivise saving and or owning a house.And that people want to leave their house or wealth to their children.
But I work in social care.And it is a crippled system. If we don't do something like this, I can't see where the money is coming from.

It is unfair for people those unlucky enough to need care to pay for their own if they have the means to do so (to supplement those that don't have the money to do so presumably?) I suppose it might seem so, and it will feel very harsh to those that haven't expected it-but the money has to come from somewhere, and there is no reason why you shouldn't be responsible for yourself in older age in the same way you are before you retire.

It seems more of a labour sort of policy than a conservative one-I wonder what labours idea on this is-I haven't really had time to check outtheir proposal on this yet.

MaidOfStars · 22/05/2017 16:00

I wouldn't be happy about paying extra tax if the reason for this was to protect people's inheritance of unearned wealth
Isn't that, in essence, what is happening with the refusal to realistically consider any raises to inheritance tax?

I'm not necessarily going to argue that we shouldn't reduce the max inheritance asset value to £100k; I'm arguing about such a rule is being applied.

If £100k is deemed a suitable inheritance for a dementia sufferer, it should be considered a suitable inheritance for a cancer sufferer. Or a healthy person.

MaidOfStars · 22/05/2017 16:01

I'm arguing about such a rule is being applied
I'm arguing about how such a rule is being applied

nauticant · 22/05/2017 16:07

I have no problem with the government increasing inheritance tax together with measures to cut down on the avoidance of it. I'd have that in place in addition to people's houses being sold to pay for social care subject to protections being in place to avoid creating hardship, eg spouses or vulnerable dependents being chucked out of houses.

Welshmaenad · 22/05/2017 16:16

It's a very Tory policy.

Older people faced with the prospect of their children losing their inheritance, and having to negotiate confusing equity release products, will simply refuse care. They will be at increased risk at home and they will have a fall or neglect their personal care needs, then they will end up in hospital then they will die.

I am an adult social worker in Wales where for personal care at home, income is assessed and contributions are capped at £60 per week and I have enough trouble convincing people to accept care and that Our Dai doesn't need you salting you attendance allowance away for his inheritance.

People will die.

Then the Tories won't have to pay their pensions for so long.

I bet Treesa's very excited about that.