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.

Re parents helping with deposits that's not really relevant. It's paid back to the parents are part of the mortgage product.

So a 55 year old couple lend their 30 year old £40k. It's paid back to them over say, 10 years. The couple are 65 and loads of time before they need care, so it's available again.

Or, you're talking about the gift of a deposit which is different, as it is cash, although again, tends to take place many many years before the parents need care.

Oops, directly to their own children to help with house purchase, reducing the mortgage, extension, whatever.

It isn't just about old people who need care but they're overwhelmingly the main group who will be affected won't they?

Instas just because you can afford the first few years fees for the nicer homes it doesn't mean you are entitled to stay there forever.The fees are eye watering. Once you are no longer able to pay there is no guarantee you will stay. You will be at the mercy of the state the same as everybody else.

Yes but at least you have given yourself every chance rather than being on the council from day 1, or killing youself, eh?

(I don't really see what difference it makes. If you run out of money you run out. How does that have any bearing on the reasonableness of the Tory proposal?)

And I am nearly 50. My DC won't be anywhere near buying a house until I am 70. Our relation in care is in her 70s. My DC have 10 years of education left. I have 3 so would need to spread it over a longer period than 10 years.

There will be no choice. It's nothing about choice, if you ain't paying private fees you ain't staying. They aren't charities. The value of most people's houses would only cover a tiny fraction of many years of care.

I don't know if they'll be the most affected group. Either numerically or in real terms. A lot of homeowning pensioners knew their home was their residential care package and have taken that into account.
Younger people who are disabled have no idea what's coming.

Exploded people with no assets can't be charged through them can they? I don't quite understand the scenario you're referring to?

Green- my parents and in laws have house worth £400k currently, each. Now that's a lot but not unusual.

Do you really think both parents will be unfortunate to need care of more than £200k? Or, say my dad goes first and uses the full £400k. That's around 8 years care. My mum goes on the council. That's unlucky but oh well. And 8 years in care isn't in any way usual. Again, I don't quite understand the scenario you're painting.

So say you have a car accident tomorrow. Your spine is damaged. You will never walk again. You're 35 with 2 young dc. There is nothing that can be done medically. You have a mortgage. You need help with social care every day for the next 40 years.

*assuming you don't get some insurance payout!

So the equity in my home
Would pay for my care. When they equity runs out the local authority would step in. I totally understand the scenario, I just don't understand what's wrong with the Tory solution.

What do you think should happen to the homeowner who needs care? The tax payer should fund it? Why?

I'm just saying there is no advantage to being a home owner. You inferred there was, that those without equity would have council house care and those with would have choice. Not so.£200k would give you 4 years without nursing. Then you are the same as everybody else.You can live with arthritis for years.

It should be a cost shared by everyone, including pensioners- put a penny on income tax for everyone, this would pay for it all

But why should those who can't afford their own home (or can't afford one >£100k) pay more tax so that the offspring of wealthy pensioners get a bigger inheritance?

This sounds so like a labour policy that I can only assume labour don't like it because it wasn't their idea and they are duty bound to disagree with 'the tories'.

Possibly it'll improve the culture of giving whilst people are alive which would be no bad thing and go some way to assisting first time buyers.

the biggest remaining problem with this policy is that there's no exemption for disabled people needing care before retirement age. Other than that, a cap will allow an insurance market to develop and it's all a step towards addressing the funding crisis due to the ageing population.

Oh course there is an advantage to being a homeowner! I get to choose my care for as long as my money lasts! Surely that's obvious? How is that not an advantage?

What if I need to go into a care home? I live in Bristol. So do my family. I can chose somewhere near home, maybe my partner will also live there, or maybe I will
Have a friend there. I can choose a place with suitable exercise classes, maybe lectures and events and day trips. Maybe people coming in to speak. Maybe a hair salon, bar, restaurant and shop onsite. Maybe a beautiful room, with a nice view.

The council? Maybe they'll tell
Me I'm going to a brick monstrosity in burnham on sea to watch this morning whilst being fed prison food. Who knows? Either way I'll
Have to go where council send me won't I? No choice.

Right now they do. If it was nursing care it would be.
My biggest concern is around the detail. Could you move after care is begun? Could you move after diagnosis? Your assets cease to be your own because of deprivation of assets. It could leave a spouse stuck in an unsuitable house after your death.

Many aren't wealthy,many have just scrimped so they can own their own home or a bigger home. Others may have chosen not to scrimp and to enjoy life more in a smaller home or to rent. It's not all only the poor don't own medium or bigger houses. Many choose not to. We have chosen not to cripple ourselves with the maximum mortgage so we can enjoy life to some degree. Why should those who put their extra money into property lose out but those who choose to spend it on holidays eating out etc don't.

4 years of care out of a possible 20 is nothing. In my relation's case 2 years private out of years. Her equity only funds 2. She is in her 70s with crippling arthritis, our family live into their 90s.She will be at the mercy of the council after her money has run out.She will be moving. 2 years choice- woopy doo.

The council would place you as near as possible.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't move providing you can afford to after any relevant charges against the house have been taken into account.

I just can't imagine what kind of miserly attitude people must have to think that they should have their care funded in their old age because they want to give their house to someone else as inheritance. Indon understand the argument about those who spend money on their house "losing out"
Against those who had a nice life. We make life choices everyday, you can't spend all your time being bitter about them. It's short sighted and naive

But what's your point green? She can't afford any longer than 2 years. I don't understand what you want for her. Those 2 years in shit care for free too?

I'm a bit confused about this.

Surely it'll just end up that people will sell their homes once they get to a certain age and rent/live with family, giving the proceeds from their house sale to relatives before death as a sort of pre-inheritance to get around the care/inheritance costs?

So some get to make no provision for the future, to just spend any spare cash whilst others save ahead and put it into something they want to leave to their children paid for with their own money and they are miserly.

Why is it ok to spend spare cash on holidays but not on your dc's future?

They won't be able to ninypoo. If they are suspected of giving away assets to avoid paying for care they'll still be charged. Local authorities do this now.