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.

I think it's awful that the State doesn't take care of the elderly. The promise was cradle to grave and that's why people paid their NI stamp all their working lives.

(Those saying that nobody has paid in enough, you can only pay in the appropriate amount while you are contributing. Everything becomes more expensive with time and what you pay in now will not be "enough" to keep you when you're old).

Babies wouldn't be means-tested or left to fend for themselves, and extreme old age and dementia is simply the other, helpless end of the same life. Why should anyone be made ill and anxious worrying about how to finance this? It's crazy that old people are hustled out of hospital and expected to find luxury hotel money just for the kind of basic care that geriatric wards used to provide.

Round here losing half of the house would be a huge change. And it would only pay for a few years care before the state came into play anyway achieving nothing but stress.

But, fwiw another option is the older age related housing products which are springing up now and will only become more popular.

They are already popular in countries where there is no social security system- ie South Africa. At say, 60,70, whilst in reasonable health, you sell your home and buy life rights (but not bricks and mortar) in a "complex"

Basically you move into a house or flat on complex and live independently. As your health deteriorates, the support provided by the complex increases, until you're out the flat and in end of life care.

The advantage is, you are guaranteed care until you die, at the level of luxury you can afford when you arrive.

The disadvantage is you swap your house for a much cheaper accommodation, which you do not own, and you risk dropping dead from a heart attack 3 years in and the complex have profited.

The complex obviously, relies on a mixture of both to keep them profitable.

I think we should all be paying a social care tax as soon as you start earning.All pay the same then nobody will be put off saving or helping their DC out. Penalising the prudent (and many will be penalised for being prudent) is ridiculous.

Perhaps we should start going on the flash foreign holidays and having nice cars rather than overpaying the mortgage...

Why not exploding? You make life choices. Don't be a martyr about it.

But overpaying is the right thing to do,it's not being a martyr. A few months ago we were all being encouraged to pay down debt. Now you will just lose out if you do.

Absolutely nothing to do with greed. I practice in a pretty socioeconomically deprived area, many of my service users wouldn't be affected as they don't own, or their properties are worth less than £100k. But for those who bought young, whose properties have increased in value, they would be affected. These are people who worked to give their kids a better life, they think they need to save everything they have for their children, no matter how often I tell them they need to put themselves first.

These are also people who were raised in the valleys, the crucible of the welfare state, who expected "cradle to grave" to mean something. Miners and industrial workers who paid their stamp and are bemused and grieved that the state no longer wants to care for them. The financial assessment process confuses and distresses them and leads many to refuse care or interventions already.

Furthermore it seems completely at odds with policies to streamline health and social care, and to promote independence and wellbeing in the community. Everything we do is centred around keeping people out of care homes, but if they're going to lose their house and everything they've saved for either way, where is their incentive to engage with occupational therapy and stay at home? It's all a bit bonkers to me.

Overpaying isn't the right thing to do, it's a choice. You take out a 25 year loan at x per month repayment, you're neither expected to, or applauded for, paying more than that. In fact paying more is only to benefit yourself, to pay off the loan faster.

Welsh it's not about giving the kids a better life is it? We're talking about people whose "children" are middle aged!

I've always saved for a rainy day. I don't do exotic holidays or buy expensive cars for that reason. I over pay my mortgage. I am a saver - which until recently was a good attribute. I'm now going to spend my savings. I'm going to downsize my house and clear my kids debts and student loans. I'm going to buy the car I've always wanted and I'm going on a cruise. Why should I be penalised for saving?

The exceptionally rich will not be paying for their care as they will already be taking to their lawyers about trusts. I bet more and more ordinary people who happen to own a house in the south east will be doing that too.

Hello sorry to ask a personal question but how old are you?

YANBU. I'm a member of the Labour Party but I think this policy is reasonable. £100k is still a good chunk of money to pass on!

My parents went without hugely over the years to be able to afford a house they could leave their children. Whenever we moaned they'd say you'll thank us one day. They pushed us into getting on the ladder ASAP. When our peers were spending their wages we were scrimping for a deposit.Their money,their choice. We have done the same. Our money our choice. Others choose other things. Their choice,their money.

And 100k is nothing between 3.

30k each is very different to 100k as regards making retirement easier for children.

Why should some on perfectly good incomes over the years contribute nothing to their care whilst others are stripped of money they have put to the future?

Are we?

Many of my service users requiring care and support at home are only in their 60s.

Because that's the way life goes green. You have to consider the very real likely hood you won't need care at all. Don't over dramatise it.

Fair point Welsh, but it's surely not common for people to require life long care from their 60s? Not saying it doesn't happen obviously.

What do you think should happen to the homeowner who needs care? The tax payer should fund it? Why?
Because we fund all care costs for people suffering from other types of disease.

I honestly can't see how you can reasonably draw a line between someone needing hospital-based care (e.g. cancer) and someone needing residential or home-based care (e.g. dementia).

Both are ill, and both need help, medical intervention and support. For me, I am happy to have a welfare state that covers both a nurse delivering chemo drugs in a hospital ward and a nurse (or other trained person) changing the underwear of a home-based patient suffering incontinence.

What some pay for their care,others who are perfectly capable don't. Some get to choose what their money goes on,others don't. Why?

Why can't we pay a tax so we all pay and those who choose to can still invest in their dc's future.

It's not common for anyone to require lifelong care. Social care in the home is not an inevitability is it?

Of course I can reasonably draw the line maid. How many people
Need daily cancer treatment for 10
Years?!

Green what do you mean some who are perfectly able to pay for their care don't? Who doesn't?

In the future the non home owners who could have been but who aren't through choice or those who could have spent less and had bigger equity over 100k.

When Bevan talked about cradle to grave, the life expectancy wasn't what it is these days. It's unreasonable to expect the state to keep paying for the level of care that people both need and deserve. I don't believe this is the answer but neither do I believe that this country can continue like this. I don't think people even realise what things are like at the moment.

Why can't we just all start paying a tax ASAP? We could have all been paying it the last 5 years.

Do you honestly believe many people make the choice at 30,40, not to become home owners to avoid care fees? A life of sacrificing DIY, decorating, moving to good schools, staying near family, moving wherever landlord requires, getting housed without choice of location, for the purposeful reason of choosing not to own a house because they'd rather not? Do you think that's common? That people can afford to buy but consciously chose not to? Instead choosing a old age of private rent payments or limited choice for life in council housing. You think many people genuinely chose that?

My mortgage is £1k a month. To rent my house would be £1,600 a month. Do you think there are many people my age CHOOSING to
Pay £1,600 a month for laughs? So they can sorry, have brilliant holidays?

If people need and deserve a level of care but the state shouldn't pay for it then who does deserve it and what level of care should they have? There is a paucity of options for people who want to stay in their own home who require care. There is no "system" from what I can see that makes any real sense. Government investment is needed and that has to be funded by general taxation. It's not a bill that needs to be paid by an individual. Decent care in the home should be a basic right.