Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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:

GreenGinger2 · 23/05/2017 06:48

We may well need the money now but continuing to refuse to bring in a tax isn't rectifying the situation.

Home ownership was only 64% last year and it is falling. Why should only 64% and increasingly less fund this?

My parents house and our house were going to be put towards getting their grandchildren onto the housing ladder,pay their uni fees( we won't be able to afford to top up the loans) and to help with their/ our very paltry looking retirement. Said money can't do that and fund care.What will be the point of home ownership? Less and less people will be inclined to own thus wasting yet more years when we could all have been contributing. Eventually all but the uber rich will be going to uni,owning houses and having a retirement they actually want to live through.

Igneococcus · 23/05/2017 06:59

A few years back I received a call for applications for research grants looking into innovative ideas to deal with an aging population. In the introduction it said that by 2050 (not sure about the year, but definitely this century) every school leaver would have to go into care to maintain the current client-to-carer ratio. They were looking for technological approaches to this. Clearly this is not sustainable, neither from a people as well as from a funding point of view. We desperately need to have a proper discussion how we deal with this, it is going to hurt and I doubt it will be solved in a manifesto or in one electoral campaign but it needs to be addressed.

Shootfirstaskquestionslater · 23/05/2017 07:10

I don't know much about this but what they are doing now is taking all assets off people who need to pay for care and the families have to pay the top up so whatever way you look at it people will still be hit in the pocket including the super wealthy.

JoanRamone · 23/05/2017 08:07

There's no way in hell I'm voting Tory anyway, but can someone explain something for me please? Several posters have mentioned there being no point to owning a home now or overpaying a mortgage. All being well, DH and I hope to overpay the mortgage on a modest house (by which I mean not trying to move up and up the property ladder to somewhere with a very high mortgage) so that hopefully we will be mortgage-free earlier, whilst we will presumably both be working. We could then, again all being well, save the money we had been spending on the mortgage each month, with the intention that at some point we could stop working, knowing that the roof over our heads was paid for, there was money for living off of and that if we needed/wanted to we could downsize into a cheaper property. Those saying there is no point in overpaying or owning a home now, what do you now think is a better option and why? If these proposals go ahead, I mean.

endofthelinefinally · 23/05/2017 08:17

As soon as the spouse still living in the jointly owned property dies or goes into care. That is, once both the elderly couple are not living in the marital home, it is sold and the money goes to pay or refund fees.
Gifting or otherwise using thst money is deprivation of assets.
I know this from personal experience.
ALL my mother's share of their flat was used to pay fees. She had dementia. £180,000.
I dont know why people are saying they are allowed to keep their homes.

Slarti · 23/05/2017 08:23

Do people realise that there will also be interest added from the time care commences to the time the property is seized?

And do we not think that if the public accepts this it won't be extended to cover other costs like NHS treatment and beyond? The concept of private assets amongst the plebs will become a thing of the past. Own your own house? Got kids? The cost of their education will be added to your "death bill".

Biker47 · 23/05/2017 08:32

Those saying there is no point in overpaying or owning a home now, what do you now think is a better option and why? If these proposals go ahead, I mean.

They don't have any, it's purely for sensationalism, and strawmanning it to the nth degree.

I would very much like to own my own home, which I could decorate and make modifications to how I see fit, landscape the garden how I see fit, not have to worry about a landlord wanting me out, having equity there if I need to downsize or move, and if I don't need care (which I hopefully shouldn't) have something to pass on to my children, if not, they'll have at least £100k of it to help them. As it stands I currently have a house and when I can, will be overpaying the mortgage as best I can.

Saying there's now no point in owning a home is just throwing your toys out the pram.

JoanRamone · 23/05/2017 08:42

Biker- thanks, I thought exactly that but thought perhaps I was missing something.

Slarti · 23/05/2017 09:52

There will still be benefits to buying over renting, which will be manifest while you live there, but for the vast majority of people you will never truly own your home. The de facto owners will be the state/private care providers.

Instasista · 23/05/2017 10:45

Why do you think the state / care provider/ loan companies will own the majority of homes?

I can't imagine that the majority of people end up needing long term, very expensive care, can you? It's the exception, not the rule

olliegarchy99 · 23/05/2017 10:54

Why do you think the state / care provider/ loan companies will own the majority of homes?

I can't imagine that the majority of people end up needing long term, very expensive care, can you? It's the exception, not the rule

^^ this - but it seems some people refuse to look at the facts before leaping in to condemn.

minifingerz · 23/05/2017 11:16

I have a child with serious mental health needs, and another with autism.

The only thing which doesn't make me feel sick with worry about their future is the thought that I might be able to leave them enough to live mortgage/rent free so they don't end up homeless when I'm gone.

If housing wasn't so fucking precarious, expensive and worrying in the UK you wouldn't get people desperate to leave large amounts of money to their children.

Slarti · 24/05/2017 13:30

That's not actually what I said insta

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8