To Think That The Press Have No Understanding About What They Are Reporting Today.

[LuluJakey1]

I am in despair and really angry about Johnson's announcements re: social care today and how badly it is being reported. They are misleading people currently in the card system and those likely to be in it in the next 10-20 years.
As I understand it from what he said, the BBC and The Guardian:
He said - 'no one will pay more than £86,000 for personal care in their lifetime'. This creates an impression that anyone in a home will only pay up to £86,000 towards that care.

Wrong! It actually only covers the nursing care aspect in a care home and what specific personal care a local authority decides you need at home.

Currently, if you require nursing care in a care home, that element is paid for by local authorities at the rate of about £550 a month. From 2023, you will be expected to pay up to £86,000 towards that. No one seems to have spotted it is currently paid for.

Most people do not require full nursing care - they might need dressings changed or particular medicines given or a medical procedure. Very few require a full-time nurse. Most care is carried out by general carers and comes under social care- help dressing, washing etc- that won't be included in this care amount cap- it will be paid for separately by the resident in the home. For example, my aunt (90) requires help to have a shower and her breakfast- that will not be covered- she will be expected to pay for that. My uncle (90) in a care home with dementia has no nursing care so will pay for everything- it is assessed as social care- see below.

According to the BBC, we will have to pay for our 'board and lodgings and other extras in care homes- for example food, renting your bedroom, social care, hair cuts or anything else you choose to have'. So we will still pay almost the whole of care home fees.

It will only apply to anyone who requires care from when the tax starts in 2023- this was said by Johnson, Sunak and Javid directly. If you are already in the system you are stuck on current rules. "This always happens. Someone always misses the start date when a new system is introduced' said Javid.

In effect, anyone with savings and a house to sell will be in the same position they are currently in- at some point it will all be used and sold to pay for care until you are down to your last £20,000. In fact people will be in a worse position- they now have to also pay up to £86,000 of nursing care fees- currently paid by local authorities.

The whole thing is a huge con. MIL rang to say she and FIL are planning to sell up when it looks like they are heading that way- put the £86,000 each aside to pay for their care and buy a small flat. She was convinced a cap had been put on care costs. It hasn't, not at all. It is no reassurance for the vulnerable and elderly.

@MereDintofPandiculation

They're not losing their houses, they're paying for their living expenses from their assets, just like the rest of us have to all our lives.

The rest of us don't usually have to pay £1000 a week living expenses.

Some people are lucky and don't have to pay much, while others do. But I'd much prefer to have a functioning NHS and decent social care and have people inherit £100k rather than £800k.

Or more usually £20,000 instead of £300-400k

that euthanasia has been mentioned on the same thread makes me feel so depressed. It's been mentioned by people who do not want to continue their life after everything they value has been lost, usually in the context of dementia. I don't see that as depressing. It's the disease that is making life not worth living.

From personal observation it's often it's the adult children rather than the people needing care who get have a problem with the costs, they don't like to see an anticipated inheritance vanishing before their eyes. That may be your personal observation. I strongly object to being kept alive when everything I value is lost to me, but given that there isn't a practical alternative (I believe Dignitas don't take people with dementia) I sure as hell object to my money being used to pay to keep me alive against my will.

Exactly. I don’t want to be kept alive, not recognise my kids, be rude to my kids, have someone wipe my bum. No way. For me the wiping of the bum would be time to go. We don’t wipe dogs bums and keep them alive.

@Zotter that sounds utterly shit. I'm in Scotland so wasn't really aware that people had to pay for care in the home out of their benefits.

@IceandIndigo I'm not familiar with the details of Burnham's proposal, but I would guess the 10% covers it because of the small percentage of very wealthy people for whom 10% is an enormous amount. Which is no doubt why the Tories would never accept it.

I thought this initially too but wouldn't the very wealthy be getting around this with family trust deeds?

@Plumtree391 Inheritance tax is huge!

What  are we reading different tax laws here? Am I being daft and completely misunderstanding this?

£325,000 tax free? £500,000 tax free if you leave a home to children or grandchildren?

If that's correct then do you perhaps live in the South East by any chance? £325,000 would get you a 5 bed detached on a naice estate in my neck of the woods. £325,000 is more than I would ever realistically expect to pay for a house.

And outside of those allowances it's 40% (and only if you didn't give it all away 7 years before you died). More allowances for businesses.

I'm honestly not seeing what is huge about that? Considering it's being received by someone as completely unearned income?

We tax income at 41% on anything over £43,600 here, but taxing £1000 of a £326,000 windfall at 40% - £400 - is huge...?

@WaltzForDebbie

"So surely it is also fair that if you own a £750,000 house and have savings, are in your 40s, fit and well and work in a high-paying job you should use your house and savings to pay for the residential care of your disabled child? Sell the house and buy a house for £250,000- use the £500,000 asset to pay for your child?

I am using this as an example- not as my view. Why is this different to an elderly person whose husband/wife is frail and requires care and who has no earning potential left?"

Just making the point because you don't see people complaining much about woeful carers allowance and shocking disability benefits. There is only a massive fuss when it's something that affects more people. Eg. worried they might most their or kids' inheritance. There is no acknowledgement that maybe they were lucky to build up these savings in the first place.

In your example person in 40s probably won't have huge assets with a severely disabled child because they have already given up work to care for them.

If it's about unfairness then focus on those who are really bottom of the pile eg. disabled and long term sick and sort out disability benefits.

Read my posts. I am talking about my god-daughter's parents. She is in full-time residential care, paid for by the state because of SEN issues. Her parents own a house worth £750,000, no mortgage, bought for £260,000. He earns a large salary - works for a multi-national at Director level, she has her own business.They inherited a lot of money from his parents who lived on Poole Harbour.

They pay nothing towards their daughter's care costs. My question is why not? They have the capacity to earn for another 20 years. Why should they not sell their house and release £500,000 of equity to pay for her care? Or spend their inheritance?

Anyway, this will all go tits up. The Press have started to realise today that £86,000 is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what people will pay as they will still pay for living costs- as outlined above.

They have also realised that care homes charge people who can pay more because councils will only pay a lower rate for those who can't. So those who have to pay already have their costs increased to subsidise those who can't pay.

So those who have saved enough to buy a home, paid tax and NI, never claimed benefits, have to expect to pay hundreds of thousands towards their own care and subsidise yet again the costs of those who have no savings or house to sell - despite the fact they have done that their whole life with tax and NI. And this utterly shitty, lying government is creating the impression 'no one will ever pay more than £86,000 for personal care'. There was an elderly couple on the news this evening looking relieved that 'Now we know how much it is we can work our finances out, sell our house, buy a small retirement flat and see what we have left to live on for the next few years if we put the £172,000 for care aside incase we need to pay it. We'd like to have a couple of short holidays and have an amount to leave our son and daughter'. They have been conned by Johnson. They will need the lost still.

It is a fallacy that people spend hundreds of thousands on 'Personal care and nursing' - it is spent on carehome costs- living in a carehome because you are frail. Nursing costs are already met by the local council for anyone who needs them- they pay about £600 a month. People will now have to pay that until they have paid £86,000 and still pay carehome costs for living there - my uncle currently pays £1100 a week in a care home. He has no nursing care. Pays that for being looked after in a modern, chain, care home because he is very frail- accomodation, food, washing and social care.

I had not understood this. That's actually shocking.

Essentially, working people are being asked to pay more tax, supposedly to sort out social care, but actually, those people who need care will be asked to pay more under the new system rather than less?

I shouldn't be surprised but ffs!

I presume that all of the money is going to the NHS then? And that NI was used because the elderly are going to have to suck up the extra nursing costs if they need them?

I wish the government would just be honest and say that this tax increase is for the NHS because it needs more money, and we haven't yet got a plan for sorting out social care.

Lifelong disability is NOT comparable to old age care because the former is a very small minority of people. If the population multiplied 4-fold it wouldn’t result in a significant increase in the amount as the % of those born disabled is small.
By contrast a large percentage of people will need care as they grow old because many diseases are the natural result of old age. The more people there are , the higher the amount due to the large multiplier.

Finally - the biggest problem is that the U.K. has an ageing popuLation. With a smaller tax base who’s going to fund all this?

Finally - the biggest problem is that the U.K. has an ageing popuLation. With a smaller tax base who’s going to fund all this?

1. Life expectancy has stagnated.

1. The answer is stop the anti anti smoking campaign. Problem solved. People won't live longer - and they'll pay lots of tax whilst they're alive.

A good way to ensure state funded (5*) care without having to sell your home/s (and excellent pensions + private healthcare) is to become an MP.

the U.K. has an ageing popuLation. With a smaller tax base who’s going to fund all this?

All the pensioners who are apparently rolling in it and paying tax on our gold plated pensions. The tax base will be a damn sight smaller in 20 odd years when we’re all dead.

1. Life expectancy has stagnated.

Not seeing how this has a bearing on the ageing population?

Decrease in fertility + people having less children + people having children later in life.

(From ONS)
The fastest increase will be seen in the 85 years and over age group. In mid-2016, there were 1.6 million people aged 85 years and over (2% of the total population); by mid-2041 this is projected to double to 3.2 million (4% of the population) and by 2066 to treble, by which time there will be 5.1 million people aged 85 years and over making up 7% of the total UK population.

2. The answer is stop the anti anti smoking campaign. Problem solved. People won't live longer - and they'll pay lots of tax whilst they're alive.

I mean that's one way... or they could equally live to the ripe old age of 93 like my beautiful chimney nana.

But encouraging people to be unhealthier in all the ways and taxing all the unhealthy things is surely the opposite of what we want? That's just shunting the bill from social care onto the NHS where they'll need to be treated?

We ideally want people to live as long and as healthy a life as possible. Which would probably involve taking steps now to ensure we're healthier in 20-40 years. Which no government seems to be all that interested in aside from gimmicks and lip service.

@TractorAndHeadphones

Lifelong disability is NOT comparable to old age care because the former is a very small minority of people. If the population multiplied 4-fold it wouldn’t result in a significant increase in the amount as the % of those born disabled is small. By contrast a large percentage of people will need care as they grow old because many diseases are the natural result of old age. The more people there are , the higher the amount due to the large multiplier.

Finally - the biggest problem is that the U.K. has an ageing popuLation. With a smaller tax base who’s going to fund all this?

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the proportions of people with a lifetime disability. The prevalence of autism has increased and it's not just about better diagnosis:

www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2021/03/autismratesincrease/

There are also more people living with a long term condition. These people need much more support over the lifetime than those older people who only need substantial support in the last few months of their lives.

Nursing costs are already met by the local council for anyone who needs them- they pay about £600 a month. People will now have to pay that until they have paid £86,000

@LuluJakey1 you've misunderstood this. The LA do NOT pay nursing costs, the NHS do. The current rate is just under £188 per week. It's paid by the NHS. to the Nursing Home if the resident meets the criteria for nursing. There is no proposal to change this.

@nettie434only a small proportion of autistic children need full support throughout their lives. I have some stats stowed away somewhere… see if I can dig them out.

Fundamentally something has to change and that something rightfully should be people who can afford it paying more for their own care.

My DGM paid for all her own care after a lifetime of obsessively saving as she came from a very poor family and was terrified of living in poverty again. I'm fine with that.

She also paid a lot more for her care than the people in the same home who were paid for by the state. I'm not particularly annoyed about that, I'm aware that the amount councils pay doesn't cover the costs - but it does need to be recognised and I can see why some people would find that unfair.

That's absolutely true Tractorandheadphones. I was trying to make the point that the proposals don't help those needing care over the lifetime or for a large proportion of their lives. Most people receiving publicly funded social care are now under 65. To use Lulujakey1's example of someone whose parents live in a £750k house, that house would only buy a few years care in a specialist unit for people with challenging behaviour.

@Tealightsandd

Because he said he'd Get Brexit Done.

And 'but Corbyn'.

Yes. The opposition refused to acknowledge popular public will. Whatever you think of Brexit, it was clear the public wanted what Corbyn (but not his party) wanted. Which was Brexit. Once Cameron gave the referendum, there was no going back. If you ignore what the public vote for, they won't vote for you. Particularly if you come across as arrogant and patronising and tell everyone they're wrong or stupid.

And 'but Corbyn' isn't to be dismissed. One option being bad doesn't automatically make the other option any better. It was on Labour to make themselves electable. Blair and Corbyn both lost the Labour party many votes. Both utterly different but equally dreadful men. Many many people voted against (Jeremy Corbyn) rather than for (Boris Johnson).

You say that it was clearly 'the public will' to get Brexit done at the last election, yet many more people voted for 'remain' parties than voted for the conservatives.

We just have a very unrepresentative first past the post system that doesn't reflect the voting patterns or opinions of the country.

@FreeBritnee

If they want people to stop costing the state money in their old age then allow euthanasia FFS!!!! I don’t believe many of the elderly ravaged by illness wish to be stuck in a care home. Allow people an option.

My FIL heard the news about social care changes yesterday and said quite openly that he plans to off himself when the time comes that he'd go into a home.

He said if it was a toss up between a few years in a dingy, depressing nursing care facility or leaving his life savings to his kids, it would be a no-brainer.

We were a bit 😳 but I don't think he'll be the only one. Fucking Tories.

My FIL heard the news about social care changes yesterday and said quite openly that he plans to off himself when the time comes that he'd go into a home.He said if it was a toss up between a few years in a dingy, depressing nursing care facility or leaving his life savings to his kids, it would be a no-brainer.

Nothing changed for your Fil yesterday. He’s in the same position he was ten years ago. The thing self funding gives you is choice so you don’t end up somewhere dingy and depressing. And by the time he needs residential care, if he does, he won’t have the capacity or ability to see himself off. You see this nonsense spouted here all the time by people who have no experience of the reality of old age.

@Blossomtoes. agreed

It will become even more important to obtain power of attorney for medical/health purposes.

Many people wrongly believe that next of kin automatically get to say what happens to their loved ones during ill health, but if you don’t have POA the local authority will be making the choices.

That's just shunting the bill from social care onto the NHS where they'll need to be treated?

No because smokers pay for their NHS care (and for other people's).

www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money

The Smoking and the Public Purse report argues that the government spends £3.6bn treating smoking-related diseases on the NHS and up to £1bn collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires.

The government saves £9.8bn annually in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments due to premature mortality, the IEA said.

Meanwhile, the government brings in £9.5bn a year in duty paid on tobacco, the IEA said. Suggesting this means smoking produces a net saving to public finances of £14.7bn a year, at current rates of consumption.

@Feelingoktoday

I’m still not understanding it.

Current system. Elderly person in a care home, no nursing required apart from helping to get dressed etc, would pay for their room etc using their pension and assets until there was approx £21k left. Any nursing care required in future would be paid by NHS?

New system - as above but nursing care is also paid for upto £86k.

??

Yes, that is right. We will now all pay an additional £86,000 if we wend up in a home- ontop of current costs if you are frail enough to need nursing care.

@EmmaGrundyForPM

Nursing costs are already met by the local council for anyone who needs them- they pay about £600 a month. People will now have to pay that until they have paid £86,000

@LuluJakey1 you've misunderstood this. The LA do NOT pay nursing costs, the NHS do. The current rate is just under £188 per week. It's paid by the NHS. to the Nursing Home if the resident meets the criteria for nursing. There is no proposal to change this.

The NHS pays then- the point is nursing care will now be paid for (from 2023) up to £86,000 by the person needing the care- nursing care and personal care. Plus they will also pay their own care home fees for living there and social care. It was said that clearly on the BBC several times and in a discussion in parliament.

@TractorAndHeadphones

Lifelong disability is NOT comparable to old age care because the former is a very small minority of people. If the population multiplied 4-fold it wouldn’t result in a significant increase in the amount as the % of those born disabled is small. By contrast a large percentage of people will need care as they grow old because many diseases are the natural result of old age. The more people there are , the higher the amount due to the large multiplier.

Finally - the biggest problem is that the U.K. has an ageing popuLation. With a smaller tax base who’s going to fund all this?

But it is a life-long payment. I keep asking this question- if a child with SEN requires life-long residential care and their parents are wealthy, work full-time, own a large house worth £750,000 mortgage free and have inherited money- why should they not pay for that care? They have a lot of money in 'equity' and savings plus high salaries and the capacity to earn for the next 20-30 years?

If we think they shouldn't- child didn't ask to be born with such difficulties, patents didn't expect a child with such difficulties or whatever the reason- why should a person in their 70s in a care home with frailty pay hundreds of thousands for their care? They didn't ask to be frail or want to be frail? Why should they lose their life-savings and the parents of the child in residential care pay nothing?

@LuluJakey1 you seem determined to misunderstand. Nursing care costs WON'T be counted in the £86k. Nursing care is free to users in this country. The (social) care costs will be counted, the Nursing care won't.