New health and social care tax....

[worriedmum20000]

...I can't find a thread about it, have I missed it? Staggered really that anyone earning over £10k will be expected to pay, that someone earning £20k will pay £130 extra yet someone on £100k just £1,130pa which of course and the cap is only £86k yet stamp duty has recently been increased on transactions over £125k

And how the fuck is it that NI on incomes over £50k gets to be a smaller and smaller proportion of your salary

It’s still going be means tested though I pay first £6000 a year. I have tiny income on benefits so that’s all my income over bare bones of essentials. So while they do top it up over that amount for which I am grateful. We were sold it as overall and plan for care.

In 20y time if I don’t go in a home I can have £100 more a week to live on but like I said if I can’t get out bed that point it’s no substitute for being able afford once a year holiday now. It’s not fair for tax payers not much fair for my quality life in 2021 either.

I’m disabled no assets or house or savings.

Am same but also no safe home cos frm expensive housing area. Disabled not allowed safe home here. Didn't choose where to be frm. Lost everything to domestic violence and disability. Only thing left is familiar place and health support. Tiny chance of inheritance is only hope out of domestic violence or homeless cos no safe housing for vulnerable here.

Not bigger Inheritance for lots of us in expensive areas cos housing more expensive so all inheritance would go on escaping homeless risk. Cheaper areas, housing cheaper and also is more social housing. Less Inheritance but less needed. Is also housing options buying and social rent for disabled in many places but not most expensive London. Was told about one scheme by a domestic violence worker. Is scheme not covering London. Scheme admits is important if vulnerable often need familiar place and near support. Is also lots have local priority so not wanting out of area people. Money inheritance is needed more by families unlucky to be frm expensive areas.

If the 86000 cap not includes social care accommodation costs, vulnerable adult family like DV victims and disabled like me will die without ever having safe home.

Wish was taken into account needs of vulnerable family when is social care costs.

If you are living in a care home and don't need your own home anymore, what is wrong with selling it and using the assets to fund your care?

Don't care about having savings or social care for myself. Don't think I'll live that long for needing elderly care and never want social care now cos was referred for help to social services. Was nice in out of home area but abusive people in home area. When disabled enough to be accepted, am going to Switzerland to dignitas. Had years of domestic violence including lot of control and also bad refuge experience (was kind nice people but was also some bad experiences). Never want be controlled have life in other people's hands again. Only thing needed is safe home until time to die.

@CraftyGin

If you are living in a care home and don't need your own home anymore, what is wrong with selling it and using the assets to fund your care?

What is wrong is if vulnerable family who only way out of domestic violence or homeless is inheritance. Especially if from expensive housing area. Is ok if young healthy moving away but if disabled trauma older victim need familiar place and support. Is no safe homes for disabled in my area. Inheritance only tiny hope. Know not much chance so trapped in domestic violence.

Wouldn't be problem if was safe homes for disabled and domestic violence victims and other people needing be in areas of need familiar place and support but isn't. Disabled not allowed safe homes where I am. WIll die from DV or homeless unless inherit.

@CraftyGin

If you are living in a care home and don't need your own home anymore, what is wrong with selling it and using the assets to fund your care?

It depends why you're going into a care home. If it's just that you're struggling a bit, or want company, or you feel unsafe, I have no problems with people using their assets to find their lifestyle choice. But say you are someone who has a physical illness and needs medical care but you can still live in your own home. The NHS sends out medics at no cost to you and you receive your prescriptions free. And you will get some free social care. This can amount to thousands of pounds of free care. However, if you have a mental illness, such as dementia, you cost nothing in medical care or prescriptions. And if you have savings you get no social care either. At some point that mental illness is going to make you go into a home for basic nursing care because, for example, you can't feed yourself anymore. Both require care but it's in a different form, one if which the NHS will cover and one of which the NHS won't.

In a care home I think its right that a resident should pay fees to cover food, energy, council tax, property maintenance, etc, in the same way they would pay for these things if they still lived in their own home. But the cost of physical/nursing care should be covered by the state in the same way as medical care is.

To be fair to all governments it's a minefield and that's why it's never been sorted before but just kicked away into the future. Although I can see flaws in these plans, I at least give the govt credit for trying to tackle it. Hopefully as it goes through different stages, the bill will get modified.

If you want to have your inheritance early, ask your family to help you now. I can't understand why you would want to help.

I don't think anyone is entitled to an inheritance. Why should taxpayers fund inheritances?

@CraftyGin

If you are living in a care home and don't need your own home anymore, what is wrong with selling it and using the assets to fund your care?

The way it stands if your cancer medication or kidney dialysis costs £1000 week the nhs pays no questions asked if your dementia care costs same it’s all on you. That’s is first fundamental flaw it’s luck if you can leave anything for your kids at all based on if the illness is in brain or any other part of your body.

Second flaw is should be based on % of what you have. The “new” way of you are wealthy and start you still be wealthy at the end.

Thirdly if you a disabled adult you pay same as someone who can work and save all their live. And who can use their previous 25y rent to pay for care. If you can’t work you can’t save anything.

But if you're a disabled adult you also draw out a lot more than you'll ever pay in, and a lot more than someone "who works and saves all their life"?

You're coming at it from the wrong angle. In a welfare state you should look at everything you get, not everything you have to pay out, surely? At the end of it all you're still coming in in credit.

The reason the cap is £86,000 is that most people with dementia will never reach that cap. The mean time from diagnosis to death is around 7-8 years. You'll probably not need residential care for the first 4 or so. At around £500 a week (as it doesn't include social costs) you'll need to be in a care home for a good 3 years before the cap kicks in.

@ThousandsOfTulips

User2638483 I think this from the BBC website just answered my question -

“ ■ those with assets of less than £20,000 will not have to pay anything from these towards care fees - although they might have to pay from their income”
See quote from BBC the “although my pay from income” is what applies now though. I’ve not seen any disability groups raising this a major victory which if it applied to us it would been life changing win

Yes, they will pay from their own income until they've personally contributed £86k, the same as everyone else, and then nothing further. I still don't understand your point.

No sorry @ThousandsOfTulips I think (Can’t be sure as it’s very confusing) that you’re wrong.

I think the whole point is that the means tested contributions people make now even when below the threshold, and will always still make, do not count towards the £86K cap.
So only care that is paid for entirely by the person rather than arranged by social services with a means tested contribution, counts towards the £86K cap.

I believe that was the clause some tories were (rightly) rebelling on.

The extra money raised is all going to need to go on staff. Everybody receiving care will need a care needs assessment before any money paid towards care counts towards the care cap. This is going to mean a massive increase in workload for adult social care, before any extra money is allocated to providing care, I really don't see how it can work!

🤦‍♀️ that’s a good point hadn’t thought of that

At the moment people who are self funding with pots of cash sometimes pay for care or place themselves or relatives in care homes without social services involvement, when we wouldn’t consider it essentially necessary, and they might not even be eligible under the care act.

Will only care agreed by social services to be necessary count towards the £86K cap?
That’s going to be a massive increase in workload for social services, you are right.
Currently a significant proportion of people just get on with it without involving us until they run low on funds.

@User2638483 that is my understanding an account will need to be kept with the council to keep track of how much has been spent on care.
I cannot see that money spent on care for people who may have care through choice rather than need will count. And there will be no way to monitor this without them coming through the council.
It would also be nearly impossible to keep track of spending on care if people are self funding and then coming to the council for assistance as they have reached the care cap.

Yes of course. I see that now.
It’s going to be a lot of extra work.
The system should differentiate between people paying a care agency to do their housework and cleaning, and those paying for essential personal care.
Nightmare.
Plus will the system care if someone has put themselves in a grand home that costs £2500pw and so they’ll get a lot less care for their £86K cap then if they went for a £1000pw one. Will it be ‘actual costs paid’ or any upper limit to what can be paid for different types of service?

Smoking is the answer.

Huge amount of tax income, and earlier deaths - meaning lower pension and social care costs. (Smokers are net contributors to the economy due to their taxes, which more than cover their healthcare + shorter life expectancies).

Plus will the system care if someone has put themselves in a grand home that costs £2500pw and so they’ll get a lot less care for their £86K cap then if they went for a £1000pw one. Will it be ‘actual costs paid’ or any upper limit to what can be paid for different types of service?
..........

I think I can answer this one. At the moment the council fund some people who have no money. It's set at a certain amount. Everyone will be given that amount and then you can top it up if you want to go to a particular home.

No sorry @ThousandsOfTulips I think (Can’t be sure as it’s very confusing) that you’re wrong.

I think the whole point is that the means tested contributions people make now even when below the threshold, and will always still make, do not count towards the £86K cap.
So only care that is paid for entirely by the person rather than arranged by social services with a means tested contribution, counts towards the £86K cap.

I believe that was the clause some tories were (rightly) rebelling on.

I absolutely detest this Government but what you've described seems to make sense to me because a cap on personal contributions should only apply to personal contributions, not contributions being made by the state effectively paying itself for the service! 🤷🏻‍♀️ If someone is already getting means-tested support paying most of their costs then they won't be paying extortionate costs from their own money by definition, so they don't have that worry as the state is paying for most of their costs already?

I thought the cap was to help those who currently get no state contributions and in rare cases can end up losing everything because they have to fund it all themselves? So a cap - although very high - at least provides everyone with an equal "worst case scenario" of what they'd pay from their own money. That was my understanding from reading it all but happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood!

@ThousandsOfTulips your explanation is how I understand it.

It will help some people I suppose.
Those people who have amassed very large savings/assets through their lives then have a lot of years of needing full time care.
Currently they lose all their savings and proceeds from house sale minus around £24000.

So I live in a house that is worth £800k and if I need my care paid for it will be £86k . If I had a house worth £120k my care would also be £86k …morally that is so bloody wrong!! Yes we have worked bloody hard for our house but so have people living in a£120 k house …absolutely shocking! Anyone who thinks this is ok need to pay a visit to peppa pig world…Boris will explain!!

NI has always been a way of disguising a not very progressive tax system.

Our income tax rates for the majority aren't 20%, 40% and 45%. They are really 32%, 42% and 47% when you include NI (or there abouts). That doesn't sound nearly as progressive.

@amsadandconfused arguably the current system is fairer but people don't like that either! Ultimately many people don't want to pay for the care needs at point of access and they don't want to pay through taxes either.

@2020isnotbehaving

The issue is though it is unfair if you are disabled and can’t work you already live on very low income and can’t improve your situation. You still have pay huge sum of £86k but if you have a million you pay the same. How can that be remotely fair?

I’m not saying it should be free but why can’t I pay half? Or two thirds? Is this only solution at all?

I agree with that. You should definitely get some state funding towards your costs if you are disabled!!

But presumably if you're on very low income you won't have many savings. In which case you won't be liable to pay for care. Or maybe I have misunderstood because it does seem confusing.

From reading the thread I don't think the main problem is about the cap, which seems at least to be an improvement from the current situation. The main problems seem to be that there isn't parity of funding for different types of illnesses; and that those who are disabled from a young age and can't save up to contribute to their care costs don't receive enough state funding to make it manageable for them.