I've had several emails suggesting that Galen also Holiday Inns and a suggestion that we should swop places with prisoners and have everything supplied for us while they would have to live on a state pension
I think a few more things will have to be answered in relation to this for example if the only asset is a house and the spouse is still in it at present the council could not take any of the house to pay care home fees. Another thing which could happen is a son / daughter could be left half of the house on death of the first spouse and then go and live in the property and the value under present law of the parents share will be in effect nil because the son or daughter would have a right to be in the property and nobody would want to buy half a house with somebody in it.
Obviously if there are no assets left when someone dies, they cannot be taxed. There will be a level at which the tax clocks in – they are talking about £300,000 odd for one person and £600,000 for a couple.
There is also the suggestion that people can take out an insurance policy when they are working age that will cover the cost of care. That, of course, could well be in addition to paying back their student loan, contributing to their company pension, saving for the deposit on a house and undertaking the expensive job of raising children.
The devil, as always, will be in the detail and we have to wait until the formal announcement in the House of Commons tomorrow and an analysis of the plan by the serious media.
When you say about a percentage of the pension is deducted for residential care is that a deduction from when they get to State Pension Age?. Where I worked most people are now retired at about 56 on an occupational pension. Would this mean they would be paying for 10 years longer than somebody who retires at 66?.
Have you noticed that this reform is being presented as a way of helping people hang on to their inheritance? When it's actually a way of making sure more people pay for more of their care costs? Not taking sides on that point, just drawing attention to the spin.
There has got to be more looked at than just headline figures. I understand that for example if a person has less than £110,000 worth of assetts they wil not have to pay anything. This could mean that if say a husband and wife has a house worth say £200,000 and little cash they could split in into Tenants in Comman ownership. If the one who passes away first leaves their half to the children this will leave a situation where the survivor will only be left with £100,000 worth of assetts and he or she may not have to pay anything even though they lived in a £200,000 house.
Also will full NHS funding be taken away in some cases. Somebody I know has is in care since 2006 on full NHS funding. He has been sectioned under the mental health act as he has attacked people due to his dementia. He has a lot of strength probably enough to kill a child. It could be argued that he is being kept in a secured nursing home for the safety of the public and in that case the tax payer should pay to be protected. Probably if he had been younger he may have been in prison.
I have noticed that the government is freezing inheritance tax thresholds to fund the proposed care home fees limit. I am just wondering how many parents will be handing over the odd £1,000 here and there during their life time to their offspring. A lot can be lost by parents paying for several of their offsprings holidays for example or just say handing say £1,000 over in cash which would soon go with just living expenses.
It is all smoke and mirrors. The cap only applies to social care not board and lodging and will only be at the rate that Social Services currently pay so to take an example:
My aunt is in care, in an excellent home that is therefore expensive, around £800 a week. She has been in care for nearly five years so, so far her care has cost in excess of £200,000.
If she was covered by this new scheme the £75,000 would be calculated not on what she has paid but at what her social services department sets the care home rate at. In her county this around £450 a week, of which the personal care element is probably 50%. If you calculate around £200 to £250 a week of her fees are for social care, over 5 years this only amounts to about £60,000 so despite paying out over £200,000 for her care over 5 years she would still not be covered by this scheme.
Several other things will have to be clarified. You could have a situation where a wife could have to go in to care and a husband continues to live in the house. Under the present system if the wife has no savings and her only asset is her share in the house the house can not be sold or any charge put on it to pay any of her care fees. Will a charge be put on the house for the £75,000 which will enable the husband to still live in it but the council will recover the money when the house is sold. I lived with my father after my wife passed away and my mother left me her half of the house when she passed away and my house was sold. Hapily my father never went in to care but if that situation had happened he was in a situation where he owned half of a 4 bedroom detatched house but had very little money in cash terms. As I was an owner occupier the council could not sell or put any charge on the house as I have the right to live in it. I owned a fully paid for house in London in the past with my late wife and still have the sale proceeds. In my type of situation in future will the council have powers to put a charge on the house for the £75,000 or make me pay from the proceeds of the house I previously owned. I could see some argument happening about this. While I was living with Dad I was paying about 70% of the bills which I would want taking in to account but I am not sure if that would happen. As I was living with Dad for about 8 years I am sure there would have been £75,000 belonging to Dad in the house equity but this might have not been the case if I had been living with him for say 20 years.