I think this is an important enough issue to have its own thread. Whilst waiting for more details ( where the devil may be) this looks like the end of any hopes for a collective 'insurance' based approach to funding social care.
It looks like the main group of losers are those who stay in their own homes ( but who have savings (not including the value of their home) of under £23000 (approx) as the value of the home will now be taken into account in assessing what they pay towards their social care costs.
So, present situation
1. Own own home, savings of less than £23000, domicillary social care free
2. Own own home, savings of more than £23000, pay own care until savings get down to £23000
Proposal
Value of home will be added to any savings and if less than £100,000, domicilary care will be free, if over £100,000, will pay for care until under £100000.
Any payment due can be deferred until after death.
If you have to go into residential care, then you are a 'winner' as you can get help once your total savings ( including value of house) fall below £100000 instead of current £25000.
I think this is correct? What I don't know yet is what the situation is if you have a partner living in the house with you? At the moment if you go into care, the value of your house is not taken into account if your partner carries on living there.
So it seems so far, that it will impact positively on the better off - apart from the loss of WFA
Do you still wear you original wedding and engagement ring
Do you live abroad and long for home ?
Prayer ban at Katharine Birbalsingh’s school is lawful, High Court rules .