Paying for social care - good news or bad news?

Sounds like a can of worms - wonder what the situation will be if the house is owned as Tennants in Common and half is willed to children etc.

At the moment if it's tenants in common and you go into care, your share counts as capital I believe

The interesting bit will be what happens if one dies and their half has been willed to children and the survivor goes into care - do the children of the deceased spouse still inherit their half? I would think this situation would be quite common with second marriages and step children etc.

At 99 Mum receives help to remain in her own home, without it she would never have had the means. By now all her savings and most of her home would have gone.

I think it is a shame that care costs are not going to be capped - this means much more uncertainty. I would hope that some sort of insurance would have been offered by the state. But this of course does not fit in with this type of small state ideology.

Half of Our house is willed to the children if one of us pops off. Wonder how that will work?

By the end of today there will be more questions than answers that's for sure! Lies, half truths, misrepresentations will abound but it will all be JC and DA's fault as TM is in the verge of canonisation and can do no wrong

Of course, if we are looking at 'fairness' it is 'fair' to treat the value of a home in the same way as other savings isn't it? Not that I think this is how the whole issue should be dealt with. JH on Today just now - who is he?

Tory promised to cap social care cost, and passed a bill.

What strength Tory promises?

Death tax delayed.

when you think how they went on about EM's 'death tax'

One minute they say they want people to stay in their own homes as long as possible, now they want them to pay and pay.
And they have taken the inflation part out of the triple lock, just as it is increasing. WTF do they define as well-off pensioners.
They claim it is "to be fair", but to whom?

So who is going to pay the care company before your death? Mum has had help for years, and still going fairly strong given her age?

Everybody will be well off except the really poorest - probably those on a state pension and benefits.

Also, how will the record be kept of the care spending?

It will be like putting an equity release mortgage on the home of the cared for person whitewave. I wonder if they will charge interest if you live too long?

Yes that's what I was thinking - you won't have much control will you?? Which is something I would hate.

Not sure if it is possible to merge the threads but the other one has been withdrawn as we requested.

I think that's just it whitewave. T May has taken control rather than offering some form of pooled insurance that would mean we all had more control of this broken market. It feels like it's neither fish, fowl or good red herring.

I do think it is becoming very foolish for anyone on a low income to save a very small addition to their pension.

Just listening to someone on VictoriaLive and he thinks she is working on the fact that the people who are close to Pension Credit and will feel the loss of this will not be in areas that would vote for her anyway. Nice person!

I would much rather go for insurance, which is not on offer.

Neither good nor bad - but quite a conundrum.

On the one hand it seems harsh that someone needing social care should be expected to perhaps re-mortgage their house or take out a loan when savings run out to fund their care and so many questions emerge from this potential situation that would need to be answered. Should we expect our NI contributions over our working lives should have funded this?
Yes, I know it is paid out of present taxation but perhaps thought should be given to paying into an 'insurance fund' in case we need social care - many will not of course.
Would this cause resentment towards people who have no assets at all? At the moment wealthier people in care are paying high fees, some of which goes towards subsidising LA places for those unable to pay.

On the other hand - and many threads on Gransnet would confirm this point - apparently so-called 'baby boomers had it good' and were able to buy houses relatively cheaply which have increased in value enormously over the years which is an enormous return on their original investment so why should this serendipitous return not be used to fund their care if needed? There is also at least one thread on which people point out that children should have no expectations whatsoever and that it is greedy for children to expect an inheritance from their parents.

There is much to ponder.

Another question, what happens if a couple living in a house need care for one, and that person dies. Would the spouse continue to live in half the house?

Also if it is in joint name is the whole cost of the house taken into account or just half. This would mean that the second spouse would lose out wouldn't it?

Insurance is so much more sensible.

So will it mean that as more and more people have to rent due to the cost of housing, then the state will have to take up the bill? Insurance so much more sensible

I quite agree, insurance is so much more sensible, I mean like the national insurance. The trouble with other sorts of insurance is you have no control over the costs the company charges, my husband paid into life assurance for 23yrs and got back less than he put in. He'd have been better putting it into a piggy bank.
I think an increase in state national insurance is the way to go, so we can all have care if we need it. I'll be voting Labour cos that's what they plan and they will collect taxes from businesses etc. who currently evade the taxman.

I don't think you can will it to your children, the idea seems to be they shouldn't benefit, you'll be fine if you just drop dead at some point without needing any care. I imagine, not cynical am I? That the wealthy will set up equity companies to profit from this and they will be able to afford care whatever anyway