Paying for social care - good news or bad news?

I don't understand why anybody on the left is gnashing their teeth at this.

gillybob £100,000 is still a nice little inheritance, depending on how many inherit. It would pay for a few decent holidays!

I've never inherited either and I won't in the future. I'm currently travelling 160 miles a day to visit my terminally ill mother. She hardly has anything, but still won't use what she has to pay for care. Meanwhile, I'm having to pay for petrol to visit her and I'm exhausted. I wish people would accept that shrouds don't have pockets.

Why would it affect Attendance Allowance? AA isn't an asset. I thought it was being abolished anyway.

In any case, tax after death is one that I don't mind paying.

Me neither daphnedill much the same as you, we don't have a valuable house as we live in an area where houses are cheap and wages are low. I would have loved to have been able to pass something on to my children and grandchildren as I have never had a "leg up" or an inheritance from anyone in my life. But agree that this is a fairer system.

She can kick her own voters in as many teeth as she likes. I can't say I care.

I scrimped and saved, but still won't have £100,000 in assets. Many others won't either.

How will this affect Attendance allowance?

Cherrytree I have a feeling there are very big holes in the whole idea.

Mauriherb how do you know the people who had lived in council houses/rented property ever had the money to spend? What do you think happens to people who work all their lives on low incomes?

She's kicking her own voters in the teeth. Middle class home owners who have not got a huge amount of money but are 'comfortable' because they scrimped and saved to buy a house and pay into a superannuation/pension scheme.

My mam and dad scrimped and saved whilst my aunt and uncle had a lot more money than us but lived for the day. My mam and aunt could end up in the same care home with my aunt paying nothing and my mam losing everything she made sacrifices for.

I hope they remember this when they put their x in the box.

Indeed! I guess there will need to be a definition of assets and investigations if people have released equity in the years prior to death.

Tin hat for me time! This proposal is much fairer than the previous Dilnot proposals, which suggested capping care fees at £35,000.

This would have meant that somebody with a small house in one of the cheaper parts of the country would have to use nearly all their assets. Meanwhile, somebody with a large house in a more affluent part of the country and generous pension would pay only a small percentage.

I've worked bloody hard all my life (and no flash cars, expensive holidays, etc etc), but I don't have assets worth over £100,000 and never will have.

I guess May is trying to attract votes from people such as me. (Sorry, but I don't like the rest of the package.)

In any case, tax after death is one that I don't mind paying.

I have seen 'care' close up and its not very caring and I wouldn't pay a penny for it. I want the right to opt out before my life's earings are eaten up I would rather the kids had the money than me sitting there waiting to die with some bloody care person coming round to help me to the lav.

Old people's homes are dire we think they are good if there is an absence of abuse, all that having to get up early and go to bed early to suit the care staff.

I want to be in bed when I want to be, preferably witha toy boy and a tramp for conversation (maybe not at the same time as I am slowing down a bit) some fool coming round when it suits them to get me dressed isn't my idea of care.

I shall wear the same vest for weeks if I want to and the toy boy will just have to get used to it.

Total loss of control is not care!!!!

My late father had to pay for his own care. After he passed away we had to pay a large nursing home bill which came out the sale of his small house.

Just turning things over in my mind
What is to stop a person/persons selling their home, going into rented accommodation and then booking up several cruises until money is depleted and or buying jewellery and Art.
Is it only houses and savings that are counted in the care funding?

Some maybe cash poor but have other valuable assets.

My parents owned their own home but when they went into residential care we had to sell it to pay the fees. All of their savings were used in the same way. But there were others in the care home who had lived in council /rented property and had spent all their money so their fees were paid by social services. It doesn't seem fair really

I am not opposed to taking away the WFA if the basic pension was enough to live on. It is one of the lowest in Europe. I don't think it needs means-testing, that is just more of Nanny May being in control and is both costly and upsetting for those who have to claim it - so many don't. You never know she may say that she is raising the basic State Pensions and you never know, I may see pigs flying.

I can't see how these payment can be deferred either. Put in place (I know Conservatives can't as they would be drummed out of the club)insurance and then we can all pay just as we would for other insurances.

I am sorry but there is nothing fair in what I have seen so far.

I've never understood why those who don't bother to try and improve their own lives or to save to provide for themselves should be rewarded with free stuff while those who are sensible are penalised. What message does that give out.
Yes, it can be tougher for some people with some disabilities but it didn't stop a blind person becoming Home Secretary and it doesn't stop someone with no legs getting an Olympic medal. Life is what you make of it and so many people make bad choices and expect others to pick up the bill.

Successive governments have shirked these decisions whilst the demographic time-bomb of an ageing population continues to tick.

Rigby46 - I can't see how payment can be deferred until death. As others have said, care providers have to pay their workers so will need to be paid whilst the care is being provided.

There are many unanswered questions here about how these proposals will work. Equity release (or similar) will probably become necessary for those needing care who prefer to stay in their own homes but have assets over £100K unless they are willing to sell up and downsize (not always practicable).

I think more funds could be produced to help cover the costs of care. Means-testing the Winter Fuel Allowance is a good start and should also apply to free prescriptions for all over 60 and free travel on public transport. The removal of the triple lock on pensions could also help to provide more funds to go into social care.

As usual, the proposals haven't been thought through but have been made to make the Tories look capable of making tough decisions even if they are the wrong decisions.

For those who are worried, the proposals would take ages to implement as new legislation would be required. There could be a White Paper, a public consultation and then it takes around a year for new legislation to be passed into law.

We must hope that these processes will explore better ways to fund care costs and produce more equitable proposals.

I am not sure if my thoughts are right but surely, if you are going to have to pay for home care or pay for care in a home you may as well (if you don't mind leaving your home) go into care and let the country pick up the tab when you reach the remaining £100,000. You will not be worse of whichever you choose - or have I got that wrong.

As I understand it Care Home costs are more expensive - probably more than the obvious as you don't get the relatives free care - so you would reach that point more quickly but save your relatives ruining their own health and income as happens at the moment. Yes - I shall certainly consider that to save my children the sort of care difficulties we have had in the recent past

I think some homes have been badly run Jalima, for the sake of the owner, but really I would think that it is unlikely these days with the number that are closing because they can't make it work financially. The biggest cost for any service like this will be the cost of people and, to be honest, we should be prepared to pay for well trained and well paid people working in our care homes.

So the message is "save for your old age and ensure company profits"

They must be rubbing their hands in glee!! No cap to the care costs and a guaranteed income.

Do care home fees need to be quite so high as some are? How many care home owners are now multi-millionaires especially if they own a chain of them?

And as many of the carers are foreign nationals, the companies will be charged more, under this manifesto, for hiring them and so the cost will doubtless be passed on to the elderly and infirm.

It beggars belief!

I thought the idea of supporting people to live in their own homes as long as possible was to save money, and free up beds?

So now, the average person in a house worth more than £100,000 (which is most house owners) will have a bill to pay for the, frankly inadequate and poor quality, 15 minute visits by over-worked and underpaid 'carers' and the profits (as these are now almost exclusively privately owned) will go into the hands of the companies

I agree whole-heartedly Gracesgran and I have suggested that too.

(you can get up off the floor now!)

The more you think about it the worse it gets!! Why not universal insurance?

I have suggested before that we continue to pay NI after we retire to pay for adding the Care service to the NHS.