Paying for social care - good news or bad news?

Caro1954 can I ask WHY you're so anti SNP ? Westminster hasn't done well by or for us here for a very long time ,the unionist parties see us as a region not a country and certainly not as an equal partner in the "union" With the SNP we have had far better treatment in 10 years than with Labour for over 70 and dont even mention how the tories treated us .Our country has been asset striped for generations ,why else do they so desperately want to hang onto us ..as a friend of mine says its not for our charm!We are not "stronger together" we're just an afterthought if WM thinks about us at all.Having a government that actually works FOR us would be a huge improvement and after indy ,there can be as many parties as now but SCOTTISH parties not branch offices

As someone whose mother's assets ran down to £14,000 in a care home (dementia) and husbands inheritance ran down to £3,000, having £100,000 inheritance sounds good.

Sometimes it is not possible to do something which is fair to everyone.
It's not fair that some people have only been paid low wages all their life, despite working hard.
It's not fair that some people's properties are in the S of England and have increased in value far faster than those in the North.
It's not fair that some people inherit and some people don't
It's not fair that some people have a family to look after them when they need care and some people don't
And it is certainly not fair that some people live a long, healthy, interesting life and then die quickly and painlessly while others are far less lucky, and die young, or suffer twenty years of pain and disability at the end of their lives.
We could go on and on.
It's not fair that people who are younger now have to pay for a huge cohort of baby boomers.
We could go on and on adding to this list and it's easy to focus on one thing and get steamed up about it.
Surely the sensible way to pay for the care and NHS needs of this huge generation is much higher inheritance tax. Look after everyone equally in their life time and then heavily tax the wealth that this generation has collectively accrued. The "wealth management" business which advises people on how to minimise tax would have to be restricted. No more "putting the other house in trust for the children" etc.
However Conservatives hate the term TAX INCREASE and they go into convolutions to avoid anything that even looks like one. They are also, traditionally, the party that believes in the conservation of wealth. And that is why they don't want to take this obvious step of increasing inheritance tax.

This is a very interesting and informative thread - and it hasn't turned bitchy!

We are tenants in common and both leave our share of the house to ou DC so I'm reading that they should get half a house plus £100,000 to share, which isn't bad. I hope this is right and there isn't some small print the media haven't latched onto yet. (The papers seem much keener on the fact we're loosing winter fuel allowance!) I think it is a wake up call to look properly at our assets, arrange them to advantage and make new wills when the full details (and the result of the election) are known.

I did hear an interesting brief remark on Radio 4 yesterday that insurance companies are not prepared to provide insurance for care costs in old age as it would be too expensive.

Getting a lawyer to find some kind of loophole or taking advantage of someway of avoiding your valuable house being used as an asset to help pay for your care is just another way of cheating the system. Much the same way as we complain about Starbucks, Amazon etc. albeit on a smaller scale but if everyone did it????

Having said that only the very shrewd (and those with the most to lose) will probably go to trouble of "messing" with the system in order to make sure they don't pay for their care whereas those who are not so "clued up" will not.

I know one thing. We have to do something and if everyone with valuable homes and assets decide to "set something up" in order to avoid paying for their care it just means that there is more money to be found elsewhere. How can it be fair that someone with a lot of money get to keep it and pass it on to their kids when other poor kids will be forced to pay via inflated taxation etc.?

I think £100,000 is a very generous amount of money to leave the next generation. Although I appreciate to some it will be a drop in the ocean.

Yes Nfk I can imagine the monthly premiums of this kind of insurance if it existed would be astronomical and only the richest in society would be to afford to pay it.

I'm happy (well, contented) to leave half our home to pay for our care, but we stayed in, went without, scrimped and saved to get what we have, and we did it partly for our children. The same as my parents did for me and their parents for them.

Many people do exactly that NfkDumpling some of us are fortunate to live in areas where house values have rocketed and others not so fortunate. Have we all not worked hard, scrimped, saved?

I would be extatic to be able to leave my 2 children and their families £100,000 which is £100,000 more than anyone has ever left me. I can't see in my wildest dreams why that kind of sum is not enough.

I don't understand how this will work.

Surely keeping a person in their own home as long as possible not only is 1) what the person wants 2) cheaper 3) frees up hospital beds and beds in residential care.

Now, because there's going to be a charge put against a person's house when they die, for care in their own home, where is the incentive for relatives to not just dump mum or dad into residential care straight away? The outcome re the family home will be exactly the same (£100,000)

What will the consequences be? More pressure on the residential care system which is struggling already or more care homes springing up with an eye solely on profit.
And, who is going to keep the accurate record of the costs and present it to the family after death? Will they be able to scrutinise the 'invoice' and point out care visits missed or cut short? Will there be a cap on how much care homes are able to charge when they realise that they have an open cheque on the family home?

And when this limit has been (very quickly I suspect) reached, what will happen to the person in care? Will they be transferred to a cheaper Care Home or will the government be left with paying these inflated charges until the individual dies?

And where in all this will we be? As the ones who will be living under this system, as the individual looked on as an accounting problem.

You raise some very important issues Anya but let's not forget that people who are better off already pay for (or towards) home care. My grandma paid a tiny amount per month (a drop in the ocean of the actual cost) and she received a monthly invoice showing all of the care visits etc.

There was too much room for fiddling (for my liking) with people thrusting papers in front of her and asking her to sign to say they had been and stayed for half an hour when I fact they had stayed for 5 minutes. There is also a box stating "client unable to sign" which was often ticked. I often scrutinized the time sheets and many were a work of fiction.

Better off might mean their whole assets are tied up in their house.

But the point you raise about accounting and people creating 'works of fiction' is exactly what I'm talking about. I'd be very pissed off if my children missed out because of fictional care visits being deducted. And yes, we all know it goes on and is set to get worse.

Of course mostly the people receiving the care (or not as the case may be) are the very people who could not scrutinize the invoices.

I always thought there should be some kind of proof of care. Not sure how it could be done though. I am just so glad that living so close to my grandma I was able to see her every day. I can't imagine how she would have managed if she just relied on the carers.

Someone up thread ( and I'm sorry to use a personal example) said their house had rocketed in price in the last few years. I presume they live in the SE. That is not money hard worked for and scrimped and saved for. That is being in the right place at the right time. Those lucky enough to be in that position should not consider it their right to be able to pass that profit on but pleased to be able to pay for any care needed thanks to that situation. In most areas in the Midlands and North that does not happen.

My point exactly annsixty .

Setting up some sort of scheme or will in order to avoid doing this is no better than any other tax avoidance. Except some people, would not see it like this.

I'm not denying that people should not pay something towards their care Annie.

What I'm saying is that this is simply putting the profits into the hands of the private sector who already providing extremely poor quality care at home in a great number of cases. Now, if the local councils were providing trained carers, and properly managed care packages which actually worked then that would be care worth paying for

Reading that back when it appeared does sound like sour grapes I think. But at nearly 80 and having lived modestly all our lives, one car, self-catering holidays for years I might well be faced with having g to apply for benefits igf my H has to go into care and it is too late for us to put our house I to tenants in common as he has Alzheimer's and is not deemed capable to make that decision.
All our income is his pension and while I would be able to stay in the house I wouldn't have enough income to even pay the bills. I would be expected to use up modest savings and if I was able to sell the house and move into a tiny property or rent to cut down on outgoings, the profit made would then be counted as his capital to go into the pot to further fund his care.
I have had many sleepless nights over this, now I just accept that this is what will happen. It is a bitter pill to swallow but it will happen.

A question. We own our house as Tenants in Common. Suppose DH needs long term care we would have to use the value of his share of the house to fund it. He then dies and I have to move to a bungalow, will the money owed be claimed back at that stage leaving me insufficient funds to buy a bungalow? Or will it be claimed back when I die?

Sorry Anne posted at the same time, you must be very worried.

Does anyone know the answer to these questions? Has it all been worked out and planned for?
I am at the stage of hoping we both drop dead together, get flu or something similar which takes us off. Just joking honestly?

I am still trying to get my head round the combining of houses (if you own one) and Care. It seems to make it excessively complicated and the two things do not relate directly.

I also feel it sets two sections of society against one another. There are those who feel they have lived a frugal life to own their homes while other live the life of Riley and then 'sponge' of the state. Of course this unlikely to be true but it sets things up to have more division.

Surely we should pay, via tax, for a Care system. It would allow us to see where the money goes and where it needs to go. What if we were told that it wouldn't be 1p on tax but 10p in the £1. Wouldn't that lead to a huge drive to find out how to at least treat and delay Alzheimer's if not cure it? Wouldn't we want to know the causes, etc.? It is a disease not a Care issue.

Houses are a capital asset and, if we believe these should be taxed when passed to others that is their part of the tax system and the taxes from this should be determined separately.

I am really surprised at how many people think these two area should be tied together increasing the complexity of the tax system.

I really don't know the answers Annie but it's good to have this thread to ask the questions at least.

However, I do think that dementia should be treated as a serious, debilitating health issue and as such funded through the NHS.

NfK that's a good question. Address it to your MP (if Tory) I'd be interested to know the answer. We don't have TiC incidentally.

If it works like equity release NfkD (and I am not sure how else it could work) you should be able to move and use your equity from you current home to move to a bungalow (or whatever you need) but possibly not just to another house unless there is good reason such as being close to family. However, an equity release company would (I believe) value the new home to see that it warrants the loan you are moving. What if your other half's half is no longer worth (when his £100,000 has been deducted) what he now owes the government? And what if, in early retirement, you had already taken out Equity Release?

Perhaps someone knows how Equity Release actually works but why would the government want to run equity release mortgages? The more I think about it the more I think it is a mad, mad, idea.

actually works could help more

Jess and annsixty show how much unfairness there is in life and in the care/welfare/tax systems. An insurance based system wouldn't be fair either (as not everyone would be able to afford it) but at least it might stop some people worrying that their assets would disappear.
I can't really think of a "fair" system apart from free care as part of the NHS. (Obviously very expensive)
Family members taking a year unpaid leave? Dementia patients need several years of care usually.
Does anyone know what do other countries do?

Doesn't anyone think that perhaps their assets should disappear ( apart from £100,000) in order to pay for their own care? The state can't afford everything .