Paying for Social Care

I do understand people's desire to leave something to their children to make their lives easier. But if that is not possible, then so be it.

I am awaiting some money (refund on care payments for my OH that I should not have paid in the first place) and plan to divide it between my children so that I can enjoy watching them use it to their benefit, rather than the benefit to them happen after I have died.

The thing that really needs sorting is the discrepancy between state-funded care (via the NHS) and means-tested care (via the LA) to which the care recipient has to contribute. The distinction between the two is very difficult to establish, and vast quantities of money are being spent on employing people to disentangle this on a case by case basis, and dealing with complex appeals procedures.

The government is tied by the NHS Act which states that care should be free at the point of use, so any problems that have a health feel to them get funded. Defining that "health" element is a nightmare - does someone who cannot make a cup of tea because of arthritic hands have a health need or a social need?

Achieving clarity in this area is an absolutely insoluble conundrum and has cause so much distress and argument over the years. So in the end, either everyone needs funding fully for care needs; or it all needs to be means-tested in every case.

Either way it will cost-a-load and some cash generation needs to part of the solution.

A further thought is that workers in the care sector get paid a total pittance. This must be addressed.

Good post Luckygirl. My mother has heart failure and as a result of this she can no longer do anything for herself without help. She cannot walk to the toilet unaided, shower or dress herself unaided, or get into bed or out of bed unaided. Over the last year she has had three falls which resulted in two bleeds to the brain and a broken shoulder. She simply cannot live at home alone any longer as she needs constant care. She is selling her flat to pay for this. The state paid for her treatment after the falls and prescribes vast amounts of drugs to treat her heart failure, but fails to provide the care she needs as a result of this.
I’m pleased she’s in care, she simply cannot live at home even with daily carer visits, as she is unable to get out of bed and walk to the toilet unaided during the night.

The so called 'free personal care' in Scotland doesn't amount to much. There are huge waiting lists for assessment for it resulting in beds being blocked in hospitals and poor souls languishing at home relying on a patchwork of neighbours and families doing their best.
The whole 'care' industry needs to be overhauled. It needs to have a good, well paid and respected career structure and training standards. Unfortunately, here in Scotland it's been announced that all forms of 'care' are to be lumped together in new plans. This includes drug and alcohol rehab etc. The group set up to review the situation and identify ways of addressing it were only informed of this yesterday and are not happy to have it landed on them with no warning. I suspect this will lead to years of 'consultations' but little action. It's all very depressing.

Digressing but interesting short read.
www.hartreade.co.uk/legal-updates/does-the-queen-pay-inheritance-tax/

Aveline, that is indeed depressing. Care for elderly, infirm people is a million miles away from care for drug addicts or alcoholics. Obviously they all need care, but the needs of old, infirm patients are very different to those of people with addiction problems.
Bed blocking is a problem faced by the whole of the UK I think.

Excerpt from my link
"This special arrangement, rather controversially, was also held to apply to the late Queen Mother’s estate who was of course not actually the Sovereign. The arrangement afforded the Queen savings in the region of £20 million pounds of Inheritance Tax."

I think everyone should be treated equally.

Gwyneth

Was waiting for Brexit to be mentioned didn’t take long ?

And why shouldn't it be? We were guaranteed a Brexit dividend.

maddyone

Every government, Blair’s, Cameron’s, and May’s said they would sort out the care situation. None did so. Maybe this government will do, but whatever the solution, there will be many who don’t like it. Cradle to grave care doesn’t exist if you have a house or savings. The state will take care of you if you develop cancer, but if you get dementia or heart failure, and cannot look after yourself, the state will not look after you if you have a house. The situation as it, yes, it’s unfair.

Sadly it will be UK wide as only income tax is devolved to the Scottish government and they have made it that we pay more here in income tax than in the rest of the UK already .

I thought Tax would be better than NI.
The speech was just what I expected from BJ but I was really disappointed that all I heard from others was about ‘breaking a manifesto promise’ and not how the money could have been raised in a better way.
Now above any time is the time to share any valid proposals parties might have, rather than leaving us to suffer until the next election.
I remember the hassle we had with my FiL’s care costs. Despite using money from his home, it left us severely out of pocket.

Floradora9

maddyone

Every government, Blair’s, Cameron’s, and May’s said they would sort out the care situation. None did so. Maybe this government will do, but whatever the solution, there will be many who don’t like it. Cradle to grave care doesn’t exist if you have a house or savings. The state will take care of you if you develop cancer, but if you get dementia or heart failure, and cannot look after yourself, the state will not look after you if you have a house. The situation as it, yes, it’s unfair.

Sadly it will be UK wide as only income tax is devolved to the Scottish government and they have made it that we pay more here in income tax than in the rest of the UK already .

The increase in NI and taxes will be UK wide but the changes will only benefit those living in England.

I understand that this will not benefit anyone in the care system already - is this true?

Listening to local MPs discussing this on radio yesterday. Labour MP when asked what Labour would do said that will be revealed in the next General Election campaign

Conservative MP commented that lots of people said they would agree to an increase in tax to pay for social care but it seemed only as long as someone else was paying the increase

Oldwoman70

Listening to local MPs discussing this on radio yesterday. Labour MP when asked what Labour would do said that will be revealed in the next General Election campaign

Conservative MP commented that lots of people said they would agree to an increase in tax to pay for social care but it seemed only as long as someone else was paying the increase

But this is smoke and mirrors! Most of the money in the first three years has been earmarked for the NHS.

The increase won't pay for social care. Those without savings will still have to sell their homes, while people with high value homes will have the bulk of their inheritances protected.

As people on this thread have pointed out, the real problems in social care are that it's privatised and owners have to make a profit and there's a shortage of staff. There was nothing in any of the announcements about improvements for non-pension adult social care.

The form of taxation chosen affects the lower paid more than the higher paid, especially those with income from rentals and investments.

It has precious little to do with paying for social care.

Callistemon: I understand that this will not benefit anyone in the care system already - is this true?

Yes, it's true.

It won't benefit many in the future either.

growstuff, you are right it is smoke and mirrors, especially for those in residential care. The £86,000 ceiling is for care costs, it doesn't include what I have seen described as 'hotel costs', food, cleaning etc etc. Each resident will have a care assessment as if they were at home and will be assessed as needing so many hours personal care a day and that cost of that will be added up until it reaches £86,000

So someone assessed with needing 2 hours a day care at, say, £20 an hour = 14 hours a week costing £280 will be need to live in care for nearly 6 years before that limit is reached.

If the weekly care fees are £1,000 a week, assuming the person concerned lives for the 6 years in care, and the vast majority will not, they will need to pay out around £300,000, less any income they have, from their own resources before they qualify for any help. So in actuality nothing changes.

This really is a clever game of smoke and mirrors.

growstuff

*Callistemon: I understand that this will not benefit anyone in the care system already - is this true?*

Yes, it's true.

It won't benefit many in the future either.

Callistemon, that’s what I heard too. Growstuff, it makes me afraid for the future. Even if you do your best to keep yourself fit and healthy, there is no guarantee that you won’t be struck with some debilitating illness. If you don’t have children close at hand, and many of us don’t nowadays, then who can help?
Even if you do, there is no guarantee they’ll be in a position to help out so that you can stay at home.

Sorry I’m not too up on political decisions but personally I would pay additional tax from my private pension if this helps to care for those with nothing at all. I’ve worked long and hard for many years and would willingly give up certain benefits I receive eg the annual heating allowance of £10 or my bus pass. I’m well aware these incidentals are imperative for those living in poverty but I’m not one of those. Not yet anyway. Have a nice day everyone. I pray the correct decisions are made at a higher level although it’s a pity some folks have no idea of what poverty really is so it’s difficult for them to really understand. When I was at university as a mature student we were asked what would we give a single parent with four children for their tea. The man sitting next to me said he didn’t know his mum always shopped at M&S I said possibly chips sausages and beans would be okay but then I’d been at one time in the lower paid category and this would have been all I could afford. That’s my rant over.

sodapop

I agree with MOnica & Mattsmum there should be no expectation of inheritance if money is needed for care. People seem to think they are entitled to hold on to their assets regardless of anything else.

I totally agree with the above.

One of my students said that when she was working, money was deducted from her wages to pay for her mother- in-law.

The Connexion … “In France, families of pensioners have a duty to help pay care costs. The Connexion has found that this can be extended to family members living in the UK, even if they have never lived in France.

French law says children have maintenance duties towards parents in need, based on ability to pay.

I have no problem paying more towards health and social care. I suspect that all these plans will take so long that they'll be academic for me personally. I expect to have to pay my own care costs and am pretty sure that's what will happen.

The discussion has centred around money, which is clearly important, but:

- there has been no shake-up in the system to look at the real problems.
- the shortage of care staff has not been addressed
- the distinction between free care on the NHS and means-tested care has been left in situ with no plans for how this can be made fair.
- the impression is that care will be funded up to a certain point, but the definition of care needs and "hotel" costs is vague - more room for discord.
- the monopoly of private care companies still remains. Some barely scrape a profit and will go under; some are raking it in with very high fees. (When I worked in care the LA still had homes and home care and their quality was streets above the private sector)
- the need to better regulate homes and care agencies has been ignored
- we know that LAs will continue to be underfunded and struggle to meet the new financial rules
- the tortuous and narrow assessments of need will continue - until you or a loved one have been subject to such an assessment, then you have no idea of what a misery it all is.

There is nothing in these proposals that increases fairness in the system; and nothing that addresses the quality of care.

^Sadly it will be UK wide as only income tax is devolved to the Scottish government and they have made it that we pay more here in income tax than in the rest of the UK already.
The increase in NI and taxes will be UK wide but the changes will only benefit those living in England.^

This from my DD today:

So... let's have a think about today's announcements by Boris "the cheeky chappie, he's like a man from the pub" Johnston.
Your tax is going up. This is not because your local govt. wanted to do this, it's because he wants the money for social care in England.
We already have social care in Scotland without putting up taxes, but ours are going up anyway.
Scotland will get a wee bung of money out of this that won't be anything like what we put in (as usual) and we will be told that it's fair, when fair would have been letting our govt decide our taxes (they did not want to put them up).
For people who are getting this new social care system in England, when you look at the detail, it means NOT a system of free personal care like we have here in Scotland, but a system where you pay for it yourself up to £80K total.
So..... if you are a person who has £80K kicking about, then you will be able to keep the millions you have have after that, your old mansion house, your fancy cars, your off shore investments etc etc.
However...... if you are a person who does not have anything like that sort of money to hand, they will bleed you dry of money and resources, your house, money you scrimped and saved over decades for your retirement, anything you wanted to leave to your grandkids..... until you have £20K left to your name, (and just hope you don't need to replace your car or need the roof done on your house, because who needs a roof or a comfortable retirement anyway.)
Therefore, the poor people will be giving damn near everything they have ever worked for, to make sure that wealthy people don't have to give up those big family piles.
And this fabulous scheme is paid for........ by ....... not just the working class of the bits of the UK who will be covered by this, but by you.... the people of Scotland who don't have any part in it at all.......
Feeling warm and fuzzy about being in the UK yet?
Remember when your pay packet feels light, just why that is....
Remember at the same time, that this scheme is raising £30 billion.
(Side note...... cost of the Westminster Track and Trace scheme, the one that never worked right and was built by pals of Dominic Cummings and run (badly) by the wife of a Tory MP...... £35 billion)
So I guess you are really glad you are still in the union now then?
.... but it's OK.... those empty supermarket shelves (that aren't happening in any EU countries) will keep you feeling great that we "took back control" of our own decisions...... except that.......
Westminster could not have raised your income tax, because that's for Holyrood to do, so they raised your National Insurance instead, which no-one here can do anything about. Who's control is it again?
This is an announcement about a new indyref today matters. It's a ways off, it's covid dependent (as it should be) but it's the way forward.
Bluntly put, Westminster is taking the piss out of Scotland, and the other devolved nations too, and out of decent working people everywhere, and they barely even bother to try and cover it any more.
Enough is really enough.
See you at the next referendum.

Luckygirl

The discussion has centred around money, which is clearly important, but:

- there has been no shake-up in the system to look at the real problems.
- the shortage of care staff has not been addressed
- the distinction between free care on the NHS and means-tested care has been left in situ with no plans for how this can be made fair.
- the impression is that care will be funded up to a certain point, but the definition of care needs and "hotel" costs is vague - more room for discord.
- the monopoly of private care companies still remains. Some barely scrape a profit and will go under; some are raking it in with very high fees. (When I worked in care the LA still had homes and home care and their quality was streets above the private sector)
- the need to better regulate homes and care agencies has been ignored
- we know that LAs will continue to be underfunded and struggle to meet the new financial rules
- the tortuous and narrow assessments of need will continue - until you or a loved one have been subject to such an assessment, then you have no idea of what a misery it all is.

There is nothing in these proposals that increases fairness in the system; and nothing that addresses the quality of care.

Luckygirl...

Spot on.

Your final sentences...

"There is nothing in these proposals that increases fairness in the system; and nothing that addresses the quality of care"

... says it all.

I'm not one of those who think that we should tax the rich until they bleed (tho' even if we did, they'd still be rich!), but they are more able to bear the burden without serious harm to their financial status.

A hike in taxes would have been much fairer and, although I'm not a rich pensioner, I am 'comfortable' and could well afford to pay more tax - and I doubt I'm unique in this.

But the care system itself is also the problem - poorly paid, stressed out carers; private care homes charging extortionate fees; the dividing line between medical and social care poorly understood - by those administering it as well as those receiving it... the whole system is a mess, and another postcode lottery, too. Government has gone for the easy option - and boy, does it show.

Scotland will receive 15% more than they actually contribute in taxes and NI. Thanks to the Barnett formula. No wonder some English people are sick of Scots complaining.

Just to clarify though, money raised by the tax will be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland proportionate to population on the same formula as in England.
I don’t agree with the way it is being raised, but I’m glad that at least our government in Wales can use the additional funding in a way that fits in with their own strategy to reform health and social care rather than being dictated to do it the same way as England.

It is within the remit of the UK government to change the terms of the Barnett formula Aveline. They have been in power for 11 years.

One of the issues not addressed ( or at least I’ve not seen any reference to it) is that my mother, self funding in a care home, is subsidising the Local Authority by paying almost twice as much as LA paid residents.

My mum pays just over £1000 a week. Her LA’s rate that they pay for people with low income/assets is £675 per week. As Mum is already in care the new upper limit, from October 2023 when it kicks in, is not applied to her and there is no mention of what will happen to such people.

Mum is now 88 years old but physically very fit so could live for a number of years more meaning her savings will run out and her house will probably have to be sold.

Hence I’m not delighted by the details of the plans outlined yesterday.