Does the Government think that punching everyone in the face means no one will complain?

This might have been one of the most interesting questions in PMQs yesterday.

DiamondLily Some of us were saying this as soon as we saw the plans. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail claimed in a headline that social care had been sorted for a fiver each. It didn't take long for it to change its tune .

It's not only the "board and lodging" charge, but over 50% of care home fees go on staffing, even without nursing care. The minimum recommended ratio is one to eight, plus cleaning, catering and admin staff. Even staff on minimum wage cost more as a result of NICs, pension contributions, holiday and sick pay, training etc. - possibly £16 an hour. Therefore, everybody is probably paying about £2 an hour (£48 a week/£336 a week) on staff. Most of that will not be covered.

Most people will not reach the £86,000 cap for nursing care. Only the very rich will have available cash to pay their fees without having to sell their main asset, usually their home.

Ministers just snuck out a serious, undemocratic change to our voting system in England and Wales

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ministers-just-snuck-out-a-serious-undemocratic-change-to-our-voting-system-in-england-and-wales/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ers-email&utm_campaign=electoral-reform&utm_content=Supplementary+Vote+Elections+Bill

Looks like all our council tax charges will be going up as well. As the care charge changes only affect the actual nursing care, people will still have to sell their homes to fund the “board and lodging” charge, unless they have a lot of savings.

Smoke and mirrors as usual with this lot.?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9979515/Now-council-tax-rise-year-double-whammy-British-households.html

And delicious and nutritious it is too.

minestrone is pauper soup

Why is he going on about minestrone and croutons .?

Ilovecheese

So is it fair to say that "no one will have to sell their house to pay for care as long as they have taken out an insurance policy to cover it"

Which is not quite the same as "no one will have to sell their house to pay for care"

That's what Johnson was saying during PMQs today, so yes.

So is it fair to say that "no one will have to sell their house to pay for care as long as they have taken out an insurance policy to cover it"

Which is not quite the same as "no one will have to sell their house to pay for care"

Hands up anyone who thinks the triple lock will only be dropped for a year? Me neither!

Still not sure how Levelling Up works if you are continuing to hit the low paid and pensioners. Anyone who can afford it will have their millions safely tucked away and untouchable.

No point even asking what happened to all the millions the NHS was going to get when we left the EU, or how refurbishing a department in a hospital counts as opening a new hospital, or where the extra nurses and care workers are going to come from.

Ilovecheese

Further to the point that about half of people won't need social care, won't that mean a whopping great profit for the insurance companies.

I don't suppose many insurance companies see themselves as charities! They're in it for the profit, so you're probably right.

Further to the point that about half of people won't need social care, won't that mean a whopping great profit for the insurance companies.

Callistemon

^So the new tax is going to raise £36bn in three years.^

It's not going to go far, is it Whitewave

I hope we'll never need it but the odds are most people may well do at some point so that could work out at about 3s 6d each.

Actually, the odds are that about half of people won't need social care, especially not residential care, but it's still not going to go very far.

The thing is, 'the financial sector' (and if there are no links between whatever that means and high profile Tories I'll be very surprised) is not going to be interested in over-60s with existing conditions - or at least not unless they can afford enormous premiums. So anyone in that position, during an 'interim' period of 20 years or so, will have to fund themselves anyway, whilst everyone else will be slowly but surely moved onto a private system of 'you get what you pay for'.

So the new tax is going to raise £36bn in three years.

It's not going to go far, is it Whitewave

I hope we'll never need it but the odds are most people may well do at some point so that could work out at about 3s 6d each.

You're not being dense ilovecheese. You've seen through the smokescreen.

I am sorry but I still can't quite understand.
If someone does not have £80,000 of savings, but does have a house, how will they pay the care fees without selling their house?
Is this where an insurance policy comes in?
Is this what was meant by consultation with the financial service sector?
Sorry if I am being dense.

EXACTLY WWM2. They spaff money up the wall and claw some back from those that can't afford it.

Where is Robin Hood when you need him? Oh yes, he was a commie, anti semite who wanted to spaff tax payers money up the wall. Hang on...

So the new tax is going to raise £36bn in three years.

Remind me how much Dido Harding got for a test and trace scheme that never worked?

It is bloody outrageous!

theworriedwell ' I think it is reasonable to pay something for accommodation costs' - and so do I, of course.

What is totally unreasonable, though, is paying 75 grand a year to live in a (supposedly) 'nice' comfortable BUPA home - where the manager receives a bonus for cutting costs, the allowance for food is £25 per week, there is woefully inadequate care - and the (overwhelmingly young, with poor spoken English) carers are paid the minimum wage.

Accommodation costs are mostly staff costs and upkeep of the building - not just utilities and food.

How many people go to live in a hotel for three years or more?

Even if the person is living in a house that's paid for there will be costs - you can't just close a house down for three years. I'm pretty sure that for the vast majority of people the only way to fund that would be to see their house - the very thing that Johnson promised that nobody would have to do.

I hope Starmer can pin Johnson down in PMQs and get him to clarify whether that promise still holds. I will be watching with interest.

theworriedwell

*No, not necessarily. If you stay in a hotel or B & B, you still have to pay accommodation costs, even if you're paying rent or mortgage or own a home outright.* If other relatives are living in the house can't they pay the costs or if it is empty then they could let it out or sell it and invest the money. I think it is reasonable to pay something for accommodation costs if you are in care as if you were at home you'd pay gas, electric, food etc.

From what I've heard, I think that's what people do.

No, not necessarily. If you stay in a hotel or B & B, you still have to pay accommodation costs, even if you're paying rent or mortgage or own a home outright. If other relatives are living in the house can't they pay the costs or if it is empty then they could let it out or sell it and invest the money. I think it is reasonable to pay something for accommodation costs if you are in care as if you were at home you'd pay gas, electric, food etc.

PippaZ

You have your pension and any other benefits taken into account in the means test currently. Also, currently, the state then pays the whole charge including accommodation.

But you don't keep your pension if all your costs are being met. You have to make a contribution from your pension, you are left with a small part of your pension. Same happens to younger people in care, they don't get to keep all their benefits. You are left with a personal allowance, I think it was around £25 the last time I checked. This is then for personal purchases e.g. cigarettes, chocolate, toiletries, clothes.

Casdon

The tax system needs an overhaul and audit from top to bottom.
Not sure any political party has the backbone to carry it out and then make the changes needed either.

Totally agree