Social Care Reform and help got the elderly

Doodledog you might call doing away with inheritance political suicide

I would call it state theft, a disincentive to start businesses and make a better life for oneself and one’s family.

I can see that point of view too. I suppose it’s less the money than the unfairness that bothers me.

If nobody got to pass on money (most unlikely, as people would find ways around any system that came in) then it would at least be fair. As it stands, some pay and others don’t, some are left with nothing as all their savings and assets are taken, whilst others continue to pass on large sums because of a postcode lottery, some inherit and others don’t, so the unfairness passes on to the next generation.

In that climate I think it is natural to want to do the best we can for our children- if others are getting the benefit of inheritance ours will be worse off if they don’t. Doing away with inheritance altogether could be the answer, but it won’t happen - look at the outcry over £200-300 being lost. It would be political suicide to abolish inheritance.

Not suggesting it as a model by any means but just for interest....
According to French Law, children are obliged to ensure the well-being of their parents if their income isn't sufficient. This is particularly applicable if they have to go into Retirement Homes and their Pensions are insufficient to pay the fees.
This is associated with the law that you can't disinherit your children.
There is a lot of state support to keep people in their homes.

I am with M0nica to an extent and have often pondered this.

I would love to leave all my assets to my children, but, just as money I have accumulated over my lifetime goes towards the things I now need (food, bills etc.) it makes sense that this same money should go towards care when that becomes a need. We spend our assets on the things we need and care might one day be one of these.

All my current expenditure takes away from my legacy to my children. Preserving all our legacies to our children is maybe a luxury we as a society cannot afford.

There was an article on the BBC website a couple of days ago about older people who had bought holiday caravans for their retirement. Several of these featured had used their whole pension pot or were finding, as pensioners, that they couldn't find the money for rising site fees and so were required to sell at severe losses.
Some people buy overseas. It's not difficult to see schemes advertised which tell you how to hide your assets before you die (obviously this requires consideration of the time lag of, is it 7 years?).
The bottom line is that schemes need to be put in place by a tough government but no one wants it so we seem to be condemned to endless changes of government, none of whom will make changes because they know they'll be voted out within a few years.
I think we're on our way to a Reform UK dictatorship, heaven help us.

M0nica

Personally, I can see no reason why the whole of someone's estate should not be spent on care home fees. The only reason people protest is because they want the money for themselves.,

For people, whose parents own a house, it is statistically likely that they will be better off than most of those dependent on social housing and will also be home owners themselves..

Any scheme that mitigates the cost of care means drawing on state resources contributed by everyone, so that the socially housed people in less well paid jobs will, through the tax they pay, be subsidising all those elderly home owners in care so that there, generally, better off children can inherit a larger sum of money than they would otherwise get.

I can see only injustice in this situation and I am amazed so many staunchly left of centre people, like many on GN, can countenance it.

Very interesting Monica.

On one hand you have those who have had well paid jobs and jobs enabling them to have a nice house and good lifestyle out of TAX PAID income enabling social housing to be provided.
On the other those less fortunate take social housing paying some tax plus rent if they can but at the end of the day its only lifestyle and wealth that can be inherited that is different

Personally I believe that inherited AND gifted wealth should be taxed more heavily, which I do not expect will happen anytime soon. As for equality, outside a communist system that’s not going to happen, it’s been proven that even with a totalitarian regime it doesn’t work, because there is no incentive to work.

There is a concerted effort to . . .

I do see the logic of that. I just think that some struggle more than others to provide for themselves and their families, and the current system of means-testing (across the piece) is so very biased in favour of the wealthy. It keeps people ’in their place’, and is, IMO, intended to do so.

Every attempt to level the playing field is met with arguments that totally ignore the fact that people start from such different places, and the is a concerted ref to acknowledge that.

M0nica Personally, I can see no reason why the whole of someone's estate should not be spent on care home fees. The only reason people protest is because they want the money for themselves.

I agree on every level.

Everyone should pay their available assets to care home fees.

Fair is fair.

Personally, I can see no reason why the whole of someone's estate should not be spent on care home fees. The only reason people protest is because they want the money for themselves.,

For people, whose parents own a house, it is statistically likely that they will be better off than most of those dependent on social housing and will also be home owners themselves..

Any scheme that mitigates the cost of care means drawing on state resources contributed by everyone, so that the socially housed people in less well paid jobs will, through the tax they pay, be subsidising all those elderly home owners in care so that there, generally, better off children can inherit a larger sum of money than they would otherwise get.

I can see only injustice in this situation and I am amazed so many staunchly left of centre people, like many on GN, can countenance it.

If your house price disparity is so extreme then that is true.

Here in the Midlands £400k buys a nice 4 bed detached”
Up in the frozen north £100k buys a crummy 1 bed flat.

Really? I’ve never been in the market for either, but I’ll take your word for it, although it doesn’t matter to my point what the figures are or to which areas they apply - the fact remains that a flat fee would be unfair. There will be cheaper and expensive areas even within the same towns, but there are clear discrepancies between more general areas. Saying that a family in one area has to spend every penny to get care and a similar family in another just needs to spend 10% (or whatever) just perpetuates geographical inequality.

There is no ‘cap’ anyway, although it is often discussed as though introducing one would be fair. I am just suggesting that a commission might want to consider that it would not be anything of the kind, and instead introduce a percentage fee, if a fee remains necessary.

Really RosiesMaw2?

The increase in Employers' National Insurance won't take effect until next April. I expect that both British and foreign businesses operating in the UK are starting to consider how they'll adapt to this change, as implementing those adjustments will take time.

Short-term thinking can often lead to poor decision-making and a lack of logical clarity. Sadly there are some who seem as wedded to it as a small child at Christmas.

However, there can also be positive changes in the jobs market due to this shift
The business community both here in the UK and abroad don’t seem to be seeing these positive changes either .

GrannyGravy13 in answer to your question.

Rising costs will/may encourage employers:
1. to increase productivity and efficiency because it encourages automation.
2. to focus on hiring more skilled employees who can add greater value to the organisation, leading to a rise in higher-quality jobs.
3. to invest more in developing their workforce to make them more productive.
4. to enhance their staff's skill sets, leading to overall industry improvement and better job stability.
5. to provide enhanced employment packages in order to attract and retain talent, some businesses may respond by offering improved benefits, such as additional training, enhanced health benefits, or flexible working arrangements, which can improve employee satisfaction and retention.
6. to support growth in sectors that support efficiency, such as HR outsourcing, payroll services, and consulting firms that help businesses adapt to changing employment law.
7. to inspire entrepreneurship and innovation, leading to startups focused on providing solutions to help businesses manage their workforce effectively.
8. enhance job security by favouring retaining existing workers over hiring new ones, leading to greater job security for current employees as businesses stabilise their employment strategies.

Not all these changes will necessarily happen and I will have missed some. However, it does show that an instant, gut reaction may only give half the story and is often only about today, not the reality of the future.

Doodledog

My Scottish friend would disagree there. She says that whilst care is free it is all but impossible to get. Maybe that is area-dependent, but it is her experience - she has an elderly and infirm mother.

I’ve had this conversation before on this forum..

I live in the central belt and I get help for my husband who has alzhimers through Self Directed Support .. it’s invaluable and I know from my carers group that it’s helping lots of people in my area.

My husband would be in a home a long time ago if I didn’t have this support . He’s is also entitled to free personal care from our local authority but I dont use that as I’m very grateful for the help I have and his support team take care of his personal needs.

I have support workers coming in daily…..four hours a day five days a week…. to help me keep him at home.

They shower him shave him give him his meal and medication if required keep him company for that time.

In so very grateful. It gives me a break and time to be me.

You do need a diagnosis of various illness to be eligible for Self Directed Support but I would urge your friend to contact her mothers social worker and ask for this help.

Doodledog

I'm not sure of your point there, David.

If someone has a house worth £500k and the cap on care is £100k, obviously they are left with £400k, regardless of the costs of that care. Someone with an equivalent house in a different area that is worth £100k has nothing. The costs of the care don't come into it, but one person has money left to bequeath, or to spend on making life more comfortable, and the other doesn't.

A lot of the differential in prices comes down to chance, or maybe that in some areas wages are just higher. Either way, it strikes me as unfair that people doing the same job and living in equivalent houses should be treated differently just because of the area they live in. That is systemic discrimination, and a percentage charge (as opposed to a fixed one) would help to even that out.

“If your house price disparity is so extreme then that is true.

Here in the Midlands £400k buys a nice 4 bed detached”
Up in the frozen north £100k buys a crummy 1 bed flat.

I'm not sure of your point there, David.

If someone has a house worth £500k and the cap on care is £100k, obviously they are left with £400k, regardless of the costs of that care. Someone with an equivalent house in a different area that is worth £100k has nothing. The costs of the care don't come into it, but one person has money left to bequeath, or to spend on making life more comfortable, and the other doesn't.

A lot of the differential in prices comes down to chance, or maybe that in some areas wages are just higher. Either way, it strikes me as unfair that people doing the same job and living in equivalent houses should be treated differently just because of the area they live in. That is systemic discrimination, and a percentage charge (as opposed to a fixed one) would help to even that out.

As are salaries David49.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

^Many people of all political stripes disagree with that- it is a major fear for older people - and if a way can be found to charge everyone a little bit along the way so nobody has to be pauperised if the lottery if life means they need social care in old age, then I’m keen for that to happen. I’d like to see geographical unfairness ruled out, too. As it stands, notional ‘caps’ on spending have all been finite, so someone whose house has a postcode premium would still have lots left over after paying up to the cap, but someone who has worked just as hard in another area loses everything. Maybe charging a maximum of X% of an estate would be more equitable?^

A great comment Doodledog. 👏

That’s fine, but care fees are a lot higher in the South of England than the North, even more close to London

M0nica

No one has yet mentioned buying limited life annuities when you go into care. These used to exist, but I haven't seen them advertised recently

With a limited life annuity, when someone went into care you would buy an annuity with a lump sum which was guaranteed to cover your care costs until you died. The cost was based on your expected life-length, medical conditions, family history, expected rise in care costs etc. Havin bought the annuity that was the care costs fixed and dealt with.

If you died much earlier than expected you lost out, your actual care fees amounted to less than you had payed in, but if you live for a long time, you would be, as they say, quids in.

Twenty years ago these schemes were quite popular.

Some companies do offer a lifetime care annuity, you pay a lump sum and the pay you a fixed annuity per month for life. They offer a range of options to suit individuals and the more you pay the more you get per month.

They do not commit to paying all you care needs for life

Many people of all political stripes disagree with that- it is a major fear for older people - and if a way can be found to charge everyone a little bit along the way so nobody has to be pauperised if the lottery if life means they need social care in old age, then I’m keen for that to happen. I’d like to see geographical unfairness ruled out, too. As it stands, notional ‘caps’ on spending have all been finite, so someone whose house has a postcode premium would still have lots left over after paying up to the cap, but someone who has worked just as hard in another area loses everything. Maybe charging a maximum of X% of an estate would be more equitable?

A great comment Doodledog. 👏

GrannyGravy13

PoliticsNerd

RosiesMaw2. An increase in Employers' National Insurance (NI) contributions does raise concerns about rising labour costs and potential negative impacts on employment.

However, there can also be positive changes in the jobs market due to this shift. Looking at both sides will give a clear view rather than the panic the right-wing media tries (and, it seems succeeds) to create.

What positive changes in the jobs market do you envisage the new NI rates and lowering of eligibility starting point will bring when implemented this April?

Lowering of the eligibility starting point will mean that more low-paid workers will build up years to be eligible for state pension.

If (and it's a big 'if') the extra money is ring-fenced for social care, it could mean that more money is available.

I haven't read this thread in detail, but I don't think anybody has mentioned staffing. There are issues which need to be addressed, which will have implications for training, pay and (very important in the current climate) immigration.

There are also questions about the current models of providing social care, such as whether care in the community is working.

Balancing all the issues and needs isn't something which can be delivered overnight.

No one has yet mentioned buying limited life annuities when you go into care. These used to exist, but I haven't seen them advertised recently

With a limited life annuity, when someone went into care you would buy an annuity with a lump sum which was guaranteed to cover your care costs until you died. The cost was based on your expected life-length, medical conditions, family history, expected rise in care costs etc. Havin bought the annuity that was the care costs fixed and dealt with.

If you died much earlier than expected you lost out, your actual care fees amounted to less than you had payed in, but if you live for a long time, you would be, as they say, quids in.

Twenty years ago these schemes were quite popular.