Social Care Reform and help got the elderly

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.

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.

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.

There is a concerted effort to . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Fair enough. I’m not saying I would vote for it either - just that it would reduce (if not eradicate) unfairness. The current system steals from the less well-off, as means-testing always does. They don’t have the political clout of the rich though, so nothing will change.

I think everyone is forgetting one essential fact and that in reality the State doesn’t own its population. Most people can get on an aeroplane and apply to live elsewhere. The Uk is seeing an exodus of high earners. Think again?

GrannyGravy13

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 both of these arguments, though I would probably not use the word theft.

The reason there has been no real progress on the issue is of course because many of the solutions are political suicide.

Disincentive is a word I can get behind. I guess the answer would be some sort of compromise where not all assets would be expected to go towards care and some were left for the offspring. I do not think it would be state theft, any more than expecting people to pay for their daily needs out of their assets is theft - that is what assets are for. It would only be theft if the state were taking people's money to pay for something that was entirely the state's responsibility, which currently it is not.

The problem of those rich enough to wangle legal loopholes remains. It would be the responsibility of government lawyers to make the legal framework as watertight as possible.

Agreed. Luckygirl.

It is pointless to pretend that political decisions are made in a vacuum. Of course they aren’t.

Equally it is naive to assume that money doesn’t buy influence and the ability to swerve the realities that beset those without it.

I am happy that I don’t have to make policy decisions on behalf of others, and (on the whole) take my hat off to those who make that effort, whether I agree with their choices or not.

ronib

I think everyone is forgetting one essential fact and that in reality the State doesn’t own its population. Most people can get on an aeroplane and apply to live elsewhere. The Uk is seeing an exodus of high earners. Think again?

I would like to see the statistics on this ronib, as a statement, it's been rubbished on mumsnet. Probably it's true for a few but frankly, shame on them, the age of philanthropy is long gone.

Notagranyet24. A recent conversation with an entrepreneur confirmed that businesses are being moved overseas. There’s no aspiration or market here at the moment as living expenses are extremely high so luxury goods need to follow the market and Saudi Arabia hits the spot.
Mumsnet and statistics? Tell us more please.

One contributor to GN and her ‘conversation with an entrepreneur’ and statistics? Perhaps you could tell us more please?

Why do you believe what the entrepreneur told you about others emigrating, and why should we accept your acceptance of that belief?

Conversation on MN is not statistically valid (and there are numerous bots on there spreading propaganda just now) but usually it at least represents a range of perspectives. You want us to accept the word of one unnamed ‘entrepreneur’ whilst rubbishing the validity of a whole conversation? How does that make any sort of sense?

Doodledog hope you’re not suggesting that I am lying?

Commonsense will tell you that the luxury market is falling in the Uk and definitely expanding in the rich oil producing countries. Don’t need statistics?

In my circle of friends, one has a daughter who has relocated to Dubai, can work online from anywhere and after doing her research Dubai won.

Another friend and her husband have relocated to Jersey.

And meanwhile the celebs are moving from the USA to the UK to escape Trump. Strange old world.

ronib

Doodledog hope you’re not suggesting that I am lying?

No, I am asking why you are discounting a discussion amongst a large number of people on MN but expecting us to accept your account of a conversation with an unnamed entrepreneur as gospel. As my post suggests.

Doodledog I don’t have the time to investigate the discussion on Mumsnet as am taking down Christmas decorations but in brief, just because a large number of people say something doesn’t mean that it’s accurate.
I prefer to try to find out more from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Bypassing social media!

Some of the perceived unfairness is because the state funds some forms of care but not others. For instance many types of cancer can be treated for some time in hospital settings. This is costly and is not grudged.

Most types of dementia also destroy life but cannot be treated in this way so incur comparatively little by way of hospital costs. Care costs for dementia patients are high and it is fair to say that state help is grudged. Greatly. Why?

Whenever it is suggested that ‘hotel’ charges should be introduced for hospital stays a powerful argument is that many wouldn’t be able to afford to pay (and means testing is expensive). Yet social care is meanstested until the pips squeak and beyond. Is that just?