Should Gransnet weigh in on care costs?

Yes please I would like your involvement. Care cost my late mother in law £75,000 for 4 years and the care wasn't that great!!

I do think Gransnet should be involved in the debate about funding for care provision. It's a difficult issue and many of the messages point out the pitfalls, such as the loss of inheritance to one's children. On the other hand, it also seems right that everyone should perhaps pay something! I don't know the answer but certainly it requires careful unpicking. I have my own concerns, in that my son has had to return to live with me and is not well enough to live alone at this stage, but if I end up in a home at some point then he could be made homeless because he is under 65 years of age and my house will need to be sold to cover the costs.

Personally I am in favour of paying more tax to ensure a fairer and more robust welfare system and agree in principle with Eloethan.

Yes please. I think those who have commented on the unnatural split between social care and nursing care have got it right. It seems dementia is not really seen as an illness. If we cannot afford everything then perhaps we should look at everyone paying "hotel" costs but all care, both medical and social - often both the difference between life and death - should be free.

If everyone knew that something like a hotel charge would be made then perhaps they would be prepared for additional taxes. The way it is now some people pay an awful lot and others do not.

I am fortunate enough to have assets that can be sold to pay for any care I may need when I am older, and I am happy for that to happen (leaves more resources for those without assets). What does concern me is the quality of care. We regularly read about the elderly being abused and mistreated in "care" homes and although I accept the majority of carers are not abusers I feel there are not enough spot checks. I have no family of my own here in the UK to look out for me and I dread ending my days in a "care" home where I am mistreated and unable to do anything about it.

sunseeker I could not agree more. I also have no relatives here so I would be very much on my own in a care home.

The aunt of a friend is in a care home and she is not being treated well at all. There is a phone in her room but it is rarely near her bed- she had her engagement ring stolen- it had been in a box in a drawer. A radio was knocked over and broken, she was expected to replace it which she did.

It is difficult because if her family complain, she may be the loser but I feel that something has to be done.

Most of the staff are on minimum wage and do not appear to care.

I have a friend who has been fighting to be allowed to keep her mother in a good home close by to where the mother's house is, so that she can still have visits from her friends, as on a good day she still recognises them.

The friend has moved into her mother's house. Interestingly she found out several things -

Firstly, that if you have a child/dependent living in your house, they won't be forced to move. They will just try to make you think you have to, because they need the money to boost the funding so much. Another option is to have the money from the house released early, and the house only has to be sold on the actual death of the owner.

Secondly, it is so hard to find a space to move someone to from a good home to a cheaper one, that once all their savings have been spent, funds will most likely be found from somewhere to continue their stay at the better place. An interview is necessary for this in most cases, at which your case for their staying has to be put forward.

It has, however, cost her many hours in talks and negotiations that she would have found it hard to have, if she had been living hundreds of miles away.

Her mother was by no means poor, she had substantial savings but it hasn't taken very long to work her way through them. My friend had tried caring for her herself for a year, but after various escapes from the house and falls in the night despite stairgates etc., she just couldn't cope. Her mother became nocturnal, my friend, who has ME, a wreck.

And of course, this is what most of us would be having to cope with if no system existed at all. I have seen wives and husbands separate under the strain, husbands left at home with sulky teens while distraught mothers are sent off, having had to leave work, to care for elderly relatives. As I tried to care for my own father after a bad stroke when I was only in my 20s, with a small child, I know how very hard it is. Please God my own children are never put through that.

So I would like to see something sorted, an increase in NI contributions for a start, but would really like the subject of voluntary euthanasia brought up. It's bad enough when DNR is ignored (which has just happened to another friend's mother, and he is distraught as she is being force-fed by tube) but what happens when there is no-one in the person's family to fight their corner, to sort out the paperwork? To replace their old underwear and remind the staff that they have an allergy? We need care, but with dignity. As for leaving the children penniless - well, as long as they have incomes and rooves over their heads, they are fine for now. If they are living with us, they should be allowed to continue to do so. I bet they would rather not care for us, than be left money.

One of the big problems is that so many families who have an older relative in care fail to get any independent financial advice on the best way to deal with their relation's assets so that they last as long as possible.

I was involved in the care decisions for an aunt and uncle and we spoke to a financial advisor who specialise din this field and were advised to consider taking out an impaired life annuity specially developed for those going into care. The annuity covered the amount needed for fees after the amount that could be covered by pension income and disability benefits had been deducted. The specialist annuity came with an annual escalation clause that meant the pay-out rose in line with care fees. The capital cost did eat deeply into the couples assets, but it ensured that once in a home the fees would be met without further outlay for the rest of their lives.

If people do not want to risk money in a annuity like this, proper advice on how to invest the money can increase income and reduce capital loss.

But, as I said so few families seek proper advice, they simply put all the capital in to savings accounts with poor returns which means the capital is soon eaten up by care fees.

Jane - really interesting post with much food for thought. I do find myself really torn on the whole funding issue. I can't help but feel that if health care is funded centrally then why not social care as the distinction between the two is often quite nuanced and arbitrary. It is a lottery how we will all end up and we all have I'm sure , seen the whole range of outcomes from complete indepence and health until a very sudden death right through to years and years in a care home with in some cases very little quality of life. I do have concerns however about using NI - it's only paid by the working population on earned income, it's capped with higher incomes so it doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think there's an easy answer but there must be a better way that the current mess ( or the future changes promised)

I don't see a problem with raising NI contributions, because I do feel that people ought to be charitable - which is what it is. We may need it for ourselves. maybe not, but all of us will have a relative in trouble physically at some point.

I think at the present time, raising NI to pay for the social care of older people who are now retired and exempt from paying it would simply be ammunition for the inter-generational warfarists janerowena
Yes, we have contributed in the past and many of us still contribute through income tax on our pensions, but if taxation is to be raised to pay for social care then it's only fair that our generation pays its share, I think.

Then it should be both. Particularly since so many new and expensive treatments are being found that weren't available when we were younger.

Even if it's only a small amount.

Most people say they would not mind paying another penny or two on tax. That's not intergenerational.
If the cap was taken off NI, that would mean that those who earned most paid most.
Why do we have NI and tax? People seem to object to paying tax, but not national insurance, so if it was lumped together and called national insurance, they might not object so much.

They object to taxes because they think it's spent on prosecuting illegal wars or other things they disapprove of, or do not benefit from.
National insurance is perceived differently - the term implies you pay something in, and if you need it, you'll get something out later.
As NI isn't ring fenced for health, social care and pensions any more, it would seem fairer to me to do away with it altogether and just increase income tax to restore the levels of revenue to the Treasury.
That way, everyone of whatever age would just be paying according to their means.
It has been shown that as a group, better-off retired people are the ones who have suffered the least financially under the Coalition. It would be unfair to expect other groups to subsidise them when it came to providing social care, which is what would happen if social care was funded by increased NI contributions.

Perhaps NI should be ring fenced again. It would be more acceptable to raise it if we knew it was purely for health and care costs. Otherwise I agree it might just as well be merged into general taxation.

Some people - including myself - feel that both health and "social" care should be paid for by the state, but in the present atmosphere where public services are not seen as essential contributors to society but as an economic drain on society, the present unfair system is likely to continue.

My feeling remains that firstly it is important that every individual and business pays the amount of tax appropriate to their income/wealth. In my view, this should include a reasonable contribution from homeowners. However, it seems to me that some homeowners (and their children), want it both ways. They do not wish to contribute to the public purse by way of inheritance tax, but at the same time they think all their property and assets should be "ring fenced", whilst still expecting the state to pay for all social care if it's needed.

I think it's unfair that the few unfortunate people that need to go into residential care (I think the figure is about 10%), can potentially lose all but £23,000 of the value of their assets while others remain completely unaffected. Taxation is a way to share the cost more fairly - and abolishing schemes that allow people to avoid paying inheritance (or any other) tax and care costs, would go some way to providing the additional money needed.

Read an interesting article on inheritance tax today. When it first came in it was death duties and 30% of deaths resulted in paying death duties, compared with just 3% today.
Estate duty brought in in 1894 was levied on every estate worth more than £100, which would be £6000 today.
In 1938-39 there were 153000 estates liable to estate duty, compared to 16000 in 2011-12. In 2011-12, 34000 people left over £325000, worth a total of £60 billion, yet just £3 billion was paid in inheritance tax.

Why do the Tories want to cut inheritance tax? Most of their rich friends seem to avoid paying it anyway.

I think it would be better if it was on a sliding scale.

(Not that we will be liable unless we win the lottery, which I won't because I don't buy a ticket, although DH does occasionally!)

I presume that people do know that whatever is done, there is no ultimate protection for people who are poor. That there will always be poor people?

Actually, realised that that has nothing to do with the op, so ignore that.