Tories announce end to forced home sales for care costs

nearlynew

If people have "made" all this money; whether from property or wherever, they should pay for their own care.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nearlynew wrote: »

If people have "made" all this money; whether from property or wherever, they should pay for their own care.

They already did.

It's called "National Insurance".

LydiaJ

Having seen what happened to my grandmother (who had money) and my aunt and uncle (who also had money) I know that if I ever need to go into a residential home (whether for nursing care or just a bit of support) I want to have the choice to go somewhere that provides a better service and a more pleasant environment than any publicly funded home is likely to provide. When I reach retirement (almost certainly with a lot less money than my aforementioned relations) I will be taking out a private insurance policy to cover me if I need care, that will cover the quality of care I would want to receive. If I end up not needing it, then by the time it's certain I won't ever need it, I'll be dead, so it won't matter to me that I didn't get my money's worth.

bumpoowee

baby_boomer wrote: »

I'm a Tory and I can't understand the logic of this policy which implies that the state is responsible rather than the individual.

Not can I understand their inheritance tax policy - yet another case of the baby_boomers always getting their selfish way . If you inherite a £million tax free, many people will be disincentivised from using their talents & training. How many doctors' children who trained as doctors will simply take early retirement, for instance?

If there's any tax money to distribute - which there isn't - then it should be use to incentivise people who contribute to the economy ie by keeping income tax rates as low as possible when the pressure will be on to raise them.

This is electioneering pure and simple. How can "giveaways" be responsible government when the Tories' economic / fiscal case is that the deficit is the number one problem facing the UK today?

I suppose it's the price we pay for competition between parties in a democracy :rolleyes:. After all, Labour will be making all sorts of unfunded / unrealistic promises to public sector workers over the next few months as they cling on by their fingernails.

Agree, this is a stupid policy. We now have a situation where something like 50% of somebody's life savings is likely to come from inheritance. What sort of incentive to work is that?

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Oh well, it's just another liability that the UK taxpayer can't meet.

According to this:

http://www.fundingcaring.co.uk/cost-of-care-homes.html



According to this:

http://www.carehomesguide.com/ShowArticle.aspx?id=1



That's going to be an awful lot of money that you're hoping your kids are going to be willing to find.

Surely it is the kids who will be gaining by the Tory proposal [

lemonjelly

wageslave wrote: »

Care homes are, to put it bluntly, Gods waiting room. You go in and,realistically, you aren't coming back out alive.

This policy is there to protect juniors inheritance. Very big on inheritance, the tories. If you dont have kids you dont need the insurance. If you do, let them find the 8k.

Nail on head. This policy is a designed vote winner. You can see the candidates now:

tory: you see those nu-labour peeps, they'll sell mommy & daddy's house when they need care. Now your mommy & daddy paid £50k for it, but its now worth £500k. That's your inheritance, but vote labour & it's the governments"
voter: fcuk me can't vote for the socialists, where do I sign?"

nearlynew wrote: »

If people have "made" all this money; whether from property or wherever, they should pay for their own care.

bumpoowee wrote: »

Agree, this is a stupid policy. We now have a situation where something like 50% of somebody's life savings is likely to come from inheritance. What sort of incentive to work is that?

There aren't pockets in a shroud. It seeme to be generally acknowledged that the purse strings need to be tightened. Therefore I don't see how this can be afforded?

The idea (to me) of state help is that it should come when you don't have the means to afford it yourself. Now, someone with a several hundred thousand pound house, that is sitting empty whilst they get their care for free, doesn't appear to me to be in a situation where they do not have the means to fund their own care. They do have the means. Sell the bloomin house, after all, what good is it to you when you need that level of care?

But idiots will vote with their wallets again...

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Surely it is the kids who will be gaining by the Tory proposal [

Yeah, first post I just assumed it would be another empty promise. Then I did the sums, back of envelope anyway, and it is a really sensible policy. It appears at first glance to be revenue positive with a voluntary tax. Whouda thought?

Unlike some people who post on this board I didn't delete the first post. Perhaps I should have done so (that's not a slight aimed at you StevieJ BTW).

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Actually I think it's self funding as long as the money isn't spent on other things.

If there are 400,000 odd in care homes and about 10,000,000 over 65s then you have a 4% chance of ending up in a care home that will cost £100,000 on average.

100/4 * 8,000 = 200,000

A good deal for the taxpayer perhaps, despite my earlier, apparently hasty post?

If this is such a great deal for taxpayers surely the question would be why insurance companies aren't offering similar policies at a similar price ?

If you have a small amount of assets then this policy is useless.
If you own a home worth £2m then its a cracking deal.

Revenue positive my !!!!!

kennyboy66_2

I've got full sympathy for anyone who thinks the Tories would be 'better' at cutting public spending, however this, the re-linking penisions to average earnings and their frankly mad education policy of allowing parents to start up unlimited schools makes you wonder.

andykn

lostinrates wrote: »

I wonder: are there private scheme like this? would any spring up as a result? If I could choose the right place to provide care for me at a fit and healthy 65 perhaps I'd be interested...prepared to put a down payment down in anticipation of DH and/or I being unable to care for ourselves/each other. I am certain my grandmothers decline was hastened by the fact that her dementia was significnt by the time her husband died and decisions were made for her, rather than by her and she became a passenger in her own life, no the driver of it, or even the navigator. If I could plot out a course for a future retirement closer to it, I think it would be an option worth looking for it. Otherwise, then I think I'd find it hard to understtand why to put £8k into a scheme that promises me no choice and a depressing and uncaring decline to death.

I think you used to be able to buy "Long Term Care Bonds". They were introduced after the great Tory financial services deregulation that lead to all the misselling scandals.

They too were rip off products and have died out having made many rich people richer. I wonder why the Tories want to bring them back...