Tories announce end to forced home sales for care costs

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

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 !!!!!

Where's the mistake in my maths then kennyboy66 or are you (as I suspect) making my original mistake and dismissing it off the cuff like an a rse?

You can buy similar policies although I have no idea of their price.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Where's the mistake in my maths then kennyboy66 or are you (as I suspect) making my original mistake and dismissing it off the cuff like an a rse?

You can buy similar policies although I have no idea of their price.

I think Labour floated a similar policy and talked about £20k, although that might have been a charge for someone just about to go into a care home.
The real cost via an insurance policy is between 4 and 5 times the cost (this would be a 88 year old about to go into residental care, ie expensive person to look after, but probably not for that long).

If ever something didn't need government intervention it is this.
We will end up subsidising asset rich people so that their middle aged (probably close to pensioner age in many cases) children can inherit some dosh.
One unintended consequence will no doubt be that there will be more incentive to stuff an old parent into a home earlier - if its only costing £8k then why not.

What we get now is people caring for parents (or a spouse) when they are themselves quite old - I know from family experience that this ain't easy but more personal responsibility as a society is required not yet more foisting problems on to the Government and taxpayer.

Surely this kind of half baked policy goes against everything you believe in ?

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think Labour floated a similar policy and talked about £20k, although that might have been a charge for someone just about to go into a care home.
The real cost via an insurance policy is between 4 and 5 times the cost (this would be a 88 year old about to go into residental care, ie expensive person to look after, but probably not for that long).

If ever something didn't need government intervention it is this.
We will end up subsidising asset rich people so that their middle aged (probably close to pensioner age in many cases) children can inherit some dosh.
One unintended consequence will no doubt be that there will be more incentive to stuff an old parent into a home earlier - if its only costing £8k then why not.

What we get now is people caring for parents (or a spouse) when they are themselves quite old - I know from family experience that this ain't easy but more personal responsibility as a society is required not yet more foisting problems on to the Government and taxpayer.

Surely this kind of half baked policy goes against everything you believe in ?

I guess there are two ways for me to look at this: moral (ie from my political standpoint) and pragmatic (what will work best for the country considering what people will pay and vote for).

From the former moral standpoint, yeah, people should be in a position to put aside during their working lives what they need to pay for their dotage. The huge levels of tax that are paid by Britons prevent them from doing that.

Pragmatically, a policy that people will vote for and that which makes Britain work better fiscally (as this seems to do from my back of envelope calculation) is a good thing.

I have strong beliefs but I'm a pragmatist above all.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Where's the mistake in my maths then kennyboy66 or are you (as I suspect) making my original mistake and dismissing it off the cuff like an a rse?

You can buy similar policies although I have no idea of their price.

I think Labour floated a similar policy and talked about £20k, although that might have been a charge for someone just about to go into a care home.
The real cost via an insurance policy is between 4 and 5 times the cost (this would be a 88 year old about to go into residental care, ie expensive person to look after, but probably not for that long).

If ever something didn't need government intervention it is this.
We will end up subsidising asset rich people so that their middle aged (probably close to pensioner age in many cases) children can inherit some dosh.
One unintended consequence will no doubt be that there will be more incentive to stuff an old parent into a home earlier - if its only costing £8k then why not.

What we get now is people caring for parents (or a spouse) when they are themselves quite old - I know from family experience that this ain't easy but more personal responsibility as a society is required not yet more foisting problems on to the Government and taxpayer.

Surely this kind of half baked policy goes against everything you believe in ?

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think Labour floated a similar policy and talked about £20k, although that might have been a charge for someone just about to go into a care home.
The real cost via an insurance policy is between 4 and 5 times the cost (this would be a 88 year old about to go into residental care, ie expensive person to look after, but probably not for that long).

If ever something didn't need government intervention it is this.
We will end up subsidising asset rich people so that their middle aged (probably close to pensioner age in many cases) children can inherit some dosh.
One unintended consequence will no doubt be that there will be more incentive to stuff an old parent into a home earlier - if its only costing £8k then why not.

What we get now is people caring for parents (or a spouse) when they are themselves quite old - I know from family experience that this ain't easy but more personal responsibility as a society is required not yet more foisting problems on to the Government and taxpayer.

Surely this kind of half baked policy goes against everything you believe in ?

It's deja vu all over again!

ninky_2

16k for a couple to spend out as a one-off 'insurance' policy is pretty hefty given that only 1 in 5 use residential care. as can be expected benefitting the wealthier members of society.

if you need to go into residential care then you don't need a home other than to provide for kids inheritence.

the real issue that needs facing is the frankly daylight robbery rates that get charged for shoddy longterm care of the elderly. 700 to 800 quid a week is not uncommon just for putting people in a room, giving them a bit of substandard food and increasingly not even providing a 24hr residential warden but instead a magic button they can press if in need of care.

was talking to some people who reckon the provision of care for the elderly is great business to go into as you have a self-renewing customer base too fearful or powerless to complain.

ninky_2

LydiaJ wrote: »

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. .

is there such a thing? out of interest, how much does this cost? and what does it cover? (would be interesting to see if the tories are actually suggesting a more expensive version of something that already exists on the market).

ninky_2

btw are you currently forced to sell your home to pay for care? i thought it was more that when the property comes to be sold the money is deducted from the estate? i'm probably wrong!

kennyboy66_2

There was a Joseph Rowntree report on this about 4 years ago.

For a male aged 67, £10,000 annual benefit (ie the first £10k or care home costs),

Single premium (lump sum)
£14,726.33 – with benefit linked to RPI.

Comparative figures for a female
£19,335.30.

As the real care costs are closer to £25k per year, then I would think this plan to charge only £8k, undercooks the amount required by 75%.

What it would do is pull forward government revenue but increase long term liabilities. Its madness.

If the government must get involved, then it should be via a mix of a prefunded fee (lets say £8k) plus a modest "death duty" tax on the property - lets say 10%.

So we might have £8k fee plus £30k on the sale of a house worth £300k.

Sadly, you will still get people moaning that they are only inheriting £270k rather than £300k.

kennyboy66_2

ninky wrote: »

btw are you currently forced to sell your home to pay for care? i thought it was more that when the property comes to be sold the money is deducted from the estate? i'm probably wrong!

Its pretty complex and depends on lots of things but can mean a council putting a 'charge' on the property to be recovered from the sale proceeds.