National Care Service

Kohoutek

A nice idea and a vote winner obviously, but can we actually afford this? It sounds like it will be funded by new taxes and reducing the IHT threshold in real terms, but judging by what happens to national insurance, there's no guarantee that the money will actually be 'ring-fenced'. And presumably, this social care system will be free to all - including people who have contributed nothing.

If the National Care Service is anything like the National Health Service, this organisation will be a huge new bureaucracy, with plenty of managers to ensure 'targets' are met.

Andy Burnham writing in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/29/national-care-service-labour

A new National Care Service, providing personal care and support to adults on the basis of need and free at the point of use, will ensure that an ageing society remains a decent and fair society.

To make the National Care Service work, everyone will have to make a contribution. But because of this, the costs of covering everyone's care needs will be reduced. This means people of all incomes will get peace of mind in old age and be able to protect everything they have worked for. Like the NHS before it, it will end catastrophic care costs.

It is a policy that will promote social mobility, helping lower-income families keep their foothold on the property ladder. It is also an economic policy. Most of us can expect to be carers in later life and will need high-quality support and control over services if we are to make balancing work and caring possible. But, most importantly, it will promote a more positive vision of the ageing society, where older people are not always spoken of as a burden and can look forward to a retirement with peace of mind.

So this is a big choice for the country. It will require tough choices. Today I will propose reform in stages with a freeze on inheritance tax allowances for the next five years to begin this process, as well as moves to encourage more to work after 65.

The FT reports:

Burnham...deferred the most difficult decision on how to fund it for up to five years. As an interim measure, Mr Burnham will pledge from 2014 to cover the care costs of anyone who has been in residential care for more than two years. Labour claimed the cost would be around £800m a year.

The Tories oppose any system of compulsory funding and have proposed an alternative partial insurance-based model that they claim would cover care costs in a care home.

puddy

im not sure i really understand the issues

what is the death tax and is it related to this national care service?

if i pay nothing into the national care service, what service do i get when i need nursing home care and why is this any different to what we have now?

is it really wrong to expect that someone sell an asset to pay for their care? the only person it affects (as it wouldnt need to be sold if the other partner was still living there) will be the offspring of the elderly person and do they have a 'right' to inherit something?

Kohoutek

jenner wrote: »

what is the death tax and is it related to this national care service?

It was a proposal to levy 10% on the estates of all dead people to pay for the National Care Service. Labour have now abandoned this proposal.

jenner wrote: »

if i pay nothing into the national care service, what service do i get when i need nursing home care and why is this any different to what we have now?

It looks like the National Care Service will be paid for by new taxes and/or compulsory insurance, and by not raising the inheritance tax threshold with inflation. However, Burnham is suggesting it is free for all, so even people who haven't worked/contributed with be eligible.

jenner wrote: »

is it really wrong to expect that someone sell an asset to pay for their care? the only person it affects (as it wouldnt need to be sold if the other partner was still living there) will be the offspring of the elderly person and do they have a 'right' to inherit something?

I agree with you. If implementing this is going to mean more taxes on people of working age, I think it would be better to leave things as they are.

puddy

i just dont see what the difference is to now either (apart from more taxes), if person a, lives in council house or rented, needs nursing care, has no savings, they will be provided for? lets assume they have always been on a very low income or on benefits or disability benefits or something, they therefore have paid nothing in financially

person b, worked, so paid taxes which cover a wide range of things, owns a house. has no partner or children so goes into nursing care and is asked by social services to contribute to their care because they have an asset

is that what happens now?

in the future, nothing would change for person a?
in the future, person b would pay more tax, to pay for their care, but would get to keep their house. how will keeping their house at the age that they need to go into care help them? they cant take the house with them, even if they do have kids to leave it to, it doesnt benefit that person, the only thing thats happened is that they have paid more out during the years when they want to have disposible income?

out of interest, if someone has no money, no house, but does have kids, and the person goes into nursing care, do the kids have to pay for the care? or is it based just on that persons income and assets?

Linton

Kohoutek wrote: »

(About being better to leave the current system of payment whereby people may be forced to sell their house to pay for long term care)

I agree with you. If implementing this is going to mean more taxes on people of working age, I think it would be better to leave things as they are.

We arent often in the same camp, but I also agree. Unfortunately the Great British Public and the fearless press with their sad stories about granny losing her treasured family home and the little kiddies losing their inheritance appear to disagree.

Greater publicity and availability of Care Insurance would perhaps help. But I am not convinced that the Conservative proposal to have a £6000 optional insurance fee payable at 65 helps. It really leaves the situation much the same as now - I suspect many of the people for whom this is a great issue cant or wont take up the option.

Also, the Conservative proposal, even if taken up, wont have much effect for perhaps 20 years. What happens in the meantime?

Is there any mileage in allowing councils to take a charge on the house rather than forcing a sale immediately? This would need some additional financing to cover the time gap between cost and payment.

puddy

i'll be honest, im desparately hopeing that my parents are fit and well into their last years and dont need care and part of that hope is also about the liklihood of inheriting their house (because i havent yet got a proper pension provision, which is my problem), but im also aware that this is their house, not mine, its not my 'inheritance', i may not get it. they could go mental, sell up and travel round the world, thats their choice
so if im left unstuck by not inheriting, thats still my problem, i donthave a right to it

Linton

jenner wrote: »

out of interest, if someone has no money, no house, but does have kids, and the person goes into nursing care, do the kids have to pay for the care? or is it based just on that persons income and assets?

It is just paid for by that person's income/assets, if these are insufficient it is paid for by the taxpayer. Children have no legal duty to support their parents.

lostinrates

jenner wrote: »

i'll be honest, im desparately hopeing that my parents are fit and well into their last years and dont need care and part of that hope is also about the liklihood of inheriting their house (because i havent yet got a proper pension provision, which is my problem), but im also aware that this is their house, not mine, its not my 'inheritance', i may not get it. they could go mental, sell up and travel round the world, thats their choice
so if im left unstuck by not inheriting, thats still my problem, i donthave a right to it

I think we all hope that our parents are fit and well till the day they die peacefully in their sleep. However if they are not, some of us want the option to take care of our family ourselves: should that be what they want.....it seems a bit mean to charge that kind of family. But then maybe that kind of family is priceless and reward in itself?

puddy

but its not a charge exactly, its just an asset that can be used for whatever the person needs or wants (if you're talking about the house)

lostinrates

jenner wrote: »

but its not a charge exactly, its just an asset that can be used for whatever the person needs or wants (if you're talking about the house)

No the house I think is right, its a way of paying for a service you use, which if you are able to you ought to imo. One thing that always wrong foots me is how frequently ways to avoide/evade this are discussed on parts of MSE without shame.

I'm talking about the insurance type idea.

Alan_Cross

OP, it seems to me that the idea of a NCS is pretty good.

The picture on care at the moment is completely unacceptable with, literally, hundreds of different organisations, quangos and charities reinventing the wheel.

If you seriously think the current situation isn't already prone, if only on these grounds, to massive bureaucratic overload and missing out on the economies of scale, you'd better think again.

Labour have finally thought through to the obvious - and about time too.