Care fees to be limited to £35K, Cameron pledges to end forcing elderly to sell homes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

David Cameron has pledged to end the heartache of tens of thousands of elderly people who are forced to sell their homes to fund long-term care.

He has told Nick Clegg and senior Tories that he will implement recommendations that cap the amount individuals pay at £35,000 – with the taxpayer picking up any further bills.

They plan to insert the pledge to enforce the proposals in 2017 into the Government’s Care and Support Bill.

They see it as a key legacy project for the Government that will show the two parties working together to solve a major problem that affects millions.

The initial £35,000 could be funded by an insurance policy taken out by people while they are still working.

He also recommended that the £23,250 means test threshold should go up to £100,000.

It is understood the Coalition will also honour this proposal.

‘It means both the Conservatives and Lib Dems can turn round in 2015 and say – we sorted out social care.

No one will have to lose their homes to pay for nursing home care any more.

‘That’s a pretty big achievement – and would appeal to both sets of voters.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188952/David-Cameron-A-35-000-cap-care-bills-PM-pledges-end-heartbreak-elderly-forced-sell-homes.html#ixzz23h0CBJSx

More good news.

:beer:

abaxas

Great news for chavs, not so for the people who work.

Graham_Devon

Seems a bit of a bizzare proposal if you ask me.

I do understand the heartache caused. BUT, I don't really see why the taxpayer should be responsible, and secondly, where the money is going to come from. We seem to be funding a hell of a lot of social benefits, and already these benefits swallow up income tax in it's entirity.

Where does the money come from?

Not against the proposal at all, think it's good.. Just concerns me that we appear to be getting money from nowhere at the moment.....a time when were supposed to be cutting back?

Apparently the money has to be found in the 2014 spending review.

PasturesNew

That's my 'inheritance' protected then......
£35k is about a year's fees in many homes. The average lifespan once in a home is two years.... which not many people realise.

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

2017?

I can absolutely guarentee you this won't get done.

Oh, 2017.... too late for my 'inheritance' then.

the_flying_pig

one good thing about it is that it's neutral between different types of 'assets'. so £100k of cash won't be treated differently to £100k of pwoperdee.

but generally it seems stupid & unfair.

HAMISH [not that there's any real value in searching for logic or consistency beyond 'i luv house prices' within his posts] has fairly often spewed out paragraphs of half-baked drivel about how public spending should be reduced etc & i think that many people would agree that benefits should be targeted according to need... but this is very obviously expanding the 'benefits for all' [regardless of need] culture.

roddydogs

A, its not till 2017, isnt their an election before then? B.WHOS GOING TO PAY?

CLAPTON

Isn't this the third time he's promised to do?

Why can't it be done now?

Will the insurance costs be a compulsory levy (we could call it tax if your like) or will it be voluntary?

2017 is a long time away

wotsthat

If someone has a house they'll likely never need again I can't see the problem in selling it to help fund care. This is a direct subsidy to the heirs of the people going into long term care.

There's an issue with people who make no provision for retirement whatsoever. In these cases they should be cared for at least cost to the taxpayer and have less options available to them in terms of location etc.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Isn't this the third time he's promised to do?

Why can't it be done now?

Will the insurance costs be a compulsory levy (we could call it tax if your like) or will it be voluntary?

2017 is a long time away

Seems they can't do it now as they have no idea where the money is coming from.

The article states the treasury think it should come from the NHS budget, but that would mean cutting other NHS services so that people could keep houses. A little further on, it simply suggests if the government need the money, george will simply have to find it.

The article states this mostly benefits pensioners with large homes and Clegg is trying to keep up the pressure to do something for the pensioners with fewer assets.

If it does come out of the NHS budget, I'd find it pretty disgusting to be honest.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems they can't do it now as they have no idea where the money is coming from.

The article states the treasury think it should come from the NHS budget, but that would mean cutting other NHS services so that people could keep houses. A little further on, it simply suggests if the government need the money, george will simply have to find it.

The article states this mostly benefits pensioners with large homes and Clegg is trying to keep up the pressure to do something for the pensioners with fewer assets.

If it does come out of the NHS budget, I'd find it pretty disgusting to be honest.

uncosted proposals aren't 'proposals' they are 'aspirations'.