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

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...Clegg is trying to keep up the pressure to do something for the pensioners with fewer assets...

upon going into a care home, these old folks could name beneficiaries [most likely their children] who would be given, say, a £160k [an average house] taxpayer-funded lump sum to share.

Graham_Devon

Well if they do this, there is no point putting a charge on the house in regards to my favourite subject...SMI.

I'll wind myself up now, and just imagine the pensioner taking the taxpayer funded SMI payments, while sitting on a shed load of equity, and then taking taxpayer money to fund their care so they still don't have to sell their house.

Not really any different to a life on benefits! Everything ends up paid for by the taxpayer (the mortgage & the care, both times to stop it being sold) so that the house and values are protected at all times.

<shakes head>

Graham_Devon

the_flying_pig wrote: »

upon going into a care home, these old folks could name beneficiaries [most likely their children] who would be given, say, a £160k [an average house] taxpayer-funded lump sum to share.

I like it. I like it a lot.

Only one problem with it. What happens to the beneficiaries on benefits who get handed this cash? Surely we need to exclude this cash from benefit assesments?

It would be wicked and quite vindictive to remove benefits just after their parents have passed.

Therefore I propose just giving them a house on the taxpayer, in a location of their choice, rather than cash. Should probably look at raising the level of benefits for these people too, to make sure they can run the house....would be mean to provide them with a house they may have to sell.

oldvicar

I think I would rather be required to spend all my own money first, and if I survive long enough be promised that the taxpeyer will continue to keep me in a DECENT standard of care.

The prospect of living years in thye sort of places LA's currently afford and dying rich simply doesn't hold the same attraction.

So spend the money on improving standards rather than saving inheritances, although I like the idea of increasing the means test a bit to say the suggested £100k so that people have something to pass on.

N1AK

Smart politics but an absolutely stupid idea: The care is still going to be paid for but now it will be paid for by debt or by different taxes.

Graham_Devon

LOL this has split the guardian readers!

On one side of the coin, you have people stating "No, we have paid NI all our lives, care should simply be free....why should we take insurance or pay 35k...I think I will emigrate...". (someone did say how?...by selling your house?! )

On the other, you have "So basically the coalition are asking kids at school now to pay for the care of people who have assets, sometimes worth 100's of thousands of pounds, so that they can keep their assets?"

What does seem prevelant in the middle of the extremes between those who believe they have paid their NI and should get everything paid and those who fear the debts, is that even the guardian readers believe that no one with the means to pay for their care should be getting taxpayer funds. So the tories suddenly sit on the left of the left wing?!

Also prevailing is the notion that the wealthy people feel it's unfair, and feel it's unfair that people with nothing get their care paid for. So were in a situation whereby the wealthy all of a sudden feel envious of those with nothing just because they can't get something for free. Greed springs to mind (once again).

Edit: Apparently it could cost a current twentysomething 4x the current tuition fees (for 4 years at uni) in extra taxes to cover this. :undecided

StevieJ

The sensible option would be to put a charge on the house and recover it when they meet their maker. I am not sure why the will beneficiaries should actually gain in this situation.

Loughton_Monkey

I think we're all missing the key point.

It's not the £35K cap. It's the wealth threshold of £100K that's important. I've just re-read some of macaque's posts, and by 2017, none of us will have houses worth that much.

So it's all FREE!:)

StevieJ

wotsthat wrote: »

sell a house to get. That's not greed or envy - just a sense of injustice.

I think people should fund care if they have assets but there needs to be negative consequences for people who choose not to.

Not sure what you mean there?

abaxas

StevieJ wrote: »

Not sure what you mean there?

He means people who have money should have a better service as they are paying for it.