We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Care fees to be limited to £35K, Cameron pledges to end forcing elderly to sell homes
Comments
-
As Pastures has already mentioned, people normally only go into care homes towards the very end - for 18 to 24 months on average, so I can't see it making much difference. This proposed scheme sounds better than it probably is.... no doubt an intended vote catcher.
If the threshold is raised to £100k, it will help some prospective beneficiaries - won't make much difference to the person unable to live at home any more.
Remember too, that only a small proportion of people ever need to move into a care home. Like many things, it's the luck (or otherwise) of the draw.
Slightly old figures (2008) but indicative http://www.independentlivingresource.org.uk/ilrop-definition-factsandfigures.html
Numbers are set to rise in the future but it can only be speculative as to how far. There are too many unknowns, such as medical advances etc., to be certain.0 -
As Pastures has already mentioned, people normally only go into care homes towards the very end - for 18 to 24 months on average, so I can't see it making much difference. This proposed scheme sounds better than it probably is.... no doubt an intended vote catcher.
If the threshold is raised to £100k, it will help some prospective beneficiaries - won't make much difference to the person unable to live at home any more.
Remember too, that only a small proportion of people ever need to move into a care home. Like many things, it's the luck (or otherwise) of the draw.
Slightly old figures (2008) but indicative http://www.independentlivingresource.org.uk/ilrop-definition-factsandfigures.html
Numbers are set to rise in the future but it can only be speculative as to how far. There are too many unknowns, such as medical advances etc., to be certain.
Interseting link.
"The chance of living in a long-stay hospital or care home is 1% for people aged 65-74 years, 4% for people aged 75-84 years and 18% for people aged 85+. (Laing and Buisson, Care of elderly people: UK market survey, 2006)"
"Population growth between 2008 and 2028 will be fastest amongst the oldest older people: (Office for National Statistics, National population projections)- 16% increase in the number of people of all age
- 33% increase in the number of people aged 50 and over
- 53% increase in the number of people aged 65 and over
- 85% increase in the number of people aged 80 and over."
As the base population has been growing it is not surprising that the upper numbers grow either.
As you say the number that actually go into care is pretty low and the average stay is also low. I know there will always be the examples of long stays but IME I have only ever known one out of many."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
-
KrytenIceCubeHead wrote: »This means that the social services that you pay into every year of your working life count for nothing when you reach old age and need care, until you've stumped up another £35k, which for most older people will mean selling their homes. Oh hang on, that'll create another housing boom won't it! Sign me up.
Most middle class pensioners have in excess of £35k in liquid assets.0 -
I forgot everyone started in life with exactly the same background and opportunities.
I would rather use my assets to pay for my care then give it to some f***ing children and relations to argue over who didn't work for it.
You're a really nice person, aren't you? I bet your children absolutely adore you.
Fortunately people as selfish as you are in the minority (thank God).0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »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.
This has nothing to do with inheritances - this is about not wasting your own assets on something that the state should provide, i.e. healthcare. This ruling will not affect the fact that those going into care homes will still need to pay for their own board and lodging. The £35k limit on fees is only to do with care - not board and lodging. It won't necessarily preserve anyone's inheritance, as the money will still need to be found for board and lodging, and many people's pensions will not stretch enough to cover this.
It's typical of the morons on these forums that all they think about is that this move has been motivated by the need to preserve inheritances. The cynicism makes me sick. :mad:
Moreover, preserving assets to be passed down to future generations is not a bad thing for the economy, and will help future pensioners to have some extra money to live on when they get old. This will reduce the need for the state to pay out means tested benefits.0 -
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
Hopefully it will be an optional levy, as many people will prefer to make their own arrangements or will not necessarily care, i.e. if they have no children - or wish to disown them!0 -
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.
Rubbish. There are lots of reasons why inheritance benefits society and the economy as a whole. The passing down of assets over generations helps to increase national wealth and helps the economy to grow more rapidly. It also helps to reduce payments of means tested benefits.0 -
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.
No, not stupid at all. At present, an elderly person with a large estate who wishes to preserve it, can make arrangements with a solicitor to do so through various suitable vehicles. In such cases the taxpayer will have to foot the bill regardless, as the estate is protected by a trust. Hardly a satisfactory situation. And it's the richest who have the most motivation to do this sort of thing, not your average Albert and Ada living in a terraced house.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »Err.......why?
They are the ones paying for it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards