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

John_Pierpoint

You will be too knackered by dinner time but that could be available with luncheon for £1,000 - £1,500 depending where you live, possible a nice view over the gardens too.
Shame about the cataracts deafness and bombed out taste buds, must be most frustrating if the marbles are still functioning.

chewmylegoff

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

How does it help the economy to see people selling their houses and then wasting the proceeds on long term care? At least money passed down can be spent in the general economy.

1) it increases supply to the housing market (rather than seeing houses sit empty, doing nothing, whilst people are in care homes), the increased activity in the housing market generates economic growth (albeit only through increased consumption of e.g. legal services).

2) it means that the government doesn't have to pay for the cost by either (a) borrowing money from and paying interest to overseas investors or (b) taxing other people and therefore inhibiting growth.

3) there is no guarantee that money "passed down" will be spent in the general economy. it is quite likely to be saved and/or spent abroad e.g. on holidays.

in any event, it is just illogical to use public money to fund people to sit on private assets which they don't need and will never use again. you are effectively subsidising inheritance for a lucky few through general taxation which is, as far as i am concerned, completely counter-intuitive to the core principle of redistributive taxation (i.e. you should not be taxing people to transfer wealth from asset poor to asset rich).

John_Pierpoint

The family can provide care for the elderly person in their own home, and thus protect their inheritance - alternatively the person in care could rent out the property (though the weekly charges of the care home could be the same as the monthly rental, especially when tax is taken into consideration,)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

How does it help the economy to see people selling their houses and then wasting the proceeds on long term care? At least money passed down can be spent in the general economy.

Spending on long term care is spending in the general economy.

Just as spending on housing is spending in the general economy.

The only difference, in both cases, is who is doing the spending....

By the way, I totally agree care home fees should be limited, (ideally eliminated) and cradle to grave NHS care should be exactly that, without any fees being imposed at point of use.

But the argument that money spent in one part of the economy such as house buying, rent, care homes, etc, is not money spent in the economy..... Well that's just daft.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

in any event, it is just illogical to use public money to fund people to sit on private assets which they don't need and will never use again. you are effectively subsidising inheritance for a lucky few through general taxation which is, as far as i am concerned, completely counter-intuitive to the core principle of redistributive taxation (i.e. you should not be taxing people to transfer wealth from asset poor to asset rich).

Except that many people believe redistributive taxation has already gone too far, and asset stripping pensioners who have paid into the system their whole life is a step too far.

oldvicar

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

You will be too knackered by dinner time but that could be available with luncheon for £1,000 - £1,500 depending where you live, possible a nice view over the gardens too.
Shame about the cataracts deafness and bombed out taste buds, must be most frustrating if the marbles are still functioning.

Yes, I'd particularly like a nice view if I'm able to sit up and see it.

The significant point to your post though is that a decent standard of care costs perhaps twice as much as the government seems willing to fund.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except that many people believe redistributive taxation has already gone too far, and asset stripping pensioners who have paid into the system their whole life is a step too far.

no-one is actually "asset stripping" pensioners though are they. the state is providing a service which is being paid for. the person can always choose to arrange for the same service to be provided privately and pay for it themselves, or their family can choose to do the same in order to preserve the assets for themselves. it would only be asset stripping if the state was forcibly removing assets from people in return for nothing (or in return for a service provided at inflated cost which could be sourced privately for less).

even if you think redistributive taxation has "gone to far", it is a bit strange to then stand the principle completely on its head and reverse the process, and demand access to public funds to pay for your own upkeep.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

By the way, I totally agree care home fees should be limited, (ideally eliminated) and cradle to grave NHS care should be exactly that, without any fees being imposed at point of use.

what i am not clear on is whether the proposal to cap fees at £35,000 applies to the provision of care (e.g. paying for nursing staff to attend to and look after you) or also for the fees that cover the provision of the roof over your head, the food that you eat, the utilities that you consume.

i cannot see any justification for the state ever paying for the latter when someone has the assets to pay for it themselves. you wouldn't just write to the govt stating "i'm 80 now, i have £50,000 in the bank and my house is worth £200,000, mortgage free. please send a cheque to cover my dinner and my gas bill".

N1AK

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

What do you mean by a 'decent future'? Many 65 year olds (stop using the patronising word 'children') are waiting for their 90 year old parents to die in order to inherit something to enhance the pitiful state pension. Can you blame them?

Improve your English comprehension; Children is widely used to mean the offspring of someone regardless of age. If you happen to think it's patronising that's your shortcoming.

Where do you think the money to pay for care is going to come from if it doesn't come from the estates of those in care? Most likely it will be general taxation or higher debt.

Odds are decent that those who would benefit the most from inheritance will also be the ones who lose the most from this change. They can pay more tax on everything they earn to inherit a low value house while the children of a wealthy family can now pay just £35k for care and share the rest of the million pound, or more, estate.

N1AK

oldvicar wrote: »

The significant point to your post though is that a decent standard of care costs perhaps twice as much as the public seems willing to fund.

Fixed that for you. If the government tried to increase tax to cover the expense it would be extremely unpopular. They could probably borrow even more to do it instead but that would somewhat undermine their efforts to look like they are trying to avoid destroying the economy.