Talk of raising the cap on care home fees

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Person A pays £200,000 in national insurance in their lifetime.

Person B pays £10,000 in national insurance in their lifetime.

Why is it right for the state to expect person A to pay another £200,000 for aged care, while person B has to pay nothing?

(and if you want to get pedantic about NI being just another form of general taxation, then governments should rename it so as to avoid misleading the masses)

Looking after people with dementia, or failing health, should not be recategorised as non-medical/non-NHS care just to save the government some money and let them steal people's life savings and houses.

It's absolute b0ll0cks.

We pay some of the highest taxes in the world, and the one thing that most people would think makes it remotely worthwhile is the philosophy of cradle to grave health and social care, free at the point of service.

I agree to an extent, but I don't understand why funding for care home fees should be any different to any other benefit. We have a system were most benefits are means tested to ensure that only those who need a benefit receive it. The alternative is to have even higher taxes to pay for everyone's care home costs. The end result is that the people with money will end up paying for their care and the people without money will not.

I would rather not suffer the extra taxation and retain the ability to choose which care home I want to go to, rather than give more money to the government and be left at its mercy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I agree to an extent, but I don't understand why funding for care home fees should be any different to any other benefit. We have a system were most benefits are means tested to ensure that only those who need a benefit receive it. The alternative is to have even higher taxes to pay for everyone's care home costs. The end result is that the people with money will end up paying for their care and the people without money will not.
.

You miss my point.

In 99% or so of cases, people will only end up in residential care because they are medically unfit (either physically or mentally) to continue living at home.

That should not be considered a benefit, to be means tested.

It's a medical necessity and thus should be covered by the cradle to grave care philosophy of the NHS, paid for in full via excessive taxation and national insurance over the course of a working lifetime.

Regardless of how the current system views it, I feel it is incumbent upon any responsible family to shield their assets in any legal way possible from what is essentially state sponsored theft.

chewmylegoff

Seems like semantics to me. Whatever you choose to call it, if we are to fund nursing home care for anyone regardless of their assets we will have to increase taxation significantly in order to cover the amounts current and future which are currently funded from private assets.

The substance of your argument is that you want taxes to be increased in order to enable individuals to retain assets so that those assets can be inherited by the individual's family. It's an odd argument coming from someone who regularly argues that taxes are already too high. Personally I'd rather not pay more tax just so someone else's offspring can inherit some extra cash.

John_Pierpoint

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Seems like semantics to me. Whatever you choose to call it, if we are to fund nursing home care for anyone regardless of their assets we will have to increase taxation significantly in order to cover the amounts current and future which are currently funded from private assets.

The substance of your argument is that you want taxes to be increased in order to enable individuals to retain assets so that those assets can be inherited by the individual's family. It's an odd argument coming from someone who regularly argues that taxes are already too high. Personally I'd rather not pay more tax just so someone else's offspring can inherit some extra cash.

You might change your mind when your money runs out and you, kept breathing by medical science, get dumped into a decrepit Victorian mansion smelling of urine.

The present system is a complete lottery out of the control of the individual.

John_Pierpoint

MacMickster wrote: »

Person A has the money to pay for the care of their choice until the money runs out. At that point they will have to make do with the same basic care as person B.

Don't forget that Person B, in spending their money rather than saving it, has probably benefited the economy far more than Person B who stuck his money in a savings account. He has provided profits for the businesses [in China] where he has spent his money , and in turn the owners of those businesses have paid tax on those profits and spent the rest. Accumulating savings, whilst beneficial to the individual, does not grow the economy, hence the low base rate and savings rates currently as the government wants us all to spend, spend, spend.

As an economy all the oil boom has achieved is an increase in current consumption, depleting the world's resources and either defrauding, through devaluation, those stupid enough to buy the accumulating debt, or crippling our grandchildren with the burden of repayments - probably a mixture of both.

wymondham

If we don't find a way of sorting this, maybe the next thing will be this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253922/Germany-accused-deporting-elderly-Rising-numbers-moved-Asia-Eastern-Europe-sky-high-care-costs.html

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Person A has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but led a fairly frugal life and has S in savings/home.

Person B has earned Y and paid Z in tax/NI but blown the lot and has negligible savings.

Person B will be kept in basic accommodation/care if needed by the state. Under current law person A could lose all of S before the state will assist.

Is that fair and equitable?

This, and similar posts, still misses the key question -- fair on who ?

Elderly people who go into care homes rarely come out again, and so will not be in a position to enjoy their former home or savings.

The "losers" are generally going to be those who might inherit. So is it fair that the taxpayer has to chip in in order to prevent people's inheritances dwindling away ?

And if the answer to that were "yes" then where is the money coming from ? Higher taxes ? More debt ? Cuts, and if so where ?

johnny_storm

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So the moral is do not save a penny and we will all be fine, the state will provide everything we may need?

I know that seems like the message but can that really be true?

Of course its not true, but the more people do it then the sooner the whole crazy unfair system goes bang and we can start again.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

This, and similar posts, still misses the key question -- fair on who ?

Elderly people who go into care homes rarely come out again, and so will not be in a position to enjoy their former home or savings.

The "losers" are generally going to be those who might inherit. So is it fair that the taxpayer has to chip in in order to prevent people's inheritances dwindling away ?

And if the answer to that were "yes" then where is the money coming from ? Higher taxes ? More debt ? Cuts, and if so where ?

Most elderly people don't go into care/nursing homes AIUI and IME.

Of those that do many as you say pass away, often quite quickly, timed in weeks and months. Yes you will always get some long term residents/patients. I am talking end of life scenarios not just parking someone in care out of harms way.

For all we know the beneficiaries may well be worthy charities it doesn't just have to be offspring.

I am not advocating no payment, but I do think their should be a cap applied whereby a good/high standard of care continues to be provided once that cap is exceeded, not necessarily in BUPA Hilton. If people want to upgrade so be it.

The marginal bill, over and above the cap would be relatively small in relation to the numbers that are already being accommodated as they have made no provision.

I do think if people have been prudent, having paid their share of taxes, that they should be entitled to pass on some of the wealth to whoever they see fit. The profligate get bailed out time after time.

The alternative is for people to simply spend all they have, as they get it and simply gift more assets along the way, rather than stockpile them.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Most elderly people don't go into care/nursing homes AIUI and IME.

Of those that do many as you say pass away, often quite quickly, timed in weeks and months. Yes you will always get some long term residents/patients. I am talking end of life scenarios not just parking someone in care out of harms way.

For all we know the beneficiaries may well be worthy charities it doesn't just have to be offspring.

I am not advocating no payment, but I do think their should be a cap applied whereby a good/high standard of care continues to be provided once that cap is exceeded, not necessarily in BUPA Hilton. If people want to upgrade so be it.

The marginal bill, over and above the cap would be relatively small in relation to the numbers that are already being accommodated as they have made no provision.

I do think if people have been prudent, having paid their share of taxes, that they should be entitled to pass on some of the wealth to whoever they see fit. The profligate get bailed out time after time.

The alternative is for people to simply spend all they have, as they get it and simply gift more assets along the way, rather than stockpile them.

Even if the beneficiaries were charities taxpayers should not be required to subsidise charitable donations.

Still doesn't answer the question as to where the money is coming from ?

The preoccupation with legacies from both sides is very unhealthy. Let the younger generation stand on their own feet if they are not lucky enough to inherit a substantial amount and therefore have to.