Protecting pensions from politicians - or preparing for a Labour coalition

thepurplepixie

dunstonh wrote: »

This highlights how poor the Conservatives have been at presenting their plans. You have many people who think that being able to keep £100k is worse than the current position but they do not know that the current position, for savings, is worse.

Under the current system, older people who have assets worth more than £23,250, including the value of their property, must part-fund the cost of the care they receive.

Even the independent said:
The average UK house is worth £215,847 - so while the Conservative care package is actually a better deal for poorer pensioners, the vast majority of homeowners who require care are going to be worse off.

However, the independent also blew it by saying:
The Conservative manifesto pledged to raise the means-tested floor at which older people will start paying for their care to £100,000 - but, crucially, under their proposal, people would be forced to sell their homes to pay for domiciliary as well as residential care.

No-one will be forced to sell their homes. It can be deducted from the estate.

So, a combination of misreporting by the media and bad presentation and incomplete information by the Conservatives along with people not actually comparing the current system with proposals has led to a lot of opinions based on incorrect information.

Then you have to add on that we seem to have a large proportion of the UK that has a sense of entitlement but don't want to pay for it. They want more money for the NHS. They know there is a crisis of funding in many areas. However, ask them to pay a little more for it, and there is uproar. This is probably why Corbyn has become more popular as his proposals tick the spending boxes but gloss over the realistic tax sources. I doubt many plumbers/builders (or anyone with a limited company) earning around £25k a year realise that the Labour proposals will see them immediately worse off by around £1400 a year in increased taxation. If you earn to the £45k basic rate tax band as a company director, you would be around £3,300 worse off a year. Remember just a few months back when the Conservatives had to backtrack on the NI increase on self employed that would have averaged 60p a week because of the outrage. Where is that outrage when Labour are proposing thousands?

oh btw, investing with the Isle of Man as your investments domicile will actually result in more tax in the long run for most people. Those days have gone.

But it depends if you are talking about care in a care home or receiving help at home. Current system is better for people receiving care at home and more people get help at home than go into care homes, well that is what I have been told.

seven-day-weekend

atush wrote: »

If he retired due to ill health, he should have asked for an early retiral on health grounds and not had it reduced.

He retired because of his health. He did not take ill-health retirement, but took early retirement as soon as he reached the right age. Therefore it was actuarily reduced.

msallen

thepurplepixie wrote: »

But it depends if you are talking about care in a care home or receiving help at home. Current system is better for people receiving care at home and more people get help at home than go into care homes, well that is what I have been told.

But dunstonh was replying to these posts ....

realaledrinker wrote: »

There again, all that lovely lolly that you have accumulated will go towards your care home fees, other than a paltry £100K. Who's laffin now?

alewin wrote: »

At the moment you can only keep £23,250 of your savings to pass on if you are in a Care Home.
If the Conservatives win again it will rise to £100K, so hopefully I will be laughing.

thepurplepixie

msallen wrote: »

But dunstonh was replying to these posts ....

and he said "This highlights how poor the Conservatives have been at presenting their plans. You have many people who think that being able to keep £100k is worse than the current position but they do not know that the current position, for savings, is worse" and "Under the current system, older people who have assets worth more than £23,250, including the value of their property, must part-fund the cost of the care they receive" which disregards the fact that at the moment the value of your home is completely disregarded for care at home so the new system is better for some and worse for others.

So if I have a £500,000 and no other assets and I need 4 visits a day from carers it will be completely funded, under the new system I might have to pay £400,000 which where I live would equate to about 4 years care. Definitely not better and unfortunately for the Conservatives older people have seen through it.

michaels

thepurplepixie wrote: »

and he said "This highlights how poor the Conservatives have been at presenting their plans. You have many people who think that being able to keep £100k is worse than the current position but they do not know that the current position, for savings, is worse" and "Under the current system, older people who have assets worth more than £23,250, including the value of their property, must part-fund the cost of the care they receive" which disregards the fact that at the moment the value of your home is completely disregarded for care at home so the new system is better for some and worse for others.

So if I have a £500,000 and no other assets and I need 4 visits a day from carers it will be completely funded, under the new system I might have to pay £400,000 which where I live would equate to about 4 years care. Definitely not better and unfortunately for the Conservatives older people have seen through it.

Wow, 4 visits per day costs the same as employing 3-4 nurses full time....

dunstonh

So if I have a £500,000 and no other assets and I need 4 visits a day from carers it will be completely funded, under the new system I might have to pay £400,000 which where I live would equate to about 4 years care. Definitely not better and unfortunately for the Conservatives older people have seen through it.

And who should pay for that then?

JezR

Equalising the means test for care in own home or care home was a suggested course of action contained within the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support (Dilnot), although not a headline recommendation.

The increase from £23,250 to £100k for the capital limit was also a straight crib from the Dilnot report.

Since this report has been around since 2011 it is a rather delayed suggested implementation ...

Linton

thepurplepixie wrote: »

So if I have a £500,000 and no other assets and I need 4 visits a day from carers it will be completely funded, under the new system I might have to pay £400,000 which where I live would equate to about 4 years care. Definitely not better and unfortunately for the Conservatives older people have seen through it.

Your figures are a little OTT. A reasonable cost for most of the country could be perhaps £15/visit: 4X£15X365=£22000/year. So that's about a quarter of what you thought.

davieg11

Linton wrote: »

Your figures are a little OTT. A reasonable cost for most of the country could be perhaps £15/visit: 4X£15X365=£22000/year. So that's about a quarter of what you thought.

I think you will find carers will be more like £60 per visit. I don't know much about them but the old buddy across the road has a carer turning up in a 4 x 4 Porsche with a council badge on her jacket.

Linton

davieg11 wrote: »

I think you will find carers will be more like £60 per visit. I don't know much about them but the old buddy across the road has a carer turning up in a 4 x 4 Porsche with a council badge on her jacket.

No way - I arranged private care for my father a couple of years ago. It worked out at about £11 for a 0.5-0.75 hour visit. See here or several other websites google can find for you for similar figures.

Of course if you live in London I guess it could be significantly higher.