Triple lock increase for April 2027 is 3.9% (probably)

Linton

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82153115#Comment_82153115

Councils dont take all your savings. The council paying for your care is a means tested benefit. If the rules say you have the means to pay for your care then you don’t get it. What you then do about the situation is up to you or those with the responsibility of acting on your behalf. Same as all other means tested benefits.

If people want something better, then there needs to be some form of state provision. It does seem unreasonable to me that this responsibility is currently being placed on local councils. Whether the number of people who actually need long term care justifies the full overhead of an NHS equivalent may be open to question. Perhaps simply having the government paying for a higher wealth limit could be a simpler approach, as you suggest.

mrklaw

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82153330#Comment_82153330

there is a practical gap between those two things.

council care is available and easily accessible (at least was for us). Much more approachable than going straight to private care. And when my mums savings started going over the threshold we were asked to start paying partly towards the care - fine. Although complicated by the fact my mums savings went over the threshold because we weren’t able to actually spend it because we couldn’t get PoA (she wasn’t capable of signing it but also wasn’t formally diagnosed until this bloody year) so my dad has been covering living costs since then. In theory only her income should be counted but also they restrict what can be spent. They have a lot of hoops before they’re satisfied.

I’m very grateful for their support but there are too many times that process gets in the way. Perhaps our bigger issue is lack of support getting a diagnosis to aid PoA more than the actual costs and its exacerbated the issue. But my parents aren’t rich by any stretch

SnowMan

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82153326#Comment_82153326

Just to clarify the gist of the rules in relation to care home costs as people often get mixed up with the means tested benefit rules which have different limits and where capital doesn't include your house you live in.

If you have capital above £23,250 (and that includes the value of your house you were living in unless you've got say a partner still living there) you must pay the full cost of your care home fees out of your income and if that isn't enough (which it usually isn't of course) out of your savings and capital. You may get a small element of help £216.68 per week (NHS funded nursing care) if you require medical help from an NHS nurse. But NHS funded nursing care does not act as extra disposable income it usually offsets the higher fees charged by nursing homes for providing medical care. And you will probably get £114.60 per week in attendance allowance (assuming you qualify for higher rate). If you have really significant medical needs (NHS Continuing Healthcare) you get all your care cost paid for. In practice it's nigh on impossible to get this. So usually you are left paying most of your care home costs. Care home cost can typically be in the range £1,200 - £1,600 per week depending on where you live in England.

If your capital is below £14,250 your capital is disregarded and your income is used to pay for the first part of your care costs and the local authority pays the rest.

Between £14,250 and £23,250 there is a taper that applies until your capital falls to £14,250

Mr_Benn

I think like most people, the main issue is having to watch your life savings (or prospective inheritance) being spent on an exorbitant price of a care home. Surely there could be a limit on these care homes about how much they can charge ? I do seem to recall the Conservatives talking about raining the amount of savings you can keep to £80,000 ?
It does also make you question about 'do i save or spend my pension pot ' !

Albermarle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82153362#Comment_82153362

As a general point, I think it is worth noting that not all of a councils care costs, will be spent on older people.

Nearly 40% is spent on Children's services.

Younger/middle age severely disabled adults, also tend to be very costly in care terms. So although the numerical % maybe low, the financial % will be higher. They rarely will have the funds to pay for themselves.

So could be the cost of care for older people may only be about 50% of a council's care budget, although of course many older people are paying for themselves, which is the topic of the moment.

To round off the stats, the total average care costs for councils as a % of their total budget is 72%.

SnowMan

Some informed comment on the double lock idea

https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Industry-backs-triple-lock-reform-but-warns-adequacy-must-remain-central.php

It is easy to see how the greater of CPI and 2.5% each year would work. But the point is raised that there are a variety of mechanisms that could be employed to ensure the state pension 'hold its value relative to earnings over time'.

Baldytyke88

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152317#Comment_82152317

Over the last 15 years the state pension rose by 14% more than wages, I would guess that cost HMRC a lot of money. The NHS and public sector received below inflation pay rises, whilst the state pension increased well above inflation.

LHW99

The NHS and public sector received below inflation pay rises

Though I doubt there were many full time employees earning £13k pa. Those state pensioners who don't also work or have an additional private pension are effectively "full time pensioners".

Autoenrollment should help reduce reliance on SP eventually, making the exact level relative to wages less critical, but that won't be the case for some years.

MeteredOut

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82155690#Comment_82155690

Yes, that was the intent of the triple lock, to close the gap with prior years wage increases.

But, given the state of the country finances, I don't think many can truly argue it should be kept.

squirrelpie

But, given the state of the country finances, I don't think many can truly argue it should be kept.

That sounds awfully political!