Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Destination]

The current assessment for whether you have to pay for social care just includes income and savings. If you have more than £23k (I think) then you have to pay and could be forced to sell your house. The new proposal includes the value of your house in the assessment, but you won't have to sell your house until after you and your partner (if applicable) are dead.

So it is a completely different system which will nail anyone who owns a house of any size.
It is a much more grabbing system, deferment is the only advantage, which will leave options for the benefactors of the will to get fleeced later.

I don't like it.

 

[Uther]

So it is a completely different system which will nail anyone who owns a house of any size.
It is a much more grabbing system, deferment is the only advantage, which will leave options for the benefactors of the will to get fleeced later.

I don't like it.

Exactly. It's very surprising that a Tory would come up with this, penalising those 'strivers' who've spent their lives paying a mortgage.

 

[Dolph]

We will never agree on this Dolph, spin it however you want. The fact is that the 75% of old people who need care at home will now lose the home they have worked all their lives for to pay for that care.
It makes zero difference to my situation, but it shows a huge arrogance on the part of May that she thinks she doesn't need the pensioner vote to win, and seems to be relying on the rabid ukip voters she's acquired since the brexit vote.

We probably won't, but it's not for the reasons you probably think. The current situation is both unfair on people with care needs and assets not tied up in property, and provides a perverse incentive for people not to get the level of care they actually need due to the differential means testing approaches. The higher, consistent limit might improve that, and the inclusion of care in the home might provide more incentive for people to support their elderly relatives, which is something often missing in today's society.

Lots of our friends think my wife and I were crazy for moving her parents in with us in a large family property so we could all help support my late mother in law.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Exactly. It's very surprising that a Tory would come up with this, penalising those 'strivers' who've spent their lives paying a mortgage.

Have most pensioners spent their lives paying a mortgage though? Seems like a sizeable portion of them have been living off an appreciating asset, that they bought when it's value was more reasonable in proportion to their income, for the last few decades...

 

[McPhee]

Those in residential care did, their asset limit was 23k including property.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/paying-for-permanent-residential-care/

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/

For those needing care at home, the amount is the same, but property is excluded at present.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/means-tests-for-help-with-care-costs-how-they-work

If we are going to discuss the changes, can we at least start with some facts in the thread.

The big change is that the value of your home will now be counted, whether or not you (or anyone else) is living in it or not. Under the current system, if you, your partner, or a dependent reside in the property, it isn't counted.

It basically ensures that the poorest home-owning pensioners will still fund their own care, by making sure that the value of their home is taken in to account.

 

[Trusty]

which is something often missing in today's society.

Too right, i look after my father and everyone i know who is in a similar situation just bundled their parents into a care home.

 

[scorza]

So it is a completely different system which will nail anyone who owns a house of any size.
It is a much more grabbing system, deferment is the only advantage, which will leave options for the benefactors of the will to get fleeced later.

I don't like it.

In the worst case scenario, under the current system, your children inherit £23k. Under the proposed system, those children would inherit £100k. Like all changes to the rules there will be winners and losers - it's an awful area to deal with because of the emotions on board. I personally wish we could fund social care out of general taxation but as a nation we're not in a position to do that any more.

 

[Efour]

I don't understand this argument really

On one hand people are hands in the air bonkers that the older generation have made a killing from property. It's appreciated 30x in price. On the other, how evil this is.

Now when it comes to looking after these people they have this huge asset, which their children are frankly scared of losing the inheritance of, to pay for their care in their older days.

Is it just fear of losing inheritance?

 

[Nitefly]

I don't understand this argument really

On one hand people are hands in the air bonkers that the older generation have made a killing from property. It's appreciated 30x in price. On the other, how evil this is.

Now when it comes to looking after these people they have this huge asset, which their children are frankly scared of losing the inheritance of, to pay for their care in their older days.

Is it just fear of losing inheritance?

People aren't argry that people have made money at property - they are angry because the way property prices have increased makes it far more difficult to buy your first property than it used to.

 

[Efour]

People aren't argry that people have made money at property - they are angry because the way property prices have increased makes it far more difficult to buy your first property than it used to.

I think a lot of people are angry at them. Wasn't it all the rage a year ago. Jealousy basically.

 

[Nitefly]

I think a lot of people are angry at them. Wasn't it all the rage a year ago. Jealousy basically.

Well yes, people are jealous... because they now can't buy their first homes (as easily) for the reasons I have mentioned.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Just completed my postal vote. I think fundamentally that a government with an overwhelming majority is a bad thing, so I've voted tactically.

 

[chroniclard]

 

[Destination]

In the worst case scenario, under the current system, your children inherit £23k. Under the proposed system, those children would inherit £100k. Like all changes to the rules there will be winners and losers - it's an awful area to deal with because of the emotions on board. I personally wish we could fund social care out of general taxation but as a nation we're not in a position to do that any more.

Are you certain?
If your house is worth 120K, this little insurance pot can only amass to 20K then, to be paid off later?
What about interest it attains, does that have to be paid off also?
What if a property's value increases, does one then have to pay further, or when you hit 100K value do the payments and insurance contributions stop?

Usually the way these systems work, if you are above a threshold you pay, and you keep paying until it is done. Are we certain the value stops when you reach the 100K threshold?
So a joint owned property of 200K isn't vulnerable at all?
If a person has pension gov or pvt paying money to them, is that taken first, and then contributions reassessed every April?
How often will they revalue properly, or will they use council tax/rates bandings?

 

[kinetic747]

People aren't argry that people have made money at property - they are angry because the way property prices have increased makes it far more difficult to buy your first property than it used to.

Another reason why inheriting the family home has always been good. Everyone is handing over huge amounts of their hard earned cash throughout their working lives so to keep taking it after your death is the icing on the cake.

 

[Uther]

Another reason why inheriting the family home has always been good. Everyone is handing over huge amounts of their hard earned cash throughout their working lives so to keep taking it after your death is the icing on the cake.

If it was in the Labour manifesto I would say that one policy alone would lose them the election.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I think another worry is will all that extra money lead to superior social care or will it be another one of those things we chuck money at and it doesn't get better, sometimes even worse.

 

[Christmas themed thank]

I am seriously starting to consider the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn Government. I think the Tories have shot themselves in the foot.

 

[Greebo]

There has never been a cap, and residential care has always included your home in the assets...

Which only accounts for 1 in 4 people receiving care.

 

[Slam62]

Lol, the Tories are favouring those who are poorer rather than those who are rich, and labour, the greens the lib Dems **** it off.

Lol and the winter fuel allowance, poor old millionaire should still get it.

I'm not sure which party is which now.