Fairyland

Middle-class pensioners to lose benefits under Tory plan to fund social care

Recommended Posts

Interesting that the Tories are not releasing any castings for their manifesto this time round (unlike the other parties). I suspect they've run the numbers and know that this will affect a large percentage of their voter base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shindigger said:

this really is the only forum where these matters are pulled apart properly.

Agree. HpC is one of the few places where there is a massive range of ideas and open discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

The wiping my mum's bottom part frightens me. Everything else I think will be doable cometh the time.

I would suggest a high powered hose from a safe distance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hague said:

I expect a significant amount (most?) of frontline care staff are part time. Tax credits. Innit. So the ratios make more sense  

I have a family member in that industry who suggested as much  

might not be correct  

 

 

Most people needing personal care eg help washing and dressing, need that care at the same time each day ie in the morning when they wake up and at night when they go to bed.  Another smaller peak occurs around lunchtime as this is when people who have their meals prepared for them need to eat.  Often too, medication requirements fit these three times.

The result is that there is inherently a need for staffing ratios approaching 1:1 in good home care companies.

However, what you say about tax credits rings very true to me for a certain sub-group of job applicants.  Whenever we get applicants from other EU countries eg Poland, Portugal, Romania etc, these people usually want to work full-time hours ie 30-40 hours per week.  Although what I'm saying is anecdotal, I believe this is borne out for the economy as a whole - research seems to show that Poles are net tax contributors to the economy.  These applicants also tend to have reached high levels of education in their home country and be very competent.

I have found that the sub-group that want hours to suit benefit entitlements tend to be British, poorly educated and still living in their home town....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

The wiping my mum's bottom part frightens me. Everything else I think will be doable cometh the time.

Have you spoken to your mother about this?  The vast majority of our clients do not want their children to wipe their bottoms - they would rather pay for a non-family member to do it, so that boundaries can be kept with their family members.  The state should always be able to provide this help and for some families, these boundaries are not so important.

However, for families prioritising inheritance preservation over such concerns, there has to be compromise by one or both parties.

Money isn't anything....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The telegraph's opened today with a big whinge about not being able to keep housing wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Depends on how you look at the views of people wishing to hand down assets.

Handing down assets on too large a scale is economically toxic, this is obvious really because it will result in assets being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands over time - it might seem OK to gift a sibling a house but they then have the opportunity to possibly buy another with their income and rent it out, a generation later their children start life with 2 houses etc etc. The problem is as ever its the people on middle incomes who are carrying the burden for 1) those on benefits/WTCs 2) those gaming the system 3)  the elites who have various IHT avoidance mechanisms.

I favour an eye watering IHT rate say 50% no exceptions, the duke of westminsters estate gets the chop every generation etc, plus a swingeing LVT rate than makes it uneconomical to hoard property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

Handing down assets on too large a scale is economically toxic,

What May proposes won't stop this at all. It only hits the people with 'just enough' - the middle and upper middle. The Upper classes and the really rich will continue to pass on astronomical sums (as is their right).

This is similar to the student loan situation, where it doesn't affect the rich at all.

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

I favour an eye watering IHT rate say 50% no exceptions

Still wouldn't work - other than to make all the rich people leave the country and give up citizenship asap.

There is no way a multi, multi millionaire is going to stay in the UK if a 50% IHT is in place. Not a chance.

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

In the UK home ownership is a religion and Mrs May' suggestion that it should be part of the care at home means test will be regarded as heresy.

The truth is that  the policy has nothing to do with Brexit or the middle classes. Nor do I see it as necessarily significant shift in intergenerational relationships. It is rather an attack on those families who hid their wealth in the main family home while free riding on the benefit system in old age. The current system hits those who saved for retirement in cash or pensions while rewarding those who did not. I can think of a few families who are now going to get a nasty surprise.

Where the policy is likely to fail is the fact that no distinction is now going to being  made between how assets are treated for caring for a person in their own home compared with care in a residential home. That might encourage relatives to start dumping their elderly back in the care home system. If that happens then any savings the government and local authorities may want could turn out to be short lived. 

BTW this going to hit quite a few Tory voters particularly those planning to pass their property onto their families so it is a bit of an electoral gamble. I can't help thinking that this is a policy decided by a Prime Minister with no children or grandchildren who does not really appreciate how strongly they figure in a lot of families financial planning.

The policy is not genuinely equitable since it still leaves inheritance as a giant crap shoot where those whose relatives die quickly without needing much care will be winners while those with elderly parents who linger on in ill health for years will suffer. It is no substitute for a proper tax on landed wealth.

Very well put.

It is now a lottery with regard to inheritance. I am someone who stands to lose out big time because of this as my father has Alzheimers, but my mother is fine. However, I do not think it is fair that the next generation should pay for all of my father's care when they have wealth in the form of a decent detached house they no longer need, but don't want to sell. If I'd stayed in the UK I would now be sh1tting myself as my only hope of getting a home was inheriting theirs, but since I left and own a home in Canada, it is now just annoying. 

From a purely objective perspective, I can see this being much fairer to the next generation and society as a whole than the current set up. One thing though...HPC...if all these coffin dodgers borrow gazillions to have some Eastern European hotty wipe their bum, and the market goes south...banks will be holding a lot of bad loans, will the goveenment underwrite these loans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see something big happening, maybe not in the next few years but a little later on, when the silent generation has departed and the baby boomers are disappearing at a rate and those left don't care, the old world order of money and privilege will collapse once "London Bridge" takes effect.

No, I haven't been drinking or smoking any funny stuff - in fact I don't smoke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TPTB have done a great job in focussing minds on the cost of social care, to cause intergenerational arguments. While the real problem is that there is plenty of money going into the NHS to pay for social care but it's just being taken by PFI payments. People should be protesting about PFI interest rates, then if they were renegotiated nobody would have to pay for social care.

Quote

 

Up and down the UK, Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) are destroying public services. Introduced by John Major's government and expanded by New Labour, the PFI policy was designed to use private financing to build and run public sector infrastructure projects. PFI consortia consist of bankers, construction companies and facilities management firms. The projects work like a mortgage, with repayments on the work completed made over decades. There is just one snag: the interest rates for PFI agreements are scandalously high.

The NHS has more than 100 PFI hospitals. The original cost of these 100 institutions was around £11.5bn. In the end, they will cost the public purse nearly £80bn. The total UK PFI debt is over £300bn for projects worth only £55bn. This means that nearly £250bn will be spent swelling the coffers of PFI groups.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-funding-pfi-contracts-hospitals-debts-what-is-it-rbs-a7134881.html

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hectors House said:

I can see something big happening, maybe not in the next few years but a little later on, when the silent generation has departed and the baby boomers are disappearing at a rate and those left don't care, the old world order of money and privilege will collapse once "London Bridge" takes effect.

No, I haven't been drinking or smoking any funny stuff - in fact I don't smoke!

There is a lot of truth in this, I get what you mean. After 'London Bridge' it will feel very different, a very real decoupling from the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HovelinHove said:

Very well put.

It is now a lottery with regard to inheritance. I am someone who stands to lose out big time because of this as my father has Alzheimers, but my mother is fine. However, I do not think it is fair that the next generation should pay for all of my father's care when they have wealth in the form of a decent detached house they no longer need, but don't want to sell. If I'd stayed in the UK I would now be sh1tting myself as my only hope of getting a home was inheriting theirs, but since I left and own a home in Canada, it is now just annoying. 

From a purely objective perspective, I can see this being much fairer to the next generation and society as a whole than the current set up. One thing though...HPC...if all these coffin dodgers borrow gazillions to have some Eastern European hotty wipe their bum, and the market goes south...banks will be holding a lot of bad loans, will the goveenment underwrite these loans?

.......so what is happening now is transferring the HPI lottery to a health lottery......what about all those who have no house they own and have poor mental elderly health?.......anyway very few in the past ever received an inheritance, and if they did after funeral costs it was very little and would be shared with other siblings..... people then would made their own way, money and fortune in life.......kids can't choose their parents and parents can't choose their kids.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4518356/Ex-Navy-sailor-sues-101m-EuroMillions-winner-father.html

Some wealthy parents have entitled, lazy, wasteful kids who have everything and more handed to them on a silver plate and blow the lot, some parents that have little themselves, have clever, hard working, savvy, productive kids that make a good life from being given no private education, influence or financial hand outs whatsoever......but because of growing inequality this for the kids with poorer parents/grandparents with no assets or £100k plus inheritance is getting very much harder to achieve....;)

 

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, monkey100 said:

I think even the 100k is not guaranteed 

feckers.jpg

That's spectacular. It's a middle England property death tax. Looks very focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, monkey100 said:

I think even the 100k is not guaranteed 

feckers.jpg

Fck

This is a tory  grab, plain and simple

But as long as Theresa delivers Brexit means Brexit, she could drown kittens and eat babies and the proles would still kiss her hand - mugs

Brexit is a sop to middle and lower englanders while they are robbed blind - LOL enjoy -  it's gonna make the banking swindle look like chicken feed. And, oh yeah, no crashy crashy, as it's in the VI's interests to keep things sky high - you've  been totally suckered

it's been a while since I've posted this clip, but it just feels very, very apt

 

Edited by knock out johnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2017 at 11:46 AM, Agentimmo said:

I've no idea, hence my question. I've never heard that term, Bruce, but will google it asap.

I expect a good number of UK house owners will do likewise.;)

I'm in France , where the middle classes pay for old folks home and care , but their prices seem reasonable compared to the UK. The expectation is that the French state will take your estate to some degree. Not a problem for most , as they haven't bought an inflated house on an I/O mortgage in the last 10 years and expecting their parent/grandparents deaths to pay the lump sum.

 

In France children are expected to pay for parents' care, if the parents can't.  

A daughter's friend has to pay 250€ a month towards her father's care.  He was apparently something of a spendthrift and a wastrel - his daughter now has to pick up the pieces, besides paying her own mortgage (here) and childcare.

I can't think too many Brits would be chuffed if we adopted the French system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Fck

This is a tory  grab, plain and simple

But as long as Theresa delivers Brexit means Brexit, she could drown kittens and eat babies and the proles would still kiss her hand - mugs

Brexit is a sop to middle and lower englanders while they are robbed blind - LOL enjoy -  it's gonna make the banking swindle look like chicken feed. And, oh year, no crashy crashy, as it's in the VI's interests to keep things sky high - you've  been totally suckered

it's been a while since I've posted this clip, but it just feels very, very apt

 

You seem vexed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Si1 said:

You seem vexed. 

I think it's a tragedy

Both my parents have passed away so it doesn't affect me

But it's gonna affect all the mugs who are prepared to sell their @ss on the alter of Brexit - daily mail comments are in meltdown at the tory party

Edited by knock out johnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Errol said:

Agree. HpC is one of the few places where there is a massive range of ideas and open discussion. 

Well I am not much closer to understanding all the possible wider implications of this change in policy.  

It doesn't seem such a major move to me.

(Care at Home being chargeable).

I'm read those who point to big costs of PFI (Democorruptcy) and that if we sorted stuff like that out no-one would have to pay for care.

While I against private sector feasting on easy money on bad deals (although presumable not all PFI were bad deals) as others have pointed out (Winkie and HovelInHove for example... objectively)... paying for care is fairer than the inheritor economy.  

And if we can save money anywhere else why should it go to free care anyway?  Why not to cutting costs for younger people... students for example, against the HPI and BTLers super-super-bubble.     

Why shouldn't people pay if they can afford it.  £500K+ of housing wealth, and expecting Gov to cover costs of care-at-home?  Put a charge on that house.  Or person in need of care can pay it out of pension/savings if not wanting the charge.   

I'm reading positions from those who have inherited big big big time (circa £1m estates...  house and cash) now enjoying those super-expensive houses, who came back to HPC with 'be careful what you wish for' and 'think of the pain of HPC', and 'HPC is wising misery on people' positions.   (All with a VI to protect the value of their own inherited house worth fortunes imo).  Some of their positioning I always look at with a 'protect value of my inherited house' slant.

HPC.

Quote


At present, people have to pay for their social care at home if they have wealth of more than £23,500, excluding the value of their residence. Under the new policy, people will have to pay for their social care only if they have wealth of more than £100,000 – but the value of their homes will be included as well. As a result, more homeowners will be liable to pay for the cost of home helps and carers provided by the council.

It is better news for the elderly in residential care, whose homes are already included in calculations of their assets. It means they will now only have to pay for their care until they have remaining assets of £100,000, instead of £23,500. There are no details on when the policy would be implemented, but it is likely that it would require consultation and legislation.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.