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

[jimmyblueeyes]

Gut feeling. Dementia Tax from the Tories must have some private healthcare/equity release finance scheme at the heart of it. Lots of old people with empty 5 bed homes and a national health service they are desperate to sell off to the city and US. 

[knock out johnny]

21 minutes ago, jimmyblueeyes said:

Gut feeling. Dementia Tax from the Tories must have some private healthcare/equity release finance scheme at the heart of it. Lots of old people with empty 5 bed homes and a national health service they are desperate to sell off to the city and US. 

Your guts are correct

See friday's post below

 

On 2017-5-19 at 3:33 PM, monkey100 said:

I think even the 100k is not guaranteed 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by knock out johnny

[billybong]

33 minutes ago, jimmyblueeyes said:

Gut feeling. Dementia Tax from the Tories must have some private healthcare/equity release finance scheme at the heart of it. Lots of old people with empty 5 bed homes and a national health service they are desperate to sell off to the city and US. 

Another reason for the financial sector to keep with their profligate lending as much as possible to keep boosting house prices.  In fact it might even have been designed by the government for that reason so that the financial sector has another incentive to keep house prices high.

It sort of totally contradicts the Conservative manifesto's claims about great meritocracies and rebalancings towards industry etc.

Edited May 21, 2017 by billybong

[RentingForever]

The way I see it somebody has to pay for social care. At one end of the spectrum it's all socialised, effectively protecting the inheritances of those who are in line for one at the expense of those who aren't. At the other end individuals pay for their care, with some reduction in the incentive to save for your old age. The latter is arguably more meritocratic as it results in a society where inheritances have less of an impact, but it's surprising to see it in a Tory manifesto. The rest of the manifesto has little of substance, but this is quite a strong attack on their core voters.

it's going to have some interesting implications. For example, if people now rush to remortgage and gift their children deposits, will that be seen as deprivation of assets? Is this the end of BOMAD?

[CunningPlan]

It is interesting that 35% of people are in favour of the policy and 40% opposed. Listening to the media you would think it was 95% against.

I think it is necessary and I am happy to see houses being treated as an asset for once.

Though I also think the banks will turn out to be the biggest winners one way or another.

[olliegog]

4 minutes ago, RentingForever said:

The way I see it somebody has to pay for social care. At one end of the spectrum it's all socialised, effectively protecting the inheritances of those who are in line for one at the expense of those who aren't. At the other end individuals pay for their care, with some reduction in the incentive to save for your old age. The latter is arguably more meritocratic as it results in a society where inheritances have less of an impact, but it's surprising to see it in a Tory manifesto. The rest of the manifesto has little of substance, but this is quite a strong attack on their core voters.

it's going to have some interesting implications. For example, if people now rush to remortgage and gift their children deposits, will that be seen as deprivation of assets? Is this the end of BOMAD?

the thing is - I don't think this is a strong attack on their core voters.  Many like myself would see it as - either you get the care home and everything down to the last £24k is taken (now to be changed to £100K) or you pay for your social care and they take everything down to the last £100k (exceptions for couples still relevant) after you are cold in the ground. 

Many people do not need years and years of care in either instance - dementia and other nasties excepted - and the need of most pensioners is help in the home, supportive communities to help with loneliness and dignity in their needs being met. If they have such needs - they are entitled to attendnace allowance which would go some way to paying for this help.  Of course there is always the options to downsize (recommended as I have done so) and free up capital to make one's life easier.  No-one should expect a huge inheritance ! 

My mother was in a care home and it took most of her estate and the inheritance was diminished.  That was fair as the alternative would have been to look after her.

My feeling is - if someone needs 24/7 care it should be covered by the NHS - maybe bring back the equivalent of geriatric hospitals. If they do not need 24/7 care - the local council could administer social care with money ring-fenced from the central government. 

I am still voting conservative - labour is pie in the sky and it appals me how many people do not understand the thinking behind this and cry on LBC about being made homeless.  We (as a country) cannot go on living beyond our means./

Most of the older generation know this. 

[olliegog]

attendance allowance is £83 per week tax free and non-means tested for the higher rate and £56 for the lower rate

that should buy a few hours of social care. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by olliegog
h

[Bugger BTL]

On 19/05/2017 at 4:21 PM, Mrs Bear said:

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. 

Nope! And the French at least also oblige parents to leave a certain amount of their estate to their children. I can see that this wouldn't be much consolation if there's sod all to leave, your friend will get no benefit from it, but what I mean is there's some consistency of approach there.

Re the rest of the thread, I can't help feeling some people might be a bit optimistic about their own ability to provide specialist care. It's not necessarily just company and housekeeping for someone who's gone a bit dotty. That's doable, although as family homes get ever smaller it might not be. But people now are routinely living for years, sometimes decades, whilst rather poorly. Dementia in particular is beyond the ability of most of us. I'd also not be romanticising too much the societies where care is expected in family either. Most of them have completely different population ratios to us and much lower life expectancies too, and they also lumber either the women of the family or indigenous/imported poor with the donkey work of the **** wiping too. Personally I don't fancy being subjected to considerable societal pressure to do that because I happen to be in possession of a vag, and in many cases that's what you're romanticising here. Nor do I want my daughters to have to.

[winkie]

2 hours ago, jimmyblueeyes said:

Gut feeling. Dementia Tax from the Tories must have some private healthcare/equity release finance scheme at the heart of it. Lots of old people with empty 5 bed homes and a national health service they are desperate to sell off to the city and US. 

I don't see it as any kind of tax....just paying for a service, you may or may not need, the good carers do a very good and worthwhile job, they should not be taken for granted, like our health should not be taken for granted.... doesn't matter how rich you are, what you own, you have nothing without your health.

I agree there will be lots getting onto the social care band waggon....insurance companies, private equity, equity release for profit.....I can't see a problem with spending equity in a property, people have to use their savings for care services in their home, why should someone with savings have to use it but someone with no savings and a valuable house get help.....their house is protected.

Edited May 21, 2017 by winkie

[Bugger BTL]

Yeah, I understand the argument for taxing everything a person owns and I understand the argument for not touching anything. I don't see how it's justifiable to tax the excrement out of cash savings but leave equity untouched.

[knock out johnny]

9 minutes ago, Bugger BTL said:

Yeah, I understand the argument for taxing everything a person owns and I understand the argument for not touching anything. I don't see how it's justifiable to tax the excrement out of cash savings but leave equity untouched.

Well just maybe, taxing the excrement out of cash savings is equally unjustifiable

People have to get out of the mindset that the government has dibs to everything they own - that should not be the starting point

[HovelinHove]

1 hour ago, fru-gal said:

Slightly off topic but;

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dementia-alzheimers-controlled-hiv-research-institute-health-a7473256.html

I work in pharma, and this is the dream of all companies. Who would not MEW their house down to zero equity to pay for a drug that stops dementia? My Dad has it, and like so many on here have painfully expressed, it is nothing but sh1t for everyone (actually he is suffering less than we are now and is completely clueless to everything, even his own condition).

I am constantly looking at this area and trying to find a company that has a really good candidate drug...monoclonal antibodies are certainly promising in targeting Tau and amyloid proteins, but as the article states, it has been frustrating getting a really good lead candidate. I currently work in cancer and MAB therapies with marginal improvements in survival rates can cost 100k+. I previously worked in HIV and have been a part of the story of seeing the disease go from a death sentence to a chronic disease with no long term health consequences if you take one pill once a day. I also share the researchers view that Alzheimer's will be looked at in the same way in a decade to fifteen years. It will probably need multi-drug regimens like HIV and cancer to stop the progress.

This is the way I see this playing out - 10-15 years of social care crisis in which people mortgage their homes to insurance/banks/government, then 10-15 years where people mortgage their homes to big pharma, then once the patents expire, all the property in the UK will be owned by the banks so it will be irrelevant! One thing is for sure, if you don't have equity in property, and you want access to good care or Alzheimer's drugs that work, then you will have to work till you drop.

Misery is the plan!

[Talking Monkey]

8 minutes ago, HovelinHove said:

I work in pharma, and this is the dream of all companies. Who would not MEW their house down to zero equity to pay for a drug that stops dementia? My Dad has it, and like so many on here have painfully expressed, it is nothing but sh1t for everyone (actually he is suffering less than we are now and is completely clueless to everything, even his own condition).

I am constantly looking at this area and trying to find a company that has a really good candidate drug...monoclonal antibodies are certainly promising in targeting Tau and amyloid proteins, but as the article states, it has been frustrating getting a really good lead candidate. I currently work in cancer and MAB therapies with marginal improvements in survival rates can cost 100k+. I previously worked in HIV and have been a part of the story of seeing the disease go from a death sentence to a chronic disease with no long term health consequences if you take one pill once a day. I also share the researchers view that Alzheimer's will be looked at in the same way in a decade to fifteen years. It will probably need multi-drug regimens like HIV and cancer to stop the progress.

This is the way I see this playing out - 10-15 years of social care crisis in which people mortgage their homes to insurance/banks/government, then 10-15 years where people mortgage their homes to big pharma, then once the patents expire, all the property in the UK will be owned by the banks so it will be irrelevant! One thing is for sure, if you don't have equity in property, and you want access to good care or Alzheimer's drugs that work, then you will have to work till you drop.

Misery is the plan!

Maybe in the next 20 years we will get a pill that does that for Alzheimers. How much does this HIV drug cost they have them in Africa too don't they

[HovelinHove]

57 minutes ago, Talking Monkey said:

Maybe in the next 20 years we will get a pill that does that for Alzheimers. How much does this HIV drug cost they have them in Africa too don't they

Older regimens that have more side effects are available free of charge (sort of) in Africa through PEPFAR and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Big Pharma have licensed the latest and greatest one pill a day regimens to generic manufacturers to supply at just above cost in Africa, but just above cost is more than 99% of Africans with HIV will ever be able to afford, and there are limitations as to where the drugs are supplied as there has to be sufficient infrastructure to insure reliable administration of the drugs...anything less than 90% adherence results in resistance.

[HovelinHove]

The problem with bringing any drug to market is the huge cost of development, most of which is from clinical trials, not manufacturing. 3D printing won't change that. Safety issues will always be paramount, and properly conducted phase III clinical trial cost hundreds of millions (most cancer drugs can now get approval on phase I and II data which is much cheaper to generate, but need to submit long term follow up data later to keep the license).

Edited May 21, 2017 by HovelinHove

[Mrs Bear]

3 hours ago, Bugger BTL said:

Nope! And the French at least also oblige parents to leave a certain amount of their estate to their children. I can see that this wouldn't be much consolation if there's sod all to leave, your friend will get no benefit from it, but what I mean is there's some consistency of approach there.

Re the rest of the thread, I can't help feeling some people might be a bit optimistic about their own ability to provide specialist care. It's not necessarily just company and housekeeping for someone who's gone a bit dotty. That's doable, although as family homes get ever smaller it might not be. But people now are routinely living for years, sometimes decades, whilst rather poorly. Dementia in particular is beyond the ability of most of us. I'd also not be romanticising too much the societies where care is expected in family either. Most of them have completely different population ratios to us and much lower life expectancies too, and they also lumber either the women of the family or indigenous/imported poor with the donkey work of the **** wiping too. Personally I don't fancy being subjected to considerable societal pressure to do that because I happen to be in possession of a vag, and in many cases that's what you're romanticising here. Nor do I want my daughters to have to.

I agree absolutely about the romanticising of other cultures.  In many places, for a start, people typically do not live so long, because healthcare is poor, unavailable, or simply unaffordable.  There may often be no alternative to caring at home.  When she was working in Cambodia my daughter witnessed a senile old granny who was incontinent, tied to a chair outside all day, so that she wouldn't pee and poo all over the house, and washed down at the end of it.  I'd like to see the Daily Mail reaction if anyone tried such coping strategies here, even if we had  warm enough weather. There was also a large extended family to chip in.   

On the other side of the coin, we have Indian friends in Mumbai who are comfortably off.  I remarked to her once how often we Brits are told that we are selfish and heartless to put our elderly in care homes.  We are told so often by pious people who have probably never been at the sharp end, that 'in other cultures' people look after their own.  

She said it was rubbish, at least in India.  Of course the poor usually have no choice, but those with the means to do so would almost always hire help.  Her own very elderly mother, who had dementia, was looked after 100 miles away by two live in carers.  As she pointed out, such arrangements are common there, and are infinitely cheaper and easier to arrange there than in the U.K, 

[HairyOb1]

Lets be honest, at the end of the day, it's simply more asset stripping to the wealthy.  We all know this aids few people and those few are the owners of health care, care, provision.  

It's insane people are still going to vote for these people.

[crashmonitor]

5 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

It is interesting that 35% of people are in favour of the policy and 40% opposed. Listening to the media you would think it was 95% against.

I think it is necessary and I am happy to see houses being treated as an asset for once.

Though I also think the banks will turn out to be the biggest winners one way or another.

Tend to agree, Tory voters believe in self reliance, paying your way in life and not leaving public debt legacies. Political parties meanwhile  ( including Tories) just have a bidding war on who can spend the most to get reelected, raising debt and putting off the day of reckoning. Anything that proposes to fund care costs is to be welcomed.

[Dorkins]

On 5/18/2017 at 3:44 PM, Errol said:

Agreed. Once it's gone, it's gone. There will be no way to claw anything back.

So as I said earlier, this rule will just encourage everyone to spend everything now. Why bother building up any assets - just spend it all.

Would you fancy heading into your 70s/80s/90s as a private renter living under a 6 month assured shorthold tenancy?

Edited May 21, 2017 by Dorkins

[Bugger BTL]

1 hour ago, Mrs Bear said:

I agree absolutely about the romanticising of other cultures.  In many places, for a start, people typically do not live so long, because healthcare is poor, unavailable, or simply unaffordable.  There may often be no alternative to caring at home.  When she was working in Cambodia my daughter witnessed a senile old granny who was incontinent, tied to a chair outside all day, so that she wouldn't pee and poo all over the house, and washed down at the end of it.  I'd like to see the Daily Mail reaction if anyone tried such coping strategies here, even if we had  warm enough weather. There was also a large extended family to chip in.   

On the other side of the coin, we have Indian friends in Mumbai who are comfortably off.  I remarked to her once how often we Brits are told that we are selfish and heartless to put our elderly in care homes.  We are told so often by pious people who have probably never been at the sharp end, that 'in other cultures' people look after their own.  

She said it was rubbish, at least in India.  Of course the poor usually have no choice, but those with the means to do so would almost always hire help.  Her own very elderly mother, who had dementia, was looked after 100 miles away by two live in carers.  As she pointed out, such arrangements are common there, and are infinitely cheaper and easier to arrange there than in the U.K, 

None of that surprises me at all. I have heard such stories before: ill qualified family who have effectively been forced, usually the women, domestic poor, or sometimes imported poor in places like the oil rich Arab states. And think about it, how many people in Cambodia get to the stage the senile old granny was at, and how many adult descendants do they have on average compared to Brits at the same stage? It's completely different.

[Mrs Bear]

On 19/05/2017 at 7:37 PM, Venger said:

Agreed.  

Although I think it's the responsibility of the older person to talk to the younger loved ones you expect to be there for you, before they get in position of needing assistance.  Planning.  Setting up your LPAs with them.  

It shouldn't be for them to nudge you/me about.   Can't expect younger people to think it out for you, when they are priced-out renters themselves with busy and complicated lives!

In my family we all got EPAs done/officially date-stamped by a legal authority, just before (really in the final few hours before) the changeover to new regime (in 2007)... but having looked at it more closely, maybe I should get an LPA.  

They cover more it seems.  

My concern was and is the State/Court of Protection having too much power/delay what loved ones want to do for your best needs (in event you need someone to help you/make decisions for you.)

At the time we rushed to EPAs (easy to complete and free) before new scheme, for thought professional assistance to completing LPAs would be around £250-£500 each (such numbers were bandied around in the financial papers), but maybe it's become easier now.

Planning.  

 

 

 

 

I have known of people who had to go to the Court of Protection, because no P of A had been set up before their relative developed dementia, and by the time they realised that the person was incapable of managing their finances, they had either lost the capacity to be able to grant it, or else they had become very suspicious of relatives' motives - very common with dementia - and refused on that account.  

My mother had very sensibly put an old style EPA in place long before she got dementia, but by the time we needed to activate  it - a large sum of money had already disappeared - she thought we were all just after her money and didn't want to give us control.  My brother had to use some very firm persuasion.  

The main complaints I've heard about the C of P is that it takes a long time to,process and is expensive - I seem to recall a fee of £400 - a lot more than a P of A which I think can  be done for nothing if you don't use a solicitor. 

[Venger]

12 minutes ago, Mrs Bear said:

I have known of people who had to go to the Court of Protection, because no P of A had been set up before their relative developed dementia, and by the time they realised that the person was incapable of managing their finances, they had either lost the capacity to be able to grant it, or else they had become very suspicious of relatives' motives - very common with dementia - and refused on that account.  

My mother had very sensibly put an old style EPA in place long before she got dementia, but by the time we needed to activate  it - a large sum of money had already disappeared - she thought we were all just after her money and didn't want to give us control.  My brother had to use some very firm persuasion.  

The main complaints I've heard about the C of P is that it takes a long time to,process and is expensive - I seem to recall a fee of £400 - a lot more than a P of A which I think can  be done for nothing if you don't use a solicitor. 

You have made quite a few interesting and useful posts on this topic over the years.  

Dementia / care / finances.

That probably ties in with another of your posts in this thread about hiding things, forgetting and blaming.  

Thanks.

[maverick73]

Will this reduce NI contributions? I'm actually not in favour of this policy, especially for those who served in the armed forces.

[CunningPlan]

27 minutes ago, maverick73 said:

Will this reduce NI contributions? I'm actually not in favour of this policy, especially for those who served in the armed forces.

I doubt it. But it will mean that in 20 years time the NHS is still almost viable.

[Errol]

14 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Would you fancy heading into your 70s/80s/90s as a private renter living under a 6 month assured shorthold tenancy?

I think lots of people would rather live well when they are young at the cost of a worse old age.