• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Tory manifesto: Adult Social Care bill query

Veni Vidi Vici

Prominent Member
I've been trying to find an answer to this question but can't, does anyone know? It's in regards to this new Conservative manifesto pledge about not selling your home if you need care but £100,000 being ring fenced for your family. How do they work out how much you owe? So say your home is worth £300,000 and your in care for a year before you die, how do they work out your bill so they know how much to deduct from your house sale? Is there a standard daily charge?
 

Cocksure

Well-known Member
I would imagine that they will go on what the current costing are.

Currently care at home runs at around 30 to 60k a year depending on needs. I would imagine that they won't value your house to you die.

So 300k house less 100k = 200k less costs which on average is around 35k a year.

It's where they will set the inheritance mark is the great unknown (before or after social costs) and what will happen to any partner or dependents that live in the property after your death. Will they have to sell immediately or will it be delayed for a time?

Lots and lots is left unsaid
 

Enki

Banned
I suppose people accumulate the cost through their social care journey, so like a loan and no doubt this loan will be sold off to various private companies. Reckon they will drop it, individualism will loose out to collective responsibility as they always do in such matters. they are going after people's legacies but hopefully not too soon it's a beautiful gift. Purely antedotal, since this came out have worked one of my grandmothers social care bill out, it would have been around £400.000 in today's prices.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
Will have to wait and see.

The government are not giving much out on this - grey area.
 

Enki

Banned
If there was ever a case of bias media, if this was any other party and their manifesto the the national media would have been all over it from the off. My guess they will, once they get a whiff of the discontent from its veiwers and readership, that I'm hearing. Good example of how disconnected the Conservative party and it's media is becoming.
 
Last edited:

Cocksure

Well-known Member
They have said that they would setup a fund that will cover the costs and then when you die the assets will go back into it.

I would imagine it would work in a similar way to student loans, no interest but it keeps up with inflation.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
Well - it's better than George Osborne's fiscal announcements. Much of his unwelcome changes were not mentioned in parliament on budget day - kept hidden - until people found out a week or two later.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
They have said that they would setup a fund that will cover the costs and then when you die the assets will go back into it.

I would imagine it would work in a similar way to student loans, no interest but it keeps up with inflation.

Knowing the Tories past behaviour, I wonder if @Enki is right - the management of this will be handed over to private companies.

Wouldn't surprise me.
 

kbfern

Distinguished Member
I quite like this proposal as if you or your partner go into a nursing home you will still have 100k of your assets protected where at the moment it is only circa £23k.

It will affect care at home where at the moment your home is not counted as an asset only any cash/investments of £23k. This would be increased to £100k but you would have to pay for full in home care costs in excess of £100k .

This may mean that rather than families letting the state (you and I as taxpayers) fund it they may take some responsibility themselves and look after their own partner/parents for some of the help needed in order to keep the costs down & therefore protect the inheritance somewhat in addition to feeling good about looking after their loved ones themselves where possible.

I would personally rather look after my wife or Mother in law (the only persons in my case who would qualify) if at all possible as an act of love rather than some unknown paid for carer coming in 2-3 times a day for basic care in dressing/washing/feeding, help with taking medication etc than paying through the nose for services me or my wife can do ourselves.

I have seen these visits before with an elderly relative and the carers (usually 2) breeze in ask how they are, helps them take a few pills and chat for 5 mins and exit till the next visit later in the day.
 

Cocksure

Well-known Member
I would agree that something needs to be done about how social care is funded and provided, but this is not the way.

This is an old labour type policy not Tory.

Its back to save and be careful with your money and be punished for it. P*ss it up the wall and get rewarded. For the 1st time ever i'm going to be voting labour instead of tory/ukip due to this policy
 
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
The issue, is whether a private situation eg care for elderly parents, should be the burden of the family privately or whether this responsibility should be a public cost, or indeed should it be shared, both a private and a public cost.. There will never be a solution especially from the government that will satisfy all criteria, it's impossible.. Private vs public cost and public vs private resources is one of many dilemmas that a government has to manage.. The NHS is another, public resources tend to be overused and abused and then they either become extinct or run out of money..

Then, you always get the view, that somehow that it's the Tories after the poor's money, except the poor don't have any money, your legacy, hide, hide.. Sorry, that's bollox, wherever there is a need, a private company will provide a service that has to be paid for, nothing to do with the rich pillaging the poor, you can either afford the service or you cannot..
 

Cocksure

Well-known Member
By all means people should have to pay something towards the cost, be it via a new tax or a sliding scale otherwise it will never be properly funded.

Its the no cap i take issue with.

Have a relative that spends 5 years with home care than 10 in residential and you would be looking at a bill of at least £525,000 if not higher.

If your plan is to help your kids out when you die onto the hosing ladder etc, thats now gone.

Set the cap at 200k or so, make it sliding 50k, 100k etc. But put a cap on it.
 
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
You can't cap private enterprise, takes away the raison d'etre.. My parents looked after both grandparents at great cost in time and energy to themselves, my mum was working and my dad was also working handling multiple multi million pound contracts then driving over to see to his mum and dad.. Its not easy..
 

The Dude

Distinguished Member
Should we be putting a cap on how long people are allowed to live for after they retire?
I'm not sure I like the idea of putting upper limits on anything relating to old age social care.


The Tory policy is clearly aimed at ensuring that the most vulnerable don't end up penniless, at the expense of the better off paying more towards their care.
Even poor people like the idea of looking after their kids/grandkids after they've passed away. Leaving an inheritance shouldn't be a middle class privilege.
 

Cocksure

Well-known Member
Should we be putting a cap on how long people are allowed to live for after they retire?
I'm not sure I like the idea of putting upper limits on anything relating to old age social care.
Aren't you doing the same with this new plan? Hurry up and die grandma or their will be nothing left. Horrible thing to say, but people will still think it :(

Leaving an inheritance shouldn't be a middle class privilege.
Its not, its working class as well.
Someone living in London/Edinburgh/etc might have little money but their house could easily be worth a lot that they plan to leave to their kids etc, this policy robs them off that.

Labour remembers when the torys promised to increase the inheritance threshold, that was as popular with the working class as middle etc.
 

Cocksure

Well-known Member
You can't cap private enterprise, takes away the raison d'etre..
Not saying that you do, only that you do the same as the Sir Michael report. Cap the amount any individual pays and the state picks up the rest, it can still be handled by a private body if needed much as student loans are now.

Labour is right on this, a cross party solution is needed. Not a poorly thought out policy that hits the rich as well as the poor. Only people who win with this solution is the government and the private company that runs it.
 
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
That wont happen because, student loans are investment in future human capital, care for the elderly doesn't have the same societal value. It's a private issue.. The comparison is a fallacy.
 

Pacifico

Banned
Its not, its working class as well.
Someone living in London/Edinburgh/etc might have little money but their house could easily be worth a lot that they plan to leave to their kids etc, this policy robs them off that.

I'm sure that everyone that goes into Nursing homes would rather spend the money on something else, but the fact remains that the Nursing home needs to be paid for. There isnt a Human Right that your kids are entitled to your money and someone else should pick up the tab for any care you need. After all if your kids are so keen on this inheritance they are free to care for their parents rather than putting them in a home.

And at the end of this exercise the kids still get £100k.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
Should we be putting a cap on how long people are allowed to live for after they retire?

That already exists, it's called nature.

Besides which some successful people retire very early and others work until they drop.
 

Cocksure

Well-known Member
I think it's safe to say that we will never reach an agreement on this :)

Thank goodness for elections and the right to vote on the party that best represents you :)

There fun to bet on to! :laugh:
 
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
I have a theory once the war and baby boomer generation are gone, people will die sooner again. The decadence of the 60,70,80 generation will have a cost.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
It's a difficult one for sure.
My mother needed home visits and it was not free. The council gave us 6 weeks or so to find an agency. They did the usual 15m visits. (Not satisfactory because the carers kept changing so mum was in effect letting in strangers to cook her meals) .Later on we needed council people to help with washing etc. And we were looking at a Home, which would have been private. The state ones were rare and in all honesty, not very satisfactory, especially when dementia is part of the equation. Sadly it didn't come to that, but we were on course to deplete our inheritance to look after her. I see this as way to at least leave something behind- which she would have wanted- more than me.

Anyway, I do believe the media has reported this in a sketchy way, and a sensational way. By calling it a death tax. If Mrs May loses the election it could be because of this.
 

The Dude

Distinguished Member
Aren't you doing the same with this new plan? Hurry up and die grandma or their will be nothing left. Horrible thing to say, but people will still think it :(


Its not, its working class as well.
Someone living in London/Edinburgh/etc might have little money but their house could easily be worth a lot that they plan to leave to their kids etc, this policy robs them off that.

Labour remembers when the torys promised to increase the inheritance threshold, that was as popular with the working class as middle etc.


You're getting confused, 'hurry up and die grandma' is the current situation.

The new Tory policy is the exact opposite, 100k in assets is untouchable which means poorer people will still be able to leave their home to their children.

If this policy was in the Labour manifesto people would be singing Jeremy's praises, but in the Tory manifesto it's a 'death tax' because of, you know, student loans an all that.. ;)
 

The Dude

Distinguished Member
That already exists, it's called nature.

Besides which some successful people retire very early and others work until they drop.

What is the age cap that nature sets on life after retirement Alan? ;)

5 years, 25 years, 40 years?


Most successful people retire early, and many more 'others' work until they drop.

Under the new Tory policy the former's estate will be expected to pay towards their health care costs, the latter will not, or at least not to the same degree.

I don't see this as being any more 'unfair' than having a tax free allowance for income tax, which obviously benefits people on low incomes more than it does high earners.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Not saying that you do, only that you do the same as the Sir Michael report. Cap the amount any individual pays and the state picks up the rest, it can still be handled by a private body if needed much as student loans are now.

Labour is right on this, a cross party solution is needed. Not a poorly thought out policy that hits the rich as well as the poor. Only people who win with this solution is the government and the private company that runs it.
I don't see what the problem is with this policy? If you have to care for your parents it will end up being costly anyway. Unless of course your parents have no savings and say a rented house- then the state will pick up the bill. But the way things stand at the moment the council will ask you to pay for carers and a home if it comes to that. Your parents savings and equity release on the house could be completely spent. This way they are saying at least 100k is left, as opposed to nothing left as is the case now.
What is wrong with that?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom