Care Costs Cap

[Anna B]

Once again the government demonstrates its love for the rich of this country.  The care cap of £86,000 for care home costs has been passed in parliament tonight, in spite of it it benefitting the rich and being manifestly unfair to the less well off. 

 

First of all we will all pay once with the rise in National Insurance, whether care is needed or not; fair enough, that's how insurance works.

 

But then if you are unfortunate enough to actually need a care home in later life you will have to pay again if you have assetts over £14,250. Any contributions from the local authority will also have to be repaid  incrementally up to £86,000. This does not include costs for board and lodgings which is NOT capped (and can rise every year, ) and will be added on top for all to pay. This means the £86,000 will probably rise to at least £100,000  for a mere 2 to 3 years stay in a care home, which wipes out all the assetts of many.

 

£100,000 may well be 100% of your assetts (ie your house) if you are not so well off, but only 10% of your assetts if you are well heeled and live in London, the shires, or the south east and own a reasonable home. So some, the less well off, will still lose all their home to pay care home fees, which Boris pledged would never happen. Once again only the rich get to keep their money and pass it on to their children....  

 

And while we're at it, why do care homes now cost an average of nearly £4,000 a month PLUS living costs for food and board on top!

Edited November 23, 2021 by Anna B

[El Cid]

Dont most wise people transfer the ownership of their house to their dependants before they get into their 70s?

 

The Goldsmith Family set up a trust fund to avoid taxes. Zac Goldsmith inherited his wealth from his father, Sir James Goldsmith, who died shortly after the 1997 general election with a £1.2bn fortune. Goldsmith senior was a non-domiciled resident in France who denied both Britain and France the chance to tax his estate.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/29/zac-goldsmith-non-dom-status

[Delbow]

48 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Dont most wise people transfer the ownership of their house to their dependants before they get into their 70s?

 

The Goldsmith Family set up a trust fund to avoid taxes. Zac Goldsmith inherited his wealth from his father, Sir James Goldsmith, who died shortly after the 1997 general election with a £1.2bn fortune. Goldsmith senior was a non-domiciled resident in France who denied both Britain and France the chance to tax his estate.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/29/zac-goldsmith-non-dom-status

Standard practice for the wealthy - paying tax is for the little people. This social care scheme is yet another betrayal of the less well-off people who were naïve enough to think this Tory government were going to help them, and yet another failure to properly sort out the funding of social care. But some morons will keep voting for them as long as they put enough union flags around the place, despite their actual policies being detrimental to them personally.

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

There is a seven year rule which is used to avoid the payment of inheritance tax.

 

At the end of a day the ownership of a house is most homeowners most valuable asset.  Houses are more expensive in certain locations.  Normally someone who owns a more valuable house has paid more tax than someone who owns a low value house.  The cap has to be set at some level and lower value home owners wouldn't be better off if the cap level is set higher. 

Some people do not accept that it should be the individual that pays for care. If you have a ailment and you receive PIP, they give you money in the form of a Motobility car.

But is you have Dementia or Alzheimer's disease, you pay for you own care.

 

There is -

NHS continuing healthcare is a package of care arranged and funded solely by the NHS. It is also known as NHS continuing care, NHS CHC and fully-funded NHS care.

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

Normally someone who owns a more valuable house has paid more tax than someone who owns a low value house.  The cap has to be set at some level and lower value home owners wouldn't be better off if the cap level is set higher. 

What nonsense 

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

There is a seven year rule which is used to avoid the payment of inheritance tax.

 

At the end of a day the ownership of a house is most homeowners most valuable asset.  Houses are more expensive in certain locations.  Normally someone who owns a more valuable house has paid more tax than someone who owns a low value house.  The cap has to be set at some level and lower value home owners wouldn't be better off if the cap level is set higher. 

Surely people plan their finances many decades ahead, get a 25 year mortgage and pay into a pension, failure to do so will cost them a lot in taxes.

 

Could 50% or even 100% of a persons sole residence be exempt from inheritance and care costs?

[Anna B]

4 hours ago, Delbow said:

Standard practice for the wealthy - paying tax is for the little people. This social care scheme is yet another betrayal of the less well-off people who were naïve enough to think this Tory government were going to help them, and yet another failure to properly sort out the funding of social care. But some morons will keep voting for them as long as they put enough union flags around the place, despite their actual policies being detrimental to them personally.

Totally agree.

The Tories are NOT on the side of the ordinary citizen. They do however have good PR and take full advantage of it,  and a spectacular gift for cunning and conning the people honed over many generations, helped by a servile population who traditionally look up to the Establishment as their 'elders and betters.'

They're not.

[Anna B]

1 minute ago, West 77 said:

How so?

 

 

It's true  some people  plan their future  finances better than others.

 

The figure couldn't be 100% for obvious reasons.  However a figure of 50% would most certainly benefit those who own low value homes and make no difference to those who own higher value homes.  At the end of the day the current government are trying to makes changes to prevent home owners losing all of their assets as a consequence of care fees.  A future government may or may not improve the situation further to benefit more people.

No they're protecting their own. 

 

Can you imagine a rich person watch all their assetts disappear down the black hole that is care home fees?  'Course not, they have ways (and means) to prevent it, not available to the ordinary person. The Tories have helped the Tory voting middle classes with this, but done nothing to help those of more modest means, (of which there are many) which is why the 'Red Wall' Northern Tories are now fearful for their seats.

[The Joker]

 

12 hours ago, Anna B said:

. . . if you have assetts over £14,250. Any contributions from the local authority will also have to be repaid  incrementally up to £86,000. This does not include costs for board and lodgings which is NOT capped (and can rise every year, ) and will be added on top for all to pay. This means the £86,000 will probably rise to at least £100,000  for a mere 2 to 3 years stay in a care home, which wipes out all the assetts of many.

 

£100,000 may well be 100% of your assetts (ie your house) if you are not so well off, but only 10% of your assetts if you are well heeled and live in London, the shires, or the south east and own a reasonable home.

 

^^^^^^^^^^

This.

 

The maximum cap of £86,000 means any Northerner with a modest home worth £100,000 will lose almost all of it paying for care.

 

But those in the South East with homes worth £1million will lose less than 10%.

 

 

 

Thanks for all your votes . . . you Northern suckers

 

Sincerely yours, The Evil Tories

 

 

[Anna B]

18 minutes ago, West 77 said:

No surprise your anti Tory traits prevent you from looking at the situation in a sensible logical manner.  The average value of home in the UK is now  £270,000.  Anyone owning an average value home will most certainly be better off with the cap announced.  Non Tory voters  also own  average value homes.

What average would that be? Mean, Median, Mode... All will give you a different 'average'.? 

 

London houseprices where a simple semi detatched can go for half a million (and there are several multi million pound houses distort the figures.) The average price for a house in London is £656,000. In Middlesborough the average house price is £54,978. 

Forget percentages. What number of houses are on or below the £100,000 price cap, then you'll know the extent of the problem.

And never forget this £86,000 cap doesn't cover living costs - watch these rise and rise, as care homes scramble for profits.....

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Anna B