Care Costs Cap

[whiteowl]

I do kind of get what they are trying to do - perhaps a better solution would be a fixed percent of the value of the house rather than an arbitary amount.

 

What sticks in my craw a bit though it that I'll be paying higher National Insurance from next year to allow (mainly richer) people to leave more to their children. 

[Anna B]

7 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

I do kind of get what they are trying to do - perhaps a better solution would be a fixed percent of the value of the house rather than an arbitary amount.

 

What sticks in my craw a bit though it that I'll be paying higher National Insurance from next year to allow (mainly richer) people to leave more to their children. 

I see your point, but purpose of National Insurance is to pay for pensions, health and care, it should have risen with inflation over the years, but no government was brave enough to do it which is one of the reasons for the mess we're in. And of course along with that it needs to be spent properly, not spaffed up the wall.

 

I see no reason why Health and Care were ever separated. Both go together and depend on each other to work well. That a problem that has been artificially created. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Anna B

[cuttsie]

If you go into a care home then what is wrong about selling asset to help pay for your care . You no longer need it .

[Delbow]

1 hour ago, whiteowl said:

I do kind of get what they are trying to do - perhaps a better solution would be a fixed percent of the value of the house rather than an arbitary amount.

 

What sticks in my craw a bit though it that I'll be paying higher National Insurance from next year to allow (mainly richer) people to leave more to their children. 

It would be more palatable if those on the Right didn't keep lecturing us about "standing on our own two feet", from the vantage point of their substantial inheritances. 

[Anna B]

7 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. 

People pay a percentage of their earnings in tax. If they earn more, they pay more.

 

Pay rises are also done in terms of percentages, eg everyone gets 3%.  3%  of £20,000 is a lot less (£600) than 3% of £100,000 (£3,000) so the gap between lower paid and better paid widens.

 

Surely a percentage of the house's value would be a better, fairer guide to the cap. Why is it always just what suits the better off?

 

Incidently they can still come after you beyond 7 years if they can prove 'deprivation of assets,' and there are all sorts of legal traps - guess who can afford the lawyers to sort out the best methods.....  

Edited November 23, 2021 by Anna B

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

I agree.  However, the cap enables more people to pass on assets to their children and family after going into a care home.  

Not only that. but health is a lottery.  If you're unlucky enough to get certain illnesses why should you have the added burden of having to pay through the nose for your misfortune.

That's why I say Health and Care should be joined at the hip like the one continuous organisation that it used to be before privatisation set in..   

 

[Anna B]

1 minute ago, West 77 said:

Exactly correct people that earn more pay more in tax.  Someone who has bought a high value house will have paid a significant amount of tax  during their working life otherwise they wouldn't have earned the income to afford to pay for the house.  Owners of more expensive houses pay much more in council tax than someone who owns a low value house.  There also is the issue of inheritance tax which is effectively taxing dead people again.  Your suggestion of a percentage of the house's value most certainly is unfair because it's taxing the home owner yet again.  A simple cap the same for every home owner is by far the fairest and less complicated thing to do.

It manifestly isn't or there wouldn't be this cuffuffle about it.

 

[Delbow]

27 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Exactly correct people that earn more pay more in tax.  Someone who has bought a high value house will have paid a significant amount of tax  during their working life otherwise they wouldn't have earned the income to afford to pay for the house.  Owners of more expensive houses pay much more in council tax than someone who owns a low value house.  There also is the issue of inheritance tax which is effectively taxing dead people again.  Your suggestion of a percentage of the house's value most certainly is unfair because it's taxing the home owner yet again.  A simple cap the same for every home owner is by far the fairest and less complicated thing to do.

Some people can afford an expensive house precisely because they have paid very little in tax.

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, cuttsie said:

If you go into a care home then what is wrong about selling asset to help pay for your care . You no longer need it .

A tax which takes away most of the value of your house will be avoided, people will change the ownership of their house in order to avoid this tax. The Government may gain more tax by taking a small percentage.

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

Exactly correct people that earn more pay more in tax.  Someone who has bought a high value house will have paid a significant amount of tax  during their working life otherwise they wouldn't have earned the income to afford to pay for the house. 

But this isnt a tax, its a payment for social care. If they dont want to pay for the social care, get their children to look after them.