Jump to content

Social Care Costs ?


Observer II
 Share

Recommended Posts

A subject that all Parties have been ducking for decades - who and how should elderly care be provided and funded.    Most (not all) people are asset rich and many cash poor; and the normal Conservative instinct is to allow people to hand down assets and their general wealth to their families in the form of inheritance.  The Labour Party hasn't had this issue, except for their elite leadership, as the majority of their support has derived, until recently; from the great unwashed, cash strapped and asset poor.    So the issue imo, comes down to what is a fair system, of funding elderly care.   It seems to me that the individual requiring the care package should pay via the liquidation of their assets,  which, to be fair, needs to be proportional to the value of said assets.  So, unlike the Gov proposals, which mean those with lower value assets will pay proportionally more than those with higher value assets;  a system of proportionality needs to be adopted, say 50%  asset value.   So a £100k home pays £50k; whilst a £million home would pay £500k,   from each according to their means to each according to their needs.  If there are losers in this, they would be the children of the elderly person,  losing 50% of their expected inheritance.  This has always been a political time bomb, hence it's avoidance to-date.      :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should the children or relatives get a free hand out as a god given right.

If they are given a cash amount before the grim reaper is expected; well all well and good.

But to just get the lot when some unlucky sod pops their clogs is wrong whether they were worthy benefactors or not doesn't seem right in my eyes.

I mean we all pay for this care indirectly so why do we foot the bill so relatives of the deceased get a wedge of cash.

This may seem hard hearted but I pay my way in life and expect to do so until I'm no longer able. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But does  this fly in the face of the Conservative mantra of private or workplace pensions for everybody to provide for their own retirement? Striving to buy your own home & provide for you & yours while many of the population are amply supported for life through the benefits system & will have no such future problems ,probably getting help & advice from their local council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Observer II said:

A subject that all Parties have been ducking for decades - who and how should elderly care be provided and funded.    Most (not all) people are asset rich and many cash poor; and the normal Conservative instinct is to allow people to hand down assets and their general wealth to their families in the form of inheritance.  The Labour Party hasn't had this issue, except for their elite leadership, as the majority of their support has derived, until recently; from the great unwashed, cash strapped and asset poor.    So the issue imo, comes down to what is a fair system, of funding elderly care.   It seems to me that the individual requiring the care package should pay via the liquidation of their assets,  which, to be fair, needs to be proportional to the value of said assets.  So, unlike the Gov proposals, which mean those with lower value assets will pay proportionally more than those with higher value assets;  a system of proportionality needs to be adopted, say 50%  asset value.   So a £100k home pays £50k; whilst a £million home would pay £500k,   from each according to their means to each according to their needs.  If there are losers in this, they would be the children of the elderly person,  losing 50% of their expected inheritance.  This has always been a political time bomb, hence it's avoidance to-date.      :unsure:

You are expressing an odd view of fair. The recent fracas has been mis reported as a change to make things more unfair but the actual change is to disallow contributions from local authorities from setting that public money against their own 85k liability so that they get better treatment than those who receive no public funds. This is the trick the media plays with the word fair all the time. It is close to the relative poverty trick. Nobody pays until they have 100k of assets but at 101 k you pay 85 k and at 99k you pay nothing. Forcing people to liquidate their assets as you suggest is close to official theft. It is banned under the European Convention on Human Rights which you oppose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...