So it's National Insurance then

[Eric Cartman]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!

That is really useful information and actually seems fairer to me than what the headline suggests.

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Of course Labour might have a brilliant plan for social care but the interviews I have seen today avoids giving a straight answer. In essence there is no opposition plan meaning those who are asked to comment can only criticise

This is a massive open goal for Labour, which I'm sure they'll completely miss like usual.

[life on mars]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

So someone earning 50k could mitigate the NI rise by drinking aporox 4 pints less per week .

[MOZZER2]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

c,mon starmer now its your chance to shine .....................

[bluesp]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!

Thank you for the explanation, as always with these things the devil is in the detail eh? It frightens me to think what kind of care we would get for £35,000 per year when we pay nearly double that. I don't know if you've had any experience dealing with Cardiff Council to help with care funding but bloody hell they are slow, still waiting for an assessment of my mum's needs after 6 months!

[tforturton]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

My understanding that this increase was also to help clear some of the NHS backlog?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Thank you for the explanation, as always with these things the devil is in the detail eh? It frightens me to think what kind of care we would get for £35,000 per year when we pay nearly double that. I don't know if you've had any experience dealing with Cardiff Council to help with care funding but bloody hell they are slow, still waiting for an assessment of my mum's needs after 6 months!

Aye , it's torture

Good luck

[chris lee]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

edit

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Whilst we are living in unprecedented times ......

Matt Hancock , Mr Naughty as he's known with the ladies , stood up in the commons to speak 😉

WTF ?

[William Treseder]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Lets be honest here. At a rough guess, i’d say at least 50% of self employed folk claimed all 5 government grants, when they couldn’t really justify it.
That will be conveniently brushed under the carpet by the Government bashers on here.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Lets be honest here. At a rough guess, i’d say at least 50% of self employed folk claimed all 5 government grants, when they couldn’t really justify it.
That will be conveniently brushed under the carpet by the Government bashers on here.

Self employed people who said their declared income was etc etc and were accused of always trousering the cash had an income during the pandemic equitable to what they had declared

Which is right and justifiable isn't it ?

[Vindec]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Assuming that this idea is a re-invented version of changes proposed in 2015 (which it seems to be), the idea that no-one will pay more than £85,000 is a myth, unfortunately - but it's a great headline!

I'm an IFA specialising in retirement / later life planning, and the proposal seems to be along the lines of ...

Let's say someone's paying £60,000pa (which is about the rate for a good quality care home).

Firstly, £12-£14,000 of this £60,000 will be treated as 'hotel costs' (food and accommodation) so immediately only around £47,000 will be counted towards the 'cap'.

Secondly, the system needs to be set up to avoid it being abused ... if it's all fully paid for when someone hits the 'cap', then we there would be a clamour to book mum and dad the flashest, nicest - and most expensive care home possible. So the amount that counts toward the 'cap' will be a 'reasonable' one. This looks like it's based on what the local authority pay for their care homes; somewhere in the region of £35,000pa.

So, forget that someone's paying £60,000 - Boris reckons £35,000 is what's 'reasonable' to pay (although I've not met any self-funder able to get a half decent care home for anywhere near this), and we need to deduct £13,000 for hotel costs. Therefore of the £60,000 paid, only around £22,000 will only count to this £85,000 'cap'.

To hit the £85,000 'cap' on care, someone paying £60,000pa would need to have actually paid around four years (longer than the average spell in a care home incidentally) - so around £240,000.

After this point, Bozza will step in and pay what they feel is a reasonable element towards the 'care' cost (ie £22,000 per year of the £60,000).

I've got too much time on my hands ... bring back the football!!!

Very interesting. If true there is not a single commentator who has analysed the implications in such detail. I presume the upshot of today's plan will mean those in residential care will still be required to sell their homes to pay for their care.

If that is the case I cannot understand why so much money is required to pay for a system that is not very much different (except for some tinkering around the edges) to the present arrangements.

[bluesp]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Aye , it's torture

Good luck

Thanks Sludge

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

So Wales gets a share of this money

Considering South Wales in particular spends a great deal on social care then clearly it needs to get its nose in the trough

[Wash DC Blue]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

The social care system in this country has had it

The elderly population keeps living longer

And the people who work in care are paid crap wages

It's a tsunami

When people regularly take out more of the system than put in that’s what happens.

Then those same people who have contributed the best part of Fukc all moan about it.

There absolutely should be a tier system for who has paid NI over the years.
Those that have paid most should absolutely get better and preferential treatment.

The houses that they WORKED to pay for should go to what they want.

You do believe in Darwin’s Survival of the Fittest and natural selection after all!!