So it's National Insurance then

[Eric Cartman]

Yeah, that's a good outline for a Socialist Worker editorial at any point in the last 50 years, but it isn't really true.

The top 1% of income tax payers pay around a 25% of all income tax.
The bottom half of all income tax payers pay 10%.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

And rightly so, may I add.

I would probably rather they increased income tax than national insurance, but something had to be done.

We desperately needed to make sure that pensioners with 500k+ wealth only need to spend a fraction of it on care? They can't spend it when you are dead and their 'kids' are already retirement age.

[JamesWales]

We desperately needed to make sure that pensioners with 500k+ wealth only need to spend a fraction of it on care? They can't spend it when you are dead and their 'kids' are already retirement age.

They will still pay upto £85,000, no?

[Eric Cartman]

They will still pay upto £85,000, no?

Yep, what does that work out as? 18 months worth? I would love to see a breakdown of cost of care and cost of occupancy/sustenance within a care home, I think it is probably right that care is paid for out of some kind of general taxation (that rich pensioners aren't excluded from paying themselves). But what does the 1k a week for a care home pay for currently, at least a third of that must be 'rent' and food, maybe the answer is more pragmatism about the true cost breakdown and a reflection on who should pay for that and why?

[bluesp]

Yep, what does that work out as? 18 months worth? I would love to see a breakdown of cost of care and cost of occupancy/sustenance within a care home, I think it is probably right that care is paid for out of some kind of general taxation (that rich pensioners aren't excluded from paying themselves). But what does the 1k a week for a care home pay for currently, at least a third of that must be 'rent' and food, maybe the answer is more pragmatism about the true cost breakdown and a reflection on who should pay for that and why?

The care home my mum is in it works out around 17 months, so we'll be at that point in about a month's time. be interesting to see this pans out now The home she is in is brilliant but obviously expensive.

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

The care home my mum is in it works out around 17 months, so we'll be at that point in about a month's time. be interesting to see this pans out now The home she is in is brilliant but obviously expensive.

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!!!

[Eric Cartman]

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.

[bluesp]

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!

[dml1954]

We desperately needed to make sure that pensioners with 500k+ wealth only need to spend a fraction of it on care? They can't spend it when you are dead and their 'kids' are already retirement age.

Sounds like the politics of envy there to me. Plus, just because you are living in a house worth over £500000 doesn’t mean you are rich. There are two or three bed semis in Cardiff worth that. Plus again that most pensioners have worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and National Insurance, and spent/saved their money prudently, so why should they have their property snatched off them later in life.

[Eric Cartman]

Sounds like the politics of envy there to me. Plus, just because you are living in a house worth over £500000 doesn’t mean you are rich. There are two or three bed semis in Cardiff worth that. Plus again that most pensioners have worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and National Insurance, and spent/saved their money prudently, so why should they have their property snatched off them later in life.

Sounds like a slogan somebody without a point uses to me.

You don't think people should have to pay for their own food and housing? That's a bit too far left for me you tankie.

[cityhammer]

Sounds like the politics of envy there to me. Plus, just because you are living in a house worth over £500000 doesn’t mean you are rich. There are two or three bed semis in Cardiff worth that. Plus again that most pensioners have worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and National Insurance, and spent/saved their money prudently, so why should they have their property snatched off them later in life.

You could also take the view that if you have plenty of savings why should the state fund your every need so that you can pass on your wealth to your kids.

[blue matt]

Sounds like the politics of envy there to me. Plus, just because you are living in a house worth over £500000 doesn’t mean you are rich. There are two or three bed semis in Cardiff worth that. Plus again that most pensioners have worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and National Insurance, and spent/saved their money prudently, so why should they have their property snatched off them later in life.

Ive never understood the argument that your house has to be sold of to pay for care

these people have paid tax's and NI all their lives, yes they own a home, but surely paying NI and tax's for 50 years mean they have paid enough into the " pot " to not have their home sold from under them

I must have been in my early 20's when I first heard of this, a colleague was angry that his parents were heading into a home, he had been told they had to sell their home ( they had built it themselves down in Cornwall overlooking a beach ) this couple had both worked till retirement ( he was a doctor and she worked as a school nurse giving MMR jabs around Cornwall ) of course they had paid a lot in to the pot, yet were having the house taken away to fund the care home

[Eric Cartman]

Ive never understood the argument that your house has to be sold of to pay for care

these people have paid tax's and NI all their lives, yes they own a home, but surely paying NI and tax's for 50 years mean they have paid enough into the " pot " to not have their home sold from under them

I must have been in my early 20's when I first heard of this, a colleague was angry that his parents were heading into a home, he had been told they had to sell their home ( they had built it themselves down in Cornwall overlooking a beach ) this couple had both worked till retirement ( he was a doctor and she worked as a school nurse giving MMR jabs around Cornwall ) of course they had paid a lot in to the pot, yet were having the house taken away to fund the care home

There isn't a pot. We are 2 Trillion in debt, if anything, the longer you have been alive, the longer you have been bankrupting the country.

[cityhammer]

Ive never understood the argument that your house has to be sold of to pay for care

these people have paid tax's and NI all their lives, yes they own a home, but surely paying NI and tax's for 50 years mean they have paid enough into the " pot " to not have their home sold from under them

I must have been in my early 20's when I first heard of this, a colleague was angry that his parents were heading into a home, he had been told they had to sell their home ( they had built it themselves down in Cornwall overlooking a beach ) this couple had both worked till retirement ( he was a doctor and she worked as a school nurse giving MMR jabs around Cornwall ) of course they had paid a lot in to the pot, yet were having the house taken away to fund the care home

Think how much they've paid in, and how quickly that would be used up in pension and care costs. they will never have paid "enough" into the pot, and its unwise to use that as an argument when discussing the issue.

[lardy]

Ive never understood the argument that your house has to be sold of to pay for care

these people have paid tax's and NI all their lives, yes they own a home, but surely paying NI and tax's for 50 years mean they have paid enough into the " pot " to not have their home sold from under them

I must have been in my early 20's when I first heard of this, a colleague was angry that his parents were heading into a home, he had been told they had to sell their home ( they had built it themselves down in Cornwall overlooking a beach ) this couple had both worked till retirement ( he was a doctor and she worked as a school nurse giving MMR jabs around Cornwall ) of course they had paid a lot in to the pot, yet were having the house taken away to fund the care home

I feel bad for people in that situation. Chances are, I'll be in that situation myself one day.

But realistically, how can 'the pot' completely support a beautiful beachfront property and care home costs?

When you say the house was taken away, was it being repossessed by the mortgage company?

[19bluebirds27]

I feel bad for people in that situation. Chances are, I'll be in that situation myself one day.

But realistically, how can 'the pot' completely support a beautiful beachfront property and care home costs?

When you say the house was taken away, was it being repossessed by the mortgage company?

Because they owned a home they had to use the equity on this home to fund their care - it’s not free to them.
How bad would they have felt in their final years knowing this has happened and leave little to pass on
Then there are people who have lived off the state forever and continue to get that care for free.

[lardy]

Because they owned a home they had to use the equity on this home to fund their care - it’s not free to them.
How bad would they have felt in their final years knowing this has happened and leave little to pass on
Then there are people who have lived off the state forever and continue to get that care for free.

Yes I see your point here

[Feedback]

Sounds like the politics of envy there to me. Plus, just because you are living in a house worth over £500000 doesn’t mean you are rich. There are two or three bed semis in Cardiff worth that. Plus again that most pensioners have worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and National Insurance, and spent/saved their money prudently, so why should they have their property snatched off them later in life.

the point here is that the NICs paid by today's pensioners were based on life expectancy after retirement of 5 may be 10 years. We are now seeing pensioners live well into their 90s, meaning the cost of their pension is 3x what it was originally thought to be. You factor in social care and health care costs too and suddenly you appreciate today's pensioners have paid in nowhere near enough.

the issue is that pensioners forma huge voting block, and governments are scared of upsetting the block for fear of losing large swathes of votes.

something had to be done, although whether the way to finance it was the way chosen by this government is debatable.