[gme]

I think the proposal will not effect the majority of low earners as they will not have more the 100k to pass on, nor will it effect the wealthy as they are more than likely to pay for private care and medical cover outside of the NHS so in essence are already doing whats been proposed.

Its the large section of middle class Britain that will have to pay up and i think thats fair. This to me seems like the group who want the best of everything but dont want to pay for it. Want the rich to be taxed and the poor to have their benefits taken away.

Also the group who keep the Tories in power.

[petejh]

What is Labour's policy for funding social care in old age?

this is Labour's policy:
Its party manifesto promises to increase social care budgets by £8 billion over the lifetime of the parliament, with £1 billion coming in the first year.
Labour also says it will lay the foundations for the creation of a National Care Service alongside the NHS and seek a consensus on how its £3 billion-a-year cost should be funded.
Potential options include through wealth taxes, employer contributions or a new social care levy.


Which doesn't sound to me like they have a clear plan other than 'throw more money at it, but we can't say exactly where the money will be sourced from but it could involve taxing your wealth or creating a new levy - for the over 65s perhaps?...so an 'age tax'? Fair enough, possibly, just pointing out.

As gme said (in a roundabout way) the Cons policy could have come from a Labour or Lib Dem party manifesto.

Also the way the media jumped on May changing tack to include a cap as 'weakness' - fair enough, it isn't a shining example of being resolute but adding the cap is hardly a policy 'U-turn' - whilst almost completely avoiding reporting the fact that by adding the cap it made it a better fairer policy! And something welcomed by all parties! It bugs me that the media are too interested in dramatising events and seemingly being heard for the sake of being heard; rather than reporting the often hidden facts in an impartial manner and letting people make up their own minds.

[IanP]

gme / petejh

Sorry to keep banging the same old drum but you haven't answered this yet - why do you think a policy that takes money only from those with the bad luck to need long term care is better than one which insures all against those costs via for example increased inheritance tax?

[petejh]

Who said I (we) think it is better? The question should be: why talk about 'using inheritance tax to pay for social care' as if it's Labour policy and thus a choice in this election, when it isn't?

The only point that matters - in this election - is: what choices are the parties offering? Are Labour offering to pay for social care by increasing inheritance tax? - no. And have they explained how to close the loopholes which 'disappears' so much inheritance tax - no.

So there's your choice for this election regards social care. Not a lot else matters practically.


Huff Post:
Radical plans to change inheritance tax have been left out of Labour’s manifesto amid warnings from London MPs that the move would cost them key seats in the capital.

A proposal to ‘soak the rich’ by slashing the tax-free allowance for family homes, and other ideas for lowering the threshold at which the ‘death tax’ is paid, have been mooted within the party in recent weeks.

But the policy was missing from the Labour manifesto and was not added at the final ‘Clause V’ meeting of senior MPs, members and trade unions that approved the policy programme on Thursday, HuffPost UK has been told.

[jfdm]

gme / petejh

Sorry to keep banging the same old drum but you haven't answered this yet - why do you think a policy that takes money only from those with the bad luck to need long term care is better than one which insures all against those costs via for example increased inheritance tax?

My thoughts exactly, which ever way you look at it the death(dementia) tax it isn't fair.
It should be re branded the "death lottery tax."
The other issue is how such a policy will be implemented and you can imagine a few crooks will be offering to service care provision.
With regard to what's in the policies, I've not looked, but a while ago Andy Burnham mooted a 10% inhertance tax, flat rate.
I am sure at some point the issue will be tackled by all of the parties.
 

[petejh]

Yes, but what is Labour's alternative proposal? Do you even know?

[IanP]

Who said I (we) think it is better? The question should be: why talk about 'using inheritance tax to pay for social care' as if it's Labour policy and thus a choice in this election, when it isn't?

The only point that matters - in this election - is: what choices are the parties offering? Are Labour offering to pay for social care by increasing inheritance tax? - no. And have they explained how to close the loopholes which 'disappears' so much inheritance tax - no.

So there's your choice for this election regards social care. Not a lot else matters practically.

Labour aren't going to win so by you argument there's no choice at all and nothing matters.  I think discussing what a really good policy to manage some of the big problems society in the future faces is always useful.

The conservative policy appears to have been pulled together without any thought to such an extent that they were backtracking within days.  An while that backtrack does  improve a badly thought out policy it is still has issues imo and the process of backtracking (together with the lack of any details on specifics) doesn't inspire confidence.

BTW argument that a having a cap isn't u-turn doesn't fit in with this from Jeremy Hunt:

'The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, was asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme if the policy was a rejection of both Dilnot’s cap and the £72,000 limit that was going to be put in place by the Conservatives under David Cameron.

“Yes, and not only are we dropping it but we are dropping it ahead of a general election and we’re being completely explicit in our manifesto that we’re dropping it,” said Hunt.'

[IanP]

BTW I don't consider myself a Labour supporter, actually feel like one of the disenfranchised middle, left behind by a Labour party tracking to the left with limited interest in actually running the country and a a conservative party seemingly moving strongly to the authoritarian right (and hoovering up UKIP voters as it goes)

[galpinos]

Yes, but what is Labour's alternative proposal? Do you even know?

As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with petejh and think this one of the only positive things the Tories have done in my opinion. i don't believe it's the right way to fund/sort the social care issue* but it at least acknowledges the fact that it is a big issue now and only going to get worse. I had thought that with such a big majority, Mrs May had an opportunity to have a few policies that would be unpalatable to her voters but needed addressing. I didn't think she would but, on this occasion, she has gone out on a limb and been bizarrely shot down for it. I also had some sympathy with Hammond on the NI fiasco.

I've been criticising the Tories for attacking the Labour policies in the leaked manifesto without them having and policies of their own, just a pack of soundbite cards. Now, with the Tory manifesto out Labour are doing the same, criticising a policy with no solution of their own.

*As IanP points out, I don't believe we should have a system where healthcare through most of your life is funded by everyone but when it comes to social care it falls to the individual to finance it. Society should bear the cost of both health care through life and social care at the end of life. This should/could be done somehow via inheritance tax surely.

[tomtom]

Interesting ideas on the death tax - and more harshly means testing the old on their care costs. That and the end of the pension triple lock is quite a risk by the Torys - as the Elderly are usually their core vote.

It's also quite a socialist idea - inheritance tax is often argues as being the most effective tool to redress wealth inequality (bought in after ww2 I think - and credited with long term rebalancing in the U.K. Thereafter). Making the elderly pay for their care - by taking capital out of their assets (house) is a very bold and surprising move.

I'm not planning to vote for her by the way - just some commentary.

[petejh]

Who said I (we) think it is better? The question should be: why talk about 'using inheritance tax to pay for social care' as if it's Labour policy and thus a choice in this election, when it isn't?

The only point that matters - in this election - is: what choices are the parties offering? Are Labour offering to pay for social care by increasing inheritance tax? - no. And have they explained how to close the loopholes which 'disappears' so much inheritance tax - no.

So there's your choice for this election regards social care. Not a lot else matters practically.

Labour aren't going to win so by you argument there's no choice at all and nothing matters.  I think discussing what a really good policy to manage some of the big problems society in the future faces is always useful.

Yes it's useful.
But the discussion on this post isn't a general discussion, rather it's being held in the context of two major parties one offering something that's being shot down as 'unfair' and the other (Lab) not offering anything like what posters on here are saying would be a better alternative - yet that fact isn't being shot down. It comes across as simple prejudice against the policy - because cons came up with it -without much thought. Which isn't useful.

[gme]

Ian

I agree that it seems unfair but at present we have a system that works if your ill, the NHS. It obviously needs to be better and is struggling itself but the social care side is a bit of a new kid on the block.

I dont have info to back it up without going to look but i would hazard a guess that people dont spend 10-15 years in an NHS hospital bed in the later part of there lives but they are spending that, and more, having daily care visits or in a care home. I also think that with an improved care system the length of stay for the elderly and thus the cost to the NHS would come down dramatically.

To put it more bluntly to get cancer or have a heart problem at 80 and you probably dont have long left. Get dementia and you might get to see a labour government again.

[petejh]

gme / petejh

Sorry to keep banging the same old drum but you haven't answered this yet - why do you think a policy that takes money only from those with the bad luck to need long term care is better than one which insures all against those costs via for example increased inheritance tax?

A few arguments that could be used:

Because unlike the NHS - which everyone will use in their life and thus everyone should pay for - not everyone will use social care. Many will die before needing it; many won't need it all in old age; and many will only need it for a very short time.

Because under this policy the ones paying for social care, to be blunt sorry, are at the neds of their time on this earth and so it could be said have less need of their wealth (£100k of which remains untouched to pass down remember) then the young need theirs. The young have their whole lives ahead of them, in which they can be accumulating their own wealth (to be used for social care in the distant future..) without the drag of an extra tax burden to pay for those at the end of their lives. And so on.

Because of the quirks of how the economy behaved in the last 20-30 years. I.e. the old are disproportionately wealthy compared to the young and middle-aged in terms of property wealth.


Also.. I hear a lot of people in favour of some kind of greater health care payment by smokers and clinically obese, to go toward their treatment costs on the NHS... And the NHS already puts these people lower down their priorities for treatment. It's not exactly the same idea but there are related themes here..
We also tax sugar, alcohol and tobacco because they cost the health service proportionally more to treat the effects of than a healthier choice of lifestyle. 'course you can say those are a choice, aging isn't a choice. Is addiction really a choice?

Not saying I fully agree, but they're valid arguments.
I guess a lot depends on how much relative value you place on the idea that everyone should share costs of all burdens on an economy, versus the idea that those who are the greatest burden on an economy should be responsible for paying a greater share of that burden.

Also, it's interesting to note those making calls for the 'richest' to pay a greater share of the tax burden for public services, but who are against this. In many ways that's exactly what this policy seems to be - a higher burden paid by the (asset) richest. Or is it only the 'rich' who are still working and look like they're rich - CEO's, financiers etc. (and who are so rich they will have private care at the end of their lives and thus not contribute to the burden) that should pay more?

[jfdm]

We also tax sugar, alcohol and tobacco because they cost the health service proportionally more to treat the effects of than a healthier choice of lifestyle. 'course you can say those are a choice, aging isn't a choice. Is addiction really a choice?

Not saying I fully agree, but they're valid arguments.
I guess a lot depends on how much relative value you place on the idea that everyone should share costs of all burdens on an economy, versus the idea that those who are the greatest burden on an economy should be responsible for paying a greater share of that burden.

Was going to try to articulate a lot of what you have said here.
If we are talking welfare in old age, we need to also consider, smoking, alcohol, sugar.
Should those with illness related to over consumption of the above pay for their care?
Even though these products carry additional tax.
Arguments are really complex regarding addiction.
I feel that Cons welfare proposals are a slippery slope and will lead towards a private/insurance based health/welfare system.
I don't want to be a part of that.
The fairest system is that we all pay in fairly, we might not need to dip into the system, but in times of need it's there to help us all.

It comes across as simple prejudice against the policy - because cons came up with it -without much thought. Which isn't useful.

Please read this and tell me if you think that paying for care as proposed by the Cons is fair.
It's not simple prejudice, it's a shit policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/

[tomtom]

The whole point  of the NHS is to provide the same service free of charge whenever needed no mattter

how old or how young
how rich or how poor
how privileged or how needy
how ill or how healthy
how much like a nun you live or how much of a caner you are etc...

Once you start 'means testing' (whether that be financial - or based on lifestyle choices) then this all starts to fall apart.

The "I've paid more tax for this so I deserve that - and you don't" attitude doesn't work with this system (I'm not accusing anyone here of thinking that - just making the point).

The 'means testing' we have in some places based on obesity, lifestyle choices is partly based on how it alters the likelihood of success of any treatment - but probably now forced by financial considerations.

[jfdm]

The whole point  of the NHS is to provide the same service free of charge whenever needed no mattter

how old or how young
how rich or how poor
how privileged or how needy
how ill or how healthy
how much like a nun you live or how much of a caner you are etc...

Once you start 'means testing' (whether that be financial - or based on lifestyle choices) then this all starts to fall apart.

The "I've paid more tax for this so I deserve that - and you don't" attitude doesn't work with this system (I'm not accusing anyone here of thinking that - just making the point).

The 'means testing' we have in some places based on obesity, lifestyle choices is partly based on how it alters the likelihood of success of any treatment - but probably now forced by financial considerations.

Completely agree Tomtom, but as I said, it's a slippery slope.
I am more than happy to pay in so that collectively we all get help when/if we need it.
I think the point we are all making is to prioritise how tax is spent.
Should we spend billions on Trident renewal, HS2, Heathrow runways etc. When many people relie on food banks, money should should be spent where it will do most good.

[petejh]

Please read this and tell me if you think that paying for care as proposed by the Cons is fair.
It's not simple prejudice, it's a shit policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/

So what's your take away from that article? I don't see glaring unfairness.

Care costs in the most affluent areas are higher than in the least affluent. Average house prices in the most affluent areas are also higher but by a greater proportion than care costs are higher - that's a reflection of how messed-up and unbalanced our housing market has become.

Hence care costs in the most affluent areas are a smaller proportion of house value when compared to less affluent areas.

Bottom line - everyone keeps £100k of their housing wealth and pays for care above that (with a cap figure, not yet know). So the person in London could end up paying the full cost of their care - average cost £86,000  - and still be left with many hundreds of thousands pounds because their property is worth loads. The person in Wales could end up paying £20-30k care cost and be left with £100k.

In other words the person with 4x the housing wealth ends up potentially paying 4x the care cost. It's the principle a lot of people are calling for to be applied in other areas of life - e.g. general taxation 'the richest should shoulder the greatest burden'. To my mind it's an example of making good use of otherwise locked-away wealth (property) for social purposes.

How is that unfair? Sure it's unequal proportionate to property wealth, but property has become a disproportionate beast. In terms that actually matter - e.g. what wealth you get to keep and what gets taken, it seems reasonably fair.

I'm sure it could be improved but it's a pretty good start.

[Oldmanmatt]

I've got to say, I agree with Pete here.
I'm greatly amused by what I see as a Tory mis-step that will offend their base greatly. However, I don't see it as unfair.

I don't think it will work. I assume there must be numerous ways of passing on the property to whoever you wish, before this kicks in?
I don't know, can you sell your house to your children for a Quid? There can't be any law saying you must charge "market value" is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

I don't know, can you sell your house to your children for a Quid? There can't be any law saying you must charge "market value" is there?

Wanna bet? You can 'gift' a property but you need a time machine to predict when to sell it so it's at least 7 years before you die. If you don't then inheritance tax applies to it. 

http://www.which.co.uk/elderly-care/financing-care/gifting-assets/343064-legal-transfer-of-property

I know when we bought Mrs Obi brother out of part ownership of a property they jointly owned, the amount of capital gains tax they charged had no bearing on what we paid him (despite us getting multiple estimates from estate agents). The tax office 'decided' (ie. picked a number out of the air) how much it was worth (not knowing the local market at all) and billed him on that amount. 

What's the betting they'll change the rules around that as well.

[Stu Littlefair]

What do you mean by unfair?

In one sense it's a grotesquely unfair policy as it breaks the idea of the state providing social insurance. The cost will be born mostly by those unlucky enough to get long-lasting degenerative diseases, and not shared across all of society. If you like this policy, consider if you would, for example, be happy to make victims of road accidents use their house equity to cover their NHS care?

It's reasonably progressive, if that's what you mean by fair.

The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.

BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.

[IanP]

What do you mean by unfair?

In one sense it's a grotesquely unfair policy as it breaks the idea of the state providing social insurance. The cost will be born mostly by those unlucky enough to get long-lasting degenerative diseases, and not shared across all of society. If you like this policy, consider if you would, for example, be happy to make victims of road accidents use their house equity to cover their NHS care?

It's reasonably progressive, if that's what you mean by fair.

The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.

BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.

Agree almost completely.  Previously Labour (Andy Burnham) proposed a additional inheritance tax at 10-15% on all bequests to fund social care which was roundly condemned by the right wing press as a death tax.  This type of arrangement would deal with the unfair 'lottery' aspects and also the potential issues around actually paying for end of life care - it's noticeable that the Conservative manifesto seems to provide no detail of how there proposals would actually work beyond a statement that no one would have to sell there house because they can defer payment until death, no mention of costs/interest/financing mechanism etc. 

[tomtom]

What about the aspect that it penalises people with long debilitating illnesses (such as dementia) over those with shorter more acute conditions? That may end up actually costing the NHS more...

Not trying to be a wanker - just sayin..

[nai]

The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.

A few people might have missed dave's link which outlines some of the potential issues with this:

https://twitter.com/withorpe/status/865465756393156608

[jfdm]

So what's your take away from that article? I don't see glaring unfairness.
Bottom line - everyone keeps £100k of their housing wealth and pays for care...

Right lets say I have no savings at the end of my life, spent everything.
All I have is the property to help with care I need, I live in Wales.
House price ave 148,000 total care cost ave 71,000.
There is a shortfall of 23,000 - as I get to keep 100,000 - who funds the difference.
So in this instance I have contributed but not covered my care costs.
The "death tax lottery" will have winners and losers.
If I am struck down with dementia these cost could spiral ever higher - who foots the bill.

Initally I was against any such policy as I felt we contribute enough through tax, NIC's.
Looking into the issues further has brought home the point that we not paying enough in to cover the costs of care, it does need to be sorted out.

In addition 100,000 is a lot of money now, but will it be as valuable in 20 or 30 years time?
I am pretty sure that this cap will be pegged to 100,000 for a good number of years.

The "death tax lottery" can't be fair as the goal post will shift for each and everyone of us.
Variables will be savings, property values, and the length/type of care that each one of us will need.

[galpinos]

BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.

I agree with your criticisms of the Tory policy but the above quote is rubbish I'm afraid Stu. The Labour policy is, "We know it's a bit problem, we have no idea how to sort it without proposing a policy that will won't go down well with the voters so we'll brush it under the carpet by proposing an "unspecified tax" and whinge about the Tories' policy". It's no better than the Tory policy as they haven't got one.