Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
 It's about the (imo nonsense) idea of deferring payment of any care charges until after the person has died. The primary aim of that idea is to not have to sell the empty house until after their death. My point is, what is the real difference of selling the house when then move into care, before they die?
Who covers the bill in the intervening time? There is a wide range of prices, so how do you determine what they will truly to be able to pay from their estate, after they have died? Eg Somebody could have very little of value in their estate, so are they allowed to pick a Platinum service with the taxpayer picking up the final bill, or are they to be assessed annually as to what level of service they will be able to afford from their estate after death?
As from my included quote from the BBC, June is currently paying £1,200 a week, but her funds are running out. Whatever proposals are adopted(current system, new proposals, after-death payments), which option should she have been allowed to pick in the first place? Should she have to be now moved to the cheapest available option? None of the proposals attempts to answer that. The question doesn't seems to be asked by anyone, other than by myself. |
People have an emotional connection to their homes and hold out hope they can return to them. However, the cost of care could still be secured against the home?
Although then you a situation where people lose their homes or not based on their luck on if they need social care not. It's not really how our health care system works in principle and you might have people avoid care they need so their children can keep their homes.
That's why I think having a social care tax on inherited estates would be better.