This NI increase for Social/Health Care

Originally Posted by Chris

I suspect the small print will have something to say about the maximum monthly cost the government will pay on behalf of those who have paid out their personal maximum contribution. That will result in some awkward conversations with nursing homes about their monthly fees. A few of them, especially those whose rates are close to the state maximum, may reduce their fees to keep residents. Others will be forced to watch their residents get relocated to other, cheaper homes.

Yup - mum's fees are just over £1k per week.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yup - mum's fees are just over £1k per week.

Jesus wept !!!!

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Triple lock suspended for 1yr. source: The Independent

Originally Posted by Hugh

Good summary from the Beeb - one thing that is quite important is that this is about care costs, not accommodation (so if people are in Private Care Homes, not sure how this benefits them).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58473787

My personal view (and we are actually doing this at the moment for my mum-in-law) is that if the person is in a residential care home, and has assets to pay for this (and with no partner in the family home), the home should be sold to pay for the Residential Care Home fees.

The challenge will be in 5 years time when the money runs out...

What happens at the moment if the person doesn't have assets and their family cannot afford it? Does the state step in at that point or is just tough luck?

I wonder if, when the new Levy comes in in 2023, they might align it with the minimum rate tax bands (start at £12750 and no upper limit) to mitigate the impact on the very low paid?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I understand it as between 23.5k and 100k you will be means tested for the government's contribution but you can pay no more than 86k in total

So, there's an increase in state funding from the current levels IF you have savings/assets above the 23.5k limit. Whilst those earning over 9k ish per year will pay more. Ultimately those with assets will pay less for their care.

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

I don't know why they didn't keep the existing level of 23.5k and then limit the NI increase to 1%

Theoretically what is there to stop you spending the £86,000 cap in a shorter period of time? If you choose a more expensive care home, where is the extra going to come from? If it comes from their assets, that £86,000 will soon disappear.
Those with £20K-100K assets, will have to have a non-house based asset surplus to cover their required contributions, or else they will have to sell the house at some point in time.
When people get to that stage, that can't do anything with those assets other than spend it on their care. Why should the taxpayer be expected to pick up the tab for those with over £100,000 in assets, after reaching the £86,000 cap?

Under the social care plans, no-one will have to pay more than £86,000 for care across their lifetime, while anyone with less than £20,000 of assets will get free care.


People with less than £100,000 of assets will see their care costs subsidised.

Originally Posted by Damien

What happens at the moment if the person doesn't have assets and their family cannot afford it? Does the state step in at that point or is just tough luck?

I believe you have the choice of those homes whose fees can be met by the local council set rates.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Good summary from the Beeb - one thing that is quite important is that this is about care costs, not accommodation (so if people are in Private Care Homes, not sure how this benefits them).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58473787

My personal view (and we are actually doing this at the moment for my mum-in-law) is that if the person is in a residential care home, and has assets to pay for this (and with no partner in the family home), the home should be sold to pay for the Residential Care Home fees.

The challenge will be in 5 years time when the money runs out...

"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Boris, dear Boris".

You want to be cared for at home but you have to sell your home to pay for the care. So you go into a care home, blow all the money, then what? You've funded the profit of the care home, left no home for your children. The whole thing's a farce and nothing is really fixed.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Theoretically what is there to stop you spending the £86,000 cap in a shorter period of time? If you choose a more expensive care home, where is the extra going to come from? If it comes from their assets, that £86,000 will soon disappear.
Those with £20K-100K assets, will have to have a non-house based asset surplus to cover their required contributions, or else they will have to sell the house at some point in time.
When people get to that stage, that can't do anything with those assets other than spend it on their care. Why should the taxpayer be expected to pick up the tab for those with over £100,000 in assets, after reaching the £86,000 cap?

As before, it's care needs, not accommodation

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Jesus wept !!!!

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Triple lock suspended for 1yr. source: The Independent

How many pensioners used to vote Tory

The first real test of the triple lock and it gets dumped.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I wonder if, when the new Levy comes in in 2023, they might align it with the minimum rate tax bands (start at £12750 and no upper limit) to mitigate the impact on the very low paid?

I would think that's likely. Possibly with the eventual aim of combining NI with income tax and the commensurate savings in bureaucracy. This would also make NI a progessive tax.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Boris, dear Boris".

You want to be cared for at home but you have to sell your home to pay for the care. So you go into a care home, blow all the money, then what? You've funded the profit of the care home, left no home for your children. The whole thing's a farce and nothing is really fixed.

Which is why i was wondering if some sort of partial equity release scheme would be an option.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

As before, it's care needs, not accommodation

What happens after somebody has reached the £86,000 cap? Can they select a more expensive service and the taxpayer will pick up the full tab?

Interesting comment in response to the Times article today from a Rose Ellis

There are two different discussions that need to go on: residential care, and care in your own home. The former is far less prevalent. The website of MHA, a charity care provider, states that there were approximately 730,000 ‘retirement housing units’ in the U.K. in June 2019, and about 418,000 people live in care homes (of which 167,000 have dementia). This 418,000 care home total is 4% of the over 65s, and covers 15% of the over 85s. The website doesn’t mention specialist care for younger people with disabilities.

Most over 65 people live in their own homes. Not all need care. And I am not sure that the £86,000 cap applies to housing costs (i.e. the rent for the room in the care home). Being cared for at home can be a very expensive business, but it also depensds on how much help is needed. A 30-minute daily visit to help with washing is very different from 24-hour live-in care.

Which brings me to how family carers are treated in this ‘deal.’ Many go largely unacknowledged and give up significant opportunities to earn and pursue other goals. 58% are women - which also means that significant numbers of men are affected.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What happens after somebody has reached the £86,000 cap? Can they select a more expensive service and the taxpayer will pick up the full tab?

I sniff a squeeze on local government - as in the accommodation rate picked up by the taxpayer will be constrained to the LG rate. In turn, that will lead to pressure in the care home system where the private residents subsidise the LG residents to maintain profit and a uniform service.

As I've said, nothing's been solved - quite the opposite,

Originally Posted by nomadking

What happens after somebody has reached the £86,000 cap? Can they select a more expensive service and the taxpayer will pick up the full tab?

I believe they would have to be aligned with the local Council agreed limits