Updated: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:36:07 GMT | By pa.press.net

Care funding reforms a 'death tax'

The coalition has been accused of "ducking" crucial elderly care funding reforms after ministers delayed taking a final decision on capping care costs but indicated the limit could be set as high as £100,000.


Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said the Government was looking at the 'whole range' of options about how the elderly pay for residential care

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said the Government was looking at the 'whole range' of options about how the elderly pay for residential care

The coalition has been accused of "ducking" crucial elderly care funding reforms after ministers delayed taking a final decision on capping care costs but indicated the limit could be set as high as £100,000.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley confirmed plans to give state loans to pensioners moving into residential care so they do not have to sell their property immediately - a measure branded a "death tax" by charities. But he said no decision would be made on capping the sky-high bills pensioners in care homes currently face until the next spending review.

The Conservative minister revealed he was also considering an opt-in scheme that would allow wealthier pensioners to be protected by a cap on future costs - but only if they paid into some form of insurance scheme.

Last year a review chaired by economist Andrew Dilnot recommended setting a limit between £25,000 and £50,000 to stop pensioners being forced to sell their homes to cover the costs.

Department of Health analysis showed the Government has looked at a number of options, including a £75,000 and a £100,000 limit. The threshold would be applied to individuals and, combined with a separate £10,000 cap on bills for accommodation and living costs accrued by pensioners in homes, could leave couples paying out well over £200,000.

Mr Lansley said the Government was looking at the "whole range" of options and insisted Mr Dilnot had also raised the possibility of a higher cap.

Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said: "The truth is that the Government is ducking one of the biggest issues of our time. They are adopting a pick-and-mix approach to the Dilnot package which was conceived as a coherent and complementary whole."

Under the deferred payment system, which is being introduced across England from 2015, people will be able to borrow money from councils at nominal interest rates, with the sum being paid back after their death. It is intended to help around 40,000 people each year who are forced to sell their homes to cover care costs. Some local authorities already operate similar arrangements, but provision varies widely across the country. Ministers insisted that cash-strapped councils would be given the "necessary" support to cover the costs of the changes.

But Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said: "Whichever way you look at it, it's a death tax." Ros Altmann, director-general of Saga, said people "will still lose everything" under the plans.

Mr Dilnot said in an "ideal world" he would have preferred to see more progress made but insisted he was not despairing "because I think we are moving forward". He told the BBC: "I am pleased that they recognise that we came up with the right way forward. Of course we would love them to have agreed to fund it right now. We hope very much they will do so over the next year. We still have time. The legislation was anyway going to take much of the next year. The Government still has the opportunity to insert clauses into its draft Bill that would allow immediate implementation of any decisions that are made in the Comprehensive Spending Review."

17Comments
11/07/2012 14:48
avatar
if you are happy to live on the state all your life you pay for nothing,if you work all your life and try to better your self and leave a little to your children you get f**ked.what a great country this is.
11/07/2012 12:39
avatar
they will get the care for free  funded by the taxpayer so really if you dont have any assets or savings you are better off  they cant take if you don't have anything but they still have to look after you so its clever not own your own home or have savings. if you have any savings spend it while your able bodied
11/07/2012 18:31
avatar
we home owners will have to foot the bill for those who dont own thiers this govenment is just ( grab grab grab ) lab/lib/con , they are all the same, they all walk the same path, be an MP and look after no one and stuff the people
13/07/2012 23:53
avatar

work hard toil all your life to buy your own home, only to have to sell it for your care if you are one of the unlucky ones who needs a care home.

live in a rented home ( which a lot more people are now doning ) for whatever reason and the state pays as long **** you've not got to much money in the bank.

had grandmother and mother-in-law in same home many years ago, grandmother had to sell her home to pay for care, mother in law paid for by the state,

it gets me all the time because at the end of the day both of them worked just as hard as each other

avatar
I take exception to the fact that my taxes are paying for some of the long term benefit  layabouts who will get their care free, and I will have to pay for my own care when I'm old if I need it, I would prefer my taxes to go towards my care when if I need it not theirs, you should be able to choose on these matters, it is just plain theft taking our money to pay for other  people when we will be needing it ourselves perhaps one day, It would be great if everyone got together and took the government to court for misuse of funds.
13/07/2012 15:34
avatar
It is tough for those house owners who have to pay for own care in their old age, but at least you will have the choice of a care home you reside in. Those that don't have a home to pay for their care in their old age will be on a budget and that means you are likely to be afforded the same neglect you can expect to receive in a NHS hospital. I have written on here in the past the neglect I witness during a short stay in hospital and at this time my 98 year old mother in law is running the gauntlet in a NHS hospital in a week we hear on the news a young guy in his early twenties has died in hospital despite his best  efforts to get water by phoning the police
 
12/07/2012 07:04
avatar
THIS LOT MUST LIKE BEEN IN OPTION A LOT I DON'T THING THEY WILL BE ELECTED AGAIN AFTER ALL THE U TURNS THEY HAVE MADE THEY ARE VANISHING UP THERE OWN A==ES
12/07/2012 16:25
avatar

Yet another plan of abdications of responsibility by the government.

 

Do we have a choice now not to pay tax and get back what we've already paid into national insurance then ?

 

**** show of incompetents - don't know why they want into power other than to privatise and invest.

 

I'm seriously considering emigrating - can't be worse elsewhere in Europe even with the Euro in a mess.

 

UK is turning into a sh*thole at the hand of elected idiots - what does that make us as we stand by idly accepting all that they through at us.

 

The UK population only has itself to blame

12/07/2012 06:20
avatar
This lot or the others SAY it is better to work than be on the dole well I have got some news for them why should people work all there live to SUPPORT the lazy b===ds who get every thing for nothing I am not saying all on dole because WERE are the jobs that this GOV. said would come If I new what I know now I would not have saved for my retirement then I would get freebies like the rest ALL I say is don't save any thing for your old age   
avatar

We were told in the 60s that people would live longer and we should prepare for this yet not one of the successive govts did anything.  That advise is now coming home to roost.

As for today.  The first thing that should be done is to work from a level playing field.  Why should Wales for example set a higher savings level than England, it is supposed to be a National Health Service?

Then of course there is the vexed question as to why those who have bought their own homes, lived within their means and saved should be penalised whilst those who have been feckless receive care without charge?  Perhaps there should be an automatic deduction from benefits (ring fenced) to offset future care charges?

A further question to be posed.  How much of the monies charged by local authorities for care are artificially increased to offset some or all of the free care of those who pay nothing?  Don't believe this can happen, I would like to bet that it does and is a scandal to be exposed in the future! 

If you are worried about charges for care, then have a look the the website This is Money and the section Tenants in Common! 

 

 

 

13/07/2012 16:34
avatar
My friend whom i speak to regularly from France says the French are astonished that we charge our elderly for being in a care home.The whole of our societal principles have been turned upside down in favour of the feckless and that includes single mothers.How dare these young girls start taking out of the public purse for years before they have even contributed,and of course as per usual the people who have paid their way already will have to cough up.If they had never started the smoking ban and made things ten times worse than they are now ,we woudn't be having this discussion.
avatar
I am totally disillusioned by this Tory government. Ever since they got in power they have hammered the old age pensioners. Hear this Cameron, we have had enough and we have got better memories than you think, and we don't u-turn. You are a one term party. My vote is with the UKIP from now on as the top 3 parties are all the same,
avatar
In case you got bored with my last long blog and are worried about care costs, look at the web site This Is Money and the section "Tenants in Common".  Hope this helps. 
11/07/2012 18:44
avatar
“Loving it: Huge tax breaks for Olympic sponsors”

Imagine seeing that headline on the front of your paper in the final countdown to the Olympic opening ceremony.
As the eyes of the world focus on London, this is the perfect opportunity to expose the corporate sponsors who’ll be dodging tax during the games.

The UK's winning Olympic bid included huge tax breaks for sponsors. As a result, massive multi-nationals like Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Adidas stand to make a tax-free fortune. [1] Experts think the UK could be losing tens of millions. [2]
As sponsors, these companies will be banking on loads of positive media exposure. turn the tables, and roll out a massive petition demanding they pay their fair share. If the petition is big enough, and attracts enough media attention, it could be the first step in scaring these image-conscious companies into refusing their gold-plated tax break.
The whole reason these gigantic companies are involved in the Olympics is for the image boost it’ll provide. A tarnished brand is their PR team’s worst nightmare. then maybe we can help pay some of these care fee,s
11/07/2012 09:45
avatar

What happens to people who don't own their own homes?!

15/07/2012 17:47
avatar
What have any of us done to be treated this way by successive governments ?.Like most i thought i'll work all my life and if i fall ill in old age i'll be okay,after all iv'e paid my fair share havn't i.Noooooooooooo,wrong if there has been someone who has been completely feckless etc,they'll come first.It seems this caring sharing trick used in our society is rapidly becoming a chain around the necks of ordinary working people.There must be a two tier system.Surely that would drive up standards.
20/07/2012 23:07
avatar

I am so sick of all the moaning and whinging about the fact we have to sell our homes to pay for care. Who says we have to do that? I want to leave my home to my children and will do so - in return for their care of me. My property is MY security for my old age. It is there to be used for my benefit. All the nonsense "I paid my taxes so I am entitled" is just that - nonsense. Money that I paid in taxes has already gone on health care, education, pensions, benefits etc, etc.And as for the people who have no children to leave their property to, should they pay for my care home fees so that I can leave my house to my kids?

No, my children can do what I did; work, save, work some more, save some more...

But no, it is much easier to spend your money on a car for every member of the household, have three foreign holidays a year and hope to inherit my house while someone else pays for my care.

Because, lets face it THE STATE MONEY IS YOUR MONEY

Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

latest money videos

10 reasons to make MSN UK your homepage (© Microsoft)

more on msn money

msn money poll

What current account benefit would you like more of/value the most?

Thanks for being one of the first people to vote. Results will be available soon. Check for results

  1.  
    32 %
    Medical/life insurance
    329 votes
  2.  
    9 %
    Travel insurance
    90 votes
  3.  
    5 %
    Breakdown cover
    50 votes
  4.  
    4 %
    Legal aid
    45 votes
  5.  
    3 %
    Tickets for cultural or sporting events
    29 votes
  6.  
    47 %
    Lower charges
    485 votes

Total Responses: 1,028
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.