The taxman says three and a half million people are due a refund, but two million will have to fork out for underpaid tax.
Care funding reforms a 'death tax'
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."
related stories on msn
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
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
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!
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.  Experts think the UK could be losing tens of millions. 
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
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
latest money videos
Oil giants BP and Shell were today warned by Downing Street that they must co-operate fully with a European Commission investigation into price-rigging claims.
Date 15/05/13, Duration 2:29, Views 684
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
- Medical/life insurance
- Travel insurance
- Breakdown cover
- Legal aid
- Tickets for cultural or sporting events
- Lower charges