Dilnot? Why not?

[steepholm]

An odd discussion of the Dilnot proposals on the Today programme this morning (the clip is 1:35 in).

They analyse the problem well enough. There's certainly a problem with the cost of social care, at least from the point of view of the property-owning classes. The children of people who have the decency to pop off relatively quickly after a life of independence will find their inheritances more or less intact. Those whose parents need long term care may find very little left in the pot by the end. (Those whose parents didn't have much to begin with won't get anything either, but they will at least avoid disappointment.)

Dilnot's proposal is to put a cap of £35,000 on the money paid by each person towards their own care before the state steps in to pick up the tab, which would apparently cost the treasury about £2 billion per year. At a time of widespread public sector spending cuts, is it fair to ask those in most need to give up vital services in order to protect the legacies of well-off baby boomers? Strangely (strange at least from the government that made cutting income tax for millionaires a big priority at the last budget), the answer seems to be no.

Now, this is the really odd bit. According to the BBC pundit, in looking for ways to make this move palatable, they tried to think of ways of raising the money from the very class of people who would benefit from the Dilnot plans, and accordingly they considered means-testing winter fuel payments, the state pension, and subsidized TV licences. In other words, they looked at taking money from the well-off elderly.

But hang on! The main beneficiaries of Dilnot wouldn't be the elderly! They'd be their middle-aged, middle-class baby-boomer children, who would (as a result of the Dilnot cap) be able to rely on receiving at least the biggest part of their inheritance. So why isn't the government looking at ways to take the money from them, if they want this whole exercise to be revenue-neutral? (Better still, of course, to tax the extremely rich fairly. but they aren't going to do that.)

One idea might be to scrap higher rate tax relief on pension contributions. Admittedly, I myself would lose by that measure. But then, I'm also one of the potential beneficiaries of Dilnot.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I'm not a fan of the plan, because, personally, I would rather my parents had the benefit of such money as they have. And, politically, I'm not a big supporter of upholding and protecting inherited wealth.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I see the second part of that argument, but not the first. Under the plan, they would be able to keep more of their money, which you say you're in favour of.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I want such money as they have to be useful to them, not to me, which includes not worrying that they might 'deprive' me of any inheritance if they needed long term care. But at the same time, I don't really feel that care for those who can well afford it should be subsided by everyone. It's not that I mind subsiding those in need -- I don't. But I'm not sure that inheritances need even more protection: the capital gains tax changes are all about ensuring the rich stay rich, too.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I sympathize with that point of view. I suppose that in my mind, though, caring for people who are physically and/or mentally unable to look after themselves is a quasi-medical function, and the idea of means-testing medical care (or at least that offered by the state) sets other alarm bells ringing. It's a tricky one!

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

A fair point- the elderly aunt had Alzheimer's Syndrome and was incapable of looking after herself for the last four years of her life- but such issues are considered care issues, not medical ones and that somehow seems wrong, especially as she'd paid in throughout a long working life and seldom ailed a thing up to the age of 91! It seemed she was made to pay for her end of life care twice over.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

If I'm doing the currency conversion right, the assisted living place that my MIL lived in a few years ago, and the one my father was considering moving into at the time of his recent death, were both a lot cheaper than £35,000 a year (~US$54,000). My MIL did need dementia care for a few months, which cost a lot, but she had long-term care insurance that covered the difference. It seems to me that unless you are looking at very posh places indeed, the difference in cost that would put the care above £35,000 would almost surely be down to medical causes. But I could be all wrong about the prices, especially in high-cost areas such as London.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the £35K figure is meant to be the total amount a person would have to spend before the government took up the slack, rather than an annual figure.

Having said that, care here is - or can be - very expensive. My aunt, for example, who's unable to walk after an accident last year but otherwise fairly healthy, is living in a care home run by the Catholic church, which charges her about £100 a day for the privilege (i.e. just over £35K per year), and that's by no means a luxurious institution.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Oh, right, I see now it's not annual. Silly mistake on my part.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of a car sticker I saw recently which made me smile broadly:

'Retired and happy and spending our children's inheritance'

That said, my husband's old aunt needed care at the end of life and as she'd worked all her life and therefore had a bit put by, it all went as did her cottage, to pay for said care whilst others on the same care home paid nothing for the same care.

My recently late MiL on the other hand, didn't need end of life care other than hospitalisation for a few days at the end.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

It's a death-bed lottery.