Care fee`s and the sale of a home

That depends. What question do you have in mind?

Only for self-inflicted injuries or conditions.

No, I don't think so.

Of course people should prepare for their old age. Don't you?

That's up to them. There will always be a safety net, and if they're happy with that then they don't need to save. However, I would make it pretty basic so that there is a good incentive to save in order to fund better care. It's called personal responsibility, something I think is sorely lacking in too many cases.

I agree it's a problem providing a safety net which, at its lowest level, has to be free, while encouraging those who can to save. It's an especially difficult problem if the saftey net is very expensive.

The answer is probably to force people to invest into their own care home pot through their own working lives by compulsory salary deduction, rather like their own personal pension pot. That would reduce the amount of overall taxation, and would enable everyone to retain their money in the event that they do not require care in their later years. The care home pot would be used to pay for care, with any unused funds at death passing to the estate.

Try reading the bit of my post you snipped, and it'll become obvious.

therefore

Why? How does that fit with your principle that people should fund themselves the things they can reasonably forsee needing?

Why not?

Should they save to pay for their treatment in case they get cancer? A large proportion of old people get cancer, so it's a significant risk they could forsee. Or should they simply have to pay tax which will get spent treating them if they do get cancer?

they're happy

Means testing discourages personal responsibility.

their

average

average

superior

beneficiaries

passing to the

Oh right, so in the above example everyone would forced to save

I still think that they German system has a lot of merit.

There, children are *always* responsible for the care costs of their parents (assuming that the parents can't pay). This has the effect of putting the parent's house into play regardless of when they donate it to their children. It also (usually)stops parent's giving away their house to a third party. But finally, and IMHO much more importantly, it focuses the children's mind on taking the necessary steps to reduce their parents need for care, perhaps by doing some of it themselves, rather than just dumping granny on the state "because they can".

tim

In other words "We don't like it up us, Andy".

DG

That's the question? :-)

I think I read somewhere that Spain relies mainly on family care too. Is the answer to have lots of kids in the hope that at least one of them will look after you? :)

deduction, rather

putting the

focuses the

parents need

Yes, there is a lot of merit in such a system, but what happens to those who never had kids and haven't saved - do they get bailed out by the taxes of those children who are already paying for their own parents' costs? Or do they get left to rot if they haven't saved?

They've just changed the system so that couples with no children pay a NI surcharge precisely to fund this.

tim

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

OK...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Really? I hadn't realised that...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But if taxes are raised by (say) 1% to pay for making the benefit universal, and this means that those on average incomes now get that benefit (which was previously means-tested), then surely the total cost of the universal benefit is (1% x total incomes), which when spread over (total people) gives a benefit paid to each of: [(1% x total incomes) / (total people)] which equals: (1% x average income).

In other words, those on average incomes will pay the same amount extra as they now receive extra, and will therefore be neutral...

Sounds sensible. But only couples? What about single people who never have kids?

No. The point you've missed is that this applies to benefits which are

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I didn't miss that point at all...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, you obviously didn't read what I wrote properly -- I said: "if taxes are raised by (say) 1%". That means the

dunno

tim

Which is clearly wrong.

OK, we'll do it your way. The pot to provide the benefit then becomes (current cost of means tested benefit) *plus* (1% x total incomes).

So if 25% of people get the benefit already on a means tested basis, the total available to pay the universal benefit is (1.25% x total incomes). So this gives a benefit paid to each of: [(1.25% x total incomes) / (total people)] which equals: (1.25% x average income).

In other words, those on average incomes will pay 1% extra in tax and recieve 1.25% extra in the benefit.

And what about discounts for couples who have more than one child? And what happens to couples who've paid this surcharge for ages and *then* have a child? Do they get the surcharge refunded?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No I didn't...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Exactly.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Nope, clearly it is correct.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Eh? Do you mean 1.333% ? [If the benefit for the other '75% of people' costs 1%, then the benefit for the first '25% of people' will have cost 0.333% (assuming same benefit for all), wouldn't it?]

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Nope. Total raised is 1.333% x the total incomes of those people who pay tax (which are 75% of all the people).

Let's say there are 4N people altogether, of which 3N people pay tax:-

Benefit = 1.333% x (3N x average income) / 4N = 1.0% x average income.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, they pay 1% extra in tax and receive 1% extra in the benefit. [See above.]

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

And what about people who have a child (so don't pay the surcharge), but then the child dies/emigrates just before the parents need care?