UK General Election 2017

[ProfessorDavey]

Not even wrong.

'Not even wrong.' - what does that even mean?

Presumably, right.

Glad you agree with me that a vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt.

[Nearly Sane]

'Not even wrong.' - what does that even mean?

Presumably, right.

Glad you agree with me that a vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt.

I have to express a little surprise that yo haven't seen the phrase used often enough, even in the backwater of this forum, to discern that your extrapolation of meaning to be incorrect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[Rhiannon]

Very much like this on social care and our attitude to paying for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/pay-social-care-britain-land-of-minor-aristocrats-tory-manifesto-plan

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39994886

So Labour is going to scrap tuition fees from this autumn if they get in. They keep making promises to spend, spend, spend, which if they do get elected I bet they are unable to keep because the funds will not be available. 

[jakswan]

'Not even wrong.' - what does that even mean?

Presumably, right.

Glad you agree with me that a vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt.

There are two systems on offer at this election

1) Pay to go in a home by having to sell your home until you only have £27k left.
2) Pay to go in a home not having to sell your home and only pay when you have more than £100k left.

As far as I'm aware all other parties position is to support the current system.

So if 'vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt' then it follows that 'vote for anyone else and die bankrupt'.

Plenty in the Labour manifesto about raising taxes that will damage the economy, nationalisation, nothing about benefit cuts, and a leader who seems unable to condemn IRA bombings.

Vote Tory it might save the Labour Party because Corbyn is killing it. 

[ProfessorDavey]

2) Pay to go in a home not having to sell your home and only pay when you have more than £100k left.

Not sure this is correct on the basis that I believed this was for people having care in their own homes, but this doesn't affect my point, which you are now confirming.

In this case the person won't be able to pay for the care (because their assets are tied up) so the cost of care will accrue as a debt which will only be paid off after death when assets can be sold. So I quite correctly indicated that the effect of this policy is that people will 'die in debt' due to this policy.

The psychological effect on people who are debt averse, have worked hard over decades to pay off any debts (most notably their mortgage) only to find that in the last few years of their lives all that is undone as they rack up tens or even hundreds of thousands in debt, is pretty huge.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are two systems on offer at this election

1) Pay to go in a home by having to sell your home until you only have £27k left.
2) Pay to go in a home not having to sell your home and only pay when you have more than £100k left.

As far as I'm aware all other parties position is to support the current system.

So if 'vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt' then it follows that 'vote for anyone else and die bankrupt'.

Plenty in the Labour manifesto about raising taxes that will damage the economy, nationalisation, nothing about benefit cuts, and a leader who seems unable to condemn IRA bombings.

Vote Tory it might save the Labour Party because Corbyn is killing it.

Looks like the Tories have just cottoned on to how toxic their proposals are - and have therefore U-turned. Albeit the basic point of 'dying in debt' remains, all they have done is capped the amount of debt (although they aren't actually telling us what that cap will be).

So much for strong and stable leadership - come up with a policy on the back of a fag packet, fail to consult even the most senior ministers - announce in the manifesto - receive a storm of negative coverage - see poll lead drop by 10 points - U turn.

[wigginhall]

The same with the winter fuel allowance - there's no clue as to the level at which this will now cease.   Strong and stable my arse.   The Tory campaign is shambolic in spades, it makes you wonder how they will cope with Brexit.   Every UK proposal will need a built-in U-turn.   We will walk away, but maybe not.

[floo]

Both Labour and the Tories seem to be in muddle, heaven help us!

[jakswan]

Looks like the Tories have just cottoned on to how toxic their proposals are - and have therefore U-turned. Albeit the basic point of 'dying in debt' remains, all they have done is capped the amount of debt (although they aren't actually telling us what that cap will be).

So much for strong and stable leadership - come up with a policy on the back of a fag packet, fail to consult even the most senior ministers - announce in the manifesto - receive a storm of negative coverage - see poll lead drop by 10 points - U turn.

Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy. I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.

Will Corbyn be condemning the IRA.

By the way what is the policy of Labour on Trident, they don't sound very convincing, maybe they are still waiting for Diane to do the Maths.

[wigginhall]

I think Labour aren't ruthless enough.  The Tories are in disarray, and you need to strike at them, and keep striking, but I don't think they will.   Corbyn's non-personal attack stuff is OK, but at times, seems a bit wet to me.   The lady is for turning, again and again and again and ...

[ProfessorDavey]

Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy.

Of course it is a U-turn.

They key toxic element to the proposals was that there was no ceiling on payments, just a floor on assets. And that included people having care in their own homes. Deciding to place a ceiling on payments (due to a hugely adverse response to the original proposals) is a complete U-turn. I hope the Tories will also tell us how they plan to pay for this U-turn, which will clearly be expensive, just how expensive will depend on what level the cap is set at.

I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.

Disingenuous in the extreme - the point about these proposals is that they incorporate the home as an asset for people who stay in their home and need care. And that is huge numbers of people. So they now have an asset floor of £100k including their home where previously they had an asset floor of £23k excluding their home. And given that for many people their home is far and away their largest asset that difference is huge.

But the debt issue is also critical. Under the current system no-one dies in debt due to the cost of their care. Under the proposals many people will do exactly that - die in debt, caused specifically by these proposals. And in some cases that debt will be passed on from one spouse to another. So if one half of a couple needs significant social care while one (or both) of the couple still live in their family home they will build up significant debt which will be passed on to the surviving member of the couple.

For many people it is a huge effort, and massively significant, to finally end up debt free after decades of mortgage payments. To reverse that position in the final few years of life will be simply horrifying to loads of people, many of whom would consider themselves to be, at least, small-c conservatives.

[ProfessorDavey]

Disingenuous in the extreme - the point about these proposals is that they incorporate the home as an asset for people who stay in their home and need care. And that is huge numbers of people. So they now have an asset floor of £100k including their home where previously they had an asset floor of £23k excluding their home. And given that for many people their home is far and away their largest asset that difference is huge.

And there are far, far more elderly people still living in their own homes than those who are in residential care homes. Recent data suggests that just 16% of over 85-year olds are living in care homes, where the value of their home is currently considered. For the remaining 84% who are living in their own homes, or perhaps with children etc the proposals bring their home into consideration as an asset, when previously it wasn't.

[jakswan]

Disingenuous in the extreme - the point about these proposals is that they incorporate the home as an asset for people who stay in their home and need care. And that is huge numbers of people. So they now have an asset floor of £100k including their home where previously they had an asset floor of £23k excluding their home. And given that for many people their home is far and away their largest asset that difference is huge.

Now if you have to go in a home you would have to sell your home and be leaving your family with just £23k.

But the debt issue is also critical. Under the current system no-one dies in debt due to the cost of their care. Under the proposals many people will do exactly that - die in debt, caused specifically by these proposals. And in some cases that debt will be passed on from one spouse to another. So if one half of a couple needs significant social care while one (or both) of the couple still live in their family home they will build up significant debt which will be passed on to the surviving member of the couple.

I'd prefer to leave my children £100k than £23k,

For many people it is a huge effort, and massively significant, to finally end up debt free after decades of mortgage payments. To reverse that position in the final few years of life will be simply horrifying to loads of people, many of whom would consider themselves to be, at least, small-c conservatives.

Die in debt? Die with some debt but more assets then before.

I've had several members of my family die having spent almost the entire life savings taken by the state to pay for care. I would like to leave my kids a meaningful amount of cash.

Someone has to pay for this care, those with not many assets pay a little those with many assets pay a lot, its a progressive system.

[ProfessorDavey]

Now if you have to go in a home you would have to sell your home and be leaving your family with just £23k.

But as I have pointed out the vast majority of the very elderly (over 85) aren't in care homes, but in their own home and often requiring care. It isn't the effect on those in homes that is so toxic, but those not in homes and who would want to stay in their own home even if they needed care. That's why it is so toxic - most elderly people are in their own homes, are likely to want to stay in their own home and recognise that they may need care in the future (even if they don't need it now).

While a small proportion of over 85s end up in care homes, my experience is that very few actually want to move into a care home - often it requires endless patience and perseverance on the part of family and friends to get acceptance that they can no longer cope at home and to accept a care home as an option.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd prefer to leave my children £100k than £23k

Are you being deliberately dim - that isn't the option.

The option (for the vast majority) is leaving £100k or £23k plus the value of their home. And with average house price currently at about £200k, that means leaving £100k or £223k.

Pretty big difference.

[wigginhall]

Bloody hell, and the Tories are going to be handling Brexit negotiations, if they win the election.   Help.  We're in big trouble.

[jakswan]

But as I have pointed out the vast majority of the very elderly (over 85) aren't in care homes, but in their own home and often requiring care. It isn't the effect on those in homes that is so toxic, but those not in homes and who would want to stay in their own home even if they needed care. That's why it is so toxic - most elderly people are in their own homes, are likely to want to stay in their own home and recognise that they may need care in the future (even if they don't need it now).

I know this is anecdotal but everyone who I know with dementia ended up in a care home.

[jakswan]

Are you being deliberately dim - that isn't the option.

The option (for the vast majority) is leaving £100k or £23k plus the value of their home. And with average house price currently at about £200k, that means leaving £100k or £223k.

Pretty big difference.

No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?

[ProfessorDavey]

No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?

Again you are missing the point. Politically, this isn't just about what actually happens, but about perception. That why (for example) back in 2008 the Tories scared Brown out of a snap election by promising to raise inheritance tax threshold to £1M, which significantly shifted the polls. Not because loads of people would actually have benefited from a rise from £350k to £1M, but because people perceived that they might.

Same here - most people looking at this won't be in a care home, won't ever want to be in a care home (and likely will never end up in a care home). For them their desired route through to old age and final death has been altered massively, with their biggest asset (their home) brought into play. Currently it is not in play - surely you can see that effectively re-mortgaging your home that you proudly own outright, strived for decades to finally own outright by paying off your mortgage, so that bit by bit more and more is effectively owned by the state (to pay off your care debts) is as toxic as it comes.

It is one thing to have to sell of your home at a time when you no longer need it because you have moved into a care home. Quite another thing to see you home effectively, bit by bit, no longer being yours while you still need to live in it.

[ProfessorDavey]

No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?

Very few I imagine - and very few overall.

Over the past decade or so I've lost most of my relatives of both my parents and grant-parents generation, as has my wide (including her father with dementia). Of those just one (my 100 year old grandmother) went into a care home, where she died. Every other one (both my parents, all my other grandparents, my wife's father, loads of aunts, uncles etc) were all living at home when they died.

[ProfessorDavey]

No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?

Just found some data on this:

About 17% of people who die are in care homes at time of death - so the vast majority aren't.

But more tellingly from a political perspective when asked where people wanted to be when they died, 63% said 'at home', 28% wanted to die in a hospice, 8% in hospital and just 1% wanted to die in a care home. Yes, that's right, just 1%. People do not want to go into a home at the end of their lives - that's why this is so toxic - that desire to be able to stay in your own home at the end of your days in now dependent on that home, bit by bit, being given away. Currently that isn't the case. Surely you can see why this is a huge issue - people's desire's for the future are hugely important and any government that makes changes which makes it more difficult to attain that desire is going to find it politically tough.

[Nearly Sane]

Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy. I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.

Will Corbyn be condemning the IRA.

By the way what is the policy of Labour on Trident, they don't sound very convincing, maybe they are still waiting for Diane to do the Maths.

why is it that you have a habit about asking what about something irrelevant? You need to control your use of the tu quoque.

[jeremyp]

Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy. I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.

I'm sure they would, but when the the difference is being met by taxpayers, it's a bit hard to justify.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sure they would, but when the the difference is being met by taxpayers, it's a bit hard to justify.

In which case you can use the existing inheritance tax mechanism.

But the reality is that how much you are able to pass on is dependent on the nature of your ailments in later life and that seems inherently unfair.

Battle cancer for 15 years (at massive cost to the NHS) and your care is covered - you can leave up to your inheritance tax threshold to your kids without a penny being taken in tax - likely to be £650k is you are the surviving member of a couple.

Battle dementia for 15 years and you care will be considered social rather than medical care and you may end up only being able to pass on £100k, with the government taking the balancing half a million.

This just seems unfair to me. At least with inheritance tax all are treated equally.