Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Personally I would prefer complete state funded care from taxation and much harsher death duties ( to reduce wealth inequality) and higher general taxation. But no one would vote for that
Exactly. If the tories think it is fair to leave people £100k to pass on then make that the inheritance tax policy, everyone gets left with £100k max after they die. Much fairer than just those with specific illnesses requiring specific care.
Would have to seriously cut down avoidance/put in place very tight controls but be interesting to see how society would change without money carrying on throughout generations.
Clearly not a vote winner though, even for those who will be dodging it.
theotherjonv
The funding you get is solely down to the assets you have and your degree of need not the illness . So no matter what illness you have if you end up in a care home or requiring care then you will pay for it if you have assets but you won't pay if you can't
One has to wonder, with her recent attacks on freedom, if her husband has recently invested in shares in VPN companies.
TJ, while I can see your view have you considered that the tories will try and sell off social care for the elderly to their cronies in the private sector. All that results in is a drop in service quality as the private companies put profit over quality.
Plus if the government isn't footing the bill then the private companies can crank the costs up for their own benefit with no one to stop them
I see Boris is making £350m into NHS claims again.
Apparently says Boris it's in the manifesto and May announced it.
Excellent.
Except no one so far has found it in the manifesto or May's speeches.
#OneMoreLie
BoardinBob - MemberTJ, while I can see your view have you considered that the tories will try and sell off social care for the elderly to their cronies in the private sector. All that results in is a drop in service quality as the private companies put profit over quality.
already done. Social care is only organised by councils. The actual care is done by for profit providers.
I see Boris is making £350m into NHS claims again.Apparently says Boris it's in the manifesto and May announced it.
I can't see any official documents to back that up, do you care to elaborate?
I can't see any official documents to back that up, do you care to elaborate?
There aren't any. But Bozo claimed otherwise on Peston this morning.
As you say, not simple. I think the issue for many is that you can't insure against dementia
This. The Tories may make noises about encouraging people to plan for old age, but the fact is that this makes it impossible. Unless by "planning" you mean spunk the lot on coke and hookers, since you can't leave it to your kids.
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. What about families who lose their main bread-winner? You do realise "the State" will just absorb it and it will go into painting the House of Commons toilets? What about people spending their entire lives paying taxes to "the State", only for "the State" to take even more when they die? What about "the State's" responsibility to it's citizens? You are suggesting that everything is ultimately owned by "the State", which is dangerous, to say the least. In your scenario, "the State" can't wait for people to die, so they can take their assets, so why assist pensioners with heating, bills etc? Hell, they may as well bring in forced euthanasia "for the good of "the State"".The whole "going to a random member of the public by lottery" is just as daft" Why the hell should families give up everything their spouse, or other relative, has worked hard to build? For example: My Gran died last December: My Mum and her brothers, spent a lot of time looking in on her, caring for her, taking her places. She owned her own home, she refused to go into a care home. She died at home, where she wanted to be. Why the hell should the State come in and take all that away?
I'm actually laughing to myself how absurd what you said is. Get a grip.
You're really laughing? Maybe you should put some smileys in or something because it sounds like you're spluttering bits of sandwich all over your keyboard as you mash the keys in a fit of frustration.
You seem to be labouring under the impression that life is somehow fair and people who have assets have acquired those assets because they are virtuous and deserving while those who don't are in that situation because they are somehow inferior in intellect and morals. It might surprise you to learn that often the opposite is true.
My parents are going to die some day. They own their house and it will come to me. I don't need it and wouldn't have a problem with it going to someone else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to give it away out of principle. However, if inheritance became a thing of the past I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Well giving away estates to random people is obviously a bit silly, but a large increase in IHT makes sense for all sorts of reasons. Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who's main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to give it away out of principle
Eh? But that's exactly what you were suggesting.
No smileys, no frustration, just dismay and your naivety.
You seem to be labouring under the impression that life is somehow fair and people who have assets have acquired those assets because they are virtuous and deserving while those who don't are in that situation because they are somehow inferior in intellect and morals. It might surprise you to learn that often the opposite is true.
And you seem to be labouring under the miscomprehension that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a cheating, lying crook. Quite the opposite is true.
Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances?
Wot DrJ said.
They let BoJo out without his carer again. Apparently he was also rifling though the interviewer's notes back stage trying to find out what questions he was going to be asked.
I keep expecting to see Malcom Tucker in the background whenever Boris appears.
My parents enjoyed a rise in house prices of around 70-100 fold. Not percent, fold.
Now ok that was over 40 years, but while they are certainly not crooked, they are clear they didn't work for that. They worked to pay the mortgage, but that accounted for very little in terms of their rise in assets.
They are somewhat embarrassed by the wealth they've accumulated.
a large increase in IHT makes sense for all sorts of reasons.
Perhaps, but that is not what is being proposed.
Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who's main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?
Not at all - the notion of inheritance is not new and is not particularly British If Chairman May wants to abolish it, go ahead, but at least be honest about it.
Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances?
That's the way general taxes work. The healthy subsidise the sick. I'm surprised an NHS employee needs this explaining to them.
tjagain - Member
Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances
Why stop at elderly care?
Can we force the middle class to use their assets to pay for their medical care before old age?
It'll be interesting to see what happens now that the Daily Heil is outraged at the idea that the wealthy should be hindered in entrenching inequality from generation to generation through inherited wealth?
So far Kim Yong May has a 100% record on caving in and doing whatever Paul Dacre tells her to do
DrJ - Member
Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances?That's the way general taxes work. The healthy subsidise the sick. I'm surprised an NHS employee needs this explaining to them.
This is not the same at all. Its not the person requiring care that it makes any difference to - its their children.
You prepared for a 3-5% increase in taxation then? Thats at current demand and demand is set to rise.
I want to see properly funded care of the elderly. You ( the general population) won't accept a rise in taxation so where is the money coming from? Also this already exists for care in a residential setting anyway.
Edit -= how about 100% inheritance tax over £100 000 then?
On a slightly different topic. Means testing of the winter fuel allowance is not going to happen in Scotland - nowt to do ( directly) with the SNP but because Ruth Davidson knows its a huge vote loser
This is not the same at all. Its not the person requiring care that it makes any difference to - its their children.
Umm - if I have to pay 10,000 quid for my cancer treatment, that's 10,000 quid my kids ain't getting. Money is money.
You prepared for a 3-5% increase in taxation then? Thats at current demand and demand is set to rise.
If that's what it costs, that's what it costs. Let's have the debate about whether we want a social system, or a devil-take-the-hindmost society.
Edit -= how about 100% inheritance tax over £100 000 then?
That would at least be fairer. Let's see if the Tories could stomach it!
Can't we build robots to look after old people? How hard could it be?
thecaptain - MemberAre we really becoming a nation of spongers who's main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?
It's more that housing is becoming ever more unaffordable for a lot of people and an inheritance is one of the ways they can get past that.
Can't we build robots to look after old people? How hard could it be?
Or just employ people at minumum wage who would not otherwise have a job in Poland or Romania.
Oh - hang on a mo ...
northwind - one of the ways the favoured few can get past it
Do you guys not realise that at the moment you have to pay for residential care if you can afford it? This is no major change. You also have to contribute to personal care in your own home in some circumstances. Again this is just extending a principle that has been in place for a generation to remove anomolies and to take it across the board.
In my area if you require MEDICAL care you get it free on the NHS. If you require SOCIAL care you have to pay for it if you have the money. Medical care being stuff you need a registered nurse or doctor for. Social care being stuff like washing and dressing and getting your meals cooked for you
I still have seen non one here make a coherent argument for the general taxpayer subsiding middle class childrens inheritances
I still have seen non one here make a coherent argument for the general taxpayer subsiding middle class childrens inheritances
That's cos there isn't one. There is however an argument for universal benefits provided to all by the state funded by general taxation, and that social care should be one of them. Seems to me that in an ageing society, there's going to be a major problem in future if the younger working population are going to have to care for their parents and grandparents, which is exactly what will happen as many will refuse to accept care in order to avoid paying for it. Even worse, many will not get any care and that will result in needless deaths and suffering.
And you seem to be labouring under the miscomprehension that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a cheating, lying crook. Quite the opposite is true.
I've never laboured under a miscomprehension before. It feels OK but ever so slightly wrong.
When you say 'quite the opposite is true' does that mean that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a faithful, truthful hero? Are the police aware of this?
I think that, as a society, we would benefit from a serious rethink about what inheritance is actually for. The question I always ask is what have the recipients of inheritance actually done to deserve financial compensation?
Nipper99 there are far more ways to avoid this tax than giving stuff away - trusts, limited companies, just the tip of the iceberg.
The question I always ask is what have the recipients of inheritance actually done to deserve financial compensation?
Just been born in the right place. You're right - it's unfair. It's also unfair that some parents consider, e.g., their children's education more than others, make informed decisions about vaccination, take their kids on cycling holidays, and a million other things.
To remove those inequalities I guess you will suggest that children be taken from their parents and raised in state orphanages May isn't called "The Child Catcher" for nothing!
Put another way - as a parent, one of my motives is to provide for my child. Should I just be taking it easy instead?
Brucewee my money, my house, my business, my decision..... not at any point is it anybody else's.
I am a socialist by the way but I also believe in my right to self determination.
I have contfibuted massively in tax tems and creating a few well paid jobs.
I have no inheritance coming my way and I don't have any kids nor will I have any, so I have no skin in the game here.
However these "middle class" elderly types that TJ seems to be in a froth about have paid into the system for most of their life: national insurance, income tax, vat, stamp duty, so yes, I think that entitles you to government (taxpayer) funded care in your final years if necessary. And yes I'm happy to pay extra tax to fund this.
As someone with no kids, I'm not complaining that my tax is being used to put my neighbour's 3 kids through the school system. By TJ's argument, why should my taxes pay for a middle class families schooling? They could afford private education!
We're on a slippery slope to means testing everything. The Tories will strip everything to the bone if we allow them
How do you propose to reduce immigration when you have failed completely at it before
Labour [i]did not[/i] "fail" previously - it simply wasn't an issue, so there was nothing to fail at.
It only became an "issue" around the time a chancer called Farage decided to try and make a name for himself, by which time the Tories were in charge.
My argument is given that no one wants to raise taxes to pay for good comprehensive social care for all ( and believe me its a huge sum - 14% of the countries budget right now at the inadequate levels we have and due to grow)That using peoples assets that they are going to pass onto their kids seems reasonable. Remember to the person receiving the care it makes little difference. Its only that their kids will only inherit £100 000 not the half million or so their parents house is worth.
I ain't frothing over this. Its not my favoured solution but its the only one possible right now.
How else do you suggest this is paid for? People will no accept the rise in taxation it costs
Good quality care of the type I want to provide for all would see a rise in taxation of perhaps 20% - all that so that middle class children like me get an inheritance that will simply increase inequality
£100 000 is plenty - most of us won't inherit until we are retired anyway - those nice middle class folk live into their 80s. I have 4 years until I retire. My parents show no sign of popping off yet.
How else do you suggest this is paid for? People will no accept the rise in taxation it costs
Well, if you start off accepting the Mail's assumptions as gospel, then you will arrive at some perverse conclusions.
tjagain - Membernorthwind - one of the ways the favoured few can get past it
It's not a favoured few, it's a lot of people. But I think you misunderstand the point I'm making- these aren't "spongers" waiting for an inheritance, these are people who have a way out of a shitty trap that a large chunk of their generation and the next will be stuck in. That's nothing to sneer at. And taking that lifeline away isn't going to do anything for all the other people in the same trap. Things are unfair for a hell of a lot of people but this doesn't really redress that- it just makes it worse for some of them.
Brucewee my money, my house, my business, my decision..... not at any point is it anybody else's.
When the time for inheritance comes along you'll be dead so none of it will be yours. Tell me, what have your beneficiaries done to make them more deserving than some kids who happened to be born to parents who died penniless? Bear in mind, you will be dead. The question isn't 'what have you done' it's 'what have they done'.
Just been born in the right place. You're right - it's unfair. It's also unfair that some parents consider, e.g., their children's education more than others, make informed decisions about vaccination, take their kids on cycling holidays, and a million other things.To remove those inequalities I guess you will suggest that children be taken from their parents and raised in state orphanages May isn't called "The Child Catcher" for nothing!
Put another way - as a parent, one of my motives is to provide for my child. Should I just be taking it easy instead?
I think I get what you're trying to say which is that I need to understand that life is unfair and some kids are just going to have advantages compared to others.
Well, I do. However, I don't think that the solution is to just give up and say, 'well, if you're poor, you're poor, deal with it.' It is difficult to make sure that parents support their kids properly and raise them in the best way possible. However, it is comparatively easy to limit the assets that can be passed on to people who have done nothing to earn it.
I know it's not fair for the state to take away the assets that you've worked all your life to amass but like you said, some things are just unfair.
By TJ's argument, why should my taxes pay for a middle class families schooling? They could afford private education!
This. Once upon a time society deemed that poor children weren't deserving of an education. The only kids who received one did so because their parents could afford it. Society at large decided that it would be beneficial for all if education was universal. We are possibly nearing the point where the same sort of decision needs to be made about how we care for our elderly and infirm.
I know it's not fair for the state to take away the assets that you've worked all your life to amass but like you said, some things are just unfair.
Not just unfair, but ultimately counterproductive I refer you to the examples in recent history where the state has attempted to regulate the minutiae of life in pursuit of an egalitarian ideal. Clue: none of them are extant.
DrJ - Member
How else do you suggest this is paid for? People will no accept the rise in taxation it costsWell, if you start off accepting the Mail's assumptions as gospel, then you will arrive at some perverse conclusions.
Nope - its what the UK public consistently say. Higher taxes to pay for better services is a good idea so long as someone else pays. the sums involved in social care are so huge that everyone would have to pay more. a lot more.
Most of peoples money (in terms of inheritance) is in their properties. If you knew the state would get it when you die nobody would bother buying properties. Properties would therefore be cheaper and only built to rent out (could be by state) Rent would be cheaper as everyone would be renting. People could then use their money in their lifetime rather than amassing it in a property that goes when they die.
Silly house price problem solved right there.
Not just unfair, but ultimately counterproductive I refer you to the examples in recent history where the state has attempted to regulate the minutiae of life in pursuit of an egalitarian ideal. Clue: none of them are extant.
You've lost me. Are you talking about inheritance tax or did you make the leap straight to totalitarian regimes in general?
Maybe it would help if you gave me an actual example, preferably one that relates to inheritance tax.
By TJ's argument, why should my taxes pay for a middle class families schooling? They could afford private education!
this is not my arguement at all. You can ignore the point I am making and pretend its something else if you want
My taxes should pay for education for all because it benefits society at large as well as those individuals.
Paying for old folks social care out of their general taxation only benefits the children of middle class parents. It has no benefit to society at large nor does it have any benefit to the people receiving the care.
the two are in no way comparable
I ask again - are you willing to pay 15 - 20% more of your income in taxes so a minority of middle class people get an inheritance of more than £100 000?
Are you talking about inheritance tax or did you make the leap straight to totalitarian regimes in general?
No great leap from confiscation of property to totalitarianism.
I would post something erudite and useful to the conversation. But I'm too busy studying ways to avoid paying inheritance tax.
I ask again - are you willing to pay 15 - 20% more of your income in taxes so a minority of middle class people get an inheritance of more than £100 000
A couple of pages ago it was a 3% increase in tax. Now it's 15% to 20%? You're going full Diane Abbot here TJ 😉
I think the real issue is you dislike inherited wealth
A couple of pages is a long time, you can't hold some to account over what they typed that long ago.
It doesn't benefit society to provide medical care of any sort to people beyond retirement. Maybe the potential savings are even greater?
You make the assumption that society will pay for poor people social care - this is being treat as a given?
So you expect people who have worked hard and gone without to subsidise others ( again)
I have inherited nothing (actually an overdraft) I have had no privileged inheritance and come from a proper piss poor background and invested most of my money in property, business and my 4 kids university education. For this to be taken away from me in my final years even after contributing literally millions in tax? Is that reasonable - not asking for anything special just equality.
[quote=oldmanmtb ]For this to be taken away from me in my final years even after contributing literally millions in tax? Is that reasonable - not asking for anything special just equality.
Now they're also suggesting uneducating people's kids to pay for their social care? 😯 That really is a step too far.
No great leap from confiscation of property to totalitarianism.
So any taxation means we're on our way to totalitarianism?
So any taxation means we're on our way to totalitarianism?
No, but deciding overnight to introduce a 100% tax rate for some arbitrary group is a pretty good start.
The question opens up whether it is a realistically insurable risk - difficult to future proof the bracket of exposure I suppose, but then so are similar long term investments such as pension annuities. I suspect that behind the scenes, these discussions will have already taken place.
Want to ensure your kids get your houses full value if you need care costs - insure against it.
TandemJeremyPaying for old folks social care out of their general taxation only benefits the children of middle class parents. It has no benefit to society at large nor does it have any benefit to the people receiving the care.
What about the severely disabled or children born with conditions that will result in a very short life expectancy.
Who should pay for them? Caring for them may not "benefit to society at large". If they're born into a middle class family, should the family pay for their care or the state?
Actually, don't want an answer
[quote=DrJ ]So any taxation means we're on our way to totalitarianism?
No, but deciding overnight to introduce a 100% tax rate for some arbitrary group is a pretty good start.
Is it really true that totalitarian regimes start with tax reform?
Paying for old folks social care out of their general taxation only benefits the children of middle class parents. It has no benefit to society at large nor does it have any benefit to the people receiving the care.
😯
Either I'm not understanding your nuanced argument, or you've changed. Looking after the old and infirm has no benefit to society at large? Is that really what you're arguing? I'm confused.
I think he means only the poor should receive care for the elderly through taxation. Not that there's no benefit to care provision to the middle classes.
Either I'm not understanding your nuanced argument, or you've changed. Looking after the old and infirm has no benefit to society at large? Is that really what you're arguing? I'm confused.
It's like something lifted straight out the Tory manifesto!
I think he means only the poor should receive care for the elderly through taxation.
Ah right, so it's a universalism vs means-testing argument. In which case I refer to my earlier post. I see no real distinction between medical care and social care TBH. Each is required by a person for no other reason than bad luck. If we see fit to provide health care free at the point of need, then i see no reason why we shouldn't provide social care too.
To be honest, I'm just guessing at his intended meaning.
Does seem quite Tory from what I'm picking up from his posts. Those that can afford decent care go private, the poor can have whatever is left over.
I ask again - are you willing to pay 15 - 20% more of your income in taxes so a minority of middle class people get an inheritance of more than £100 000A couple of pages ago it was a 3% increase in tax. Now it's 15% to 20%? You're going full Diane Abbot here TJ
I think the real issue is you dislike inherited wealth
Not clear from me at all Muddled up my numbers with some double counting. Sorry.
3% on tax with the existing numbers of people requiring care if they all get it for free. Numbers of people receiving care will double in a decade or two so 6% at the current frankly rubbish standard of care and there is a huge problem with recruiting staff to do the care because of the low pay and the amounts of home care granted is inadequate. Want a decent standard of care for the future with decently paid staff then increase that again to 10% +
At the moment those who do home care get below the minimum wages and people in real need get 4x 15 min visits in a day and none of those visits in the night or after 8pm. Its inadequate and unsustainable
Care homes also are in crisis as the state pays around £500 a week for care. care costs are £600 - 700 per week. Care providers use fee paying people to subsidise state paid
I am one of the people who stand to benefit. I have an inheritance coming of a nice middle class house. I am quite happy however if this is used to pay for my parents care
edit - to increase total tax take by 10% means we pay 10% more tax total which is a 20% increase from 40pence in the pound of income to 50 pence in the pound of income
so to increase taxation by 10% to get the amounts we need would be an increase to the individual of 20% ie 1/5th more tax.
Either I'm not understanding your nuanced argument, or you've changed. Looking after the old and infirm has no benefit to society at large? Is that really what you're arguing? I'm confused.
those elderly people get the care if its paid for by taxation or from assets. It makes no difference to them where the care is funded from. Paying it out of taxation rather than from assets has no benefit to society at large
I still have seen non one here make a coherent argument for the general taxpayer subsiding middle class childrens inheritances
How many kids do you have?
I'd be interested to know how many elderly have a house and/or assets worth more than £100k. I'd guess it's the majority and I'd doubt a lot of them would consider themselves as wealthy
I also foresee a lot of elderly people offing themselves to ensure their assets go to their children rather than paying for their care. Even more worryingly I can see some unscrupulous kids smothering an elderly parent with a pillow to avoid their inheritance being eroded!!!
dazh - Member
I think he means only the poor should receive care for the elderly through taxation.Ah right, so it's a universalism vs means-testing argument. In which case I refer to my earlier post. I see no real distinction between medical care and social care TBH. Each is required by a person for no other reason than bad luck. If we see fit to provide health care free at the point of need, then i see no reason why we shouldn't provide social care too.
Yup - I agree. the problem is no one want to pay the huge amounts of extra tax
I would prefer much higher taxation to pay for decent services provided free of chrge from the state and use inheritance taxes to deal with wealth inequality. Shame no one will pay the extra tax.
I've not read up on any of this, but let's say my house was worth £200,000. Could I borrow £100,000 using the house as collateral, spend it in my dotage, then my daughter inherits the house, pays off the £100,000 and inherits the rest? My "assets" would be under the limit so I'd get free care?
In theory yes. However there are clauses in the law that deem that if you have given away assets to avoid paying then you are considered to still have the assets - so yo would lose the £100 000 anyway. This does happen
But I wouldn't have given them away. I'd have spent them.
Do you guys realise that at the moment if you go into a care home your assetts are used to pay for the care. But if you receive homecare only your income is considered to assist with the costs. tories already changed the amount that is disregarded from (IIRC) £7000 to £100 000
The tory proposal is that this is changed so that home care is treated in the same way as residential care but the house is not sold - just a charge put on the property so when you die the state gets its chunk
scotroutes - MemberBut I wouldn't have given them away. I'd have spent them.
Think you would get away with that you profligate wretch 😉
Do you guys realise that at the moment if you go into a care home your assetts are used to pay for the care
Yes, but then those in my family in care are already private. Which I'm guessing is the Tories real intent.
There is no state ( or almost none) residential care nowadays. Long term social care was privatised 25 years ago. MOney or no money - you go into private care homes. State pays £500 per week to put people in there. Private payers pay £1000 a week to subsidise the state paid people. as costs are around £600 - 700 a week
Its getting harder and harder to find care homes willing to take people being state funded because of the shortfall in funding and care homes are finding it harder and harder to recruit staff because they can't pay them enough. Pay rates are around 30% less than NHS
tjagain - Member
scotroutes - Member
But I wouldn't have given them away. I'd have spent them.Think you would get away with that you profligate wretch
Hey, I've given this than 5 minutes thought and apparently come up with a wheeze already. What chance it would survive some accountants scrutiny?
the tory proposal is no different to what we have now for residential care simply extended to cover home care. Not many folk are able to avoid it as you would have to do this before you needed care and get all the money spent.
If you spoend it on "things" you could be deemed to be attempting to avoid care cost thus still forced to pay it. I know of one family where the parents mortgaged thier house and paid off the daughters mortgage in an attempt to avoid paying for care. the daughter was forced to remortgage and pay it back to pay for care.
You all do realise that this system of paying for care using asserts has been used for those requiring care in care homes for 25 years? apart from in Scotland where its a bit more complicated 'cos the scottish government pays a part of the costs for all. They pay for the "nursing" component of nursing home care but not the "social" part
Tjagain I am sure there will be a whole new industry around this.
Ninfan actually makes a pretty good point: if you're certain you want to leave the house etc to your next of kin, then self-fund some form of insurance to pay for your care. Sure, it'll be expensive, but you'd keep the house.
On the more public line of funding though, there are many things that government chooses to spend our taxes on. Some of these are more sensible than others. Perhaps if a question was asked of whether we need four new nuclear missile submarines or to adequately pay for the care of our elderly loved ones we might get somewhere, especially if it was made clear that the only way to do both was that those who have houses to sell do so when the time times to pay for care.
oldmanmtb
In what way? this is the system that has been running for 25 years. Just extended to home care as well as residential care. Even in home care you pay part of the costs - its merely income that is taken into account not assets for homecare at the moment
I really think some of you are under a huge misapprehension about how the care system works and the costs associated with it
The system is close to collapse because of the lack of finance. In my area we cannot get the staff to provide the homecare.