• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Social Care Proposals


Jul 5, 2007
I'm really hoping someone can explain this to me because I don't understand it.

Social care (excluding accommodation costs) will be capped at £75k per person and additional help will be provided for those with assets worth less than £123k. Any additional cost will be picked up by the taxpayer. This will be (apparently) paid for by dragging more people into inheritance tax.

Our esteemed Deputy PM says this is to end the "scandal" of people having to sell their house or spend their life savings to pay for their care. I don't get it.

Isn't the point of life savings and property equity to fund retirement and care in old age? I perfectly understand that people want to build something to pass on to their children but this is simply shifting the asset run down from the point that care is required to death; it won't be necessary to sell the house for care but it will when the inheritance tax bill comes in so the children won't inherit anyway.

I just don't understand it at all. This is from the DPM that thinks we should have a mansion tax and that social mobility is too low. He then advocates underwriting the asset rich with taxpayer money so that they may maximise the inheritence their children receive.

It is perfectly right that those who aren't able to pay receive support with care. There is a discussion to be had about incentives and the fact that longer term insurance measures should be put in place to facilitate that rather than have the taxpayer pick up the tab. These proposals though are effectively a step towards the nationalisation of the care industry that benefits the richest so that their children can inherit the benefits of a twenty year housing price bubble.

It has been done of course because the eldest vote in the greatest numbers. It is shameless politics that does nothing to advance the long-term interests of the taxpayer.