SOCIAL ‘NON-CARE’ !!
AMMUNITION FOR THE OPPOSITION
MAY AND HAMMOND AWARDED FIRST PRIZE FOR POLITICAL NAÏVETÉ
In an otherwise commendable election manifesto, and leaving the Winter Fuel Allowance aside for the time being, many Conservative Party supporters and others thinking of voting for that party for the first time, particularly the elderly, are extremely disappointed with Mrs May’s complete desertion of the previous Conservative proposals for funding long term care.
Described by the Bow Group, the oldest Conservative think tank and representing all strands of conservative opinion, as the biggest stealth tax in history, the Tory manifesto today advocated an increase in the means-tested threshold above which people are liable for their full care costs to £100,000- .
BUT significantly, and in a sweeping new move, the full value of the family home owned by the person needing care, will be taken into account in future in determining that person’s assets. So on the basis that the average home in Britain is valued at approx £215000 – , care costs could reduce this asset base to the £100000 – threshold in just under 3 years. At least 70% of us will require some form of care in our old age. 75% of over-65’s in the UK own their own homes. Few have substantial cash holdings.
This proposed new policy is not only unfair but in essence against all accepted Conservative Party values, particularly the incentive to accumulate wealth for the family. It means that we will be leaving most of our estate to the Government. Once people realize that most of their estate will pass to the Government, and not their families, the Tories stand to lose much electoral support.
This is a tax on death and each family’s inheritance. It can do nothing for middle and working class families who save all their lives to live in a decent home, the value of which can be passed on to their children.
As bombaychatterbox has argued before, Theresa May and Philip Hammond’s priority should be the funding of an alternative insurance system which will cover people’s residential and nursing care in their old age.
This blog has pushed for a ‘Social Care Fund’ which could be covered by a modest increase in taxation and initially funded by the Chancellor selling the taxpayer’s stake in Royal Bank of Scotland. Apparently he’s prepared to sell this disaster now at a loss and its estimated that this would bring in some £20bn. Rather than plough all of it into the NHS as has been argued by some, part could be used to put Social Care on a properly funded basis, with part going towards the funding of a ‘State Mortgage Corporation’. The latter would provide loans for first time buyers with modest means, and also finance developers in the building of low cost homes. The electoral benefits are obvious.
Theresa May is undoubtedly the best person to take this country into the Brexit negotiations and the difficult period afterwards, whatever the outcome. A great pity she and her Chancellor have not seen the electoral dangers in what really amounts to a no doubt unintended, but thoughtless, attack on the needs of the individual.
Mrs May you must reverse this death tax now !! It can only benefit the Conservatives’ political opponents. Let us return to the previously accepted Dilnot formula as the basis for the urgent development of policy on social care. Otherwise risk losing a large part of the grey vote!