To remind you of the story so far, the Conservative manifesto last week suggested that those requiring long-term old age care would be required to run down their assets to “a single capital floor, set at £100,000, more than four times the current means test threshold.” The implication is that households will have to pay a lot less than they do today. Whilst that is true of the current system, it omits the fact that under legislation already on the books “from April 2020, there will be a cap limiting the amount people will have to pay for their care and support”. Moreover, the threshold beyond which people receive no financial support is due to rise from £23,250 to £118,500 (these reforms were originally scheduled for 2016 but local authorities balked at the additional costs this would impose, hence the delay until 2020).
In other words, a significantly more favourable plan is already scheduled to come into play in 2020 than that proposed by the Conservatives. As it currently stands, someone who has lifetime care costs of £150,000 could
lose up to 90% of their accumulated wealth. Raising the support threshold and
imposing a cap significantly reduces this proportion. By contrast, the
Conservatives’ plan placed no such upper limit so that all but the final
£100,000 of an individual’s assets could be used to fund their care needs. I am
indebted to the FT’s economics correspondent, Chris Giles, for working out the
tax rates on assets in different care systems (see chart). What is evident is
the magnitude of the costs under the current system (the green area) versus the
proposals set out by the Dilnot Commission in 2010 (black line). Last week’s Conservative plans (red line) help those at
the lower end of the asset scale but they are far less favourable compared to what was proposed in 2010.
The idea of scrapping the cap caused an outcry for both good and bad reasons. The bad reason is the notion that today’s generation of pensioners be protected so that they can hand over their stock of assets to future generations. Whilst this may reflect an instinctive desire to help one’s offspring, there is no reason why today’s tax revenues should be used to ring-fence bequests to future generations. A better objection is that the absence of a cap promotes unfairness due to the fact that for any given wealth cohort some will be afflicted by illnesses which require extensive old age care whilst others will not. For example, an unfortunate pensioner who suffers from dementia may require many years of care whereas someone with the same assets who dies suddenly at the same age will not face the same care burden. There is no sense of social insurance: people are very much on their own.
Whether the reaction of the public and politicians was motivated more by the latter than the former matters less than the fact that the Conservatives responded to the groundswell of opposition by announcing they would indeed place an “absolute limit” on care costs (without saying what the limit would be). What is absolutely not true is the prime minister’s assertion that “nothing has changed from the principles on social care policy that we set out on our manifesto.” In fact, everything has changed. The principle of a cap means that we have some notion of risk pooling rather than one which forces individuals to bear full personal liability.
A more pertinent question is how this should be funded, which is the bit no-one talks about. The Dilnot Commission pointed out that there are three ways to fund old age care provision. The obvious way is to do what we do now – raise the additional revenue from general taxation, which will mean higher taxes. A second option would be to change the balance of spending away from other items and towards care provision. However, a third option would be to introduce a specific tax increase which should be paid “at least in part by those who are benefitting directly from the reforms. In particular, it would seem sensible for at least a part of the burden to fall on those over state pension age.” Dilnot further suggested that “it would be sensible to do so through an existing tax, rather than creating a new tax” which would most obviously suggest targeting inheritance tax.
I am not even averse to the idea of levying a specific tax in order to build up a social insurance fund, although governments are generally very bad at ring-fencing revenues for specific tasks. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the UK government clearly has to think more carefully about generational outcomes than it has up to now. The current pay-as-you-go option is not fit for purpose. But nor is a system which mitigates against a market for social insurance. There is plenty to ponder but it certainly will not be resolved before the election, and it is increasingly a problem which all industrialised countries have to face up to. Ageing societies don't come cheap.
The idea of scrapping the cap caused an outcry for both good and bad reasons. The bad reason is the notion that today’s generation of pensioners be protected so that they can hand over their stock of assets to future generations. Whilst this may reflect an instinctive desire to help one’s offspring, there is no reason why today’s tax revenues should be used to ring-fence bequests to future generations. A better objection is that the absence of a cap promotes unfairness due to the fact that for any given wealth cohort some will be afflicted by illnesses which require extensive old age care whilst others will not. For example, an unfortunate pensioner who suffers from dementia may require many years of care whereas someone with the same assets who dies suddenly at the same age will not face the same care burden. There is no sense of social insurance: people are very much on their own.
Whether the reaction of the public and politicians was motivated more by the latter than the former matters less than the fact that the Conservatives responded to the groundswell of opposition by announcing they would indeed place an “absolute limit” on care costs (without saying what the limit would be). What is absolutely not true is the prime minister’s assertion that “nothing has changed from the principles on social care policy that we set out on our manifesto.” In fact, everything has changed. The principle of a cap means that we have some notion of risk pooling rather than one which forces individuals to bear full personal liability.
A more pertinent question is how this should be funded, which is the bit no-one talks about. The Dilnot Commission pointed out that there are three ways to fund old age care provision. The obvious way is to do what we do now – raise the additional revenue from general taxation, which will mean higher taxes. A second option would be to change the balance of spending away from other items and towards care provision. However, a third option would be to introduce a specific tax increase which should be paid “at least in part by those who are benefitting directly from the reforms. In particular, it would seem sensible for at least a part of the burden to fall on those over state pension age.” Dilnot further suggested that “it would be sensible to do so through an existing tax, rather than creating a new tax” which would most obviously suggest targeting inheritance tax.
I am not even averse to the idea of levying a specific tax in order to build up a social insurance fund, although governments are generally very bad at ring-fencing revenues for specific tasks. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the UK government clearly has to think more carefully about generational outcomes than it has up to now. The current pay-as-you-go option is not fit for purpose. But nor is a system which mitigates against a market for social insurance. There is plenty to ponder but it certainly will not be resolved before the election, and it is increasingly a problem which all industrialised countries have to face up to. Ageing societies don't come cheap.
No comments:
Post a Comment