The grey greedies

The government has finally unveiled three options for reforming the way care for the elderly is financed in England. Each of the proposals attempts to address the perceived unfairness of the present system, under which those with financial assets above a relatively modest level (currently about £22,000) are expected to pay for their own car, while those with less money get government help. It's unlikely that there will be any changes made before the general election.

As I've written here before, I've had personal experience of how the present system works in the last couple of years. When my aunt had to go into care, a quick tally of her assets revealed that she had less than the threshold level, so her care was almost fully paid for by the state. In my mother's case, her assets were above the threshold, so she had to pay for her own care. In both cases the care was excellent.

I didn't and still don't find the principle here objectionable, although the £22,000 figure seems rather arbitrary and possibly open to abuse. Many years ago a neighbour of my mother's was looking for help with care costs and was found to be just over whatever limit applied in those days. The social worker advised him to splash out on a round-the-world cruise and apply again when he got back. (He indignantly declined to do so).

But a lot of people do seem to object in principle. One lady quoted in the press this week thought her father should get free care because "he spent 34 years in the RAF", which I would have thought was relevant only if he was (a) conscripted and (b) unpaid. (Still, 34 years?? Even Biggles didn't manage that). Mostly, though, the objections centre on the need for the elderly to sell their homes to pay for care costs. The RAF gent's daughter, herself in her 60s, came right out and said it: when the time comes that she needs care, she wants the taxpayer to fork out for it, so that she can pass her home on to her daughter!

There is no basic human right to pass the family home onto your descendants while asking other people, who may well be worse off than you, to pay your bills. If you insist on that, you're not just asking the state to pay for your care: you're asking it to buy your house from you and give it to your heirs. Many people who end up in care homes spend a decade or more living there: are their family homes to be allowed to sit empty for all that time so that the heirs can claim them when their loved one finally passes on? If that's the case, given the aging population and rising life expectancies, we could have a large proportion of the country's housing stock sitting idle before too long. Then, I'd guess, there will be pressure to allow the putative heirs to move in even before the death of their relative. Ah, the British obsession with home ownership!

A couple of decades ago, New Zealand ran into severe budget problems and was forced into radical spending cuts. The biggest objections came from the cosily entitled elderly, but the Government was in such dire straits that it had no choice but to face them down. They became stigmatised as the "grey greedies". The care issue is likely to be only one among many where the grey greedies try to throw their weight about in the UK in the next few years. This particular greybeard won't be joining them.