Tories introduce house values into cost of home care. FAIR?

[Image: Getty].

It’s another bid to rob the elderly of everything they own.

Most senior citizens really don’t have much to show for their lives, other than perhaps the homes that they have bought and the contents of those homes.

Now the Tories are determined to take those things away from these people – in order to pay for them to receive care while staying in those homes!

Not only is it cruelty; it is vindictive cruelty.

Did you ever get the feeling that the Tory attitude is, “We gave them ‘homes fit for heroes’ after World War II, but that generation has died so we can go back to oppressing the poor”?

Is that a reasonable assumption?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


13 thoughts on “Tories introduce house values into cost of home care. FAIR?

  1. Paul Grayshan

    Scenario 1 – Not only under recent governments has it become impossible for young people to buy their own homes, now they will not be able to inherit homes from their parents either

    Scenario 2 – lots of clever accountants will now work out ways for older people needing care to pass on their wealth to successors before death so as to reduce their wealth to below £100K, so in fact the cost of care on local authorities and ultimately government will actually rise.

    Paul Grayshan

    1. disabledgrandad

      Depends on how you set that up, the Royal court of protection that runs so many of these poor peoples lives. Like my father, are relentless in finding money to give to the state. So nothing is passed onto the family despite a life time of working hard.

      My father the last of 10 who unlucky was left most of there money and bought his own house, thought he whould pass it onto his kids thought his will. BTW that’s all so much scrap paper after there through with it. Now is fast burning through every penny he has, as proper care cost a lot around 50k a year.

      Now don’t get me wrong i do not want a penny, he deserves the best care we can get him. But the principle of playing by the ‘rules’ and getting nothing out of it, No help from the state and no interest, just the stupid attitude of older people like disabled people have no worth in there eyes.

      So i ask what is the point? In playing there games there all rigged, for only the rich! I will not buy a house, and probably be in the poor house, being disabled if the Tories get there way…

      1. Zippi

        My mother said exactly the same thing, only today; how what she paid for her house (that’s right, it wasn’t given to her) is about 3 times its value and that’s only part of it. She might make most of that back now, if she sold it but what’s the point of that? She needs somewhere to live, which is why shoe slogged her guts out in the first place! Council tax increases for social care but where’s hers, when she needs it? The Tories are all about paying into the system so that they can take out. On Question Time, this even, some chap was saying that people should use their homes for payment! Hang on! If there’s a shortage of money, get those who took it out to pay for it, not those who paid in! [sigh]. There’s plenty of money for the needs of this country, sitting in the pockets of the wealthy who stole it from us!

  2. rupertrlmitchell

    The Tories are desperately scratching the bottom of the barrel in order to stay in power; trouble for them is that the bottom of the barrel has fallen through!

  3. Jacky

    Thing is unless social care is addressed poorer tax paying workers will end up paying for much richer people to be cared for and keep their assets. Which seems less fair to me than for a home to be sold – AFTER THE OWNER’S DEATH – to pay for extensive social care during their lifetime. If the richer elderly and ill don’t stump up to help pay for their care the younger and fitter will be forced to.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You’re a ‘divide and rule’ Tory, aren’t you?
      Poorer taxpaying workers won’t be paying for much richer people to be cared for and keep their assets – the richer people will be paying for their own care. That’s progressive taxation for you.
      So it is MORE fair than taking a person’s home away so they can’t leave it to their descendants.
      There’s plenty of money for this. Stop trying to create intergenerational division.

      1. Jacky

        Actually I’m a poorer worker, Mike, doing 45 hours a week for £8.00 p.h., and paying a lot of what I’m left with to rent a home with no hope in hell of ever owing one. If I owned a very valuable house I would not mind in the least for it to go towards my care if I needed it, assuming I actually manage to get to retirement. I am very happy for some of my tax to go to help the sick, disabled and needy, but a lot less so to enable people with homes worth many hundreds of thousands of pound to keep such an asset to hand on to somebody after they die as an inheritance rather than earned income – a thing I will never be in a position to do because I earn too little to ever secure a mortgage.

        And I am not a Tory.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Then you need to embrace the fact that universal care applies to everybody – including the people who have paid the most towards it.

  4. Dez

    Not clear if they will wait to sell the house if say one adult needs long term treatment, and subsequently passes over, leaving other partner who is healthy living still in the house with dependant children. Maybe Gov will add a covenant on the property deeds for their cut however if the second partner or dependants needs help later in life presume no more recovery from the estate unless the house value has increased in the meanwhile. Feels complicated in the execution of it but that’s never bothered the money grabbing Cons. I feel in my bones that this new money grab will make even responsible people, who are faced with extreme end of life situations, consider other alternatives such as trips to Switzerland. From my own parents end of life experiences dying on the NHS has not changed from Liverpool path to what every they now call it now ….. death by a thousand cuts I would describe it……wait till you see if for yourself on a NHS ward…. not so much Hospices who actually understand the needs of the patient and the family.

Comments are closed.