Tony HazellFeb 28 2018

Our care funding problem boils down to tax

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
comment-speech

The challenge is massive, the financial burden is potentially huge. Yet it is an issue which politicians consistently duck and fudge.

When New Labour was swept into power in 1997 it announced a Royal Commission on Long Term Care.

This reported two years later but its main recommendations were roundly ignored by a government that was throwing money in practically every other direction.

The main recommendations of the Royal Commission of Long Term Care were roundly ignored by a government that was throwing money in practically every other direction.

More than a decade later The Dilnot Commission on Funding of Care and Support published in July 2011.

This suggested a cap of around £35,000 on each individual’s contribution to their care and increasing the means-testing threshold to £100,000.

It might just as well not have bothered in our straitened times.  

Against this background of political inaction, Royal London has suggested a new tax-incentivised care pension or care insurance (the latter sounds rather too much like a reinvented annuity for my tastes).

The difficulty with these suggestions is that those who have sufficient funds to buy such products would probably also have the funds to pay for their own care should the need arise.

Most would probably rather take the risk and retain the possibility of handing money to their spouse or children rather than to an insurance company. 

The care funding problem comes from those who cannot afford to pay – and are therefore highly unlikely to be able to prefund by any method. 

If you are on a low income any money in a pension will be needed to fund retirement.

Money is not going to magically appear in the care system from persuading the wealthy to fund in advance rather than paying for it as they go.

In the end the only realistic way to make sure every elderly person receives dignified care when they need it may be through taxation. 

The question is: would people stomach a specific care tax or hypothecation using an existing tax?

For this to happen politicians would have to be honest with the electorate and engage in an adult cross-party debate to reach a sensible consensus without petty political point scoring.

Sadly, in the current climate this seems highly unlikely. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cold-calling ban is a good start

The government is scurrying around trying to find something to distract its back-benchers from Brexit.

Last week, it was tuition fee changes to appeal to younger voters who stuck two fingers up to her party at the last election.

Well, here is an idea, Prime Minister. How about doing something for those who actually voted for you – such as an immediate ban on pension cold calling.

The work and pensions select committee said in December that a ban could be put in place by the summer if there were the political will – but as yet there does not seem to be any. 

Apparently almost £200m of pension savings were stolen by fraudsters over the past year.

The FCA investigated 157 attempts to clone companies with household names by firms having their names used and websites cloned.

A cold-calling ban will not stop criminals – especially those operating from overseas. But it will stop those operating on the fringes of legality.

More importantly it would allow regulators, government and industry to send a simple unequivocal message: All cold calls are scams. Hang up and feel free to use whatever colourful language springs to mind.

Cloning is a more complex issue. If an investor believes the contact is from a company they already deal with how can they know it is legitimate?

It seems that in some cases when large sums are moving from a client’s investments not enough questions are being asked and not enough advice given.

Companies must understand they are not just protecting their clients, their corporate reputation is on the line.

It is one thing to be targeted by cyber criminals, it is another to be seen as easy pickings.

Perhaps it needs something to focus minds – such as making investment firms automatically cough up at least 50 per cent of any loss in every fraud case unless they demonstrate beyond all doubt that they took every feasible step to prevent the fraud.

____________________________________________________________________________

Morbid details

I was intrigued to see that a man found guilty of conspiring to defraud a funeral plan company of more than £120,000 was given a three-month curfew from 9pm to 6am.

Was the judge concerned that the crook might progress from funeral plan fraud to grave robbery? We can only speculate.

Tony Hazell writes for the Daily Mail's Money Mail section