But are they not saying that

once anyone assets are at £100k or below then all care costs will be met by the state?

So for example if you don't own a house you are unlikely to have to pay care costs. If you have a house worth £200k then the maximum you will have to contribute towards your costs is £100K in equity (if you defer it) but if you own a house worth £900k and you live and need care for long enough you could run up a debt to the state of £800K.

That's how I read it. The difference though is that people are going to have to contribute towards care at home in the same manner they currently have to pay if they go into a home. Presumably the theory is that this will allow the government to engage care providers to provide that care at home on the basis that they have (to put it crudely) "security" for the costs by virtue of their equitable share in people's estates. Apologies if I am misunderstanding it completely - am not an expert in social/elderly care!

Posted By: Jim, May 18, 17:07:58