In reply to cragtaff:
> But there may be two people in identical rooms receiving identical care in the same care home. They both spent their lives earning exactly the same. One saved carefully, the other spent everything without a care. How can that be fair?
Let's consider that it will make pretty little difference to *them*. They are likely beyond having alternative ways of spending the money.
Thus, whether the funding comes from their house/estate, and they pass little on to their kids, or whether it is paid for by the state, and they pass on a house or nice legacy to the kids, makes not much difference to them.
But it does make a big difference to the kids. So the "fairness" you're asking about is whether it is fairer that the state should pay, so that those with parents who have saved should benefit from the inheritance.
But which family you're born into is a lottery. some will be born into families that can leave an expensive house for the kids to inherit, and some can expect to inherit very little whatever.
So really, this whole debate is really about whether middle-class, middle-aged people who may be pretty well off can look forward to a substantial inheritance, rather than risk it being swallowed up by care-home fees.
And should we raise taxes to ensure that such people do get their inheritance?
Well, as someone who could very well benefit from such an inheritance, I'd say no -- I just can't see that ensuring that middle-class, middle-aged people get a substantial inheritance is a priority for government spending.
Sorry everyone, I think that elderly people being expected to sell their homes to fund care, if needed, is the right policy.