How to fund care and support for the elderly

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has published a detailed paper on how the proposals of the Dilnot Commission on care and support for the elderly can be funded:

The Dilnot Commission proposed changes which would involve a degree of co-payment between individuals and the state, and a much less harsh meanstest on assets than in the current system. The proposals would cost money – £1.7 billion a year in the short term.

The main beneficiaries of these changes would be pensioners with higher levels of income or significant assets. Dilnot therefore suggested that any tax rises or benefit cuts designed to pay for the proposals should be focussed on this group of better off pensioners.

In a new report funded by the Nuffield Foundation, IFS researchers look at how pensioner incomes have evolved in recent years, how the tax and benefit system provides additional support for pensioners and
how it could be reformed to raise additional revenue from this group. Any such changes would of course be painful, and may not be the best way to fund the Dilnot proposals; but money could be found whilst also making the tax and benefit system more coherent in the way it affects pensioners.

The full paper can be read here and there is an accompanying press release from the IFS here.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • “…the government will sign up to the funding cap principle when it publishes its White Paper on Wednesday, but ministers will not make any pledges on specific figures because there is no agreement yet on how to pay for it.” –

    Time for some political courage, backed up by all the social care charities calling for this.

    The IFS give many sensible options but my first preference would be to scrap the tax-free lump sum which is really, really regressive and goes against the whole point of pensions. Use the money to fund these reforms. Job done.

    That said, I’m sure Labour will be quick to demand that this is funded but oppose any specific means of funding. Is there any issue that’s too important for stupid party politics and media hysteria?

  • DAVE WARREN 9th Jul '12 - 10:00pm

    They just aren’t getting to grips with this issue at all.

    If you have care whether you pay for it or not it is almost always provided by private companies and is of poor quality.

    These companies are making big profits out of a ‘market’ where they can’t lose.

    The people who lose are the ones in need of care and the workers who are employed by these firms.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    @ Joe, Meant to add this this link. There are lots of similar studies which are easily found if you Google the key words.
  • Peter Martin
    @ Joe, “We might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did.” Or we might not....
  • Alex Macfie
    @Peter: The electoral politics was a lot more complex than that, as I think you know perfectly well. There was no great collective decision by the "electorate" ...
  • Peter
    @Alex - I was referring to those in the Tory party who tried to scupper the result of their own government's referendum. The electorate did not forgive them. T...
  • Peter
    @William - To put your billions of tonnes into perspective, it is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and that c...