The post you are reporting:
I have an OAP client in Buckland Estate, incidentally, for whom such a solution would be ideal. Her son is actually my client, on her behalf. I have provided a solution but this scheme would have been better for her and him. The son could have paid the £8k when mum was 65 to protect his inheritance and ensure that his mum could have the care needed when needed. Win -win. Existing schemes are much more complex and often this complexity puts people off as a result.
The truth is that the rich wont bother with this scheme, they can afford £30k a year from capital/income or combination for the average 3 years care needed.
I see all kinds of people in my job, a few wealthy but most not, and this scheme is the best idea I have seen yet to deal with this problem for all kinds of people.
I expect there to be sophisticated savings schemes to be developed to help people save up for this though there are a great many who will be able to pay this from pension lump sums or ISA savings instead. I would also expect there to be 'easy' equity release schemes developed to fund this in a pain free way. I would not mind betting that there will be ways devised for all home owners to benefit wherever they live, whatever the value of their home, whatever income and whatever capital they have.
Those who have nothing when they retire will be in no different a position then than they are now. They will get their LTC paid for by the taxpayer as they do now.
No-one loses out on this voluntary scheme, no-one is worse off as a result, no taxpayers money is involved either. It is imaginitive and I just wish I had this option for clients years ago. What I do have are much more expensive options than this one, all of which will still be available (immediate care annuities and so on) for those who do not take advantage of the age 65 option.
Why are you so against choice and so against people being able to pass on their modest savings/investments and property to their children?