Originally Posted by Osem

The answer is going to be that people have to pay more by hook or by crook AKA tax. As the bank of mum and dad is forced to step in more to help their kids get on the housing ladder, reduce student debts etc, including downsizing themselves, there's going to be even fewer people with assets left after so doing which are sufficient to pay for all their social care when it's needed.

There's not much of an incentive to save and accrue assets if you believe that when the time comes you may have nothing to pass on to your children because you'll have to pay for all your care and sell your house to do so. Far more sensible to help them out early on (housing prices are going up much faster then investment returns) and thereby reduce your assets because self-funders are all too often being charged far more for the same standard of care as those being funded by the LAs. They're effectively subsidising the system.

I think the only long term answer is some form of social care insurance people are required to pay into throughout their lives but that idea will go down like a lead balloon until the system we have grinds to a halt.