Care for the old has to be paid for by someone

SIR – Younger people have been complaining for years that pensioners are unfairly protected from cuts, while they bear the brunt.

Now that pensioners are asked to pay more for their care if they can, some are complaining that their expected inheritance is being eroded.

Money does not grow on trees and someone has to pay for care. Gillian Lurie

Westgate-on-sea, Kent

SIR – Theresa May has been lambasted both for the proposed “dementia tax” and for the subsequent U-turn on the care-cap policy (report, May 23).

Critics should bear in mind that care in the current system is not free, and never has been. Older people with savings over £23,250 must pay for all of their care. If one needs a care home, this sum includes the value of one’s house. Only the very poorest older people get state assistance in a system beset by opaque rules and inequity.

The manifesto pledge brought the asset threshold to £100,000 (including the value of one’s house) both for home and residential care. It promoted deferred payment so that, while people would (as now) pay for care, they would keep more of their assets, and care payments would only come from their estates.

The proposal wasn’t perfect, but it was an improvement on the status quo. The cap will add a welcome upper limit, but we do not yet know where it will be drawn. If it is too high, only a handful of older people will benefit. We ought therefore to be cautious about the “victory” this U-turn represents. Claudia Wood

Chief Executive, Demos London SE1

SIR – If Mrs May persists in talking about “my manifesto”, she risks losing my vote. An election manifesto is owned by a party as the basis on which its candidates stand for election. To personalise a manifesto is dangerous, as evidenced by the social care U-turn. John Kellie

Pyrford, Surrey