You can be poor, whilst living in a house worth a hundred thousand.
One family member, going into care, could mean that the rest of the family has to sell up, to pay for the care, and their house could well be gone as a result.
The plan for England sounds simple - from 2023 no-one will pay more than £86,000 for the care they need for daily tasks such as washing, dressing and eating.
No longer will people rack up “catastrophic” costs, the government says.
But as always the devil is in the detail. Much will depend on your individual circumstances, but there are a number of reasons it’s not necessarily the silver bullet it may first appear.
Not all care costs will count towards the cap
The cap on care is just that - a limit on how much you pay for care.
There was no mention of it in the 33-page plan published - but the government confirmed to BBC News the daily living costs in a care home - those associated with food, energy bills and the accommodation - will not count towards the cap.
The government has not said how much people should be prepared to contribute for these daily living costs - care homes do not usually itemise them.
But previous incarnations of the cap - the coalition government first considered it - suggested people’s contribution to these living costs should be fixed at £12,000 a year.
That would mean when someone hits the cap they could still face £1,000 monthly bills for living costs.
In many ways, this is understandable - after all, they would be liable for living costs if they remained in their own home.
But it would mean - based on the average care home cost £36,000 a year - only £24,000 of the spending counting towards the cap once those £12,000 living costs are taken off.
That would mean it would take the average care home resident more than three and a half years to hit it.
But the problem is not many people live that long once they move into a care home.
Half die in little over a year, with three-quarters not making it past three years.
BJ hiding behind smoke and mirrors … 
A bit of history concerning the NI and NHS funding !
NI was first brought into being by the liberal government of Lloyd George in
the year 1911, when employed people had fourpence deducted from their
weekly wage which was also supplemented by their employer to the tune
of threepence making a total of sevenpence per week !
Later this was amended from a fixed payment to a graduated system dependent on the level of pay, and it was designated to be used for the
workers retirement pensions and becoming unemployed!
there was no NHS at that time so no provision was needed for that ?
These stoppages from workers wages plus the employers contribution
continued right through untill 1976, when it was merged with the general
fiscus!!
Surely this presupposes that the accumulated funds were existing at that
time as the fund would be impossible to run without funds??
So it would appear that in 1976 the government received and dispersed
whatever had accumulated in what was supposed to be a dedicated fund
for the benefit of the entire working class and spent It on , what ???
I have been unable yet to find the amounts involved and any details are
sketchy and hard to find .
The money involved though could be considerable because the NHS was
conceived and incorporated in the 1930s with a corresponding increase
in the workers stoppages !l
So, were we robbed ??
Maybe not because we have been able, so far, to claim our pensions and
other benefits!
But it begs the question , should pensions and health care be funded
by a dedicated fund for that purpose only ??
Donkeyman! 
@AnnieS, who’s talking about seizing assets Annie?
We are talking about paying taxes, not nationalisation ??
Donkeyman!
Are you sure about this Ted?
I haven’t seen the news today, but is that what they are saying?
They aren’t
You can’t make the big buck guys pay taxes. That has been proven. There are ways of structuring billionaire tax affairs to prevent that. If you have billions you can afford an army of experts to “tax plan”