Money, in brief

In England, treatment in a hospital is free at the point of use. Help with washing, dressing and getting through the day is not: it is means-tested by the local council. [1]

A council pays most of the bill only when a person's assets are below GBP 23,250. Above that line the person pays the care home or the care agency themselves. [1][51]

Move into a care home and the value of the house counts towards that figure, unless a partner or a dependent still lives in it. Get the same care at home and the house is not counted. [1]

George and Jean Cooke, from Derbyshire, spent more than GBP 60,000 of their own money on care after George, who is 85, had a stroke last year. [1]

NHS Continuing Healthcare pays the whole bill for people with the most complex needs. National figures for the first three months of 2026 show about one application in six was judged eligible. [1]

Giving money or a house to relatives before an assessment can be judged a deliberate deprivation of assets. There is no seven-year rule here, and no time limit at all. [1]

Councils in England spend about GBP 32bn a year on adult social care, and requests for publicly funded care reached 2m in 2024-25, up from 1.8m a decade earlier. [2]

A GBP 86,000 lifetime cap on what one person pays was announced in 2021, delayed from 2023 to 2025, and then cancelled by the chancellor in 2024. [1][3]

Louise Casey, who is running the UK government's review, says the divide between healthcare and social care does not exist for the public and is built on institutional definitions. She contrasted the response to dementia with the drive against cancer. [4]

Andy Burnham, Britain's prime minister, has asked Casey to bring her recommendations forward to 2027. His ministers say there are no plans to revive a charge on people's estates after death, the idea he proposed as health secretary in 2010. [3][5]

On an average day about one hospital bed in ten in England holds someone well enough to leave but with no care arranged at home, at an estimated GBP 2.7bn a year. [3]

Free personal care for everyone in England would cost around GBP 19bn a year, on one of four options the BBC costed. [1]

Why it matters. Casey's first report lands this autumn, and the thing to watch is whether it names who pays, because the UK Treasury has not promised any new money and every attempt since 1999 has stopped at that question. [5][3]

From this tax year American gamblers can deduct only 90% of their losses against their winnings, a change tucked into the tax law passed in 2025. [14] Until now losses could be set against winnings in full, so somebody who won and lost the same amount owed nothing. [15] Win $400 and lose $300 and only $270 of the loss now counts. [14] Some members of Congress are trying to repeal the provision. [14]

Why it matters. It creates a tax bill on money nobody kept. The people it hits hardest are frequent bettors, whose yearly wins and losses are both large.

Deducting a gambling loss in the United States requires itemising deductions instead of taking the standard one, which is $16,100 for a single filer for 2026 and $32,200 for a married couple filing together. [15] Most filers take the standard deduction, so their losses count for nothing while every win is still income. [14] Professional gamblers are treated as a business and can deduct on a different form. [14] Prizes from game shows and sweepstakes are taxed as ordinary income under the same rules, and the same 90% limit applies to losses. [16]

Why it matters. Two people with identical bets pay different tax, decided by whether their other deductions are big enough to itemise.

The 2025 US tax law set one reporting threshold across gambling types: a payer must send a W-2G form to the winner and to the tax office at $2,000. [14] The old triggers were $600 for sports and horse betting, $1,200 for bingo and slots, $1,500 for keno and $5,000 for poker tournaments. [14] Where a win tops $5,000 and pays at least 300 times the stake, 24% is withheld on the spot. [14]

Why it matters. The form is how the tax office learns about a win. Raising the threshold changes what it sees, not what is owed.

An advertised lottery jackpot is not cash sitting in a vault. It is what the prize pool would pay out if it were invested and handed over in 30 instalments, starting with one payment and 29 more that each rise 5%. [19] Take the cash instead and the sum is far smaller: a recent $1.786bn Powerball prize had a cash value of $826.4m. [17] Mega Millions, the other big US game, raised its ticket to $5 in April 2025 and its smallest starting jackpot to $50m. [19][20]

Why it matters. The headline number and the cheque are two different amounts, and the gap is 29 years of interest that a cash winner never collects.

American lottery agencies withhold 24% of a prize above $5,000 for federal tax. [18] A jackpot is taxed at the top federal rate, 37% for 2026 on income above $640,600 for a single filer, so the winner owes roughly another 13% when the return is filed. [17] On a $10,000 prize the withholding is $2,400 and the winner takes home $7,600 before anything else. [18]

Why it matters. A payment that looks like the tax bill is only a deposit against it, and the rest arrives months later.

Most American states treat lottery winnings as income and tax them, at rates that generally run from about 3% to nearly 11%. [17][21] New York City residents pay a further 3.876% on top of the state's 10.9% withholding. [17] A handful of states tax winnings not at all, and Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada and Utah do not sell Powerball tickets in the first place. [22][17]

Why it matters. The same numbers on the same night are worth different amounts depending on the address of the person holding the ticket.

Medicare, the US health scheme for older people, charges higher premiums to people with higher incomes through a surcharge called IRMAA. [24] It is set from the tax return of two years earlier, so a windfall in 2026 leaves 2026 and 2027 premiums untouched and raises the bill for the whole of 2028. [23] Taking a prize as yearly payments instead can hold the surcharge in place for years. [23] The surcharge can be appealed if income has since fallen because of a life-changing event, such as retirement or the death of a spouse. [25]

Why it matters. A one-off year of income reaches forward into a bill two years later, which is when most people have stopped connecting the two.

Net price is what a family actually hands over once grants and scholarships that are never repaid have been taken off the advertised figure. [26] Brookings, a US research institute, collected prices from the calculators every college must publish and found net prices lower in 2025-26 than six years earlier for every income group. [26] For families in the lowest quarter, around $45,000 of income, they are roughly 15 to 30% below 2019-20. [26] Sticker prices are also below their 2019-20 level once inflation is taken out. [26]

Why it matters. The number in the news is the one almost nobody pays, and the one families pay has been moving the other way.

Average tuition and fees at an American public four-year college run about $12,000 a year, or about $26,000 with a room and food, against the $100,000 figures quoted for a few private universities. [29] Aid from states, the US federal government and the colleges themselves takes an average of $10,000 to $12,000 off that. [29] After inflation, average tuition at public and private four-year colleges has roughly doubled over thirty years. [28]

Why it matters. The prices that frighten families come from a small set of institutions that most students never apply to.

The Pell Grant, the main US federal grant for students from low-income families, has lost purchasing power and covers a smaller share of the cost than it did twenty years ago. [32] About one student in five now gets a state grant instead, worth an average of $1,280 in 2023-24, up nearly 40% in a decade. [32] Brookings reviewed the research on state free-college schemes and found the design details decide whether they reach poorer students. [32]

Why it matters. A national grant shrinking quietly is being replaced by fifty different state schemes, so where a student lives decides what help exists.

Tuition fees in England will rise every year in line with inflation from 2026, the UK government announced in its skills and higher education white paper. [33] Fees are GBP 9,535 this academic year, after the first rise in more than a decade, and are set to reach GBP 9,790. [33][35] Maintenance loans will be raised by the same measure, retail price inflation excluding mortgage interest. [34] Maintenance grants return for some students from lower-income households by 2029. [34]

Why it matters. A frozen fee falls in real terms every year without anyone deciding it should. Indexing ends that, and it also ends the pause between decisions.

Graduates in England start repaying with more than GBP 47,500 of student debt on average, according to the latest figures, slightly less than the year before. [35] Fees went up to GBP 9,535 last August from GBP 9,250, where they had been frozen since 2017; universities had argued inflation was eating the real value. [35] Students in the Channel Islands, whose funding works differently, have told the BBC the planned rises are daunting. [36]

Why it matters. The debt is repaid as a share of pay rather than in fixed instalments, so the headline balance matters less than the years it is collected over.

Ulster University told a committee of British MPs that many students would face no additional payments if fees rose, because a student loan is repaid as a percentage of earnings above a threshold rather than as a bill. [37] Students from Northern Ireland studying there pay GBP 4,985 a year in 2026-27, against GBP 9,790 in England and Wales. [37] The committee had accused the UK government of mis-selling student loans. [37]

Why it matters. Where repayment depends on earnings, raising the price changes the total for high earners and changes nothing at all for everyone else.

The interest rate on US federal Direct undergraduate loans is 6.52% for the 2026-27 academic year. [31] Federal rates are fixed for the life of the loan and set once a year by a formula Congress wrote. [31] A student starting in 2026 therefore carries a different rate from one who started two years earlier. [31] Private student loans price off the lender's own view of the borrower's credit and can be fixed or variable. [31]

Why it matters. The year a student happens to start decides the rate they carry for decades, and nobody chooses their year.

Stamp duty is paid by buyers of homes and land worth more than GBP 125,000 in England and Northern Ireland, or GBP 300,000 for a first-time buyer. [38] Andy Burnham has argued since 2010 for scrapping it and taxing the annual rental value of land instead. [38] Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies say the tax discourages people from moving; critics say valuing land separately from buildings is hard and would be fought. [38] Burnham also calls council tax, which is still based on 1991 property values, highly regressive. [38]

Why it matters. A tax charged only when a house changes hands is a reason not to move, which keeps larger homes occupied by fewer people.

Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York State, has proposed a yearly surcharge on New York City homes worth $5m or more that are not the owner's main residence. [39] It would cover out-of-state owners, state residents with a city flat and investor-owned properties that are not let to a full-time tenant. [39] The money is aimed at a city budget gap estimated at $5.4bn through the next financial year. [39] A similar plan in 2019 was defeated by property industry lobbying. [39]

Why it matters. It is a charge on holding a property rather than on buying or selling one, which is the same argument being had in Britain over land and council tax.

Unemployment benefits are taxable income in the United States, reported to the recipient on a form 1099-G. [41] Nothing is withheld unless the person asks for it with a form W-4V or makes quarterly payments, so the bill can arrive at filing time. [41] Severance pay and payouts for unused holiday or sick leave are taxable too, while food assistance and public assistance are not. [42]

Why it matters. Money paid to someone with no job is counted as income, and the tax on it lands months later when the money has been spent.

The American unemployment system pays up to 26 weeks of benefits in most states and is nearly a century old. [40] Labour experts warn it is unlikely to cover many of the workers most exposed to artificial intelligence, and retraining programmes have not been updated or have lapsed. [40] US lawmakers made food assistance and health coverage harder to claim for people without jobs last year. [40] Layoffs rose in the information sector in March. [40]

Why it matters. Whether help exists after a job goes was decided decades before the thing that took the job.

World Bank researchers looked at dismissal rules in 101 economies and found notice periods clustered around a median of four weeks whatever a country's income. [43] Severance pay varied enormously, with some low-income economies having none at all. [43] In most countries severance is worth less than the notice period. [43] Richer economies lean less on both and more on unemployment insurance. [43]

Why it matters. Workers in much of the world get warning that the job is ending without the money to live on while they look for another.

A Monster survey published this week found more than half of American workers would accept a pay cut for more job security, and 61% would give up a bonus or a perk for it. [44] A quarter would take a cut of up to 5% and 11% would accept more than 10%. [44] US unemployment was 4.1% in August, low by historical standards, but the recruiters quoted say the old assumption of finding another job in five or six weeks has gone. [44]

Why it matters. Pay is being traded for the chance of staying, which is what happens when workers think the next job would be hard to find.

The US tax office treats a paid carer working in someone's home as that person's employee, not a contractor, because the household controls the work. [45] A household that pays any one worker $3,000 or more in cash wages in 2026 owes Social Security and Medicare tax of 7.65% and must withhold the same from the worker. [46] A relative paid by an insurer to care for a disabled spouse usually owes no self-employment tax, but must still report the money as income. [45]

Why it matters. Care given inside a family becomes a payroll the moment money changes hands, and the rules it meets were written for housekeepers and gardeners.

Some American nursing homes hire debt collectors and law firms to demand that a resident's family pay unpaid bills personally. [12] The consumer regulator says they may report the debt to credit bureaus in the relative's name and tell a court the relative misused the resident's money without reason to believe it. [12] It says such conduct can breach the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and points families to a long-term care ombudsman or legal aid. [12]

Why it matters. Signing a relative into a home can turn into a demand for the bill years later, aimed at whoever signed the paperwork.

Real estate investment trusts own a fifth of American senior housing and hold investments in one nursing home in six, according to an examination of court filings and corporate records by KFF Health News. [13] US tax rules bar them from running care facilities, and they say they are landlords only, but leases have required occupancy levels and the landlords choose the management companies. [13] The Trump administration indefinitely suspended a US rule requiring nursing homes to disclose that involvement. [13] Health care trusts paid over $7bn in dividends in 2024. [13]

Why it matters. Rent has to be paid out of the same money that buys nursing hours, and nobody outside the court files can see how much of it there is.

Scottish Women's Aid published research on coerced debt, where a current or former partner runs up borrowing in someone else's name without consent or through threats. [47] Its author, Jenn Glinski, says women are being pushed towards illegal lenders as a result. [47] Debt taken out in a victim's name is legally theirs to repay. [47] The US consumer regulator's route for accounts opened in someone's name without consent starts with a fraud alert at each of the three credit bureaus. [48]

Why it matters. The name on the agreement is what a lender collects against, and leaving the relationship does not take the name off it.

An IMF working paper measured what happened to Brazilian banks as digital lenders took business from them. [49] Banks held on to their loan books mainly by charging less: a one standard deviation rise in exposure to fintech competition went with average lending rates 3.7 percentage points lower. [49] The banks became more efficient, but the gap between what they pay for money and what they charge for it narrowed, and profits fell. [49]

Why it matters. Borrowers in Brazil got cheaper credit from competition rather than from a rule, and the paper puts a number on how much.

In 2010 Andy Burnham, then England's health secretary, proposed taking about 10% of an estate after death to pay for a national care service. [5] The Conservatives called it a death tax, and the plan went down with Gordon Brown's Labour government at that year's election. [6] In 2017 Theresa May proposed counting the value of a home in the means test for care at home, and Labour called it a dementia tax. [6] Her retreat was widely credited with the Conservatives' poor election result that year. [6]

Why it matters. Both plans asked housing wealth to pay for care, and both were beaten by a two-word name rather than by an argument about the money.

Council tax is an annual charge on homes in England, Scotland and Wales, set by each local authority; Northern Ireland uses domestic rates instead. [7] Bills carry extra lines on top of the basic charge, one of which funds care homes and adult social care and another the local police and fire services. [7] A person living alone gets 25% off, and a home occupied only by students pays nothing. [7] The bands still rest on what a property would have sold for in 1991. [38]

Why it matters. Part of what English households already pay for care arrives on the council tax bill, set against prices from thirty-five years ago.

A safeguarding review in England examined the death of Sheila Hartman, 88, who was beaten to death in her Bedfordshire care home in October 2022 by another resident, Eunice Clarke, 92; both women had advanced dementia. [9] The review's author, Dr Sheila Fish, described a national inertia on dementia. [9] Dementia is the leading cause of death in the UK and has had no strategy from the UK government on care quality and skills for years. [9] People given a dementia diagnosis in Britain describe being told to go away and get their affairs in order. [11]

Why it matters. The rules on paying for care are argued over for decades, and the rules on how that care is actually delivered have not been written at all.

More than half of American undergraduates took out student loans in 2025, against about a quarter in 1995-96. [27] Cumulative student debt rose from about $500bn in 2006 to nearly $1.8tn in 2024, and repayments took 7.1% of borrowers' yearly income in 2024 against 4.6% in 2006. [27] Whether the loans themselves push up what colleges charge has been argued over for nearly four decades, and economists still disagree. [30]

Why it matters. Borrowing spread from a minority of students to most of them, and it now takes a larger slice of what graduates earn.