Pity it wasn't given that consideration before it was chucked in the manifesto 
Oh to be a fly on the wall in tory head quarters  from what I heard on the radio today, this was a last minute bolt on (would never have guessed!)
I would imagine that the cap will be incredibley complex as it will need to take into account assets, savings and value of your property.
To make it fair to the poor but not overly against the rich a sliding scale would be needed say 500k dropping to 50k.
Percentage wise the poor will lose a larger chunk, but then the rich will lose vastly more money.
Naturally neither side we be happy.
What will make or break this policy now is if may is forced to give a figure on the cap. It will be a very long few weeks for her now
Edit
Then again the poor might be better off with this cap if your house isn't worth much. In that case they will keep a larger percentage.
Like so much in life, it will come down to where you live
They've come up with a policy so complicated that nobody in the world will be able to figure out how it affects them.
A cap instead of the previous Tory proposal is very unfair to the poor.
It disproportionately benefits those with assets above the cap. While the poor see no benefit from a cap whatsoever.
No wonder so many seem to like May, disagree with her enough and she'll u-turn on anything. Weak and malleable.
Neither makes any difference to the poor. The poor don't have assets to lose.
It's those with some assets, such as a house, that are affected by the changes.
Only if you think the poor have zero assets.
My parents own a council house up north. Last time I checked it was worth less than £100k.
A cap of say £100k does nothing for them. (Or rather me I should say )
Which does effect the poor, plenty of poor oap's in London say that bought a house in a "bad" area 20 to 30 plus years back that is now very sought after
I never thought that, never said it.
My comment was specifically in response to this:
A cap isn't unfair to the poor, because they'll never reach the cap. Therefore it makes no difference to them.
In the same way that a 200 MPH speed limit is not unfair to cyclists 
Something definitely needs to be done to address our ageing population. People are living longer and the population is only going to get bigger over time, the state can't pay unless taxes go through the roof which isn't a sustainable policy. They really need to be clearer how this will work though as once implemented (assuming it isn't dropped) it can't really be scrapped in the future as people would have gone through the process and had homes sold and money lost. It's a bold policy but unfortunately what other options are there that will address a problem that's only going to get worse over the years?