Personally I would prefer complete state funded care from taxation and much harsher death duties ( to reduce wealth inequality) and higher general taxation. But no one would vote for that

Exactly. If the tories think it is fair to leave people £100k to pass on then make that the inheritance tax policy, everyone gets left with £100k max after they die. Much fairer than just those with specific illnesses requiring specific care.
Would have to seriously cut down avoidance/put in place very tight controls but be interesting to see how society would change without money carrying on throughout generations.

Clearly not a vote winner though, even for those who will be dodging it.

theotherjonv

The funding you get is solely down to the assets you have and your degree of need not the illness . So no matter what illness you have if you end up in a care home or requiring care then you will pay for it if you have assets but you won’t pay if you can’t

One has to wonder, with her recent attacks on freedom, if her husband has recently invested in shares in VPN companies.

TJ, while I can see your view have you considered that the tories will try and sell off social care for the elderly to their cronies in the private sector. All that results in is a drop in service quality as the private companies put profit over quality.

Plus if the government isn’t footing the bill then the private companies can crank the costs up for their own benefit with no one to stop them

I see Boris is making £350m into NHS claims again.

Apparently says Boris it’s in the manifesto and May announced it.

Excellent.

Except no one so far has found it in the manifesto or May’s speeches.

#OneMoreLie

BoardinBob – Member

TJ, while I can see your view have you considered that the tories will try and sell off social care for the elderly to their cronies in the private sector. All that results in is a drop in service quality as the private companies put profit over quality.

already done. Social care is only organised by councils. The actual care is done by for profit providers.

I see Boris is making £350m into NHS claims again.

Apparently says Boris it’s in the manifesto and May announced it.

I can’t see any official documents to back that up, do you care to elaborate?

I can’t see any official documents to back that up, do you care to elaborate?

There aren’t any. But Bozo claimed otherwise on Peston this morning.

As you say, not simple. I think the issue for many is that you can’t insure against dementia

This. The Tories may make noises about encouraging people to plan for old age, but the fact is that this makes it impossible. Unless by “planning” you mean spunk the lot on coke and hookers, since you can’t leave it to your kids.

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. What about families who lose their main bread-winner? You do realise “the State” will just absorb it and it will go into painting the House of Commons toilets? What about people spending their entire lives paying taxes to “the State”, only for “the State” to take even more when they die? What about “the State’s” responsibility to it’s citizens? You are suggesting that everything is ultimately owned by “the State”, which is dangerous, to say the least. In your scenario, “the State” can’t wait for people to die, so they can take their assets, so why assist pensioners with heating, bills etc? Hell, they may as well bring in forced euthanasia “for the good of “the State””.

The whole “going to a random member of the public by lottery” is just as daft” Why the hell should families give up everything their spouse, or other relative, has worked hard to build? For example: My Gran died last December: My Mum and her brothers, spent a lot of time looking in on her, caring for her, taking her places. She owned her own home, she refused to go into a care home. She died at home, where she wanted to be. Why the hell should the State come in and take all that away?

I’m actually laughing to myself how absurd what you said is. Get a grip.

You’re really laughing? Maybe you should put some smileys in or something because it sounds like you’re spluttering bits of sandwich all over your keyboard as you mash the keys in a fit of frustration.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that life is somehow fair and people who have assets have acquired those assets because they are virtuous and deserving while those who don’t are in that situation because they are somehow inferior in intellect and morals. It might surprise you to learn that often the opposite is true.

My parents are going to die some day. They own their house and it will come to me. I don’t need it and wouldn’t have a problem with it going to someone else. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to give it away out of principle. However, if inheritance became a thing of the past I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Well giving away estates to random people is obviously a bit silly, but a large increase in IHT makes sense for all sorts of reasons. Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who’s main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/20/why-my-grown-up-son-wants-to-live-at-home-for-ever

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to give it away out of principle

Eh? But that’s exactly what you were suggesting.

No smileys, no frustration, just dismay and your naivety.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that life is somehow fair and people who have assets have acquired those assets because they are virtuous and deserving while those who don’t are in that situation because they are somehow inferior in intellect and morals. It might surprise you to learn that often the opposite is true.

And you seem to be labouring under the miscomprehension that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a cheating, lying crook. Quite the opposite is true.

Mikey – why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children’s inheritances?

Wot DrJ said.

They let BoJo out without his carer again. Apparently he was also rifling though the interviewer’s notes back stage trying to find out what questions he was going to be asked.

I keep expecting to see Malcom Tucker in the background whenever Boris appears.

My parents enjoyed a rise in house prices of around 70-100 fold. Not percent, fold.
Now ok that was over 40 years, but while they are certainly not crooked, they are clear they didn’t work for that. They worked to pay the mortgage, but that accounted for very little in terms of their rise in assets.

They are somewhat embarrassed by the wealth they’ve accumulated.

a large increase in IHT makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps, but that is not what is being proposed.

Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who’s main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?

Not at all – the notion of inheritance is not new and is not particularly British If Chairman May wants to abolish it, go ahead, but at least be honest about it.

Mikey – why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children’s inheritances?

That’s the way general taxes work. The healthy subsidise the sick. I’m surprised an NHS employee needs this explaining to them.

tjagain – Member
Mikey – why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children’s inheritances

Why stop at elderly care?

Can we force the middle class to use their assets to pay for their medical care before old age?

It’ll be interesting to see what happens now that the Daily Heil is outraged at the idea that the wealthy should be hindered in entrenching inequality from generation to generation through inherited wealth?

So far Kim Yong May has a 100% record on caving in and doing whatever Paul Dacre tells her to do

DrJ – Member

Mikey – why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children’s inheritances?

That’s the way general taxes work. The healthy subsidise the sick. I’m surprised an NHS employee needs this explaining to them. [/quote]

This is not the same at all. Its not the person requiring care that it makes any difference to – its their children.

You prepared for a 3-5% increase in taxation then? Thats at current demand and demand is set to rise.

I want to see properly funded care of the elderly. You ( the general population) won’t accept a rise in taxation so where is the money coming from? Also this already exists for care in a residential setting anyway.

Edit -= how about 100% inheritance tax over £100 000 then?

On a slightly different topic. Means testing of the winter fuel allowance is not going to happen in Scotland – nowt to do ( directly) with the SNP but because Ruth Davidson knows its a huge vote loser

This is not the same at all. Its not the person requiring care that it makes any difference to – its their children.

Umm – if I have to pay 10,000 quid for my cancer treatment, that’s 10,000 quid my kids ain’t getting. Money is money.

You prepared for a 3-5% increase in taxation then? Thats at current demand and demand is set to rise.

If that’s what it costs, that’s what it costs. Let’s have the debate about whether we want a social system, or a devil-take-the-hindmost society.

Edit -= how about 100% inheritance tax over £100 000 then?

That would at least be fairer. Let’s see if the Tories could stomach it!

Can’t we build robots to look after old people? How hard could it be?

thecaptain – Member

Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who’s main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?

It’s more that housing is becoming ever more unaffordable for a lot of people and an inheritance is one of the ways they can get past that.

Can’t we build robots to look after old people? How hard could it be?

Or just employ people at minumum wage who would not otherwise have a job in Poland or Romania.

Oh – hang on a mo …

northwind – one of the ways the favoured few can get past it

Do you guys not realise that at the moment you have to pay for residential care if you can afford it? This is no major change. You also have to contribute to personal care in your own home in some circumstances. Again this is just extending a principle that has been in place for a generation to remove anomolies and to take it across the board.

In my area if you require MEDICAL care you get it free on the NHS. If you require SOCIAL care you have to pay for it if you have the money. Medical care being stuff you need a registered nurse or doctor for. Social care being stuff like washing and dressing and getting your meals cooked for you

I still have seen non one here make a coherent argument for the general taxpayer subsiding middle class childrens inheritances

I still have seen non one here make a coherent argument for the general taxpayer subsiding middle class childrens inheritances

That’s cos there isn’t one. There is however an argument for universal benefits provided to all by the state funded by general taxation, and that social care should be one of them. Seems to me that in an ageing society, there’s going to be a major problem in future if the younger working population are going to have to care for their parents and grandparents, which is exactly what will happen as many will refuse to accept care in order to avoid paying for it. Even worse, many will not get any care and that will result in needless deaths and suffering.

And you seem to be labouring under the miscomprehension that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a cheating, lying crook. Quite the opposite is true.

I’ve never laboured under a miscomprehension before. It feels OK but ever so slightly wrong.

When you say ‘quite the opposite is true’ does that mean that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a faithful, truthful hero? Are the police aware of this?

I think that, as a society, we would benefit from a serious rethink about what inheritance is actually for. The question I always ask is what have the recipients of inheritance actually done to deserve financial compensation?

Nipper99 there are far more ways to avoid this tax than giving stuff away – trusts, limited companies, just the tip of the iceberg.

The question I always ask is what have the recipients of inheritance actually done to deserve financial compensation?

Just been born in the right place. You’re right – it’s unfair. It’s also unfair that some parents consider, e.g., their children’s education more than others, make informed decisions about vaccination, take their kids on cycling holidays, and a million other things.

To remove those inequalities I guess you will suggest that children be taken from their parents and raised in state orphanages May isn’t called “The Child Catcher” for nothing!

Put another way – as a parent, one of my motives is to provide for my child. Should I just be taking it easy instead?

Brucewee my money, my house, my business, my decision….. not at any point is it anybody else’s.

I am a socialist by the way but I also believe in my right to self determination.

I have contfibuted massively in tax tems and creating a few well paid jobs.

I have no inheritance coming my way and I don’t have any kids nor will I have any, so I have no skin in the game here.

However these “middle class” elderly types that TJ seems to be in a froth about have paid into the system for most of their life: national insurance, income tax, vat, stamp duty, so yes, I think that entitles you to government (taxpayer) funded care in your final years if necessary. And yes I’m happy to pay extra tax to fund this.

As someone with no kids, I’m not complaining that my tax is being used to put my neighbour’s 3 kids through the school system. By TJ’s argument, why should my taxes pay for a middle class families schooling? They could afford private education!

We’re on a slippery slope to means testing everything. The Tories will strip everything to the bone if we allow them

How do you propose to reduce immigration when you have failed completely at it before

Labour did not “fail” previously – it simply wasn’t an issue, so there was nothing to fail at.

It only became an “issue” around the time a chancer called Farage decided to try and make a name for himself, by which time the Tories were in charge.

My argument is given that no one wants to raise taxes to pay for good comprehensive social care for all ( and believe me its a huge sum – 14% of the countries budget right now at the inadequate levels we have and due to grow)That using peoples assets that they are going to pass onto their kids seems reasonable. Remember to the person receiving the care it makes little difference. Its only that their kids will only inherit £100 000 not the half million or so their parents house is worth.

I ain’t frothing over this. Its not my favoured solution but its the only one possible right now.

How else do you suggest this is paid for? People will no accept the rise in taxation it costs

Good quality care of the type I want to provide for all would see a rise in taxation of perhaps 20% – all that so that middle class children like me get an inheritance that will simply increase inequality

£100 000 is plenty – most of us won’t inherit until we are retired anyway – those nice middle class folk live into their 80s. I have 4 years until I retire. My parents show no sign of popping off yet.

How else do you suggest this is paid for? People will no accept the rise in taxation it costs

Well, if you start off accepting the Mail’s assumptions as gospel, then you will arrive at some perverse conclusions.

tjagain – Member

northwind – one of the ways the favoured few can get past it

It’s not a favoured few, it’s a lot of people. But I think you misunderstand the point I’m making- these aren’t “spongers” waiting for an inheritance, these are people who have a way out of a shitty trap that a large chunk of their generation and the next will be stuck in. That’s nothing to sneer at. And taking that lifeline away isn’t going to do anything for all the other people in the same trap. Things are unfair for a hell of a lot of people but this doesn’t really redress that- it just makes it worse for some of them.

Brucewee my money, my house, my business, my decision….. not at any point is it anybody else’s.

When the time for inheritance comes along you’ll be dead so none of it will be yours. Tell me, what have your beneficiaries done to make them more deserving than some kids who happened to be born to parents who died penniless? Bear in mind, you will be dead. The question isn’t ‘what have you done’ it’s ‘what have they done’.

Just been born in the right place. You’re right – it’s unfair. It’s also unfair that some parents consider, e.g., their children’s education more than others, make informed decisions about vaccination, take their kids on cycling holidays, and a million other things.

To remove those inequalities I guess you will suggest that children be taken from their parents and raised in state orphanages May isn’t called “The Child Catcher” for nothing!

Put another way – as a parent, one of my motives is to provide for my child. Should I just be taking it easy instead?

I think I get what you’re trying to say which is that I need to understand that life is unfair and some kids are just going to have advantages compared to others.

Well, I do. However, I don’t think that the solution is to just give up and say, ‘well, if you’re poor, you’re poor, deal with it.’ It is difficult to make sure that parents support their kids properly and raise them in the best way possible. However, it is comparatively easy to limit the assets that can be passed on to people who have done nothing to earn it.

I know it’s not fair for the state to take away the assets that you’ve worked all your life to amass but like you said, some things are just unfair.

By TJ’s argument, why should my taxes pay for a middle class families schooling? They could afford private education!

This. Once upon a time society deemed that poor children weren’t deserving of an education. The only kids who received one did so because their parents could afford it. Society at large decided that it would be beneficial for all if education was universal. We are possibly nearing the point where the same sort of decision needs to be made about how we care for our elderly and infirm.

I know it’s not fair for the state to take away the assets that you’ve worked all your life to amass but like you said, some things are just unfair.

Not just unfair, but ultimately counterproductive I refer you to the examples in recent history where the state has attempted to regulate the minutiae of life in pursuit of an egalitarian ideal. Clue: none of them are extant.

DrJ – Member

How else do you suggest this is paid for? People will no accept the rise in taxation it costs

Well, if you start off accepting the Mail’s assumptions as gospel, then you will arrive at some perverse conclusions. [/quote]

Nope – its what the UK public consistently say. Higher taxes to pay for better services is a good idea so long as someone else pays. the sums involved in social care are so huge that everyone would have to pay more. a lot more.