Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
All this talk of death taxes, £8000 optional insurance at 65 etc just seems overly complicated to me.
Why not just add a penny to the pound in employee national insurance, and then provide a 'free' service for all, if some people want to go private then like health care they can.
If the average wage is £25k a year, a person will earn a £1m over 40 years, 1% of this is £10k, more than enough to pay for social care (if the Cons numbers for an £8k optional insurance scheme at 65 are correct...), plus it's means tested all the way through life and is therefore fairer, isn't it?
I can't understand why it can't be done by putting a charge against the property of those that own one.
£10k, more than enough to pay for social care
for a couple of weeks...
indeed social care is vastly expensive. Maybe an age-based cull?
Nick - the problem with that is it needs to be paid for now - not in 40 years time. So funding is need now. Also all the national insurance is already spent on things
also I real really doubt the tory figures. £8000 goes nowhere - that relies on people who are not going to use it taking out the insurance ( even then its pie in the sky) which is if it is not compulsory will not happen.
Wwaswas - that is more or less the current position.
Again - its not rocket science - either people pay for social care thru selling their assets or there is a huge amount of money needed from elsewhere - worth a couple of p on income tax for example
Maybe an age-based cull?
we consider it a kindness to our pets...
I'd much rather be culled than degenerate into pathetic dementia!
Nick - the problem with that is it needs to be paid for now - not in 40 years time. So funding is need now. Also all the national insurance is already spent on things
Ahh, so bad planning and preparation by the current government?
I'd much rather be culled than degenerate into pathetic dementia!
That needs to go on a T-shirt!
I expect most people would look at 'age related cull' and place themsleves firmly in the 'not yet cullable' camp!
Logans Run anyone?
wwaswas - Member
I expect most people would look at 'age related cull' and place themsleves firmly in the 'not yet cullable' camp!Logans Run anyone?
Only if I get Jenny Agutter...
I'd much rather be culled than degenerate into pathetic dementia!
How many votes do we need to say you have early dementia before we can come round with the bombers?
The name death tax is just to get people all emotive...will you really need the money from the sale of your house in the afterlife? Having the care free at the point of delivery and paid for from your estate on death does not seem that unreasonable a compromise to me.
We cannot afford care without a tax hike and it would mean workers now paying for the care of those not working now [ as well as their pensions ...the money did not go into a fund]. It will be costly....very costly
Honestly who is going to pay the optional 8k insurance and you cannot get care for free unless your family do it Love the Tories spending pledges, tax cuts , budgets slashed ....does not seem at all possible to those who can count.
A shame that every complicated issues descends into a political dog fight rather than us all being adult about it and making some hard choices in order to work out the best way to pay for the increasingly elderly population.
Limit health care to people who have paid in the kitty and their relatives. Problem solved.
How many votes do we need to say you have early dementia before we can come round with the bombers?
Just keep things simple
You've got 9 darts to hit double top
If you manage it between attempts 1 & 6, you're fine
7 & 9 you're on a warning
over 9 - you're out
Has anyone read David Willetts on this? I've not yet and suspect I should...
[url= http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51W87jpjU1L._SL500_AA300_.jp g" target="_blank">
coffeeking - MemberNick - the problem with that is it needs to be paid for now - not in 40 years time. So funding is need now. Also all the national insurance is already spent on things
Ahh, so bad planning and preparation by the current government?
Nope - bad planning adn delivery from many goverments since the 60s.
I started work in Care of the elderly in the 70s - virtually all provision was done by the state - either residential homes run by local government or NHS care. With the aging poulation this was increasingly under strain and underprovisioned. thatchers tory government took the decision that private care in the form of nursing homes should be the norm - paid for by the patients with state funds available for those who could not afford to pay. This leads to the sale of houses to pay for vcare.
Some advantages in this - the NHS care was somewhat "one size fits all" and successive regulatory regimes have improved standards in the private homes all single room en suite now for example. You never got that in the NHS
unfortunately for the last 20 years there has been huge pressure on costs as the state fees paid have not kept up with costs. This has led to downward pressure on wages meaning recruitment and retention of staff has become very difficult and thus quality of care has started to suffer.
No political party will grasp this nettle - quality care costs, it has to be paid for from somewhere and any funding solution is unfair on someone.
A shame that every complicated issues descends into a political dog fight rather than us all being adult about it and making some hard choices in order to work out the best way to pay for the increasingly elderly population.
The trouble is, any large sum of money changing hands between the populace and the government is going to be very very unpopular.
I'd rather see people being able to hold onto the family home rather than being forced into selling it to pay for the 'death tax', finding a way to address the current shortfall whilst introducing a paye system would be good, but the shortfall is obviously a big problem.
starseven - MemberLimit health care to people who have paid in the kitty and their relatives. Problem solved.
No health care for the person born with Downs syndrome then? NO healthcare for the children of young parents?
This leads to the sale of houses to pay for vcare.
And the popularity of release equity schemes 🙂
Nick - find some way to fund £30 000+ Pa cost of quality care?
Why should the family home be left untouched? Its not the patient who benefits from this - its the children who inherit. You are asking the taxpayer to subsidise the inheritence of middleclass children.
what TJ says, why should I not use my 'savings' (in the form of bricks and mortar) to fund my care in old age?
A has a house, which is worth lots of money. A wants to have quality residential care because he is old. He doesn't want to sell his house to pay for it, because he wants to leave it to his children when he dies. So he insists the money should be provided by someone else. Preferably everybody, including other people's children, who are trying to save up to buy houses.
So A's children get a nice wodge of money at the expense of everybody who is working when A needs care.
This is, quite bluntly, some of the most unfair and regressive taxation imaginable.
. You are asking the taxpayer to subsidise the inheritence of middleclass children.
not just middle class though is it, it's not really a class thing at all, plenty of working class people own their own homes by retirement age.
You are asking the taxpayer to subsidise the inheritence of middleclass children.
So taxpayers and middleclass parents are different people?
All I'm suggesting is that everyone pays what is fair given their income, so a poverty stricken sink-estate terminally unemployable person pays nothing, owns nothing, sells nothing.
A 'middleclass' professional earning £50k a year will subsidise them in all likelihood.
I don't think anything is stopping anyone for using their means to pay for care in old age?
Eek - me and TJ agree!
I feel very strongly that once someone is unable to manage in their own home and requires care, the 'un-needed' home becomes an assett to fund their care. Of course, this becomes complicated if a partner still lives there, and this is where the 'death tax' will cover.
It would be 'nice' if the children could inherit the house, but it would also be 'nice' if santa gave me a new bike for christmas... Inheritance from your parents should only become a 'right' once you're [the parents]living needs have been met - if this requires freeing up cash from a house sale, so be it.
There is little other option (apart from a crystal in your hand...)
DrP
he insists the money should be provided by someone else
so he hasn't paid any taxes or ni in his life?
I'd rather see people being able to hold onto the family home rather than being forced into selling it to pay for the 'death tax'
they are selling their home to pay for health care after they have died it is not the same thing at all.
Instead you want me[and other tax payers] to pay for someone who has some wealth in an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds so that they can die rich and pass it in to their kids.
Like I said better if people could stay rational [and actually accurate]rather than get all emotove about a "death tax". You are alive and paying for your own care by using funds released from your assets when you die?
EDIT:
Nick - Memberhe insists the money should be provided by someone else
so he hasn't paid any taxes or ni in his life?
He has NOT paid taxes or NI that contribute to free health care for the elderly ?
He has Nick, but they have been used to pay for things other than the escalating cost of his care. If there was a current massive NI surplus haging around waiting to pay for his care now then we wouldn't be discussing this. 🙂
I'm not getting emotive about a death tax, what do you want to call it?
I don't want you and other taxpayers to pay for someone, I want them to pay for themselves through taxation during their lifetime, just like we all do for our National Health Care system (which some use more than others).
Putting aside the problem with a shortfall right now, why isn't that fairer? Is it because people are stressing over not getting 'what they have paid for' if they die early?
starseven - MemberLimit health care to people who have paid in the kitty and their relatives. Problem solved.
No health care for the person born with Downs syndrome then? NO healthcare for the children of young parents?
"and their relatives" I'm sure its within our wit to structure eligibilty fairly.
Why should I pay for dossers and parasites.
If people were prepared to look after their own elderly parents when they could no longer look after themselves, there would still be a nice inheritance for them.
(I appreciate that people's needs vary and this wouldn't always be possible, but I bet in many cases it would).
I'm not getting emotive about a death tax, what do you want to call it?
Well not a death tax repeatedly 🙄 it is not a death tax Are you being taxed for dieing or are you paying for your own care? I am not even certain you can accurately call it a tax. Inheritance tax is a tax for dieing this is NOT the same thing at all is it?
National Health Care system
What is this you are describing?
Nick - Member...................
I don't want you and other taxpayers to pay for someone, I want them to pay for themselves through taxation during their lifetime, just like we all do for our National Health Care system (which some use more than others)............
Its perfectly possible but would be more than a couple of pence on income tax in total - or a 50% tax on over £100 000 earners. Its an awful lot of money that is needed. folk will not vote for an increase in income tax either
starseven - Member"and their relatives" I'm sure its within our wit to structure eligibilty fairly.
Why should I pay for dossers and parasites.
go on then. You work out the eligibility criteria for who lives and who dies - and I will pick holes in it.
Woman of 16 gives birth and dies in childbirth. Father is unidentified. Child is profoundly disabled and requires healthcare. Does he live or die?
Only if I get Jenny Agutter...
Isn't there a scene in Logan's Run, where she gets her Fou-Fou out? I'm sure there is, there was when I saw it on telly years ago, but every time I've seen it since, there's no Fou-Fou. Maybe I just dreamt it.
Right then, I'm off to sell my house then live in rented accomodation for the rest of my life and p1ss all my income up the wall and advise my children to do the same so when the day comes that I need care the state can pay for it like it should, I have paid in to the system all my working life (from age 16), why should I have to pay twice ie buy a house to pay for care later? Either we have a NHS or we have private health care. And as mentioned above, lets stop spending our money on other countries problems and sort out our own mess first, then when that is done we can start helping others. it's about time this country looked after those that put in to the system and start f*cking those that don't off back where they came from.
Votchy, you really need to learn to express yourself more, you know, say what you [i]really[/i] mean... 😀
Putting aside the problem with a shortfall right now, why isn't that fairer? Is it because people are stressing over not getting 'what they have paid for' if they die early?
I think Votchy kinda summed it up (with some subtlety...).
Difficult for people to feel it's a 'fair' system that they can sit in one bed when they are old beside some other scrounger who's not done a days work yet is getting his bed for free.
The so-called 'death tax' is going to get loads of complaints that poor off people have had to sell the family house that their parents wanted to leave them because they couldn't afford the, say, £8000.
I'm not really sure what the answer is. Maybe it could be an expansion of the NHS rather than paying over the odds for private nursing homes making a pretty penny for the owners.
Hey, maybe instead of a bankers tax we could could have a 'private nursing home' windfall tax...
I'm not really sure what the answer is. Maybe it could be an expansion of the NHS rather than paying over the odds for private nursing homes making a pretty penny for the owners.
Most private nursing homes make very little profit - especially those relying on state funding. Private nursing homes are also significantly cheaper than NHS care - mainly 'cos salaries are a lot lower - thus the difficulty they have in recruiting good staff.
As I said above - its unfair in any way its paid for -
current system - if you have a house you sell it to pay for care and end up next to the person who has been on benefits all their life
However if you don't sell the home to pay for care then the taxpayer pays for your care thus allowing you to pass on the home to your children - so the taxpayer pays out money so your children can inherit. You still end up in the same bed with the same care.
either way looks unfair.
Difficult for people to feel it's a 'fair' system that they can sit in one bed when they are old beside some other scrounger who's not done a days work yet is getting his bed for free.
That's if you attach a monetary value to the 'right' to receive health care, rather than seeing it as something every Human Being is entitled to regardless of how much or how little they've paid into the 'system'.
The Tories especially love to plant such seeds of thought into the minds of the public, as this then makes cutting or privatising health care provision easier for people to accept.
The reality is, that there are very few real 'scroungers', and that most folk work as hard as each other. Shouldn't people receive something according to their own personal endeavour, rather than how much money they generate?
I have paid in to the system all my working life (from age 16), why should I have to pay twice ie buy a house to pay for care later? Either we have a NHS or we have private health care
yes but the system you have paid in for did not realise how long you would live and how much you would cost to keep alive after retiring.
You never paid into a fund for your care costs as their was no fund. You are asking people working now to pay additional tax for you.
The NHS has never paid for care it has paid for health there is a distinction. So we can have a national care scheme as well but, as above, it will cost a lot of money. There is no easy solution to this but I would go for means tested personally looking at your assets.
either way looks unfair.
Yeah, I must admit I'm struggling to see a positive in either side of the argument.
lets stop spending our money on other countries problems
???
Edit - bugger, apparently I can't link to that image the normal way for some reason. Anyway, the myth of a big pile of cash that we can stop giving to ****less foreigners and immigrants that will magically pay for all our long-term healthcare needs is exactly that.
And, err, you didn't buy the house to pay for healthcare, you bought the house to live in. Perhaps another way of saying "I don't want to pay out of my children's inheritance for my care in old age" is "my children shouldn't be expected to support me, I want to suck on the NHS's teet" i.e. typical dole mole language. Cheer up, though, you might get lucky and get hit by a bus - no expensive long-term care needed for you and your kids can keep the house! 😆
Don't think there's anything wrong with putting some money aside for your children. There are enough people complaining on here they can't afford their first house. I could put £100k in a bank account for them and the government wouldn't touch it. Give them a £100k house and suddenly they want £8000 of it when I die...
breathesay - indeed - but why should the taxpayer pay for your care so your capital is untouched to pass on. Do you really think that is a good use of tax?
Cheer up, though, you might get lucky and get hit by a bus - no expensive long-term care needed for you and your kids can keep the house!
Or you spend your life contributing to a 'National Care Service', then get hit by a bus, you don't need long term care so the money is available for someone who wasn't able to pay in as much during their lifetime, and your kids get to keep the house, albeit a slightly smaller one 🙂
Some strange arguments on here. If you've got assets to pay for your care then you should be required to use them. If not, then it's fair that the state should provide a safety net (which I am happy to pay for). But it's not logical or fair for me to be expected to pay more taxes so that someone else can leave their house to their children.
If I get it right I plan to die leaving just enough to pay for the funeral. If the bus hits me first then that's a bonus for a few people. 🙂
go on then. You work out the eligibility criteria for who lives and who dies - and I will pick holes in it.Woman of 16 gives birth and dies in childbirth. Father is unidentified. Child is profoundly disabled and requires healthcare. Does he live or die?
Yep, child gets health care, easy this, give me another.
What criteria are you going to use - You have already contradicted yourself as non of the childs family have contributed.
So - as you don't want a universal free for all system that we have please tell me how you are going to define who deserves to die.
Agree with TJ. That criteria?
Middle aged man gets knocked over in a hit and run accident, but as no ID on him.
Do you leave him to die from this injurries until you work out if he's met your criteria or not?
If you've got assets to pay for your care then you should be required to use them.
Why stop at 'Social Care' though, why not do this for the rest of our healthcare provision? Why are the two treated differently?
Theres no contradiction, her father could have been a NI payer and to make exceptions for children born of unknown parents would be a very small addition anyway.
I dont mind paying for the half wits naturally present in any community but universal healthcare cant work in a society as fluid as ours.
If everything is free there's no incentive to contribute, you may as well just as well wander the world looking for the best handouts and let the few mugs who pay taxes pick up the bill.
but universal healthcare cant work in a society as fluid as ours.
I know it's not perfect but I think the NHS does, by and large, work, I've never had a bad personal experience and have probably had my money's worth.
So - what criteria are you going to use then? come on - we want to know.
You said earlier that only people who had contributed or whos families had contributed. How close family? will a cousin who worked for a year in the 80s do?
You have been given a couple of scenarios of people who do not fit your criteria but you decided they could have an exemption. How about the child born with opiate addiction to parents who are the third generation of junkies that never worked, Does that baby get healthcare? No one in 3 generations has contributed ever.
The problem with all mean testing for state provided benefits at a later satge in life is the unfairness of the following example. Two guys earn exactly the same amount throughout their life, one is from the George Best school and spends all of his money on booze, women etc, the other saves for his retirement and old age.
How can it be fair for the latter to disadvantaged compared to the former if he is mean tested out of benefits, whether pension or long term care, the other is entitled to. There has to be an incentive in the system to save. If not, then why would anyone but the richest bother and then the economy will be completely stuffed.
I can't help thinking that if people thought they needed to make better provision for themselves in later life they'd be less prepared to sink such eye watering amounts of money into mortgages while in their 30s and 40s which in the end only tends to make their parent's generation richer anyway. Given that many people in their 50s, 60s and 70s are often now extremely asset-rich because of this property mania, it doesn't seem too unfair to ask for some of that windfall to be put toward their old age care should they need it.
Passing those assets down a generation to middle aged people isn't going to help young people get on the housing ladder after all (perhaps what they could do is use it to get a house big enough for granny to live in with the family and therefore get looked after, but this doesn't seem to be done very often any more).
There has to be an incentive in the system to save. If not, then why would anyone but the richest bother and then the economy will be completely stuffed.
Wonder how we could do that?
Can't see a party whose pledge was to remove 60% of benefits getting many votes. Even though it is what's required for the long term.
The people get the government they deserve after all.
Once again I find myself agreeing with TJ!
A subject close to my heart, it's well overdue for addressing.
TJ
I cant respond without repeating what Ive already said, if you dont understand theres not a lot to say.
If everything is free there's no incentive to contribute, you may as well just as well wander the world looking for the best handouts and let the few mugs who pay taxes pick up the bill.
Foreigner-bashing again? "They come over here, take our healthcare...". Anyone would think you believe that if it weren't for the foreigners, everything would be peachy.
starseven - I have understood what you say - however it was very general. I would like to know what criteria you want to use to say who is eligible for NHS treatment under your ideas.
You said only those who had contributed or whos families had contributed, but when given examples of people who would not qualify under those rules you found exemptions for them.
so can you clear it up? Precisely who is going to be eligible? How close does the family connection have to be to a contributor to get free healthcare?
If everything is free there's no incentive to contribute, you may as well just as well wander the world looking for the best handouts and let the few mugs who pay taxes pick up the bill.
Foreigner-bashing again? "They come over here, take our healthcare...". Anyone would think you believe that if it weren't for the foreigners, everything would be peachy.
Racist alert,Racist alert, can't say that, cant discuss it, cant even think it. How retarded.
If you are in a group that contributes to a fund why should the fund be open to everyone? An element of care can be allowed for visitors but if whatever is in the fund is divided by twice as many people theres half as much each.
You lot seem to want me to make up that 50% by selling my house, well I don't like that deal.
I'm not writing a paper on eligibility, the principle is clear.
My in-laws [both in their late 70s] have pretty much disposed of all their assets to the immediate family - something they started doing 10 years ago
That can't be right in many ways but it highlights the ineffectiveness of the current system where they feel the need to do this
I'm in my 50s now & I'm seriously considering gifting my house to the kids now
My GF's Nan has just gone into a care home. She's not eligable for free care, so her house and savings have gone towards her care. This will pay for less than two years care. Then she'll have no assets and be eligable. I don't really know whether anyone has benefitted from that.
I do agree with Porterclough, though. I don't earn a huge amount, but I'm very careful with my money. I save what I can and have a house with a very manageable mortgage. I have no problem with paying for my own care in my old age.
However, I have friends who earn 3-4 times what I do and have fewer assets, choosing to spend what they earn on holidays, fancy gadgets and rent. I don't have a problem with that and it's their choice, but ultimately they'll get free care in old age as they'll have nothing, and I'll pay for mine. Is that a fair and reasonable system?
So lets see if i've got this right .The lazy bastards of which there are many round here , never work and have no intention of working get looked after to the grave .Meanwhile i've worked , paid NI Income tax provided for my family bought my own house and not been a burden am expected to sell my only asset left ?Hmmmm that sounds really fair !
I don't really know whether anyone has benefitted from that.
Whilst no individual has specifically benefited from this situation it is faire to say that the "taxpayer" in general has. Given that this woman has had to move into care, what possible use is her house to her?
I'm normally very much on the left on this sort of thing and think that in general this sort of thing should be covered by the state however isn't this exactly the sort of thing that savings and assets are for? I know for a fact that my parents intend to leave nothing of any real monetary value to me and my sisters. Having supported three of us through Higher education and been generous when it came to buying property, I can't say I blame them.
Racist alert,Racist alert, can't say that, cant discuss it, cant even think it. How retarded.If you are in a group that contributes to a fund why should the fund be open to everyone? An element of care can be allowed for visitors but if whatever is in the fund is divided by twice as many people theres half as much each.
It's more of a "bollocks unrealistic answer alert", actually. The NHS already has residency and contribution requirements before it's free at point of service, so would any long-term care programme. You keep banging on about foreigners as if they cause all the problems but even if you passed a law that said "no-one who hadn't lived and worked here for the last 30 years is allowed access", it still wouldn't solve the problem, because the problem is endogenous. Immigrants come young and help reduce the worker/dependent ratio, low birthrate and average age problems, not aggrevate it.
I think the whole issues comes down to timing. If we'd have realised 20/30 years ago (some say we should have...) that we would need more old age care then the bullet should have been bitten and 1% or whatever bunged on National Insurance and ringfenced to provide the backbone of the care.
The problem is successive governments have ignored the issue and now the country desperately needs the cash now, hence these talks of big upfront charges/taxes.
Surprised Gordon hasn't decided to dip into whatever pension funds people have left...
oldfart - MemberSo lets see if i've got this right .The lazy bastards of which there are many round here , never work and have no intention of working get looked after to the grave .Meanwhile i've worked , paid NI Income tax provided for my family bought my own house and not been a burden am expected to sell my only asset left ?Hmmmm that sounds really fair !
Oldgit - thats one way of looking at it. The other is that you have a large asset but you still expect the state to pay for your care? Effectively the taxpayer is paying for your kids to inherit. It will make no difference to you - you will end up in the same bed in the nursing home.
Why should the taxpayer pay for you when you have the ability to pay for yourself? thats fair as well isn't it?
neither way sounds fair. As said above perhaps different decisions should have been ade years ago - but without people using their assets to pay for care a significant tax increase is needed from somewhere.
You could have paid a couple of % of extra tax all your life - that whould have paid for it.