CharlieMungus – Member

“Why should someone with half a million capital get a benefit from the state of 50 000 PA?”

Why shouldn’t they?

You really think its right that someone who is rich gets many tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money so that heir riches can be passed on to their children?

As CharlieM said before, higher tax TJ. I don’t think he’s expecting a government handout.

Its still taxpayers money. You are asking poor people to subsidise the rich.

How about if someone who had a million in savings lost their job. Should they be able to claim housing benefit? and have their mortgage paid?

Just perhaps we step into the real world and stop donating millions plus to foreign countries, stop a costly and pointless war in afganistan, libya, pull all the troops out of northern ireland, and reduce the ampoount paid to MP,s we perhaps may have enough cash in the kity to look after our old people, as one day they will be us.

“In 2010, the UK spent 0.6 per cent (£8.5bn) of its GNI on aid, well above the OECD average of 0.32 per cent, but still less than Norway (1.1 per cent), Luxembourg (1.1 per cent), Sweden (1.0 per cent), Denmark (0.9 per cent) and the Netherlands (0.8 per cent). The US continues to spend the most in cash terms (£18.5bn) but this represents just 0.2 per cent of its GNI.”

Its still taxpayers money. You are asking poor people to subsidise the rich.

No Its a way of people paying, according to their means in a fair and manageable way, throughout their working lives.

Peanuts in comaprison to the sums involved here Project.

jme – however poorer taxpayers are unlikely to have much inheritance to protect, richer ones will. So its a transfer of wealkth from poor to rich. Effectly the cleaners kids get less money to live on so the lawyers kids can inherit.

In life a lot of benefits are means tested, so why shouldnt a very expensive house be included, perhaps anything over 200,00.
That should be most down south.

Well that depends on how you implement the tax doesn’t it?

And project’s figures arent peanuts, that would account for circa 50% of the current bill.

+1 to this:

The advocates non-hereditary policies are taking a very one dimensional view here. Ok, so if we do away with the inheritance, what effect do you think it will have on society, motivation to work, long term goals and planning? If all you have worked for comes to nothing, why would you work so hard all your life?

Providing for your kids is as basic a human motivation as I can imagine. Take that away, and we’d see a society of layabouts.

Bert next to him spent all his money on whiskey fags and hookers?

and, as George Best said, wasted the rest 🙂

TJ – really good thread and very apt to our society now. Firstly I am a big believer in voluntary euthanasia. It has to be one part of the solution. I do not want to live in permanent pain or not knowing where I am and have the state spend thousands on keeping me alive (or robbing my children of their inheritance depending on my financial position in xx years) I haven’t read the report but intend to do so and don’t pretend to understand the finances. Have to go and eat now but will hopefully be back to read the thread and make a few comments later.
One thing though don’t talk to me about it being a middle class thing – what about the working class who have worked all their life to be able to pass things onto their children to get a better start. They will lsoe out whilst as normal the rich will not. Is means testing or paying a percentage of your inheritance a solution? Hope to read more soon…P.S Like some of the comments from amongst others Craigxxl, cougar, maycontainnuts sadmadalan and bermbandit 🙂

It is a difficult and complexissue for sure and seems unfair from any side.

At least those arguing for universal free provision will accept the significant extra taxation this would require. Unfortunately the public at large will not I fear. Two or three % on your income tax? Can’t see a labour government selling that let alone a tory one and its ridiculous to pretend that it could be done without significant tax rises.

DrJ – Member

Providing for your kids is as basic a human motivation as I can imagine. Take that away, and we’d see a society of layabouts.

~at the moment people have to sell their house to provide for their care and I haven’t noticed all the middleclasses becoming layabouts.

What really bugs me about our current system is the cross subsidy. Many homes have a mix of residents – some state funded at £480 a week, some private at £900+ a week the actual care costs £700 or so a week so the private payers are actually cross subsidising the state funded ones – now that really stinks.

The other one is that the £900 a week might be able to provide enough care for the person to manage at home – but without selling the property they haven’t got that money and if home care costs rise above £500 a week its off to a nursing home for you as that is the most the state will pay.

State funding has to rise – yousimply cannot provide care to teh legal standards required for £480 a week. Tahts why the care home sector is in such trouble. Homes that cannot attract private payers to cross subsidy make losses unless they cut corners that leads to the scandals we hear of sometimes

My preferred option would be for care costs to be assessed better and provided all by the state – an massive inheritance taxes on everyone to pay for it so you have max legacy of “100 000 or so

Nacho – poorer people don’t tend to leave so much – and you get to keep the last £23 000. Rich people have so much dosh that care costs are insignificant. Its the people with the half million houses where the issues rasises its ugly head most.

Its a gross oversimplification but the main effect of providing free care for all from general taxation would not be any difference in the care but simply would mean middle class children get to keep their inheritance and not see it all swallowed up in care costs for thir parents.

Binners- just interested at what point was me working hard at school,arranging work experience placements, getting good a levels, saving for uni, getting into uni, studying hard, sacrificing a summer to get a placement that offered good prospects, working in my 5th choice hospital, saving hard, working long hours, putting in extra shifts, saving hard, choosing and buying the house I could afford, lucky?

Just a thought…

DrP

you are asking people who have the means to pay for their care to do so

What scares me is how “the means to pay” is calculated. “Having a hundred grand lying around in the bank” is a wholly different ‘means’ from “well, you can sell your house.”

DrP – to enjoy your life and to provide for your kids? Its not lkike a couple of hundred years ago when you inherit in your teens – nowadays we don’t inherit until bear retirement ourselves.

You kids will still have better than average opportunities with or witout the big inheritance

DrP, If you don’t mind me asking, what is your background? how did you fund your way through your studies. Their are kids about who could have been in your position but circumstances meant it never happened. So yes some of your luck is yours but some of it is often your parents. I saw some study that made the point that to join the bar you had to come from London and have lawyers for parents.

I understand what you say about providing for kids as a basic need but when does providing for kids become allowing your kids to spend their life jetting around the world constantly partying.

And this comes back to my earlier point doesn’t the hard working cleaner deserve a decent level of care in old age. They earn little enough now, so is it fair to ask them to subsidise the lifestyle of the well off and by implication fund the opportunities for their children that will deny their own children the chance.

A huge amount of life is not about ability it is about knowledge.

We could start by taxing “severely” all of those who own two properties. That would make a sizeable dent in house prices, enabling more folk to own a house if that’s what they want and stop the wealthy from profiting and increasing the divide between rich and poor. That puts everyone on a more even playing field from which to start this discussion.

Strange Southern cross has just gone bust, and they dont know who is going to look after the old people, and pay the staff.

Also if i was old, and had to sell my home that i had payed for over a few years, i would expect the best possible care for 900 quid a week, not the totally sub standard care, provided by a lot of care homes, paying staff the minimum wage, making them work 12 hour shifts, and days off because there where no free staff to cover, then im just old fashioned and believe i should get value for my cash as well as proper and decent management of the home.

Druidh – from earlier conversations you are against universal benefits to the extent of not claiming some you were entitled to. Are you against people getting money from the taxpayer to fund social care?

I could afford, lucky?

did you work hard for your brains to enable you to so this or were you born bright? Could everyone achieve this with just enough hard work or is something more than effort required. That is the lucky bit. yes you put in personal effort but that alone would not have got you there.
PS we paid for that education and the job that helped you get where you are now.

They should pay for it themselves. God damn baby boomers enjoyed affordable housing, cheap money, accessible education, cheap fuel, stable, well paying jobs with great pensions, the list goes on and on – they had it all and what did they do? Poisoned the earth then set about systematically tearing apart for future generations the systems that provided the benefits they themselves enjoyed. They haven’t even got the decency to die early.

THIS basically. My parents have retired with good pensions,massive gains on houses and can spend 6 mths abroad each year [ Mum a nurse dad a well paid manager 50k]in brand new 40 k camper vans.
Now I expect all of you to pay for their social care so these poor unfortunate pensioners can pass on their wealth to me. Can I just say thanks for helping me out and of course these poor hardworking pensioners. They worked hard all their lives to make sure there was not enough money in the pot to pay for what was promised to them. They left you to pick up the tab so they could give me lots of money when they die.
I would cap much lower than the proposal and expect a percentage of the house sale. If kids want the inheritance look after them yourself.

We could start by taxing “severely” all of those who own two properties. That would make a sizeable dent in house prices, enabling more folk to own a house if that’s what they want and stop the wealthy from profiting and increasing the divide between rich and poor. That puts everyone on a more even playing field from which to start this discussion

…and getting rid of public schools, and private medicine, and so on.. But the ‘great British public’ are happy to see people in poverty because as long as someone is lower on the scale than you, you can feel better about yourself…

Ta folks – interesting thoughts.

I am off to work now

Its still taxpayers money. You are asking poor people to subsidise the rich.

You’re not though are you, it’s likely that the very poor will have paid little or nothing into the state coffers and the very rich may well have contributed hugely.

We could have a simple system that is means tested throughout life via taxation, or we can have a simple system that is means tested at the point of delivery.

I’d prefer either (and probably the former) compared to some kind of fudge in the middle that means that some people will benefit from the system in what seems like an unfair way by having a threshold on the amount anyone pays.

We could knock a zero off the price of every house in the country. That’d solve a lot of problems.

TandemJeremy – Member
Druidh – from earlier conversations you are against universal benefits to the extent of not claiming some you were entitled to. Are you against people getting money from the taxpayer to fund social care?

No, I’m not against it, I believe there should be some assessment of “ability to pay”. What about an elderly couple, where one needs personal care? Are you going to make the other one homeless in order to pay for it?

btw – I’ll be “lucky” enough to inherit something from my folks estate as they both died recently. I find it insulting to suggest that I’d rather have that money than have it paid towards their care costs.

I also LOL-ing at the idea that I (or my folks) would be “middle class” because we were sensible enough to save towards owning a house.

well TJ spot on topic.
one or two points.. far from everybody ends up in a home far from everybody.
it aint no long term gig when you do go.
if you have some folding you should pay, either in tax as you are earning or top up the state basic level of care when you need it.
so this guys suggestion is that you get x per year no matter what you have in the bank under the bed and top it up as you feel fit and frankly i dont see a lot wrong with that. how ever whos going to pay for the basic level of care if the govt cant afford a state pension until your 65 ( a recent care home we worked in had a 48 yr old resident..)

MrMO – I’m the first ‘professional’ in the family. Mum was basically a housewife, dad was in the motor trade.
Paid for uni by, well, student loan and summer jobs (So, technically still paying for it!). They had saved some cash and supported me, for which I am very grateful, but without getting the full student loan, it would have been a no-no for me (which make me wonder how things would have been if I were at uni now..). I know what you mean though, as a few of my friends had the whole way paid for them, and used student loans for iMacs and booze!

Also, there’s no doubt I was born with a degree of intelligence, and of course I have my parents to thank for encouraging me through school, but as I’ve said to a lot of people – you don’t actually need to be massively intelligent to be a doctor, but you do need a rational sense of risk, a good work ethic, and a ‘logical’ mind….

I know this is detracting from the original argument, and to be honest I do feel ‘lucky’ with my life, but a lot of that ‘luck’ is to do with choices and actions that have been actively taken – nothing has fallen in my lap so to speak!

Enough about me….. think of the old people…….!

DrP

You end end up with a society where the best are not at the top rather the richest are.

Even if everyone started off with zero had the same education in massive government boarding school with no parental input to gain advantage of knowlege passed through the generations it would still be the rich at the top in charge. These may be the best people at getting rich and playing politics. They would not be the best artist say, or the best scientists e.t.c.

Best dose not mean best paid.

I’m not denying there are varying advantages at birth for different people but even if the slate was wiped clean every generation the rich would still be the ones at the top. Different social structures would evolve of offering legups though different pathways and mechanisms. We are social creatures and there will always be rich breeding rich, power breading power.

It’s the same reason there are no truly free markets, intellectually and socially as well as the more classical trading markets of goods / services e.t.c.

Who should pay?

The people who have benefitted from the infrastructure and taxes paid by the elderly – the next generations.

TheBrick, my way of looking at this is to look beyond the pay. a society needs bosses, workers, cleaners, doctors and carers. Whilst i accept that the way of society functions means some will earn more than others, i would much rather a system that helps those at the bottom than one that gives a free hand to those at the top.

But there is much in the current system that is not right, why have a minimum wage tax it and give tax credits back. but back to the point those at the bottom should not be taxed to benefit those at the top.

druidh –
No, I’m not against it, I believe there should be some assessment of “ability to pay”. What about an elderly couple, where one needs personal care? Are you going to make the other one homeless in order to pay for it?

Nope – same as now – the house is disregarded when one person is still living in it spouse or other dependednt. Not independednt children tho

I suggested it should be all care free but paid for by massive increase in inhertance taxes

btw – I’ll be “lucky” enough to inherit something from my folks estate as they both died recently. I find it insulting to suggest that I’d rather have that money than have it paid towards their care costs.

No offense intended and I did not mean to insinuate that at all – genuinely interested in your response to this as you both have a good grasp of finances and often have a diffferent viewpoint to me

I also LOL-ing at the idea that I (or my folks) would be “middle class” because we were sensible enough to save towards owning a house.

dunno about your folks but you are as middleclass as they come are you not 😕

TJ – I wasn’t suggesting you’d insinuated anything. I guess I was assuming that everyone else would feel the same, and that given a choice they’d also decide to give up their inheritance for the comfort and well-being of their parents.

The fact is that the truly wealthy are clever enough to make sure that their resources are beyond the immediate reach of the state.

As for being middle class, I don’t think I am.

Ideally the children … 🙄

Coming late to this thread, after TJ has left the scene, it’s clear to me that the state is going to have to do more and fund more – and so yes we will have the pay higher taxes, and the tradiional loop holes the wealthy use will need to be plugged.

It’s just so ironic that on the day the ConDems launch their big ‘let’s privatise everything’ initiative, because they would have us believe that private is always better, the biggest player in the private care sector goes belly up, with others set to follow, while the biggest private media provider is so mired in scandal and corruption that even the traditional Tory and New Labour brown noses are running for cover.

And they say the market is efficient…………funny old world.

Surely the only answer is for all of us to live within our means both on an individual and a societal level.

So it seems to me that a basic level of care should be state funded for all within the budgets available, then after that its down to you to provide for yourself if you want higher standards of care. Dare I say that run well its even possible to envisage the latter subsidising the former to some extent.

I can’t see any reasonable alternative.

dekadanse

Southern cross has gone belly up for a number of reasons but one of the biggest is that its not a true market. councils set an arbitrary ceiling to the fees they will pay for care for people with no money of their own and this is unrealistically low.

care is fairly tightly regulated in terms of staff ratios and equipment – the two main costs and its almost impossible to meet the regulatory burden while keeping costs below the fee levels.

Southern cross have been fairly near the bottom of the market so unable to attract many private payers to cross subsidise.

The conservatives response to the Dilnot commission will be interesting. They will find it hard to use and justify using more public money to support the more well off. However the right wing press do bang on about “granny sells house to pay for care” I don’t think Dilnot has come up with anything that will get them off the horns of this dilemma – indeed I don’t believe there is a solution (acceptable to the right anyway)

similarly what will they do with southern cross? Public money in or let homes close and old folk be evicted?

Berm Bandit – Member

Surely the only answer is for all of us to live within our means both on an individual and a societal level.

So it seems to me that a basic level of care should be state funded for all within the budgets available,

That means a significant increase in taxation to pay for it a couple of % on the basic rate equivalent. Its an expensive business

I know.