Forum menu
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 - MemberAre 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 [i]did not[/i] "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 - Membernorthwind - 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 costsWell, if you start off accepting the Mail's assumptions as gospel, then you will arrive at some perverse conclusions.
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.
Most of peoples money (in terms of inheritance) is in their properties. If you knew the state would get it when you die nobody would bother buying properties. Properties would therefore be cheaper and only built to rent out (could be by state) Rent would be cheaper as everyone would be renting. People could then use their money in their lifetime rather than amassing it in a property that goes when they die.
Silly house price problem solved right there.
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.
You've lost me. Are you talking about inheritance tax or did you make the leap straight to totalitarian regimes in general?
Maybe it would help if you gave me an actual example, preferably one that relates to inheritance tax.
By TJ's argument, why should my taxes pay for a middle class families schooling? They could afford private education!
this is not my arguement at all. You can ignore the point I am making and pretend its something else if you want
My taxes should pay for education for all because it benefits society at large as well as those individuals.
Paying for old folks social care out of their general taxation only benefits the children of middle class parents. It has no benefit to society at large nor does it have any benefit to the people receiving the care.
the two are in no way comparable
I ask again - are you willing to pay 15 - 20% more of your income in taxes so a minority of middle class people get an inheritance of more than £100 000?
Are you talking about inheritance tax or did you make the leap straight to totalitarian regimes in general?
No great leap from confiscation of property to totalitarianism.
I would post something erudite and useful to the conversation. But I'm too busy studying ways to avoid paying inheritance tax.
I ask again - are you willing to pay 15 - 20% more of your income in taxes so a minority of middle class people get an inheritance of more than £100 000
A couple of pages ago it was a 3% increase in tax. Now it's 15% to 20%? You're going full Diane Abbot here TJ 😉
I think the real issue is you dislike inherited wealth
A couple of pages is a long time, you can't hold some to account over what they typed that long ago.
It doesn't benefit society to provide medical care of any sort to people beyond retirement. Maybe the potential savings are even greater?
You make the assumption that society will pay for poor people social care - this is being treat as a given?
So you expect people who have worked hard and gone without to subsidise others ( again)
I have inherited nothing (actually an overdraft) I have had no privileged inheritance and come from a proper piss poor background and invested most of my money in property, business and my 4 kids university education. For this to be taken away from me in my final years even after contributing literally millions in tax? Is that reasonable - not asking for anything special just equality.
[quote=oldmanmtb ]For this to be taken away from me in my final years even after contributing literally millions in tax? Is that reasonable - not asking for anything special just equality.
Now they're also suggesting uneducating people's kids to pay for their social care? 😯 That really is a step too far.
No great leap from confiscation of property to totalitarianism.
So any taxation means we're on our way to totalitarianism?
So any taxation means we're on our way to totalitarianism?
No, but deciding overnight to introduce a 100% tax rate for some arbitrary group is a pretty good start.
The question opens up whether it is a realistically insurable risk - difficult to future proof the bracket of exposure I suppose, but then so are similar long term investments such as pension annuities. I suspect that behind the scenes, these discussions will have already taken place.
Want to ensure your kids get your houses full value if you need care costs - insure against it.
TandemJeremyPaying for old folks social care out of their general taxation only benefits the children of middle class parents. It has no benefit to society at large nor does it have any benefit to the people receiving the care.
What about the severely disabled or children born with conditions that will result in a very short life expectancy.
Who should pay for them? Caring for them may not "benefit to society at large". If they're born into a middle class family, should the family pay for their care or the state?
Actually, don't want an answer
[quote=DrJ ]So any taxation means we're on our way to totalitarianism?
No, but deciding overnight to introduce a 100% tax rate for some arbitrary group is a pretty good start.
Is it really true that totalitarian regimes start with tax reform?
Paying for old folks social care out of their general taxation only benefits the children of middle class parents. It has no benefit to society at large nor does it have any benefit to the people receiving the care.
😯
Either I'm not understanding your nuanced argument, or you've changed. Looking after the old and infirm has no benefit to society at large? Is that really what you're arguing? I'm confused.
I think he means only the poor should receive care for the elderly through taxation. Not that there's no benefit to care provision to the middle classes.
Either I'm not understanding your nuanced argument, or you've changed. Looking after the old and infirm has no benefit to society at large? Is that really what you're arguing? I'm confused.
It's like something lifted straight out the Tory manifesto!
I think he means only the poor should receive care for the elderly through taxation.
Ah right, so it's a universalism vs means-testing argument. In which case I refer to my earlier post. I see no real distinction between medical care and social care TBH. Each is required by a person for no other reason than bad luck. If we see fit to provide health care free at the point of need, then i see no reason why we shouldn't provide social care too.
To be honest, I'm just guessing at his intended meaning.
Does seem quite Tory from what I'm picking up from his posts. Those that can afford decent care go private, the poor can have whatever is left over.
I ask again - are you willing to pay 15 - 20% more of your income in taxes so a minority of middle class people get an inheritance of more than £100 000A couple of pages ago it was a 3% increase in tax. Now it's 15% to 20%? You're going full Diane Abbot here TJ
I think the real issue is you dislike inherited wealth
Not clear from me at all Muddled up my numbers with some double counting. Sorry.
3% on tax with the existing numbers of people requiring care if they all get it for free. Numbers of people receiving care will double in a decade or two so 6% at the current frankly rubbish standard of care and there is a huge problem with recruiting staff to do the care because of the low pay and the amounts of home care granted is inadequate. Want a decent standard of care for the future with decently paid staff then increase that again to 10% +
At the moment those who do home care get below the minimum wages and people in real need get 4x 15 min visits in a day and none of those visits in the night or after 8pm. Its inadequate and unsustainable
Care homes also are in crisis as the state pays around £500 a week for care. care costs are £600 - 700 per week. Care providers use fee paying people to subsidise state paid
I am one of the people who stand to benefit. I have an inheritance coming of a nice middle class house. I am quite happy however if this is used to pay for my parents care
edit - to increase total tax take by 10% means we pay 10% more tax total which is a 20% increase from 40pence in the pound of income to 50 pence in the pound of income
so to increase taxation by 10% to get the amounts we need would be an increase to the individual of 20% ie 1/5th more tax.
Either I'm not understanding your nuanced argument, or you've changed. Looking after the old and infirm has no benefit to society at large? Is that really what you're arguing? I'm confused.
those elderly people get the care if its paid for by taxation or from assets. It makes no difference to them where the care is funded from. Paying it out of taxation rather than from assets has no benefit to society at large
I still have seen non one here make a coherent argument for the general taxpayer subsiding middle class childrens inheritances
How many kids do you have?
I'd be interested to know how many elderly have a house and/or assets worth more than £100k. I'd guess it's the majority and I'd doubt a lot of them would consider themselves as wealthy
I also foresee a lot of elderly people offing themselves to ensure their assets go to their children rather than paying for their care. Even more worryingly I can see some unscrupulous kids smothering an elderly parent with a pillow to avoid their inheritance being eroded!!!