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.

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.

TandemJeremy

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.

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

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 £100 000

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

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!!!

dazh – Member

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. [/quote]

Yup – I agree. the problem is no one want to pay the huge amounts of extra tax

I would prefer much higher taxation to pay for decent services provided free of chrge from the state and use inheritance taxes to deal with wealth inequality. Shame no one will pay the extra tax.

I’ve not read up on any of this, but let’s say my house was worth £200,000. Could I borrow £100,000 using the house as collateral, spend it in my dotage, then my daughter inherits the house, pays off the £100,000 and inherits the rest? My “assets” would be under the limit so I’d get free care?

In theory yes. However there are clauses in the law that deem that if you have given away assets to avoid paying then you are considered to still have the assets – so yo would lose the £100 000 anyway. This does happen

But I wouldn’t have given them away. I’d have spent them.

Do you guys realise that at the moment if you go into a care home your assetts are used to pay for the care. But if you receive homecare only your income is considered to assist with the costs. tories already changed the amount that is disregarded from (IIRC) £7000 to £100 000

The tory proposal is that this is changed so that home care is treated in the same way as residential care but the house is not sold – just a charge put on the property so when you die the state gets its chunk

scotroutes – Member

But I wouldn’t have given them away. I’d have spent them.

Think you would get away with that you profligate wretch 😉

Do you guys realise that at the moment if you go into a care home your assetts are used to pay for the care

Yes, but then those in my family in care are already private. Which I’m guessing is the Tories real intent.

There is no state ( or almost none) residential care nowadays. Long term social care was privatised 25 years ago. MOney or no money – you go into private care homes. State pays £500 per week to put people in there. Private payers pay £1000 a week to subsidise the state paid people. as costs are around £600 – 700 a week

Its getting harder and harder to find care homes willing to take people being state funded because of the shortfall in funding and care homes are finding it harder and harder to recruit staff because they can’t pay them enough. Pay rates are around 30% less than NHS

tjagain – Member
scotroutes – Member

But I wouldn’t have given them away. I’d have spent them.

Think you would get away with that you profligate wretch [/quote]

Hey, I’ve given this than 5 minutes thought and apparently come up with a wheeze already. What chance it would survive some accountants scrutiny?

the tory proposal is no different to what we have now for residential care simply extended to cover home care. Not many folk are able to avoid it as you would have to do this before you needed care and get all the money spent.

If you spoend it on “things” you could be deemed to be attempting to avoid care cost thus still forced to pay it. I know of one family where the parents mortgaged thier house and paid off the daughters mortgage in an attempt to avoid paying for care. the daughter was forced to remortgage and pay it back to pay for care.

You all do realise that this system of paying for care using asserts has been used for those requiring care in care homes for 25 years? apart from in Scotland where its a bit more complicated ‘cos the scottish government pays a part of the costs for all. They pay for the “nursing” component of nursing home care but not the “social” part

Tjagain I am sure there will be a whole new industry around this.

Ninfan actually makes a pretty good point: if you’re certain you want to leave the house etc to your next of kin, then self-fund some form of insurance to pay for your care. Sure, it’ll be expensive, but you’d keep the house.

On the more public line of funding though, there are many things that government chooses to spend our taxes on. Some of these are more sensible than others. Perhaps if a question was asked of whether we need four new nuclear missile submarines or to adequately pay for the care of our elderly loved ones we might get somewhere, especially if it was made clear that the only way to do both was that those who have houses to sell do so when the time times to pay for care.

oldmanmtb
In what way? this is the system that has been running for 25 years. Just extended to home care as well as residential care. Even in home care you pay part of the costs – its merely income that is taken into account not assets for homecare at the moment

I really think some of you are under a huge misapprehension about how the care system works and the costs associated with it

The system is close to collapse because of the lack of finance. In my area we cannot get the staff to provide the homecare.