Potentially, another national insurance tax increase to pay for social care

It’s very likely he’ll have to buy her out or move, very few LAs are as generous as the one in the previous post. Only those over 60 are protected.

What about people under 60?
My friend's mum will need a care home in the next year or two. She is buying a house with her son. He is in his 40s. Will he be booted out? He will have joint equity of the house.

This is because repayment could make the spouse or partner or dependant person homeless. It’s always been like this. It’s about savings. Being asset rich and cash poor can work for you!

As many people don’t save for pensions they are hardly going to save for care when they are old. I agree with @Badbadbunny we do have insufficient need for some to work. Taxation of pension pots is a big one. People don’t want to pay the tax do they stop working full time. Doctors do this all the time. We lose some very good employees very early from the workforce.

No wonder LAs are broke when they don’t even take money they’re entitled to.

It's not going to be claimed back though. Its discounted from.the financial assessment so no fees will be payable, she has that in writing since another adult lives there

Unlikely given it cost May the 2017 election.

I think charges will be put on houses for people who need care in their home or it will happen by stealth anyway.

Houses don’t count if you’re still living in them. If you go into a care home and the house can’t be sold because someone else over 60 lives there the LA “lends” the fees and claims them back when the property is sold.

It has to be funded somehow. What is your preferred method?

They are in some cases. My friends mum remarried and he moved into her property but didn't own it. She needed care and since he still lives in property she is assessed as not able to sell asset to pay for care. She gets free care with a huge asset to leave.

I haven't read all this thread so someone has probably said it, but why would you raise tax to fund social care specifically when you have just failed to exempt the sector from an NI increase that is costing social care NFPs literally millions that they have no ability to raise.

Let's forget about tax for the time being and put all efforts into getting people working, i.e. better education/skills training for the young, reduced incentives for the old to retire early, more incentives to get part timers working more

But tax is part of the problem. More lower paid people being taxed because the personal allowance hasn't kept up with inflation feeds into the poverty trap. The higher rate bands - which also haven't kept up with inflation- are a reason why quite a lot of people in well paid jobs choose to work part time.

They were already in place, but we had a tax hike and no improvements and it’s not the rest of the UK as Wales also get free prescriptions, its actually cheaper to give them free than to pay from the admin of determining eligibility.

The answer has to be to grow the economy, increase productivity, reduce the number of unemployed and part timers (those who "could" work more), to get the economy going again.

We can't keep increasing taxes on the same group of people, i.e. workers, as they're the people we need on board to keep working both for tax revenues and producing the stuff we need/providing the services we need.

Let's forget about tax for the time being and put all efforts into getting people working, i.e. better education/skills training for the young, reduced incentives for the old to retire early, more incentives to get part timers working more, and both carrot and stick to get the feckless and idle doing something productive.

But the Scottish "enjoy" free university education, free prescriptions etc., so their higher income taxes ARE paying for things that the rest of the UK don't get.

@ErrolTheDragon exactly - many of us pay lots of insurances related to house and travel and unemployment /sickness and never claim on them - but will be well thankful for them if we need to

Something has to give though?

Rich older people enrich their descendants while young people from poor families get nothing

Yes, it’s become about what your parents have & what they can give you rather than what job you can get. Not great for productivity.

I think IHT can stifle an economy.

Housing costs have already fucked our economy.

Older people can help level the playing field by generosity to the living.

It doesn’t level the playing field, it promotes inequality. Rich older people enrich their descendants while young people from poor families get nothing. Inheritance is one of the biggest causes of financial inequality which is why I don’t care of my estate incurs IHT. After all I’ll be dead.

IHT is payable on the death of the last person. So IHT still payable if it’s due. Carers allowance doesn’t replace a decent income. Lots of people do stay in their homes though because they are comfortable there and London prices mean loads could pay IHT. Fairly ordinary homes and definitely ordinary people. I think IHT can stifle an economy. Not growing a business or bothering to employ anyone. However some people will find ways around a lot of taxes. My DHs method is to reduce IHT by buying cars! Spending money! Anyone just above a tax threshold won’t want to be there! I guarantee it.

I think the other issue is lack of trust in the state. Does anyone think they spend taxes wisely? Or get value for money? Or ensure everyone pulls their weight? We have millions of people who don’t. They could do more but prefer benefits. I have family members who do exactly this. Benefits come with no effort. A little job a few hours a week (16 or less) means they keep benefits. Others who work hard and pay taxes do resent this. It’s a fairly widespread view. I have always supported those in need being supported by the state, but deliberately not working and taking benefits is not what I support.

The other huge argument for being careful about IHT is helping the next generation who need much bigger salaries and much bigger deposits than ever before. Older people can help level the playing field by generosity to the living. What the state gets afterwards and after care costs is a bonus!

My understanding is that if a partner or dependent lives in the house it will be discounted. I don’t know if they can come after the house proceeds if partner/dependent dies or themselves require care.

Sure, a minority of the very rich give in other ways. But the cherry picking is a form of control. That’s fine if and only if you are also paying your share of IHT which goes towards the priorities of our elected government, whichever party it may be.

A very low rate of IHT at a lower threshold wouldn’t raise a huge amount of money. (It needs to be kept low enough not to disrupt dreams of home ownership for DC, etc.). But the principle is sound. Unless we find a better way to fund social care.

I have unbounded admiration for unpaid carers, but I am not sure what their situation has to do with paying taxes? I don’t know anything about the Carer’s Allowance. Is it means tested? I would favour financial recognition for all carers. It is a devastating job.

Simplifying tax would be good, I'm cynically inclined to think there are too many people making an unproductive living off its complexities (both state and privately employed) for it to ever be cleaned up.

Agree

I think people wouldn’t be so angry about IHT if younger people didn’t need help to get on the ladder. High house prices and stagnant wages means many need help to have secure housing.

If they own a house it doesn’t matter how much they spend, they’ll still have to pay for their care.

I thought houses were excluded from care in the home contributions?