Andy Burnham should put the damn social care tax on landlords and big occupational pensions

Lots of people in the public sector have big pensions. I know someone whose yearly pension is more than my salary.

Getting rid of Inheritance tax isn't fair either though. Why should working people pay more tax so that other people get a big unearned windfall? The deceased doesn't lose out, because they're dead. The only losers in Inheritance tax are the beneficiaries who did nothing to earn it, so it seems one of the fairer taxes to me.
Agree that private care homes need scrutiny and ideally dispensing with.

You'll have to elaborate on this because I just don't understand. That liability of just under half a trillion is real. There might be a notional profit whereby in a given year more is paid in than is taken out but its not profit in any meaningful sense of the word. Or have I got that wrong?

The huge hole you talk about in government finances is the almost £500 billion that is unfunded, with no clue how to manage it going forward. How much more of a hole do you want?

I don’t see the link here.

maybe someone more knowledgeable than me knows the figures on benefit cheats. I’ve come across quite a few who are definitely able to work but don’t and live indefinitely on benefits. And before you jump on me and say I can’t know the ins and outs, I do. I am fully supportive of the welfare state helping those in need, but find it galling working my socks off day in day out and driving past the windows of those that don’t contribute at all. Bitter, me? Yes.

The main problem is people actually aren't having children, and one of the reasons is the cost of living. Not sure who is going to be working to pay for my state pension when I get there.

We all pay for the NHS, social care should be the same. It’s really no different to the NHS.

Exactly this.

Nope, not suggesting sterilization or anything like that at all. People have children for many reasons , but some will only do it for more money. Not everyone of course , but two is enough for many people who have to pay for them. Why should the taxpayer pay for more than two children. I know there are circumstances whete it’s not fair , but mostly it is. Removing the two children benefits cap was short sighted.

I think 10 percent off ALL estates is fair provided you got rid of inheritance tax - it would also raise more money. It should be spent on "care" - not accommodation. Accommodation and food should be paid by the individual or from housing benefits/state pension, if it is required. When I am old and need "care" I would be pleased to know that my medical needs were taken care of - hopefully this could be provided in my own home, but it it couldn't be, then I would be more than happy to pay for my food and accommodation. My DD pays 9K a year for fully catered halls at university - so a basic level of food and accommodation should be able to be covered by the state pension or any other benefits a person is currently receiving. If you want fancier accommodation then you can pay extra. The government also needs to look at how care is provided in this country - someone is making a lot of money as the carers are paid diddly squat and the facilities are disgusting. Where is all the money going?

Yup, "those with the broadest shoulders should take the biggest load"

Actually those who take the biggest load tax wise are higher earners on PAYE. It's only right up to a point, there is a balance -if you tax us too much it feels like a punishment for doing well and being promoted, and if we have less disposable income, we won't spend money and grow the economy.

Landlords are workers .

It's hard not to see these poor people as huge cash cows for the care home owners. Dead people don't need looking after. Shocking that a living will can be overridden by medical professionals.

What about one child. Are you allowed one? Or only if you pass the means testing?
Shall we sterilze them if they don't?

Look at the demographics, there aren’t millions of people having dc for benefits! It’s not like how it was in the past.

So we channel this money away from elderly care to help the autistic children become independent adults.
For them quickly to become expendable in a few decades when they are elderly with autism and deemed surplus.

As long as the 40% inheritance tax is scrapped, I have no issue with us all paying a 10% property death tax. I’ve just never bought into the idea that somehow the mega rich owe me something or that they should somehow fund my social care. They’re already taxed at 50% over a certain threshold so I don’t see why they should pay more for a system they are very unlikely to benefit from.

No, I’m not saying only the rich can breed at all, but we all know families who have more than two children for the money. It’s a shame that people don’t like hearing this.

I'd like to see savings made. If its taken out of the private sector so no one profits from it, that would be a start.
Then I'd like to see family carers recieve the equivalent of a living wage so people who are able to and choose to can care for their relatives at home. This would save £800 per week per person against the cost of residential care.
After that, I'm in favour of the tax on all estates that's been mooted.

My dad’s care home put his fees up a lot and he was only there for under 12 months. He had savings and a private pension , but didn’t have his own house. He was in there with people who didn’t have to pay anything.
They are a licence to print money as far as I’m concerned, but there isn’t that much alternative really.
Getting CHC is almost impossible, the authorities make sure of that one.

i don’t disagree but we only have 600 of them - it’s a drop in the ocean.

So you would prefer a whole lot of people get taxed more for delayed gratification via a big pension (be that because they've contributed more or they are in a job that pays less today but does have a big pension benefit) than tax unearned wealth received from the previous generation?

Is that what you are advocating for? Barely anyone in the UK has their inheritance reduced via inheritance tax (because that's what it is, the dead are dead) due to massive thresholds. Why should people have more of a leg up through birth right than by social mobility and careful planning for the money THEY not previous generations earned?

Not saying I agree with second home ownership but that's a slightly different problem.

It really does feel as though across the parties, they really are trying to go after the very people keeping the country going - the workers. The people that are doing the right thing, paying in and trying to build up some savings while paying off the mortgage etc.

No wonder more and more people are just thinking, stuff it, I won't bother. I know so many people in their 20's and 30's, still either living with their parents or in a house share as rent is so expensive. No hope of ever owning their own home. May as well have a shit quality of life without the agro of working.

So only the wealthy can breed?

All taxes start off low. Oh, it's only 10 per cent. Then Labour will think of something else that death tax could fund, and it will be increased to 20 per cent. No more taxes.

You know people's circumstances change right?

And my goodness, if the unwirth lower orders don't breed , who is going to do the minimum wage jobs that the worth middle class rely on?