AIBU to think a 10% inheritance levy for social care is fairer?

How does the principle differ from NHS care though?
We all pay for that, regardless of income and assets, and we all take (or not) from the system equally.
Social care is an extension of healthcare but because it is largely used by older people, the spiteful comments start.
Would you suggest that parents of babies that needs a lot of expensive special care at the beginning of their lives should use their assets to pay? So why is it any different at the end of life?
Social care needs to be addressed urgently. The fact that some familes could avoid paying it or the conviction that today's younger people will not get as much as today's pensioners should not be barriers to finding a solution we will all benefit from.

Incentivising private insurance in that way (like pensions) is more realistic - and will almost certainly end up better value - than a government-run National Care Service.

Anyone who doesn't buy the insurance has to use their own assets including their home. And the state (ie taxpayers) pay the eventual care home fees for those who can't support themselves,as usual. (Pays for state-funded fees, not insurance for them - otherwise we'd end up with fraud.

Making premiums pre-tax incentivises people to make contributions through their life, rather than trying to force them to (which is expensive, and always ends up with loopholes)

It's simple, and would work.

It would actually be pretty easy to fix as well.

Legislate that care homes can't charge more for self-funders than they do the state (and include 'extras' in that!). Of course, fees the state pays would have to go up to reflect the real cost, so there's no incentive for the government to do that (except actual fairness)....

And also encourage insurance companies to create a suitable insurance product for care. I'm thinking a 'whole of life' product, maybe capped (with continuing cover) after a certain number of years of premiums paid. It would have to be underwritten, so people couldn't start it after symptoms start, but perhaps some limits on what factors can be taken into account. It could even be incentivised by eg letting people pay the premiums pre-tax, like pensions.

The better answer is that we all buy an insurance policy that would pay out in the event of care costs. That way if affects everyone equally rather than the people that worked and saved.

It should never be that those that worked to own property and have savings, pay for those that were living in a council property and not saving.

Why is it that in almost every other situation where a person has bad luck or a need - illness, disability, unemployment, homelessness, children they can't pay for - the state steps in to fill in the gap...

...but just for Alzheimers and Dementia, the state instead uses the vulnerability (the need for a care home) to actively steal from the person

The state knowingly underfund the care they are responsible for (for other people, who can't pay for themselves). The state is completely complicit that the care home will take the shortfall from the self-funder - who has no alternative - by applying a 50% surcharge on the self-funder's care fees on top of what the state pays for the exact same care.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds, stolen by the state from each vulnerable self-funder, to personally pay for a stranger's immediate, expensive care.

That's the real scandal in social care.

I'm so sorry for your cousin @Papyrophile , and your aunt/uncle. Alzheimers feels like such a thief of life, and onset so early is heartbreaking.

I think what I find so wrong about the way our system currently works is that since the cost isn't socialised (unlike all other illnesses in the UK), it feels like those who are already unlucky - in getting the illness - are then doubly/triply penalised.

They not only have to fully fund their care - unlike those struck down by any other illnesses - but then in addition, a full third of their private home fees are used to subsidise those with the same illness who are 'state funded'.

So not only was their own risk not shared amongst the population... but the risk of strangers who can't afford their own care also isn't shared amongst the whole population. It's primarily paid only by those people already unlucky enough to have the illness themselves. They pay a 50% surcharge over the real cost of their care to cover people the state is meant to be paying for out of everyone's taxes.

It's completely insane that care fees for someone in the UK (anyone who isn't completely broke and dependent on the state) are actually more in nominal terms than they would be in Switzerland - a country with twice our GDP per person, and much better care - simply because there's no easy way in the UK to insure against the risk, and the government steals from those 'broad shouldered' mugs it has over a barrel.

At 70, I'm definitely in favour of a 10% social care levy on all estates above £10k. It's not a decision that would benefit my heirs, because it will mean they will start to pay tax at £11k, rather than at £1m.

As we're currently in decent fettle, with only one parent still alive, we've already started making PETs towards house purchases for the kids. We took our tax-free lump sum from our DC pension when it looked like the Chancellor would restrict values, and prompted gifted almost all of it; our mortgage was paid off and we have saved sensibly from our earnings over the years.

Only one of our four parents needed a care home, but in four years those costs swallowed 60% of the value of that couple's property.

One of my cousins dipped out even more. Her father was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease in his mid-50s, and by the time he died at nearly 80, his care had absorbed the entire value of the two family properties she and her husband inherited, and a majority of the value of their own family home.

Treatment for obesity saves the NHS a fortune by preventing diabetes and all of the conditions it can cause, heart disease, strokes, orthopaedic damage and a host of other conditions aswell so treating obesity is seen both harm prevention and cost saving.
Dementia care is about about managing mental decline as really there is no cure or effective treatment so nothing to treat and no money being saved in preventable illnesses.

I am not defending the position just explaining the rationale behind it

And I agree with @mosaicwasthebest that it's completely inconsistent to share the costs of people needing medical care (using the NHS)... but exclude Alzheimers and the illnesses of old age. It messes up the whole system - as inconsistencies usually do.

That insurance I mention- paid for equally by absolutely everyone,and used to provide care for everyone - should be extended to medical care.

Same guaranteed rate for absolutely everyone, with no medical exclusions. Compulsory by law. But treated as a government-backed insurance fund. Government-run services like hospitals snd ambulances paid for directly from it, and people able to claim from it for all non-urgent care, to break the state monopoly.

That's what most European countries do, and it works far better than in the UK.

That's why your taxes need to increase.

It's not to pay for my care (leaving me more money to spend how I like, including giving it to my children). My taxes are paying for that.

It's to pay for your own care, if you need it.

With either a 10% death tax or else a 1.8% income tax, the richer person is going to be putting more in as it is - already subsidising you. Why on earth should they subsidise your care, but not even get the shared benefit?

Personally, I'm not particularly happy with subsidising you with a percentage-based tax at all.

What would actually be fair would be a genuine government-run insurance scheme where everyone paid the same fixed rate insurance premium (regardless of their age, health or risk) which covered all social care. And everyone has to pay that same insurance premium by law. Everyone. Regardless of income. And everyone gets the same care costs paid out of it. Everyone.

And if benefits have to be increased so that people can pay that fixed social care insurance then at least it's obvious that this is another cost of welfare being borne by taxpayers.

Instead of hiding it by taking more and more from the same tiny group of net-contributors whilst everyone else just expects to get everything for free - and somehow feels hard done by if they have to contribute at all, even when they are being subsidised.

If you expect me to pay for my own care, then why on earth should I pay for your care (through my taxes).. just because you can't afford to pay for it yourself?

We're either a society - who all pay in, and all get care when we need it... or we're not.

There is unfairness there but it's got nothing to do with your DH and SIL getting to inherit but not you and your brother. No one has any entitlement to inherit money, at all, ever.

The only people who have any entitlement to that money (or any money) are the individuals it belongs to (and then only after they've fulfilled whatever tax or other similar obligations they have).

The unfairness here is to the individuals who own the money, in this case your in-laws vs DM, because the current rules treat different conditions so differently. There is no unfairness to you or your brother or any other beneficiaries - there's bad luck, yes, but not unfairness, because there's no entitlement to inherit (otherwise the state would have to do something to somehow make everyone inherit something).

So a side effect of someone having less of their savings taken is that their children may inherit more (or the local cats home may inherit more), but that can't ever be the point of trying to make the system fairer. Not least because if you do a higher tax across the board then that will mean certain other people will inherit slightly less.

The point should be to improve the system overall as in make it actually work better and to remove some of the unfairness of catastrophically high costs hitting some people but not others due to the lottery of illness.

Not a ridiculous example at all. I said up thread that DF died recently after a fall lead to a stay in hospital which gave him necrotising fascitis. A quick death with no care needed. MIL and FIL both died of cancer - all care paid for and in MIL's case for quite a long time. DM - dementia - care not paid for. You may say that we are lucky we only have to pay for 1 out of 4 but the point is that DM and MIL have similar care needs and one was paid for by the state and one wasn't - so DH and SIL got to inherit everything and DB and I don't - despite the care needs being pretty similar. How is that fair?

What a ridiculous example.

Why can’t people simply pay for their own care from their assets? Will your suggestion cover the cost of care or will we all face increased taxes so you can get an inheritance?

Which would be fine if the playing field was level but it isn't - you don't have to apy for eg cancer care but you do need to pay for dementia care. If people with cancer had to pay for their care then it would be 100% fine to expect families with dementia to pay for care but that isn't the case. It basically depends on what the parent gets in the lottery of end of life health problems as to whether or not they ahve to pay and can or cannot leave their estate to their children. That is the problem not how much anyone has to pay to fund it.

Obesity costs the NHS billions, it’s pretty much avoidable, can be self managed, but treatment is free from the NHS. Why is the same principle not applied to dementia sufferers, which is less avoidable?

Everyone should pay so via income tax could be fairer. There won’t be much point having anything before long.

That's my point, it's not binary.

I don't assume that someone who reaches 60 with no assets has been lazy or irresponsible. There are a whole host of reasons why they might be in that position. Low-paid jobs, they have been a carer, they have a disability, they haven't taken personal responsibility for their finances or health, or a million things in between. Nor do I assume that someone who reaches 60 with a house and a private pension has just been lucky, is wealthy, has had some unfair advantage or is somehow more able to pay higher taxes just because they have assets.

My point is that across this thread and others, people are very comfortable splitting people into two groups. If someone has accumulated assets, it's all down to luck or unfair advantage, and they have a "personal responsibility" to pay more. If someone has little or nothing, the emphasis immediately shifts to inequality, unforeseen circumstances and things outside their control. Personal responsibility is effectively dismissed.

Finances and health are the result of a mix of personal responsibility and luck for most people in this country. If you want fairness and expect people to contribute financially what they can, you should also expect everyone to minimise their costs where they can and for as long as they can.

Why should personal responsibility only apply to those who you want to take more from?

Why do people think that it is so binary.... people who "did the right thing", saved up, bought a house, got a private pensions... and the opposite... people who could "chose" not to look after themselves, so get to their 60s with no assets to speak of.
A lot of people fall between both extremes, and some people who get to their 60s with nothing were not out spending every penny to make sure they get a place in a shitty council run care home. They may have been low earners, carers, or disabled.

Everybody is so obsessed with taking from those they think deserve to pay more, who more often than not aren't the truly wealthy. Why should people pay a 10% social care tax, or even subsidise the care costs of those who have chosen not to look after themselves? Why is someone who has worked, saved and accumulated assets expected to to be responsibility for the cost of their own care, whilst also subsidising the care costs of others but someone whose lifestyle choices mean they require longer or more costly care can just pass extra costs on to everyone else? Fairness should apply to those who take as well as those who contribute.

How about we apply the same principle of personal responsibility to healthcare that people are applying to those with "more" when they expect them to subsidise others? If we are going to make fairness, personal responsibility and the greater good the basis on which people are expected to fund their own care, then surely those principles should apply to the costs people impose on the system too. Taxes are not free money to be wasted. Every £1 spent dealing with avoidable ill health is £1 that cannot be spent elsewhere.

I totally agree that this is a very self-centred and distasteful way for someone to put it: "everyone else should pay so my parents/relatives etc don't have to spend my money", although I'm not sure I've ever heard it put quite that bluntly - I think people perceive it as implied a lot though.

The main argument as I see it is "all of us [not 'everyone else'] could share this cost so nobody ever has to spend all (or nearly all) of their own money" (and more importantly "so there might actually be enough money for a social care system that works and so people needing care don't block hospitals"), but even then I agree that anyone making that argument who clearly only has their beady eye firmly on the moment when they inherit would be distasteful.

I suppose I just don't think the existence of some greedy people who will always see things in that personal light invalidates the fundamental potential value of sharing/socialising more of what is a non-discretionary, non-universal, highly individual-health-related cost where ordinary tax combined with payments by individuals who need care and have funds aren't between them covering the society-wide costs.

The greedy people will probably also say "the people who are unlucky enough to need care should spend all of their money on it and no one should take a percentage out of my inheritance", if they think their own parents are unlikely to take out more than they put in via such an extra tax. Some people will see every system in that light and not wanting those people to get what they want should not really be a constraint, if a system would otherwise have benefits.

I thought it was instead of, not as well as.

My quibble isn't particularly with people having money at the end of their lives - it's the idea that they should be able to achieve a final lump sum by avoiding paying for something. Moreover, it's about expecting everyone else to pay for you instead, even those who will not be fortunate enough to receive anything.

Really it's the recipients of the inheritance I find most entitled - 'everyone else should pay so my parents/relatives etc don't have to spend my money'. Talking about fair and unfair when really what it boils down to is disappointment you won't get your cash is pretty crass.

Wanting to leave money to your family may well be a 'natural' thing to want to do - but if you need to pay for stuff then you need to pay for stuff - that's the same all the way through life, even at the very end.

Yes. It’s not an alternative, it’s an extra for social care.