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

36 years of nursing has made me think that prioritising difficult conversations about prolonging frail, demented poor quality of life at all costs would be a much better start.

My MIL care costs £6k a month. It’s not terribly fancy. She’s been there for 2 years. She hates it, but is frail and lacks capacity. It’s all very sad, but she’s lucky she had a property that funds this. One she inherited (ironically).

Except we as a society rely on parents not only spending their money on themselves for things they need in their lifetime but also to fund the costs associated with raising their children. It costs £200k to raise a child in the UK and frankly anyone taking the financial hit of investing in their child is doing everyone else a huge favour as we need future workers and it's obviously financially advantageous to not have children. It is natural and normal that this parental bond extends to parents wanting to give money to their children in life and death. Both are currently liable to attract a huge IHT bill at the moment depending on timing. If you can spend crazy amounts of money on yachts and expensive holidays then why can't you give it to your children in a similar way? Why does this automatically attract a 40% tax?

I think you're trying to have it all ways. You can't on the one hand state that people should pay for their own care and then on the other hand look to socialise it so that the rich fund the poor. Do you think the poor should be denied care that they can't afford?

A flat rate of 10% won’t raise enough money If it Replaces the current inheritance tax system.

I think a sliding scale similar to Stamp duty is much fairer so those with estates under half a million don’t pay anything, £0.5-1m pay 10% £1-2m pay 15% £ 2m + 20% (or on a continuing scale until it brings in sufficient funding.

I say this is someone due to inherit a large estate. Honestly, inheriting £2m for example as opposed to £3m is not to be sniffed at and a seriously generous gift from my parents when they could (& may still do - you never know!) give it all to their favourite charity and leave an amazing legacy.

No it’s not fair

its not fair that if you work and save yiu get hit
higher rate tax
loss of allowance
iht
cgt
reduction in allowance on pensions
pensions now being taxed ( twice)

dont save? Live on benefits? Get it free

Inheritance isn't earned.

Money you have earned absolutely should belong to you - to be used for things you need in your lifetime. That includes care when you are elderly. Circumstances that warrant that assumption being rebutted are, very reasonably, your death. If you die with money or assets then they can be inherited but if you've spent it you've spent it I'm afraid.

If people need something they should pay for it if they can. Not expect others to contribute to it so that only specific people can receive a large sum of unearned wealth.

I think this is a fair proposal too. It is not fair that some people see their whole estate go on care home fees. 10% on all estates makes sense. Presumably this would be instead of inheritance tax or would it be as well as? I would also be worried the very rich would find loopholes though.

Those nurses/public sector workers don't get to pass their pensions on

Funniest thing I have read all day.😂

Yes, because being in an unfunded public sector pension scheme is clearly the thin end of the wedge for nurses.🙄

I think you're correct, it will be like the current model in Scotland where personal care and support is paid for by the local authority. Don't have the exact figure but it worked out to the council covering around 15% of the £1200 p/w care home fees. MIL then paid around £1000 per week for accommodation costs.

Don't be silly - it is nothing to do with care, you will pay 10% on inheritance, then you pay for your own care! Did you really think these 10% will pay for everyone's care?

Your terminology is strange. People's wealth isn't something they have just chanced upon and are 'squirreling' away. It's money they have most often earned and it belongs to them. You imply that the default is that they should give all this up for everyone's benefit but that isn't what most people want or think is reasonable. The default must be that your money and assets belong to you unless there are very specific circumstances that warrant this assumption being rebutted.

If we socialise care then it should operate broadly in the same way we socialise car accidents and house damage. You pay a premium and this buys you coverage. You don't think say to the millionaire that has an accident in their insured car that them claiming on their insurance is an opportunity for them to squirrel away money. That would obviously be insane. Why imply this when it comes to care?

But you could say the same about a cancer patient when they go in a hospice.

I don’t object to paying a contribution but care homes around here are around £6000 to £7000 a month. Whereas others get their care for free.

Obviously if you are on benefits you won’t pay anything when you die so makes no difference.

We’re all going to die someday but why do those unfortunate enough to develop Alzheimer’s have to pay exorbitant costs whereas other conditions have their care for free.

Just to confirm - I don’t think cancer patients should pay anything but Alzheimer’s is a very shitty
way to go as well.

My mum is not currently in a nursing home
but is paying for her care at home presently with a great deal of support from me and my siblings which is costing her roughly £2000 a month.
If I could afford it, I would give up work to care for her, but I can’t afford it as still paying off a mortgage and supporting 2 children in university. She is just lucky she has savings which means she can buy in care at home.

It isn't a socialist idea if it's introduced to keep lump sums of money in some families but others don't benefit. Everyone pays for the care and everyone benefits from free care when they need it - fine, I'm all on board with that. But not everyone pays so some can squirrel large sums away for their own private wealth.

But if you have dementia and are in nursing care you don't need your house - you can't take it with you and you're very unlikely you'll magically come out of nursing care and find yourself homeless. Passing it on to children is great, if you don't use it first - but if you need care then unfortunately you'll have to use it. Same with most services.

The people that earned the money should use it, their children and grandchildren shouldn't have it if it's needed for care.

I absolutely think it is fairer than the system we have now. Everyone is at risk of needing care, so everyone pays in to mitigate that risk- only this is an accrued payment made after the fact.

People say 'what about those with very small estates' - they get care free at the moment, a ludicrous situation than makes it a better choice to earn less or go on benefits, and own no assets at the end of your life.

I do think it needs to be transparent from the start as to what it will pay for, and what it won't. Or it will be like SEN education- a cost that seemed affordable when introduced but which has been inflated by ever larger and more bespoke demands.

My Mum sold her flat to pay for her care. No issue with this. The only issue is that it may still not be enough to cover the cost. I have no problem with paying extra on my own death but do want to be free to buy in the best possible care i can afford and it isn't a problem to sell my own home to do that. I don't get what the problem is with doing this.

I do get that for someone wanting to stay in their own home that it is harder to pre fund this and those that don't have any assets can't pay anyway.

I do want social care to be high quality and properly funded, so no problem if everyone pays 10% of their estate on death, provided there is an exemption for spouses. I do think though that it should apply to everyone not just the very wealthy.

I have major concerns that people aren't reading what has been said carefully enough. The money is going to be used for "care" apparently. It has been pointed out in a few places that accommodation, food, laundry etc won't be covered- just the care you need e.g. getting washed, dressed etc (maybe more for dementia patients)- so you will still need to fork out loads of money. Could be wrong, but a number of people have asked this and nobody seems to have clarified it.

He didn't get free care. He died.
She is too young for equity release.
It is not just an asset, it is her home.

In which case it’s equity release lifetime interest then. Easier if no kids to take it on, but no way should she be allowed to sit on (her fathers) asset worth £270k (avg home value in UK) for her lifetime for his free care, even if her income is low. That could be another 40 years before the care system gets what it is owed. Equity release it is.

Agreed.

Just to put another angle on, when I first started working and paying tax at 16 I was 'promised' my state pension at 60.

Due to law changes that will now be 68. (Personally I don't care, thats what private pensions are for.)

What's to stop the government taxing everyone at 10% now then changing the goal posts when the youth of today need care in 70 years time. Do you trust them to look after your Grandparents and Parents 10%?

ATM before anything has changed how would they pay for their care if they need it?