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

Blimey, how long have you got?

The NHS, for a start, also defence, police, prisons, motorways and major highways, courts, probation, major waterways, emergency planning, a proportion of all local govt spending via the Revenue Support Grant, the arts, health and safety at national level, museums, welfare and safety of farm animals and food production, coastguard service and probably loads more.

This

At the moment it is such a lottery as to whether or not you need to pay for care. DF had a fall, picked up an infection in hospital and died shortly afterwards with minimal care costs. DM has had to go into a home as she has Parkinsons with early stages of the accompanying dementia and her hands are clawed with arthritis so is not able to do much for herself. MIL died of cancer with all her care costs met. I can say that only one of 3 needing to pay for care is perhaps quite "lucky" but it is very clear that the whole thing is a lottery. Dementia is brutal enough on a family without having to worry if there will be enough money to keep them in a good home.

What about people in social/council housing who have the benefit of low rent their whole lifetime, shouldn't a small proportion of their income be taxed from their earnings say .3% as they won't ever get the benefit of not having to meet rent payments as those with mortgages but think a small proportion would be fair.
Equally the very wealthy shod be made to contribute. What about those who pay tax elsewhere (thinking rishi Sundays wife type)

Nobody knows what the proposals will be. Wait for the Casey Commission and don’t waste time projecting and fantasising!

It cost more like £1m, I was talking about after pensions and attendance allowance were taken off and it was a lot cheaper ten years ago. So £500k from her savings and proceeds of house sale.

My objection to an additional tax on "working people" is that those who get away with paying minimal income tax by being self-employed or setting up a limited company won't be paying it, or will only pay it on the amount that they pay themselves in wages.

People like 2 of my in-laws, who've made millions by renovating/developing and redeveloping property, got very, very rich by developing one property at a time and ensuring that one or both of them were "offcially" living there each time, thus avoiding tax. (They fucked off to live abroad when their accountant told them that the rules around their lucrative not-a-business were being tightened up and they wouldn't be able to get away with it any more, not even if they were "officially" living separately.)

What the hell do our taxes pay for?

what the hell did s the goverment spending our taxes on if not social care?

That’s very good value. Dementia care is now 1800pw+ in the SE so 500k would only cover 5 years.

I think the social care levy would mean all care is state funded?

Id argue that my relative did need medical care with advanced dementia. I suppose it depends how you define medical. Maybe we should charge for some medical care to make it fair, if you are in hospital is someone changing your incontinence pad medical when it isn't for dementia, or help with nutrition for someone who can't swallow, using hoists as they can't move independently. Should all those things be charged for everyone not just dementia sufferers. Why are they medical for some conditions but social for others.

Someone with one million would be self funding. And not have state funded social care.

It would make sense if it does replace IHT! Its rate that taxes are taken away though.

I think most proposals are about replacing IHT though. This would be unbelievably expensive for those liable to pay IHT if not as there wouldn't be a NRB for the Social Care Levy. So the £1 million estate would end up paying £350k. That is crazy!

Do we know if it’s going to be an either or though?

Would that person be paying £250k on IH and a further £100k on a social care tax?

Tax avoidance is always pretty risky and can be very expensive when you need to start getting lawyers involved. Currently someone with an estate worth £1 million will pay £250k in IHT. That is an awful lot of money to pay, especially if you've already funded your own care costs. If this was just £100k and you could get your care costs funded by the state then I think far less people would have a problem with this.

There is no cure for dementia anyway, which is not the case for many physical diseases.

And anyone that has relied on others all their lives and have no assets still won’t be contributors. So the contributors will still be paying for themselves and the non self funding patients to make up for the shortfall created by LA not paying full care home fees. In some cases you are paying 50% more to subsidise the care of the person in the next room.

Yes but i think the risk of social care should be socialised in the same way the risk of medical care is socialised. Either way thd person ends up dead without it. I dont especially get the distinction.

Its like education and healthcare get very intertwined with some sen childfen and the distinction ends up being false for arguments about who pays.

But would you rather the risk of needing care and nearly all your assets paying for it, leaving only 23k to your children; your children (and everybody else's children) paying 2p extra income tax to fund it; or taxing everyone's estate at 10% leaving 90% to your children and not paying care if needed?

But the point is that dementia on its own doesn’t NEED medical care, just ‘social’ care, as per my pp above.

Perhaps. Although I would not bank on it.

If the rate of IHT dropped then the business case for estate planning decreases.

My family, our friends, all have trusts set up, 7 year loop holes etc exhausted, to protect assets from the death tax. I would be happy to pay 10% in full.

He will be including many who currently pay no IHT to start paying 10% of an estate. So those previously exempt will now have to pay it.
Rich people already avoid paying. And probably will continue to. Unless he does something to stop that. Which I doubt.

An elderly relative recently died after ten years in a dementia care home. It cost well over £500k after you take pension and attendance allowance off.

It is a gamble, vote for 10% and get 90% or take the gamble of paying out 100%.