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

I suspect the 10% will be for estates that are not big enough to be captured in the current 40%/7yr rule.

Personally I have no desire to end my days in any sort of care, state funded or otherwise and wish they would approve the Assisted Dying Bill!

But wouldn't you rather your children paid less tax on their (hard-earned) earnings, rather than more tax on un-earned wealth? That's so much better over a lifetime!

Our chance of needing a care home when we are old is roughly a third. Most people don't need one. Even then, the average time spent in a care home is about 1-2 years. The average care home costs £65kish a year.

I think the figures could work at a population level.

You will leave 90% of it to your children. Why isn't that enough? It's entirely un-earned wealth for them.

In this country we are obsessed with taxing earnings and not wealth! That's much worse for your children across their lifetimes.

I've lost two parents this year and neither left anything but debt. Not everyone has an inheritance. Those of us who came from absolute poverty do see inheritance as a privilege. Those nurses/public sector workers don't get to pass their pensions on - unlike people who worked for the private sector!

It is a good idea but I’ve also read that another prposal is a new, extra national insurance/tax on working people - a ‘social care levy’. I think, in reality, this is the route the government will go down as it is the path of least resistance. I think it was proposed as an additional 1.8% from people’s salaries. However, this does not take into account what will happen as informal care is converted into formal care. So, the additional working person’s tax could easily be double this.

I don’t consider myself privileged or wealthy.

I will likely have an inheritance from parents who started with nothing and worked damned hard. My dad worked full time and then evenings 18.30 until midnight and after 3-4 nights a week, mum full time.

I hopefully will also have money to leave to my children. I have an unbroken contract of 35 years, in public service. Long hours, limited time, at times, at home. I’ve bought a run down house and renovated, I have spent carefully (no flash holidays or new cars, no debt apart from a mortgage). I have worked so hard (as do my children).

I don’t understand where the money would come from, to pay the care home fees, if people only had to pay a small proportion of it.

My Mum is 86, and owns her house which is worth about £300k. If she went into a care home now, I’d sell her house, and the £300k would cover her fees for a few years. Under this new rule, she’d only pay £30k, and the state would cover the rest. Is that right? Where would the government find the money? Am I missing something?

I think a ringfenced care fund levy and an inheritance tax is fair. Say 10% over everything over £10k for care, as tiny amounts would probably cost more to administer than they would bring in. Then an additional 10% on everything over £200k or £500k for the general tax pot. The care fund must not be raided of there is a surplus, as we also need to consider the declining birth rate

Adult social care (just like provision for some SEN children at six figure sums per child per year) could be better value if private providers were not involved.

Paying large wages to CEO’s and dividends to shareholders in private equity companies should not happen. Large profits which go out of the system should not be made from vulnerable people or the tax payer.

The Conservative government cut so much money from LA’s that private venture has had to be used for LA’s to meet their statutory duties, often court awarded. Places used in private provision, who continue to increase their fees.

I don’t mind paying for care (and have within our family -£6,600 per month). I also don’t mind paying taxes and/or IHT. I do mind private venture making large profits from the circumstances.

Exactly.

Also aren't the Boomers the ones that are going to be dying off and ultimately finding this anyway? They will essentially be finding their own generation.

My father's care was £2150 per week and they charged us extra for taking him out in a minibus once a week.

To be fair, it’s not going to benefit the boomers much. My mum is a boomer and she’s already 80. It’s going to take a chunk of time to get this up and running, funded etc. By that time the truly rich boomers will mainly be gone anyway.

The other thing the govt should try to do (how, I don’t know) is somehow make it a privilege to leave the 10%
A bit like when you give blood and it shows exactly where it’s gone.

I think that making it ‘fairer’ in favour of the generation who got every financial break going is unreasonable. Boomers sell
their houses to fund their care, put unfairly annexed wealth back into the pot, then start this scheme in 20 years or so when things have evened back out.

95% of people that die leave behind some kind of inheritance. The median value of estates is £69k in cash alone.

Ok so the state is picking up the care bill for many who haven’t paid for it and have chosen to spend their money on other things. It’s just relying on inheritance which is mad and doesn’t cover the whole bills anyway. We should all be contributing from day one. We can’t have it all. healthcare,education , care when old or ill etc without paying for it.

Sadly this is the problem - this is what lots of people think. Which will mean Labour won’t do anything, which means the “wealthy” will continue to avoid the high tax.
At some point, someone sensible in Labour will have to accept that they need to put economics above politics for the good of the people.

I think this is fair too.

I think it also re-enforces a very important concept that we must all contribute to society and its costs rather than expecting the few to cover the many. Obviously the few should pay a lot more and they will do so if everyone is paying 10% on everything as 10% on £1 million is a lot more than 10% on a £100k. Real money is only raised though when the masses contribute more. All studies show this. Pretending you can target rich people just leads to more tax avoidance and frankly there just aren't enough rich people to cover the bills.

What? Nurses, teachers etc that have a home worth a few hundred grand are privileged and wealthy?! I've heard it all now.

I think that’s a good idea for the future, but it would take too long to come to fruition and they need a solution now really. BUT I do think starting something like this now for the old people of the future is wildly sensible.

"Everybody" doesn't have an inheritance.

Privileged, wealthy people have an inheritance.

We don't need to use it.

The 'media's name' is why everyone thought 'Boris' was harmless.

I wonder about us paying an extra small tax from the minute you pay taxes only to be used for care when elderly or potentially ill. Some might not need it so it would just go towards everybody else and if small like NI you wouldn’t miss it. You’d still benefit as somebody in your family would need it. Surely it would be easier and cheaper and fairer to run than going into everybody’s inheritance