What do you think of Burnham's plans re inheritance tax?

[JoyousOpalLemur]

He has said in the past that he wants to abolish inheritance tax and replaced it with a social care levy on inherited assets, which will incorporate unused pensions.

I don't totally understand this if I'm honest - I think it means everyone will be dragged into the inheritance tax threshold, but it seems like a fairer tax than what currently exists, and it's there for a purpose (to fund social care).

What do you think?

https://www.independent.co.uk/money/burnham-prime-minister-money-taxes-mortgages-bonds-stamp-duty-b3001078.html

We should pay for our own social care and anything left over should go to our kids as we’ve been taxed on it already!

Which is the current system but not working as it’s taking up too much of council money
Hence the 10% IHT for everyone

The irony of this post!

The over 70s paying more tax is due to the fact many under 30s are too young to pay tax & a larger population of the over 70s, demographics are different now.

Family allowance is not the same as universal credit. And family allowance in the past was universal.

Pensioners have taken more out of the system then they have paid in.

They didn’t expect help with housing costs? How come 1 in 3 homes were social housing in the past? 🤔

In part the current system struggles because most people don’t actually end up in care homes but have care in the home which doesn’t touch housing wealth.

Nahh another BS idea to control people by minimising their assets. Just attempting to dip into the pockets of people who have worked and saved and have something to leave as inheritance. You could of lived in the family home throughout your life and to think upon inheritance you then have to worry about Gov thieves giving it - now you have to pay us whatever %!! Beyond disgusting. Whatever you inherit is your “security” and again it’s an attempt on making people have as little as possible and making life harder. Yet they always moaning “too many people are depressed/ anxious/ as more”. Very obvious why

Whilst I disagree with the LVT I think this one to pay for the elderly in care homes when they need it is good
Much better than self funders selling their homes and paying for themselves and paying for random strangers in the room next door that the council don’t pay enough for
Now that is pure theft !

10% from everyone with assets giving everyone security isn’t a bad idea

this will only be popular with those who have large estates
it will be hugely beneficial to their children to only lose 10% of their estates and they will still get a nice private nursing home that they can afford
The lower middle class will be dragged in as usual and what sort of social care is going to be provided - will it be ring fenced - I doubt it

Everyone does need to contribute to social care as the majority do not pay enough tax

Agree
and it’s completely unreasonable that those that currently pay for themselves top in the Government funded residents by ££££s
Everyone needs to pay if they have any assetts at all

I don’t - think it should be on a sliding scale, which seems fairer.

Why is that fairer?

Those with fewer assets shouldn’t pay the same percentage as those with huge assets. Plus, shouldn’t be on all assets, perhaps start at 1% on £100,000, 10% on one million etc.

however
the tax is an IHT not a pay as you go
because then those who die before care wouldnt pay into the system at all
we are then back to the current situation
No money!

IHT @ 10% on everyone because everyone has the potential to need care is fare
After all some people pay no IHT at all do 10% is still low

@Allseeingallknowinga sliding scale of what? A % means those with lower pay less.

Paying the same % is fare
those with fewer assets will then obviously pay less than tjose with more
£200,000 = £20,000
£2,000,000 = £200,000

The wealthy are still paying vastly more than they will ever need
if they live the average of 2 years with care
The less wealthy are paying vastly less than they will need if they live the average of 2 years with care

We can’t have everything for free
sometimes we all need to pay up

Let’s not forget the money is taken as IHT
So people are dead already when the estate pays up

people who have care in the home which is far more common don’t have housing value included in costs & it needs to be. The scale of the costs means everyone needs to contribute.

But with this policy perhaps the 10% will pay for it
we don’t have the uo to date or recently defined details

of course that’s assuming the level of care is necessary and not cheaper in a care home
People would probably need to be assessed for cost effectiveness

I think this is a good policy, as I’ve said upthread the vast majority haven’t paid enough tax for a state pension & years of free healthcare let alone
social care.

Absolutely
Then local councils won’t be spending so much of their budgets on it and
our council tax goes to improving the area

I’d be happy to shell out as a Gen Xer when the inevitable happens with the aged P’s.

@Snoopymayhemtbh I don’t understand why so many are anti

Well I’ll probably get told off on here
but
A lot of people don’t pay a penny in IHT currently and obvs rather like that

They are happy for others to pay and we see this on mumsnet all the time
So now the thought that they also might have to pay fills them with horror and
declaring it’s not fare
When in fact
Its , for once, perfectly fare

It’s not like they’ll need the money. They’ll be dead
Thats what a lot of mumsnetters always say when others face paying IHT
No one wants that to come back and bite them in the bum, and yet …..

i think you may be right!

And all those who don’t need care?