to hope the government has the guts to tax WEALTHY pensioners more

[ReallyTired]

The Fabian society has suggested that wealthy pensioners pay more tax.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22220345

Some how I can't see a conservative wanting to tax wealthy pensioners more when they all vote Tory.

I find it unfair that pensioners with an income more the average family's income get free bus buses, winter fuel allowance, TV licence as well as paying less tax and national insurance. It is about time that the the wealthy pensioners took their share of the pain of the cuts.

I am in favour of well off pensioners having free bus passes, winter fuel allowance as these things encourage independence and improve health. I would like to see the money for these things clawed back by WEALTHY pensioners paying more income tax.

My kids had longer to wait. I worked till 6 with an hour commute. You can't leave primary school children home alone regularly like that they are too young. Using family or friends as free childcare is a bit selfish and it then impacts on their lives.

Xenia I think the jury is out on that one re kids doing better at home.Sweden is starting to experience problems.

The fact is parents want to be with their babies/toddlers and babies/ toddlers want to be with parents. It's a natural urge.Facilitating a short career break is not a big ask for either wanting or needing it.

Well Jack plenty manage it.

I don't think we need another mumsnet thread about why working parents benefit their chidlren but it should always be gender neutral. Income is one of the best indicators of childhood outcome. If mummy earns £250k and works full time very often the children do better than if the family lives on daddy's £20k and mother is bored at home. If it is so much fun at home men would be itching to do it and some are,

This weekends WeekendFT magazine had an interesting series of profiles of working fathers (and mothers) and how they manage their families.
www.ft.com/cms/s/2/885e1d28-a7c0-11e2-9fbe-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ROD0e0LT

Obviously Xenia but not all mums earn that much or are bored at home so perhaps you shouldn't make such sweeping comments re children doing better with working mothers.

Given that you're the biggest starter of threads bashing sahp you're right we don't need another one.

The thing that jumps out at me is that essentially NI is just tax by another name, so perhaps that should be rolled into one on earnings and everyone should need to pay that (possibly with reduction on tax rate overall if that brings in a lot more in revenue - not sure if it would or not).

Also, agree that savings etc should be used to pay for care rather than exempting in order to preserve inheritance, and also possibly increase inheritance tax.

I can see both sides. On the one hand as a taxpayer it would seem bizarre to pay for the care for someone who can clearly afford to pay for their own care.

But the other side of the coin is that unless you put some limits in place, the old person faces losing all their hard earned cash for their care. This is likely to discourage them to save at all. I mean why would I bother? If I have nothing, the state pays. If I have saved and gone without during my life then the state expects me to pay!?!?!

As an individual it seems very unfair.

I don't think its so much if a parent was a sahp but the work ethic instilled in the children that effects that Xenia. I spent time as a sahp i am currently one but i acknowledge that i am privileged to be able to afford to without help. I also accept it is my choice and i don't deserve handouts for my choice. I've also taught the children that you need to work for what you get so they work hard.

I agree niceguy, it seems extremely unfair - who's the fool in that situation? The sensible saver.

Niceguy 2 that is my worry with hitting pensioners harder you discourage saving for the future so make the situation worse in the future.

Old people pay for their own care. I think the proposal that you don't spend more than £65,000 of personal care cost (not the cost of the care home - hotel room, food, but the nursing care - you have to bear 100% of the room.food costs if you have any money and most of what you pay goes on that element anyway) is calculated at a level that means you pay it all for this reason.

Apparently most people arei n care homes for no more than 3 - 5 years before they die. The £65k of personal care cost takes you up to that level. Ergo the state's proposal to help is a load of rubbish. If you save your money the state will make you pay all your costs. If you piss your earnings up a wall or use them on wine women and song the state will pick up the tab when you're old. If ou give your money away to children in your 50s and then you need state care when you turn 80 the state will provide and you will pay no inheritance tax.

I do see the problem with discouraging saving and not quite sure how you get round that, because obvs you don't want to make state care rubbish as an incentive to save! I suppose you would need to hope that because people don't know when they'll need to pay for care, they will take a moderate approach to spending vs saving in the same way that many do now.

It just gets my back up when people argue that people should not have to pay for care so they can pass inheritance on, but obviously someone ultimately needs to pay or these things. The disincentive to save argument is the only one I can see - and even that would possibly mean some additional people needing to have their care paid for, rather than everyone if the state pays for all?

Time to talk to a specialist i think. Tie my money up in trustfunds so the children won't pay inheritance tax on it but i can get the interest in the meantime. I'm sure there's a way to do it with savings wouldn't work with property though.

Sorry - I do know that people pay for care now. I was referring to the argument that this should be changed, rather than thinking its not the case now.

Anyway, I've taken things a bit off-track here. Sorry!

How about providing a free no frills care for those who need but if you want anything extra you pay for it. You can pay for your food whatever because you'd pay that anyway but give a choice of costed menus

Personally I'd be in favour of a charge which is proportional to the amount of savings/assets you have.

Actually in an ideal world I'd love to give pensioners free care but alas that is unrealistic in the real world.

In other words, I think a care 'tax' would probably strike a fair balance between getting those who can afford to pay, to pay and not discouraging saving (too much).

There's no easy solution though.

Another alternative I'd readily support is a tax incentive for those who are living with their OAP parents. To me that would probably be cheaper than plonking a pensioner in a care home.

The irony of inheritance tax is, of course, that you are still passing your inheritance on - to the state in this case. Quite why that would be better than passing it on to your family or charity I am not sure. But that may be because I have little faith in any Government to spend money wisely.

inhertance tax is a funny one. ideally i would prefere wealth to be recycled back to the common pot at the end of everyone's lives. some sort of grand levelling the playing field between families.

but there are too many loopholes so it does not really work more than a token.

If that was the case Faster, everyone would just give everything they had to their dc before they shuffled off this mortal coil. Either that, or no one would ever save anything to start with. I'm sure the lib dems are already working on it

My father spent £130m,000 a year day and night dementia care and died at home about 2 weeks after he exhausted all his savings. We were very glad he died at home although it might have been nice had there been some savings left. Also he inconveniently died fairly soon after our mother so we all got a retrospective whacking great inheritance tax bill on what smallish sum we had had from her too.

He also saved all spare money all his life into pensions but then worked full time to 77 and died at 79.

Perhaps this is a lesson in how not to organise your pension and life. On the other hand the state did pretty well out of it all so that will please socialists I'm sure and it is consistent with my father's principles that people work very hard to support themselves and do not take from the state so I am sure he would not have had it any other way and none of us are starving despite having had the unexpected shock of the inheritance tax bill and his savings having been used up.

Yes FMS - inheritance tax is almost a voluntary tax on the stupid. If you give your money away and live 7 years then none is payable. As individuals spend money better than the safe most people tend to prefer their modest inheritance goes to their children not David Cameron.

I like the idea suggested up thread of a 'universal benefit' or citizens wage. Pay everyone a basic amount and then earnings are in addition to that so we don't have this ludicrous situation whereby people can have a disincentive to work because what they gain in income they lose in top ups and benefits.

As for the 'wealthy' pensioner issue, I still find it the supreme irony that those shouting loudest seem to be the SAHM with higher rate tax payer husbands who seem terribly resentful of anyone and everyone. And this isn't SAHM bashing at all, because it's fine for people to stay at home if they want, but they cannot expect to be funded by others for it. Or for a rewrite of the tax rules just to suit their position at the moment. As for saying '5 years isnt that long out of a working life'- well, fine, take 5 years off, take a lot longer if you want. Just dont moan about your choice.
Personally I took a total of 9 months off (2 pregnancies) and worked 3 days a week for 4 and a bit years. That fact alone has wiped quite a bit off my pension- but you know what ? - it was my choice to work part time so it would be ludicrous if I now moaned that mrs jones down the road as a better pension because she always worked full time. And for the last time... If SAHP with a partner earning over £ 50k are really so distraught about tax breaks then go and get jobs that earn £25k each. Go on. It's a choice. You may find that when you're paying childcare for several Children and managing a home and family as well as two jobs that you're eating your words!!

ihate - yes.

Xenia - my DF died at home as well. home is the best place for it, if possible.

I thought there was a limit to the amount that can be gifted each year tax free to avoid people just handing money over to avoid inheritance tax (before the 7 year cut off)? There are exceptions for things like paying for a wedding etc. Maybe I dreamt it (and I'm sure that the wealthier end of the spectrum would think of a way out of paying).

Agree with Janey. If you really feel hard done by re your partners salary - well do what Xenia is suggesting - go out and get your own job!

In these days of divorce, break ups etc surely its sensible to not be literally left holding the baby.

There does seem to be a sense of entitlement by SAHP's that really wasnt there 30 years ago. Some are even asking for childcare vouchers to be given to them. Well, (I have my tin hat at the ready) when your children are at school - what do you do all day......I am genuinely curious btw.

When all my children are at school, I will return to work. The reason I haven't yet is because I have a 2 year old still at home.