To think capital gains tax on main home to pay for social care is fair

[jdoe8]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/tories-edge-towards-tax-they-dare-not-name-6x7hml03d

I mean it has to come from somewhere, seems pretty fair to tax the vast amounts property has made for the people that are now coming up to need care in a massively underfunded system.

YANBU

It really pisses me off when people try to get out of it or whinge on about why their parents shouldn't have to pay. Of course you have to pay. Why wouldn't you?

Requestingsunshine:
"he person in the room next door who has no assets gets the same care for nothing. I know the money has to come from somewhere, but this does not sit right with me."

Inaccurate. EVERYONE has to pay towards their care fees, either the lot from their savings/capital if above threshold or the vast majority of their income as a contribution to the total. The only way one gets completely free care is via NHS Continuing Health Care and that entails a long and complex process of assessment around needs, nothing to do with assets. In fact in my experience middle class types are more likely to have the articulate, pushy families who press it through.

My mum had hoped to move away from the cheap rural location to be closer to her family who stay in much more expensive areas. Now she can't do that because as soon as she does a large chunk which would be needed for the relocation would go to pay for my Dad's care costs. She is stuck in a large house that is too much work in terms of upkeep and too far from her family, that's hardly fair.

EVERYONE has to pay towards their care fees, either the lot from their savings/capital if above threshold or the vast majority of their income as a contribution to the total

That really isn't the case in England. If you have assets they are sold and used to pay the £600 a week care home fees. If you have no assets your pension might be used to contribute towards the fees but if you are on the state pension you are paying no where near the £600 a week fees.

To be honest I really can't see the point in saving anymore. In the past it was to help my kids out in the future. I might as well enjoy it now rather than pay anymore death taxes/inheritance taxes/care home taxes - call it what you want but if I do t have it hey can't have it.

Yes Dignitas or home version for me hopefully if I am able in time. It isn't right to make people who who have scrimped to pay for their homes pay when others do not. If someone has a shedload of money then a contribution to a fixed limit of savings left perhaps but seems unfair to take the lot if someone has been frugal.

I don't mind paying, but I would resent not having a dignitas option if I want to. Paying through the nose to keep myself alive (if I'm in pain/desperate to die) just because a bunch of religious believers think it's God's choice not mine No thanks

Of course, if you need state care at the end of your life, you should pay what you can for it. You can't take it with you after all. And if your family is a bit miffed at losing out on their inheritance, they've always got the option of looking after you themselves as many families do already.

People without assets can't pay for it and people with assets don't want to. so either the magical care fairies pay, or we don't get end of life care and just die in agony, or those with assets pay.

Or do people want those with assets to pay and those without to die painfully?

Not Iirc, the house cannot be sold for care fees if the spouse lives there. No need for a deed. The other way is to split the tenancy (ownership) into tenants in common as opposed to joint tenants, and thus a charge can only be taken over the half owned by the person in care, the other can't be touched. Difficult to sell the property as well as the person staying in the property would need to consent to the sale of their 50%, and cannot be forced to sell unless through the courts, and I don't think LAs want to go there.