To think this is the fair and kind way to fund social care crisis

[BarnabyBungle]

So two people each have £325k in assets.... one dies of a heart attack suddenly and leaves inheritance for family (and/or anyone else they so choose), the other gets severe dementia and spends years in an expensive home, and spends all but the £14k threshold left when they die.

Hardly fair is it?..... But then it’s unreasonable to increase general taxes to fund care as it would mean those without substantial assets would be paying for enabling those that did....

Surely lowering inheritance tax threshold and/or increasing the rate would be fair. If the limit were, say, £125k, and the rate was, say, 40% on inheritance above to the current £325k threshold, both imdividuals would pay £80k inheritance tax, enabling both to pass on £245k, rather than one passing on £325k and the other £14k.

Not only would this be far fairer it would help alleviate the anxiety of those with dementia knowing their condition means they will mean their assets will be dramatically reduced as their disease progresses.

dreamingofsun

Yes, there always will be. But the more and more we head in that direction, the more there will be.

I won't lie, I look at my parent's situation and then wonder if I am doing the right thing by trying to save and organising a pension like they did - ultimately they have gained very little for doing so but missed out on so much.

I think of myself as a moral and proud person and if has me asking myself that question, there will be many more doing the same.

@Romany And those of us with no relatives? Chuck us in landfill?

We could all move away from our home town, finances aren't an excuse

I can’t decide if you’re being wilfully ignorant, or genuinely just haven’t got a clue.

Moving house costs money, removals cost money, rent/deposit/mortgages cost money, you need money to live on. How do you propose someone on the breadline does all of that along with caring full time for a relative?

butlerswharf

That's healthcare funded by NHS @BarnabyBungle not social care.

But that’s the point... the person who died from a heart attack could have had £10ks spent on their care that they didn’t need to pay for, even if they were a billionaire. If they’re “lucky” enough to have a health not social care needs all funding is taken care of.

And how do you propose to stop other types of unfairness?

. So unless I can propose a way to deal with all unfairness, there is no validity to trying to deal with this particular issue?

If I was campaigning to raise money for starving children in Africa, would you berate me for not raising money for starving children in India?!

Where does the missing funding come from op? £750k- £490k = £260k. Which is £51k less than would go towards funding than if one pays £311k.

The figures were only illustrative and not meant to be exact figures that I think should be used. That would need to be done by statisticians and tax experts.

We really don't need a system where those who won't ever inherit will be expected to pay higher taxes to protect the inheritance of others.

But that’s exactly my point . It’s unfair to expect those without inheritance to pay to enable others to keep their inheritance.... hence the additional use of inheritance tax!

it's disgusting the way people treat their families now

We are living longer than ever before which inevitably means we are living with bits of us going wrong and needing care to help make things right. Not everyone can ‘care’, even if they want to. I am an only child and a single parent. Financial issues aside, my mother’s dementia can be frightening and there is no way my children’s home, the one place they are safe, was going to turn into a place they feared returning to at the end of the day. That’s not fair.

It is easy to consider me ‘disgusting’ in putting my mum in a home and visiting once a week for a few hours. But I have a demanding job, three children to support (‘cos lord know my ex isn’t going to), and a home to run. What other options are there?

If I was campaigning to raise money for starving children in Africa, would you berate me for not raising money for starving children in India?!

I’d suggest you wouldn’t need to look anything like as far afield for starving children.

It’s unfair to expect those without inheritance to pay to enable others to keep their inheritance.... hence the additional use of inheritance tax!

Inheritance tax is already 40% exactly how much would you like to raise it?

*Inheritance tax is already 40% exactly how much would you like to raise it?

By whatever is necessary to fund social care.... It’s not ideal but it’s the fairest way.

You don’t fix unfairness by shifting the burden from one group to another, it doesn’t work that way.

You don’t fix unfairness by shifting the burden from one group to another, it doesn’t work that way.

No, you fix unfairness by pooling risk with a group, which is what you’d be doing here.

How so? By taking from one group but not another. All you’re doing is shifting the burden to someone else, you’re not fixing anything.

It is fundamentally unfair that there is such poor provision for social care and that the lines between health needs (free) and social care (means tested) are so blury. Spending money on social care would probably save the nhs a considerable amount of money given issues re delayed discharges, falls etc.

One thing that is rarely discussed though is the value of having a choice of care home. Self-payers can pick somewhere nice. If you are reliant on the local authority there might not be so much choice. When we were looking for care for my grandmother, there were homes where I wouldn’t have been happy leaving her. Fortunately, she was in there for paliative care and the nhs was willing to pay for one of the nicer ones on the list. My dad would have paid for her to go in the nice one if needed. He wouldn’t have left a dog in some of the ones he viewed. One of my other distant relatives was dependent on LA funding and her home was horrid by comparison.

I’d rather have all my money taken off me so I could live out my days somewhere nice than be somewhere that stinks of wee. I also hope I’d have the option of assisted suicide by the time I get there as my worst nightmare would be dementia. I really do hope there is a policy shift. My parents and inlaws have both openly said they wouldn’t want to live as cabbages and my parents have already specified their wishes re DNR as I have medical power of attorney.

But what's to stop home owners from releasing the equity in their homes, gifting it to their children and grand children to help them onto the property ladder (Or just going off on the holiday of a lifetime) and then dying with no assets?

I can't see a system that increases inheritance tax not encouraging this behaviour.

You need to find the "sweet-spot" of fair taxation or those with the ability to will always find a way to avoid it.

How so? By taking from one group but not another. All you’re doing is shifting the burden to someone else, you’re not fixing anything.

No, you’d be evening out the burden between the group that has assets at the point of death. As per my original post, take two individuals, both with say £325 in assets.... one dies of a heart attack and retains 100% of their assets.... the other dies of dementia, and retains 2% of their assets, the Government taking 98%. Whether you die from a heart attack or dementia is down to luck.... so that’s hardly fair. Funding using inheritance tax would help even this out and make it fairer amongst this group.

And yes there is much other even greater unfairness in society which I accept, but hat hardly invalidates this.

I also accept inheritance tax is often avoided. However, so are social care costs by forward thinking people who trust their children with assets long before they need to go into care. Yet just because a system is imperfect doesn’t mean it is completely useless.

No, you’d be evening out the burden between the group that has assets at the point of death. As per my original post, take two individuals, both with say £325 in assets.... one dies of a heart attack and retains 100% of their assets.... the other dies of dementia, and retains 2% of their assets, the Government taking 98%. Whether you die from a heart attack or dementia is down to luck.... so that’s hardly fair.

So you’ll penalise the family of the one who died of a heart attack instead?

I agree. The system doesn’t work. But your suggestion doesn’t work either.

But what if someone has worked hard all their lives and saved for it to be passed on??
Most people work hard and save. Then an unexpected event means they have to spend their savings. Why should we insure people against a dementia diagnosis but not against some other misfortune that eats up their money?

So unless I can propose a way to deal with all unfairness, there is no validity to trying to deal with this particular issue?
My point is that you’re discriminating by saying we should insure people against some misfortunes but not others. Why should we protect some people from the financial effects caused by needing social care but not protect others from equal financial effects caused by other unfortunate circumstances?

So you’ll penalise the family of the one who died of a heart attack instead? I agree. The system doesn’t work. But your suggestion doesn’t work either.

Unless we are individually responsible for all costs associated with our care, health, social or otherwise, there is no “magic” solution other than pooling risk... not necessarily with IHT, but in some way or other.

You keep talking about “pooling risk” when it isn’t. It’s shifting the cost from one group to another, it’s pooling nothing.

My point is that you’re discriminating by saying we should insure people against some misfortunes but not others. Why should we protect some people from the financial effects caused by needing social care but not protect others from equal financial effects caused by other unfortunate circumstances?

I didn’t say that we shouldn’t insure for other misfortunes, but my focus here was how to deal with social care....

In my opinion, if a particular food is required as a result of a medical condition, you should get vouchers to support its cost from the NHS, and if general taxes need to rise to support that, then so be it.

Why can't those wanting assisted suicide not just commit suicide with an over dose or silimilar.
You won't get assisted suicide once you are demented as you aren't fit to make the decision. I think the a s taking place overseas is for deteriorating disease.

You keep talking about “pooling risk” when it isn’t. It’s shifting the cost from one group to another, it’s pooling nothing.

That’s what pooling risk is... some of us will have health/social care costs running into millions over our lifetimes, some of us hardy anything...

Unless we are all expected to pay our own way (and if you can’t then that’s just tough, you die in the gutter), then there is no alternative but to pool risk, and for some
to pay in more than they take out.

I’m not sure what other possible or even conceivable option there is. If you have one I’d be happy to hear it!