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.

Ppl with dementia who don’t want to deteriorate have to with commit suicide, by themselves, in this country or pay to go to Switzerland. Suicide is very risky and you can end up in a worse state than before you attempted.

Ds1 needs all the help he can get and his safety trumps my continued existence in some crappy care home money pit.

I suppose the govt would rather my resources went into shelling out for that, and putting money into the economy than ds inheriting somewhere to live thus rendering the money tied up in property.

Surely the answer is to raise income tax with the extra % ring fenced for social care or similar but to an insurance. Everyone shares the cost and risk. Higher rate tax payers pay more as they can afford to.

IHT change isn't the answer. You are talking in terms of the next generation but if you lower the rate you will end up with couples where one dies and the other, especially if they are unmarried, will have to sell the house to pay the tax bill and not be able to afford a new home.

You shouldn't have to commit suicide to pay for your children to live

Surely the answer is to raise income tax with the extra % ring fenced for social care or similar but to an insurance. Everyone shares the cost and risk.

The argument against that is that someone who doesn’t stand to gain from inheritance is paying extra tax to enable to ensure those who are in the lucky position of receiving an inheritance are protected.... Which hardly seems fair.

You shouldn't have to commit suicide to pay for your children to live

Exactly, I’d you want to be assisted to die, that’s one thing, but it shouldn’t be down to money.

Just raise income tax! Honestly stop noodling around with this tax and that tax. We should ALL pay more tax.

Unless you are just chippy about people passing on inheritance!

The poor have no money and no property to sell. The rich have so much money that care barely makes a dent in it. As usual it’s the people in the middle who lose out - care costs just enough to prevent them having any inheritance left to pass down.

Also this would be much less of an issue if younger generations were able to buy their own homes and losing Gran’s house only deprived them of a few posh holidays and cars. But as it stands at present, losing Gran’s house means losing any opportunity of ever being a home owner.

Just raise income tax! Honestly stop noodling around with this tax and that tax. We should ALL pay more tax.

THIS. Except the vast majority do not want to. Everyone wants money for everything - more for the NHS, more for nursery schools, more for universities so we can scrap tuition fees, more better public transport, better social care, better care for the elderly.... the list is endless.

The model people often hold up is Sweden. Tax is much higher. But everyone is apparently happier and services are much better. I posted on another thread recently just how much our tax needs to increase to match them. Even before I start talking income tax, VAT is the highest in Europe at 25%...

I don’t really think there is any need to tax some people so that others can have a hefty inheritance. There is long term care insurance available- if you want to mitigate the risk, pay for that. I simply don’t see inheritance as any right that we should be protecting as a society by a taxation system. Quite the opposite really- too much inequality already. Housing, education, opportunities based on family wealth not potential. I would be happy to raise inheritance tax but to pay for schools and hospitals, not personal care of people who can afford to pay it themselves so they can gift a large windfall to their family.

Don’t Understand what the incentive is to save money for your old age. What? To pay £5,000 a month for sub standard care given by extremely poorly paid staff. So essentially you are saving to line the pockets of very rich business people who will then pass on this money to their children.

I'm part Danish so it seems crazy to me that British people expect top care, education, medicine etc but don't want to pay more tax

I'm part Danish so it seems crazy to me that British people expect top care, education, medicine etc but don't want to pay more tax

And that inheritance is a right because 'people work hard'.

Howe many of the people who think that the state should care for their elderly relatives so they can pick up their assets at the end, also bore on about benefits and the welfare state? An inheritance is not a right. If you're still alive and can afford to do so you should fund your own care. If you can't afford to do so, you should be looked after.

Exactly Franjipa. I’m French and also find it laughable until you realise that there’s an army of hard working people living in poverty to make this system work.

I’m French and also find it laughable until you realise that there’s an army of hard working people living in poverty to make this system work.

And have no ability to save or buy a house, but the ones who want their inheritance are shouting from the rooftops that such people just pissed everything away. It's funny, isn't it?

raising income tax to pay for care i think is the worst and most unfair solution. as others have said, why should youngsters (who in the main seem to be struggling financially and cant afford to buy their own homes) , pay higher taxes so that property rich OAPs can pass it onto their kids via inheritance.

40 years of brainwashing. Tax is bad. Tax is theft etc. Adequate taxation ensures the stability of society. The disintegration we are experiencing is the result of trying to persuade us we can all have everything and austerity too. Not possible.

IHT change isn't the answer. You are talking in terms of the next generation but if you lower the rate you will end up with couples where one dies and the other, especially if they are unmarried, will have to sell the house to pay the tax bill and not be able to afford a new home

That could be easily remedied. You could hold the house as tenants in common, so the IHT would only be payable on the half of the person who's died. And you could have a system similar to now with care fees, where a charge is put on the house and only when the second person moves out or dies, does the tax become actually payable.

raising income tax to pay for care i think is the worst and most unfair solution. as others have said, why should youngsters (who in the main seem to be struggling financially and cant afford to buy their own homes) , pay higher taxes so that property rich OAPs can pass it onto their kids via inheritance.

But by that logic why should any of us pay the taxes we do for anything? By paying for the NHS or education are we allowing others to pass on inheritance? When I pay VAT am I subsidising someone's yacht purchase? It seems a strange way to think about the issue.

Of course the two examples in the OP are fair. One needed social care (therefore had to pay for it) and the other side suddenly, needing no care so the assets were passed on. Of course we would all love our hard earned money/house to be passed on but if we need care then who should pay for it?

And to those who berate people who have not saved enough for their care, since you are so clever, I'll put this problem to you and I'm sure you'll solve it.

Friend of mine's father (early sixties) has early onset dementia. His care home is £4,000+ a month. His wife is a nurse. Her savings have gone. She now has to sell her home. There will be nothing left for her care.

Any ideas?

Just raise income tax! Honestly stop noodling around with this tax and that tax. We should ALL pay more tax. Unless you are just chippy about people passing on inheritance!

That’s exactly what people are chippy about !.... and with reason. Why should someone without and inheritance pay more taxes to allow those with an inheritance to pass it on.

Effectively we already have an ‘inheritance tax’ in place.... a combination of the actual IHT (@ 40% with £325k threshold ) and the additional ‘tax’ payable if you have long term care needs (@90%+ with £14k threshold). Surely somewhat higher rates and/or a lower threshold for IHT would be fairer, with no ‘long term care’ tax.

Of course we would all love our hard earned money/house to be passed on but if we need care then who should pay for it?

That’s my point... it’s paid from inheritance tax as per my example.