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.

Why should someone without and inheritance pay more taxes to allow those with an inheritance to pass it on

Do you understand what taxation is?

Why should I pay tax which goes towards the NHS and education when I do both privately? Why should anyone pay tax that is used for roads of they don't drive?

It is a very difficult issue to be fair over particularly as health is unfair and a lottery/fate. It may be solved by the fact suddenly life expenctancies in the Uk are going down not up suddenly which has got the actuaries in a tizz. We never expected it.

I would like much less state provision, obligations on family to care for the old as Germany has including paying for care homes as a legal obligation on the adult children and a much small state with much lower taxes and much more personal responsibility all round. Tax is currently just abouta t its limit on the higher earners and more tax on middle earnersx - like the plan to impose more national insurance on "white van man" was very unpopular and dropped.

We could certainly work harder at showing people what they can do to reduce the chance of dementia - eg if you exercise, eat well, reduce sugar etc you can reduce your chances of getting it so massive taxes on things like sugar, junk and diet drinks, processed foods might be one route that might help a bit.

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.

Equally, why should someone who was frugal and careful pay more tax than someone who was flippant and wasteful?

Xenia. If tax raising had to rely on being popular there would be no tax revenue at all. Nobody wants to pay it. Everyone wants to hang on to what they believe is theirs. It rarely feels fair to everyone. As above. If you want a service it has to be paid for by consumers whether by taxation or not.

Inheritance tax is a bit of a red herring as if you don't want to pay it (the very very few estates subject to it - most people are well under the limit) you jsut give your money away and live 7 years and none is paid. I sometimes call it a voluntary tax on the stupid.

Do you understand what taxation is?

Of course I do.... I also understand that changing tax arrangements to increase taxes on those without wealth to enable those with wealth to keep more of it is highly regressive, and is in my opinion highly unfair.

Imk. The majority if these inheritance s are due to off the scale house values and exist by pure chance. A windfall tax would be more appropriate.

Equally, why should someone who was frugal and careful pay more tax than someone who was flippant and wasteful?

They aren't paying any tax. Can't pay tax when you're dead. Their heirs may well be flippant and wasteful. Maybe we need some sort of test and set the level of tax on a scale according to how wasteful the heir is?

You need it = You pay for it. Applies to pretty much everything in life. I see no reason why dementia should be an exception to that rule. We’re lucky to have a safety net so those who can’t pay still receive a minimum of essential care.

They aren't paying any tax. Can't pay tax when you're dead.

In practice though, they are.

You need it = You pay for it. Applies to pretty much everything in life. I see no reason why dementia should be an exception to that rule. Should extend that to everything, then. You have a disability meaning you need 24 hour care, you pay for it. You have an illness needing specialist medical care. You pay for it.

That’s already the case to a certain extent. Obviously you’re still living in your house so it can’t be sold. But you do have to fund your own special food for allergies, cream for eczema, prescription charges for medication or buying over the counter, etc. The main things that are free are those that are too expensive for people to afford eg operations, childbirth, chemotherapy and other hospital treatments.

You need it = You pay for it. Applies to pretty much everything in life. I see no reason why dementia should be an exception to that rule.

Not true at all. You don’t for healthcare directly. You don’t pay directly for Police time if crime is committed against you. You don’t pay the fire service directly if you’re unfortunate to have a fire at your house. You don’t pay a toll each time you drive on each particular road. You don’t pay the refuse collectors each time they empty your bjns etc etc.

We’re lucky to have a safety net so those who can’t pay still receive a minimum of essential care.

And if we really did have to pay for every service we need directly as you are implying, where will the money for the safety net come from. Will you expect people to pay for everything they need, and then pay tax on top that they won’t benefit from in any way to fund this safety net?

The main things that are free are those that are too expensive for people to afford eg operations, childbirth, chemotherapy and other hospital treatments.

The cost of things will be of the same order of magnitude as long term dementia care.... some of them, such as childbirth, would
generally be less (if still expensive).

• if dementia care cost the same as eczema cream we wouldn’t be having this discussion

@Xenia I would like much less state provision, obligations on family to care for the old as Germany has including paying for care homes as a legal obligation on the adult children

And what happens to those of us without family or adult children?

Yeah but if you have dementia and go in a home leaving your house empty then it is available to be sold to fund your care. If you have an operation or childbirth etc you’re still living in your home so it isn’t empty and therefore isn’t available to be sold.

I personally do not think you can take a specific condition like dementia and clump all sufferers as the same. I have worked most of my life with people with dementia and some will remain at home til the day they die, some living with just visits from carers and some will need residential care quite quickly. Some will be distressed with insight into diagnosis and some will have no insight and be happy. My grandma who was fairly stuck up and miserable most of the years I had known her became much more likeable in her last few years with dementia but she was also a lot of work for my parents who were regularly up at night having to reassure her. I think that making a living will whilst you have capacity and stating you do not want to be resussitated or have your life prolonged etc makes a lot of sense. In terms of passing on what you have saved to your kids, my parents are in their 70's in reasonable health and have just moved from the family home to a small flat. They have distributed the money saved between their 4 kids whilst we have need of it to help with mortgages etc. If they die within next 7 years the flat proceeds will cover the money they have to pay back and if they survive beyond that and need care( we will have them to the point where they have night time needs) they can use the proceeds of the flat and if they live in the flat until they die, their 13 grand children will get a bit each. If you want your children to inherit from you, help them out now whilst they actually need it, not in their 60's and 70's when it is often not so essential.

I would only agree with not caring due to their own health. We could all move away from our home town, finances aren't an excuse, as some manage on hardly anything to care for an ageing or ill relative, and you have to manage responsibilities to fit in, just like previous generations did

Read any thread about the housing costs in London and the SE, and you will see many people advising to move to a cheaper area such as Northern cities. If younger people cannot afford homes in the area that their families and support networks live, then how will they be there to provide day-to-day care? If younger people are working full-time still servicing 30 year mortgages until their 60s, how will they have the time to provide this care?

I would rather be safe in the knowledge that my parents will receive good quality care if they need it, for as long as they need it (increasingly likely as people live longer and therefore are more likely to live with dementia or other conditions needing care), knowing that a set percentage would be paid in inheritance tax, rather than "taking a gamble" or worry about what happens if/when the money runs out.

If it is a set percentage, it means that you can still be assured of passing an amount onto your children, so not matter what level of care you need, you will get it and your family will still inherit a decent proportion of your life savings.

The problem with adding extra tax to the current working population is that we could pay it our whole working lives and then have it taken away or vastly reduced by government/policy changes.

That's very true awkward as women over 60 can attest. Where's our bloody pension money? We need it to live on whilst caring for elderly relatives,.

including paying for care homes as a legal obligation on the adult children

Don’t support this at all! If care isn’t paid for by taxes, the property of the person needing care is the next best source of funds. To expect their children to pay, who will probably be struggling with mortgages and raising a family, for care is even more inequitable. Looking after someone with dementia isn’t cooking some meals and providing a bit of personal care a few times each day, it can be an all consuming 24/7 specialist job, not something that we should reasonably expect families generally to be able to cope with.

BigBlueBubble, the mother of a friend of mine is being made to sell the house in which she lives to fund her husband’s early onset dementia. She’s a nurse. She hasn’t got pots of money. She will have nothing by the time he dies. It’s not as simple as you make out.

And while we are here fighting with each other over who should pay for what and being made to hate each other, big care providers are exploiting their staff, providing shit care and depleting people of their savings to line their pockets.

The argument seems to be to have higher IHT rates/lower threshold to even the playing field as no-one should have an inheritance! That is frankly ridiculous.

I work hard for what I have. I save and I should be able to give what I have to who I want. If someone decides that they only ever want to work part time, that they want to have multiple children so they have little money, they prefer to spend all of their money out shopping rather than saving etc then why should they get the extra benefit.

As a society we support those who have less through benefits, social housing etc. If you do not have money or low amounts you get free social care now. If you have money you pay.

You say not to raise income tax because it is unfair on the poor people subsidising inheritances. Ignoring the super rich, poorer people will be on lower wages and so pay no or a basic level of tax at 20% (or 21% if you put it up). I earn more so I pay more tax (basic at 20/21% and then higher at 40/41%). Those who have more pay more.

I do not see how that is less fair than taking it from those who work hard and save. I worked hard and scrimped and saved to buy my house. I should be able to do what I want with it. If you change the rate you de-incentivise people from saving. If I could not pass it on then why would I bother having as stressful a job and saving - I could just spend my money and not save since I would lose the control. There would then be less in the end pot.

Being tenants in common won't make a difference for IHT. Spousal transfers are generally exempt from IHT, but if a couple own a house together but are not married (as lots are) they will get stung by your new lower rates. There is a reason why the rates got increased!

Bit lost, UK law allows people to stay in their homes if their partner needs care and it would be partners savings that are used plus 50% of joint savings. There may be a charge on his half of the house after she dies. ( Not sure about that bit) The only scenario I can think of when someone would be forced to sell is if they want somewhere different to where SS are suggesting and so need to top up.Is she in the UK

Yes, it is in the UK. I was surprised too.