To think inheritance tax should pay for social care

[Wouldloveanother]

Just that really. Saw somebody else mention it on here and I think it’s a brilliant idea!

Totally agree. It's much fairer than taking virtually all someone's property away from them (is the limit £23K now?) as you only tax a certain amount at 40%. The beneficiaries still get a decent amount. They could make the limit £500K and tax everything else at 50%. Plenty of opportunity to downsize and give away cash and assets before you die if you don't like the idea. We really need people to get out of large houses in catchment areas and this might help. Win win in my view.

school catchment areas

You obviously don't know how much social care costs. Inheritance tax would nowhere near cover it even at substantially increased rates. The vast majority of estates still won't pay it for a start.

We really need people to get out of large houses in catchment areas and this might help.
This kind of attitude disgusts me. Why should people be expected to give up their homes because it suits someone else? If they want to live in a large house and can afford it, it's no one else's business. Children can go to an alternative school.

That was me! 😆

I don't understand the resistance to IHT. To me it's taxing people who no longer have use for the money.

And I'm someone who's parents do stand to pay IHT, but I feel strongly that it should be taxed more, no one needs to have that much money land in their lap tax free.

My parents would hate the idea though and I don't understand why.

Surely that depends where you set the limits?

It was in response to someone saying that the boomers getting older will make things even worse for social care, but they are a group that have done very well out of property gains.

Well if it’s IHT then the occupants are already deceased, but in the scenario you’re talking about, if they have to pay for care and don’t have the cash then they can’t afford it can they?

Fab idea @Explaintome !

Yes, great idea on the whole for those that rent a property and lived from hand to mouth and spend every penny they get.

It already contributes, in the sense that all taxation goes towards public expenditure.

Do you mean that IHT income and social care costs should net off? If so why, there isn't a correlation?

Or that somehow the IHT on an individual's estate should be used to fund their social care needs? How would that work?

Who are you referring to?

Yes it does already contribute. I'm saying we need to raise extra for social care and this could be a way to do it.

Of course there's no direct relationship, just as there isn't a specific tax to pay for education or defense.

I work in social care and we have many packages of care that cost £260,000 a year, just to care for one person. We need more than inheritance tax to pay for adult social care. The costs are incredible.

We really need people to get out of large houses in catchment areas and this might help.

Surely if the houses are taken up with older people without kids, the catchment area just gets bigger?

But are you suggesting increasing IHT?

I specified if they could afford it. On the actual day of my FIL's funeral we had vultures attempting to make cash offers on his large, 5-bed home which is in one of the most expensive postcodes in the UK. Not a chance in hell.

Yes. I'd increase it substantially, reduce the threshold and increase the rate, possibly on a banded basis.

No because I don't believe in IT.
Why should you be taxed on a house you bought it's yours.

Please re-read and then if you still can't work it out, I'm sorry but there is no further help I can administer.

Because in the vast majority of cases people dying now paid much less than the current value of their home. They didn't "buy" at the current value, they've received substantial profit that has never been taxed. Why is that OK?

We do need to address the changing population dynamics & the fact there isn't an infrastructure to support them but it's not popular so easier to put head in the sand.

The buyer of the house isn’t getting taxed, they’re dead.
If you’re lucky enough to inherit a substantial sum, purely through accident of birth, that you have done nothing to earn, of course you should be taxed on it.

I work in social care and we have many packages of care that cost

Thinking about it, if it was changed things would still be very unequal. I think a wealth tax would be better.

Care out of the home is funded but in the home it isn't is it? I think that should change personally