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!

What exactly is wrong with people selling their property to pay for THEIR own care? Why tax other people’s inheritance to pay for someone’s care so they can pass inheritance to their own children.

What about someone who bought a house in London for £800,000 and at the time of death, it was valued at £3.75 million? This kind of scenario is very real for many people living in the South. Some properties have literally gained millions in value over the years.

Do you believe in any tax? All of it comes from something somebody has ‘earned’.

I think inheritance tax shouldn't exist.

Why should you pay IT though full stop. Your house, your business, your luck if it's gone up in value.

What exactly is wrong with people selling their property to pay for THEIR own care? Why tax other people’s inheritance to pay for someone’s care so they can pass inheritance to their own children.

I genuinely don't know.
I was really surprised when the Tories said 100k was the limit of care costs & there wasn't more outrage. Why not a %?

Saw somebody else mention it on here and I think it’s a brilliant idea

are you and the person who made the comment likely to inherit a large some of money?

I do t see why anyone should have to pay inheritance tax. It's a tax on taxed money

My suggestion is that we do both. People who have money pay for their own care. People who are fortunate enough not to need to spend it on care pay inheritance tax to fund the rest.

So? What’s the fact it has 5 bedrooms got to do with anything?

Why should you pay IT though full stop. Your house, your business, your luck if it's gone up in value.

That's the issue though isn't it. For many it was luck of when they were born. How is it productive for society to have a housing market that swallows up loads of income & many can't get on without help. For young people today whether there parents own a home & can help them will be more important then what they earn. Not helpful for social mobility.

No that's not right. Care at home is means tested so people are expected to contribute what they are deemed to be able to afford.
Obviously if the person is remaining at home for care the house can't be sold to fund that care, as it would be if they went into residential.

I think it could be better for stamp duty to be lowered and IHT increased. I moved a few years ago to a smaller house and still paid a lot in stamp duty. That extra money could have helped my nest egg for ongoing house repairs and possible future care needs. If I leave a well maintained house when I die, my family could pay more IHT and still have an inheritance.

@fiftytontheresa but is house value included in the means testing? I thought it was for out of the home but not in home?

Yes, my dad is constantly blethering on about inheritance tax . All I think is please just spend/enjoy it, I expect a lot of it will go on care so probably won't be the problem you think it will, if there is that much then really you/we should pay plenty of tax on it.

In most cases it's not tax on taxed money. It's tax on unearned, untaxed property gains.

Is their business their luck, their gain. Its nothing to do with anyone else.
Your already taxed on your earnings why should you be taxed on your house too.

Never ever will I agree with IT never ever.
None of the governments or the tax man's business.

I know that my parents views are that they have paid tax on everything all their lives...including stamp duty to buy the house, and worked all their lives and will be paying IHT why should they pay even more to subsidise those, that they have already been subsidising all through life, rather than being able to pass on their hard earned efforts to their children? My take is that I hope my parents use their assets to pay for the care they need.

I think you could argue that it was no one else's business if we were building adequate new homes and decent educational provision in sufficient volumes.

But we aren't, and one demographic who vote disproportionately for parties who prevent mass housebuilding and have made it incredibly difficult to build or expand schools where they're needed (on a national level) and stymie planning (locally) is the demographic who tend to be older homeowners.

So it turns out that it is the business of others, because none of these things exist in a vacuum.

I don't think empty nesters should be forced to sell but equally it's not 'disgusting' to point out that the choice to stay in a large home for one's entire life has broader impacts in the current context, and there's nothing wrong with discussing ways to incentivise or encourage downsizing (which often comes with the benefit of being able to stay in one's home for longer.)

Because earnings tax doesn’t go far enough. That simple. Unless you want income tax to skyrocket?

How much has the value of their house appreciated above inflation since they paid their stamp duty? How much of that appreciation was the result of home improvements?

I'm not being goady but there is a huge hole in the 'I/they worked for all this' argument.

(And for the 'you're just jealous/you wouldn't talk that way if you stood to inherit a lot' brigade - barring a major global catastrophe, and even if my parents require extensive care for many many years, I'll still be extraordinarily comfortable after they die. It's not money I've earned and though they've worked hard and invested shrewdly, a lot of it isn't money they've earned either, because so much of it is property.)

s their business their luck, their gain. Its nothing to do with anyone else.

this view lacks critical thinking. Ever increasing house prices have contributed to wage stagnation, shrinking public services, rising pension ages so it is to do with everyone if you care about the society you live in.

Do you feel the same about dividends tax?

I agree, and DH and I stand to inherit a share of 6 different properties when our parents pass away.

I dont understand why people are so against IT. The double tax argument doesnt hold any weight as it isnt the original owner being taxed again, it's the recipient. Both mine and DHs parents paid peanuts for their houses in the 80s and their value has increased 10x. Why should we get handed hundreds of thousands tax free while the younger generation get saddled with the social care debt? Its ridiculous. The threshold is extremely generous IMO.

my parents house was about 40k in the 80s, 1.8m now. Holiday home abroad was 20k in the 90s, maybe 250k now. They worked hard but that was nothing to do with the house price gains.