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!

IHT is very easy to get out of.
Publicly saying this tax is to be used as a social care tax, will reduce the amount the treasury takes.

Need to start looking at quality of life. People needing hundred of thousands of pounds of care each year to prolong their bed bound misery is a disgrace

In reality though, many people who have amassed considerable wealth during their lifetime will have made sure that minimal IHT will need to be paid well before their death.

Does that mean euthanasia?

Why are people arguing over IHT when there is a far worse scenario that will hit a lot more people, especially in the future?
Say you have £500k in your pension (not an unreachable sum at all, even for average earners) and you need care at £2k a week, lets assume you took the tax free lump sum on retirement so all further money is taxable above personal allowance, which State pension almost covers.
So, you need £104k a year to fund your care - £10k is from SP then you are taxed at 20% on the first £50k, then you need another £44k to make up the difference, which is taxed at 40%.
To get that £104k - you actually need to get £160k out of your pension!!

It’s truly obscene and there should be some way of money going from a pension, to a care provider that involves minimal, if any, taxation.
I was staggered to learn this, my neighbour spent £600k on dementia care for his wife and the amount of tax he paid was staggering, he had several inexpensive properties that were meant to provide retirement income and now just has his home and State pension.
Before anyone mentions care annuities , you would need £millions to buy that level of cover.

@PolarPolly27 , so what do you think about single people remaining in 3 bed council homes? Is it fair to ask them to move to something smaller, so that a family on the waiting list in cramped accommodation can move in? Or does that principle apply only to owner-occupiers?

Nobody should pay inheritance tax. It's legalised theft. Taxing something that has already been taxed? And the people it impacts are those who are left behind.

It's another one of those 'solutions' that impacts people much further down the chain than it should.

If someone bought a house at 120k and it's now worth 600k because of increased property prices and (presumably) work they've done on it then it is what it is 🤷🏻‍♀️

It doesn't need to be as black and white as that.

On the ambulance thread we have old and ill people being prioritised for care that will at best extend their life for a short period of poor quality. When DH was dying (and receiving an expensive care package), he asked for a review of pain meds. They wouldn't do it without him being assessed by an ambulance because he had chest pain.

The ambulance came, assessed that the pain was nothing more than the cancer that was killing him and he eventually got his pain relief reviewed, but if it had been something else it would at best have given him a few weeks of pain and extended the care costs.

I would never have wished him dead, but even at the time it seemed ridiculous to insist that so many resources should be used to "save" him for a few more weeks of pain. So no, not euthanasia, but maybe a review of who is/isn't treated?

I can't comment on council homes as I have no idea about the terms of their tenancies.

So you think working families should fork out for the care of somebody who owns a £800k house outright?

"He" didn't have to pay anything. It would only be her share, unless he was paying for something above what was assessed as needed ( which would be perfectly reasonable if that's what he wanted)

If house prices were reasonable people wouldn't care so much about inheritance I don't think.

It's not important what another country . This is the uk

IHT in France is different depending on family relationship.
A parent can give each child €100000 tax free once in 15 years. Any thing else is taxed at 30%.
Any other recipients have a tiny tax free allowance, I think €3000, may be different, and then pay tax at 60%.
However, crucially, dc are also legally responsible for paying towards their parents care in old age.
Therefore parents and dc always have familial responsibilities both ways, which seems much fairer to me.

What do you mean?
They don’t own their own council home!
That’s it.
It’s not theirs.

And unless I’ve misunderstood you (and I accept I may have) you think older homeowners, who don’t need their space, but own their homes, should have to move out?

Apologies if I’ve got this wrong.

The French system as well as their healthcare is much better than the U.K.

It's also not possible for parents to disinherit children in France?

Surely it's informative to see how social care and IHT work in other countries if you are discussing a change to the system.

No, I think the opposite - if a single older person wishes to stay in their large home, they should. My comment was solely in relation to the PP who made the comments bout 'getting people out of large houses in catchment areas', not in relation to IHT or ability to pay for social care.

Makes me laugh how MN wants to talk about all the ways other countries do things better but doesn't want to talk about how they raise the money to pay for it.

Of course it is. Comparison is vital to economics, its how the markets work and currency value is calculated.

FGS. Do you really have no curiosity outwith your place of birth?

And before you start off on one, I'm not French.

Theres no road tax either in France...its all an up front registration fee when you buy a new car.

Ah, ok. Makes sense.

IHT tax isn’t particularly difficult to minimize or avoid entirely. I know my parents sorted things out 10/11 years ago in regards to putting their assets into trust funds and signing some over to my brother and I.

I don’t believe that I know anyone liable to pay large amounts of IHT that hasn’t employed a wealth advisor, actually.

Exactly.
And this is causing huge problems regarding second marriages and step children.
If a dp has no contact with their adult dc for 30 years, has remarried and both partners have contributed financially to the estate it is very galling for the remaining partner to find themselves liable to pay out a quarter of the estate to strangers, and if the adult children don't take from the estate they may still be liable for 30% tax.

But this is what happens already.

do you think inheritance tax is being wasted on something else in particular?