Care for the elderly - should taxpayers fund it to protect inheritances?

[Upwind]

Gordon Brown thinks so:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article3926958.ece

"The Government is proposing that younger workers should fund the care of the elderly through a new form of social insurance or ageing tax; a ?new social care and support system?, offering protection to all, as the Prime Minister put it. Mr Brown added an astonishing thing: ?We can and must look to give people the opportunity and the support to save for their old age in a way that insures them and protects their houses and their inheritance.?

It is amazing that after all the row over the 10p tax grab, and party fury over inheritance tax freebies to the better-off, Mr Brown is banging that drum again. "
------

I think it is disgraceful that a "Labour" government keep transfering wealth from young and poor to old and rich by any means possible. Why should low income workers pay to protect the inheritances of the wealthy?

Personally I'm not that concerned about working later. My grandmother retired at 60 and she was an old woman by then with pretty good health, but still elderly. My mum is 65 this year and still works full time running a company she started 30 years ago, she travels extensively, she exercises waaay more than I do and is probably fitter and stronger than I am. She is by no means an old woman and I think she'll be happy working until she's 70. I can quite see myself in that mould.

jobseekers allowance is split into 2 parts. Contribution based which u r entitled 2 claim if u have paid enough in and become unemployed regardless of household income, and income based which tops up the contribution based if the household income is below a certain level or for people who have not paid in enough to qualify for the contribution based one

100% inheritance tax would mean that you would have to give all your assets and cash to the treasury on your death. Sounds scary but in reality it could fund big reductions in income tax giving us all larger incomes in our lifetimes, it could fund greater public spending, including provisions for old age care etc.

but headfairy people would just dispose of their assets wouldnt it be complicated

or i guess the tory argument is that it would be a disincentive to productivity and investment

at heart some people are altruists and an awful lot are selfish bastards

headfairy - thanks for explaining - couldn't agree with the 100% tax though. what would be the point of saving if you'd have it all taken from you.

you can dispose of your assets in your lifetime of course, but your estate would still benefit wouldn't it? and that would go to the treasury... ie if you sold your £500k house and put the money in the bank, then died, the treasury would get the £500k. Cash or assets it doesn't matter, it all goes back in to the pot at the end of the day.

As for being a disincentive, it depends how nihilistic you are, surely the incentive to do well in your lifetime is to help the next generation do well. It would maybe take us back to the great philanthropic movement of the Victorians building all those schools/libraries/social housing etc....

well there wouldn't be any point in saving would there cupoftea? Spend spend spend, on good schooling, on good housing, on having a great life with your babies... and if you're really rich, building a big library with your name on it

I sound like some old hippy don't I?

cupoftea whats the point of saving for after u die? u wont be able to use it

100% inheritance tax sounds like a good idea to me. You would be allowed to accumulate as much wealth as u wanted in your lifetime, and do with it as u wished- spend it, give it away, buy insurance policies to provide for dependants after your death etc.
But once your gone, anything left goes back into a central pot. This way everyone who can gets a chance to become rich, whilst also ensuring there is provision for those who cant

HeadFairy - I like your thinking!

Zippi, that would no doubt be the Tory argument. I think it is wrong. So what if some people work less hard? Life is for living, not for maximising productivity as though we were some kind of machines.

it would also sort out the horrendous ginormous wealth gap that has appeared... wealth begets wealth.

House sales are not forced if a partner is still living in the house. And the state does pay for nursing care - my nan has just died, and whilst the 8 years that she was in a residential home were funded by her house sale, the last year, when she required proper medical care, the state picked up the bill. I do think there is a case for extending the definition of "nursing" care which gets funding to include things like dementia.

I agree with upwind here - why should everyone fund residential care for the elderly so that some people can than inherit? But, the current system does seem to encourage people not to save for their eventual care needs, and that is something that needs to be addressed - along with a wholescale review of the pension system. I like the American 401k system

well i think the old sayings

the poor are alwysa with us

and you need money to make money etc will always be trure

oh here comes our bus..have a nice day lolol

HeadFairy, I admire your philanthropic thinking, but I can't trust any government to spend my hard-earned ££ wisely. If my chunk went on some management consultant I would haunt them from the grave

No they shouldn't. We need to give up on this idea of being rich. The last 40 years have never happened anywhere with this circumstance before - it is peculiar to western democracies with property ownership.

We come into this world naked and with nothing, that's how we should go out.

I don't believe in inherited wealth either. If you have children with special needs and long term care then of course any money you have left should go to looking after them but in general society should.

i imagine if you have children with special needs or long term care then you are the least likely group to have an inheritance to pass on or even probably to live as long yourslef

well winebeforepearls, that's where I think most of the trouble would come from, I guess the freedom of information act and greater public scrutiny of government spending should prevent that sort of thing... And a bunch of rabid journalists desperately watching every MP and counting every stamp and envelope they buy!!

HeadFairy, I was just sitting here thinking, "What would really sort this out, would be 100% inheritance tax. But I can't post that, I'll get shot down in flames!"

But you seem to have done OK so far, fair play to you!

In THEORY of course we shouldn't need the parents of disabled children to leave large chunks of their income to them for their care as we as a society would take care of them after their parents are no longer around.

I couldn't agree more, Laurie.

Thing is 100% IHT isn't about getting back at anyone, it's not about preventing people from doing well and shooting down those that do, it's about us as a whole being better off. If you play the long game when society is better off we all are... think of the benefits of a cracking school system for example, not just on levels of literacy and numeracy, but the part good education plays in reducing crime. I'm probably terribly idealistic, but if a little more was invested in young people, things to do, clubs to join, fantastic sporting facilities for them to use, we wouldn't have people being knifed on Oxford Street in the middle of the afternoon by a couple of teenagers.

IMHO the current elderly population were promised care from cradle to grave by Bevin and that is what they should get, however our generation and can see that is not going to be sustainable and so be prepared to pay for out care when we get there. Some hard decisions have to be made as to a reasonable cut off point at which care is no longer payed for by the state.

still can't agree headfairy & others as for the rich there will loopholes & they'll pay for accountants to safe guard their money - for the poor they'll pay out and then have the little they have left taken.

my mum had very little left after paying for her care with terminal cancer.