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?

God at the end of the day we all may as well sit on our arses because in this world there is going to be no reasons to go out to work better yourself and put a bit of money away, buy your own house or educate yourself.

Sorry grammer and spelling appalling - and in this post too!

But Twinkie that is the way things are going now - doesn't matter about my first class degree and Msc from a Russell group university, doesn't matter how hard I work or how much I manage to put away - I won't be able to afford a family home. There is a whole generation in the same trap as me unless their parents are rich, in which case they also have less incentive to better themselves.

The 100% inheritance tax is a great idea because it would level the playing field to an extent. People would still buy their own home for the security of owning it, people would still work so they could afford the comforts of life. I actually don't think the 100% tax is entirely feasible in practice because of excellent points made by winebeforepearls, but it is a really interesting way of looking at things.

Socialists conveniently remember and forget about collectivism when it suits.

And what about if you had dependent children when you died? Who would look after them considering their parents wouldn't be allowed to make provision for them as all their assetts would go to the state?

I certainly wouldn't be looking to buy a house in order to give it to the government whenn I died, in fact you could end up in a situation where you bought a house off the government (all these houses that the government would be inherriting would have to be sold to someone after all) and then gave it back to the government again.

In fact I would go so far as to say the idea verges on idiotic.

I don't thnk anyone should lose their home, but equaly haven't got much time for inheritance- we will inheit zero (MIL doesn't like us LOL, mum in council housing BUT I wouldnt want her to go without to leave us a penny- i'd rather she and dad had a good life ).

A lien should be placed on homes and the houses sold after the owner and dependant ocupiers have passed on.

There should be exceptions for those who cannot work- eg the disabled- to inherit, if we cannot afford to buy our own place we'd still love to buy the sn ds's a flat to share, Headfairy's idea of social care provided for all is all well but if you can avoid the need for social care by having a flat etc you're likely to have a much more fulfilled life (having worked in care for over a decade it's not necessarily a great place, and not all disbaled people are severely disabled- my kids are not really, except maybe in specific ways)

mil frets about this and has told us she will have to live with us if we want her house . though i'd prefer if she did as even though she's a pain, i'd hate to think of her stuck in a home.

southestastra - Don't lie, you just want her wonga.

I'm certainly not interested in the inheritence. As far as im concerned my parents/ILs can spend the lot - they haven't worked all their lives to give us money. But

Dh's nan has had to sell her house in order to go into a home which tbh is fair enough as she will never live independently again so the house would just be standing empty anyway. But because she is paying for her care she can afford a better standard of care than someone who is not in a financial position to pay.

"Dh's nan has had to sell her house in order to go into a home which tbh is fair enough as she will never live independently again so the house would just be standing empty anyway. But because she is paying for her care she can afford a better standard of care than someone who is not in a financial position to pay."

I don't see a problem with that? Why shouldn't she be able to pay for a higher standard of care in her old age than the social welfare system provides for? It is her money after all.

The inheritance tax issue is for people after they are gone rather than while they are alive. What you inherit is unearned income and so should be taxed. What you work hard for is earned, so ideally would not be taxed at all

i'm building a nice shed for her atm brassica

for a moment I thought you were kindly building a shed for her brassica atm

headfairy have you suggested to your dh that he hands over his inheritance to the government when his dad dies

tis a bit ironic you championing 100% inheritance tax isnt it lolol

Southeatastra/Upwind

zippiti... my fil has no intention in giving us any of his money, his thinking is no one gave me any so why should I give them any either. I don't really have any control over what my fil does with his money, he set up the company long before I met my dh as a tax shelter for his money, so I'm not being hypocritical. Really. :0

I'm not saying the 100% IHT idea is perfect, I know it's not realistically workable. Most socialist models don't work because people are inherently selfish. Not that that's a criticism, but our instinct is to take care of ourselves. It was just an idea, a meandering of the mind, perhaps a utopian dream that'll never happen. Personally I like it for it's radicalism, no one is brave like that in politics these days, too busy looking to the next election. Understandable of course cos you can be as idealistic as you like when you're in opposition, as you never have to implement anything unpleasant... see Libdems/Greens et al.

in answer to op, no the state should most definitely not pay for care where the person being cared for will never live in their own home again.

This issue is why I didn't vote for the Lib Dems at the last election: there are huge gaps in care for the elderly, and paying out all that money so that people can pass on their homes to their children is frankly immoral. If they are going to spend more money on care for the elderly (which they should) they shoud:

-tighten up on inspection of private care homes, and possibly bring some under council control
-provide more money for care at home
-introduce bigger fines for neglectful care home owners

...and generally concentrate on giving people their dignity rather than necessarily their cash.

SP - I agree with your post. I have family members whose homes were left to fall into decay as they spent years in nursing homes. I think it would help if elderly people had less fear of them, tightening regulation might help that. Also somehow structuring it so that residents have maximum independence when they are able to manage. I was amazed at the Travelodge-as-nursing-home stories last year.

Riven, I don't think anyone here would suggest that those who don't own a home should not be cared for. I've only really been thinking of geriatric care because that is what the article in the OP was about, and I suppose also because that is within my family experience and I can relate to it. I would guess (without any real understanding) that younger people and children with SN have different needs?

But still, if there has been a massive insurance payout for a person with SN I think that should go towards their care. If not I think the taxpayer should cover it.

The problem seems to be there is no incentive to work hard. Word hard, pay shedloads of tax possibly accrue some wealth but not enough to afford accountants to get round tax, buy house pay tax out of taxed income, pay more and more tax, I am employeer and employee so double NI. Therefore when my time comes and I require care, I sell everything I have worked for and pay pay pay.
Or do I not work hard, rely on the state as they will be there in the end?
I am not interested in leaving an inheritance I would just like a fair system because quite seriously I don't see the point in working hard. I believe in paying for those who really need help, fair education etc but it all seems to have gone a tad wrong.
Incidently I am stuffed anyway as being self employed should my business fail I can't claim benefits anyway!
Rant over

outofteabags - are you seriously saying that you wouldn't bother to work hard if you didn't think you could leave all your assets to your children?

as it goes I don't particularly see the need for everyone to "work hard" (god knows there are a lot of rich people who don't), but even if I accept the idea that working hard is a good idea for its own sake, surely the better income/house/security dutring your lifetime are incentivces enough? tax is only 40% max after all.

riven - like upwind says, this argument is about funding residential care for elderly people who own hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of property, not funding care for people with nothing - we should do that.

No, as I say, it is not inheritance I am interested in, it is more a fair balance in life. But I know two elderly people who have worked hard, been utterly scrupulous all their lives and just happen to have a home that has increased in value. Should they then have to sell up to fund their care, when others around them haven't been so careful?
The message seems to be spend everything you have because someone else will always pay for you in the end... but who are those people. The scrupulous and careful. Those who work hard will always pay for those who don't.
It is a vicious circle.
As for inheritance, I sincerely home they leave their home to charity simply so the grabbing government don't get their mitts on it.

"But I know two elderly people who have worked hard, been utterly scrupulous all their lives and just happen to have a home that has increased in value. Should they then have to sell up to fund their care, when others around them haven't been so careful?"

Why not? They did not earn the increased value of their home and I hope it would only be sold if they were never going to return to it.

If they will live out the rest of their lives in residential care why should their own house be left to fall into disrepair? And why should taxpayers money which could be used for things like education or health care instead go to protecting the inheritance that somebody will get from that elderly couple?

They worked hard and have been lucky enough to benefit from that and enjoy the comfort and security of their home for many years. A growing number of taxpayers have no realistic prospect of doing that.

I think it boils down to the fairness of it all. Technically, my grandmother at 97 should be in hospital - as she has cancer/breathing problems etc. But because she has dementia she's in a nursing home and having to pay a fortune as it was the only one in the area who would take her as she was thrown out of hospital...they didn't want the hassel of dementia.

Now her £80,000 (from the house she had to sell )is running out. The home don't want her -as once the money runs out the state system will pay much less for her to stay there. The stress is almost killing my 80 year old mum (yep - Nan was a teen mum!) as the local authority say they can't house her at any of their homes... WTF!? Where exactly does a sick, old lady of 97 go...?

If she'd not had any home to sell at the beginning of all this - she'd have been comfortably housed for the rest of her life without stress to her or the family...and no need to think about moving her because she's now considered broke! No - the system isn't fair - and it's not about inheritance for us - but peace of mind and stability. Seems her money has only bought her a few years of that.

Jeanjeannie - that is outrageously, horribly unfair. Can you get advise from CAB or similar?