Very well put. Two people with the same levels of income through life. One rents a home and spends to the hilt on holidays and luxuries. The other buys a home, lives more quietly, and saves. Both need care in old age. The politicians happily give everything needed to the one but take pretty well all they have from the other. A fair society?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.
- Thread starter northwichcat
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
We talk of "saving for a rainy day". What day is wetter than the day you have to move in to long-term care?
Health-related care is free of charge through the NHS. What is not free of charge is the day-to-day care for people who are not unwell but cannot look after themselves anymore.
If the children of these people are so concerned about the inheritance, they can do the caring themselves. Plenty of people do give up work to care for elderly relatives. And some of the value of the house will remain: the council don't take everything.
I agree that it doesn't seem fair to charge people who've saved when we don't charge people who haven't. But equally it isn't fair to pass the burden on from the children of people with significant assets to people who have much less.
Quite simply: why should I be expected to cough up for someone else's inheritance?
SteveP29
Member
So that's 2, what happened to the other 100 and odd people you went to school with?
Not really representative, is it?
Well, yes, but why bother saving at all? If you don't save then the State will take care of you on that rainy day anyway. Lesson: don't save, you will be penalised if you do.
We should examine as a society why this is, and we should think hard about what we are prepared, as a society, to fund.
That really only works if the cared-for person has basic care needs that don't require a professional.
It's not passing their burden at all. Every person who has a sick, elderly, or terminally ill relative requiring care has the same burden - the care of that loved one. It is a question of who pays for that care. If you save hard, and build up assets, in a perfectly responsible and right way, then essentially you are forced to pay. Bear in mind we are talking essentially about "all homeowners" - not the super wealthy, not the tax exiles, but actually about quite ordinary, responsible, hard-working people who managed to sort their own financial affairs and who are unlikely to have been a great burden on the state in the past. If, however, you decide not to save, not to buy a house, not to build up assets, then fine - you don't have to pay. It is perverse.
Part of the problem is the UK obsession that houses are regarded as investments, - not just for the duration of the owner's occupancy/life, but for the dynasty of their offspring. Some of the (presumably) younger posters on this forum regularly complain that the baby boomers hang on to their houses obtained at bargain prices forcing prices up for them. A lifetime renter, (by choice) recognises that a house is somewhere to live during their earthly presence. If houses were released back onto the market, the less fortunate amongst us may get better housing when more people have to buy/rent homes that they need rather than those that they see as capital investments.
OK, now in my late '60s, I have a fully paid for house in St Albans, not the cheapest place in the UK, and I accept if/when we need care, the position is that our estate can afford it, and I have no moral right to expect it to be paid from public funds just so that my children get more in any will. The fact that others without the capital to pay for it may have to depend on the state is irrelevant to the moral issue here, i.e. public funds are not there to protect the inheritance resulting from my home having a high cash value as a result of exceptional price inflation.
So what possessions or assets do you think are only things to be enjoyed during our own lives, and which do you think can or should be passed on?
A house for your only child to live in?
The family farm?
Shares in businesses?
The family butcher's shop you've run?
Your car?
Jewellery?
Your valuable lifetime collection of stamps?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Senex said:
Most of the value of property has come from price inflation. It has had nothing to do with "working hard", it has been a quirk of history. These people were fortunate to buy at a time of low house prices and sell at a time of high house prices.
It is an unearned asset. It is a quirk of being fortunate enough to take a mortgage out, or a quirk of being fortunate enough to buy a council home at bargain-basement prices, and nothing else.
"Savers versus shirkers" is also a straw man argument. People who save have the excess income to do so; people who don't save, don't. Rental costs are typically in excess of morgtage costs- certainly over a lifetime- and so people in rented accommodation will pay more for the roof over their head. Those who receive subsidised rents will normally be on very low incomes, and if they've stayed in social housing the council gains the benefit of price inflation in the asset anyway. People who deliberately get rid of their assets before entering care will have to pay for their care costs.
Fundamentally, why should my earned income be taken from me to pay for the unearned inheritance of their children? And this is crucial: charging the estate for the care costs is not affecting the cared-for person in any way.
But it does have to do with working hard. My parents worked very hard to ensure they were able to get a mortgage, in the days when you used to have to ask the bank manager in person and put a suit on. My parents were both from frankly impoverished backgrounds and didn't have any help from either of their families.
You have to work very hard to be able to get on the housing ladder, post-2008 crash.
Nothing "fortunate" about buying a home. I can only relate my own story, but purchasing my own place took a very significant deposit which I saved for entirely on my own over about seven years. I have never had an inheritance or any financial help whatsoever, except a small gift from my parents to help with the actual costs of moving my belongings. For a very long time I lived an austere life (and in fact still do, my travel hobby aside), gave up drinking, never gambled and only ever drove sensible cars.
I strongly argue that home ownership is good for the country and believe that it should be less difficult to buy your first home - I believe the state should create space to empower people rather than manage them.
So what? I rented for many years.
Ah, but your earned income is because you're "fortunate" to have a job, spare a thought for those who are not so fortunate, etc, etc. You are not paying for someone's inheritance in any way, shape, or form. There is no way we would be having this conversation if it was about terminal cancer and very extended (and expensive) hospital stay/treatment. Do you think homeowners, or their estates, should pay a portion of/all of the costs of their hospital treatment in that situation?
I reject the idea of being fortunate. A good football idiom is "you make your own luck" - sometimes, you can get a lucky break, for sure, but you have to actually be in position to take advantage of it.
I have lived at the very precipice of society, and literally wiped arses for a living - as a teenager I worked in the care of elderly people with dementia. I dropped out of uni very quickly after failing to settle. I've stacked shelves and done warehouse work on zero hours contracts. I was a cashier in a bank prior to the financial crisis. I've cold-called people to collect debts. For a short time I also claimed Government handouts. I once even got sectioned in a mental hospital for two weeks when I became very unwell - a deeply unpleasant experience (but one which taught me a lot about how mental health is so badly underprioritised!).
It's not an X Factor sob story and I certainly would think of myself as completely unremarkable - I am well-apprised of the fact that every person has their own cross to bear. But I certainly don't recognise the insinuation that people like my parents or I are "fortunate"!
Note that this is not an insinuation that people who do not own their own houses aren't hard workers too, but merely an explanation that to own your house is not at all easy and involves significant responsibility.
I'd like to hear why I, or my parents, or my (possible future) children, should have to pay for their care - without describing us as "fortunate".
I'm more than a little fed up of some politicians thinking that people like me should pay disproportionately for the infrastructure that holds our society together.
Last edited:
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,808
It is grossly unfair that the savers and home-owners are forced to pay for the same care as those who have frittered away every penny over the years.
Why can't someone who has spent the last 20 years on cruises, gambling, drinking etc be treated just like they've thrown their money away to avoid health bills when elderly?
Apart from those who only use private care - and is that possible? - we all use the NHS, from cradle to grave. Therefore we all should pay equally throughout our lives for the same back.
That means more tax I'm afraid, irrespective of annual income there should be a 1% care tax on all earnings - so if you earn 10k, then £100 is taken towards your care....£100000 = £1000 and so on.
There should be VAT on sugary, salty foods - the sugar tax.
We should have a luxury tax on certain goods....and put that extra into care. So if Mr and Mrs Fritteraway buy a luxury car, there's the 15% VAT and a further 15% on top. Don't want to pay that....buy a smaller car. Those large TV's could be taxed extra...anything where there's a choice so a cheaper version is available.
Why can't someone who has spent the last 20 years on cruises, gambling, drinking etc be treated just like they've thrown their money away to avoid health bills when elderly?
Apart from those who only use private care - and is that possible? - we all use the NHS, from cradle to grave. Therefore we all should pay equally throughout our lives for the same back.
That means more tax I'm afraid, irrespective of annual income there should be a 1% care tax on all earnings - so if you earn 10k, then £100 is taken towards your care....£100000 = £1000 and so on.
There should be VAT on sugary, salty foods - the sugar tax.
We should have a luxury tax on certain goods....and put that extra into care. So if Mr and Mrs Fritteraway buy a luxury car, there's the 15% VAT and a further 15% on top. Don't want to pay that....buy a smaller car. Those large TV's could be taxed extra...anything where there's a choice so a cheaper version is available.
EM2
Established Member
But that's pretty much anything.
Want to buy a shirt from Burtons? Well, you'll have to pay an extra tax, because they're cheaper in Primark.
You want Heinz beans? More tax please, because you should be buying Tesco Value instead.
EDIT - what about those that need something specific because of their circumstances? For example, I have a Fiat Panda, and it's perfect because there are only two of us. But if I had three kids, then it would be useless, so I'd need to spend more for a bigger car.
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I can very much see both sides of the argument on this one. But the fundamental point is that personal care costs- and it costs a lot of money- and so the question is who should pay for it. And, rather than healthcare costs which can happen to anyone at any time, personal care costs are expected and foreseeable.
On the one hand, we can blithely claim that "the taxpayer should pay for it". But government's just had to slap a 6% "social care levy" on every council taxpayer, and that isn't even going to make a dent on the costs. And this leaves us in the insane situation where someone with tens of millions in the bank gets to contribute nothing towards the cost of their care, passing the bill on to people who have very little in the bank.
If you don't think that multi-millionaires should get free care, then you agree with the principle of charging those who can afford to pay. And if you agree with that principle, it boils down to where you think the line should be drawn; conveniently you'd draw the line where it wouldn't affect your inheritance.
I have horses on both sides in this debate. My parents lost their house, everything, when my dad had a stroke at 55 and could no longer work, nobody helped them, my mum had to get a second job and they still had to go bankrupt. My wife's mother, on the other hand, has significant equity in her home and significant assets; these came from the fact my wife's father died of cancer when she was young. It doesn't feel nice to say her family should pay when so much of the money came from tragedy. But equally why should the burden of care be passed to people who don't have that money, just so we get a nice little nestegg?
On the one hand, we can blithely claim that "the taxpayer should pay for it". But government's just had to slap a 6% "social care levy" on every council taxpayer, and that isn't even going to make a dent on the costs. And this leaves us in the insane situation where someone with tens of millions in the bank gets to contribute nothing towards the cost of their care, passing the bill on to people who have very little in the bank.
If you don't think that multi-millionaires should get free care, then you agree with the principle of charging those who can afford to pay. And if you agree with that principle, it boils down to where you think the line should be drawn; conveniently you'd draw the line where it wouldn't affect your inheritance.
I have horses on both sides in this debate. My parents lost their house, everything, when my dad had a stroke at 55 and could no longer work, nobody helped them, my mum had to get a second job and they still had to go bankrupt. My wife's mother, on the other hand, has significant equity in her home and significant assets; these came from the fact my wife's father died of cancer when she was young. It doesn't feel nice to say her family should pay when so much of the money came from tragedy. But equally why should the burden of care be passed to people who don't have that money, just so we get a nice little nestegg?
It's entirely up to the individual what they spend their dosposable cash on (well, only those lucky enough to have anything left after their basic living costs are covered). The issue with care expenses is that those whose estate is large enough can defer that cost of care in their lives against it, to be settled after they have died. It won't affect their day-to-day quality of life.
As for your list of carefully chosen posessions or assets:
The house is a house to live in, and should not be a cash store. I don't think that people who can't even afford the deposit for a basic home should subsidise those who want to give their home to their child.
Farms (or other businesses) either stand on their own as a business or they can be passed back into the market, (mabe bought/run by somebody who otherwise would have paid for a wealthy person's care).
Shares are investments and effectively just cash in another form.
A car (unless a classic/vintage model), is a lifed item so unlikely to be of that much value, especially at the time of death.
Jewellery and stamp collections of the sort of value to be relevant to this discussion are just cash, disguised as chattels.
Farms (or other businesses) either stand on their own as a business or they can be passed back into the market, (mabe bought/run by somebody who otherwise would have paid for a wealthy person's care).
Shares are investments and effectively just cash in another form.
A car (unless a classic/vintage model), is a lifed item so unlikely to be of that much value, especially at the time of death.
Jewellery and stamp collections of the sort of value to be relevant to this discussion are just cash, disguised as chattels.
Essentially, unless the possesions are critical to living a normal life (depending on the condition of the cared one), they all represent wealth that can be realised at the time of care need. It may be galling to think that life savings are being spent on needs, but that's what earnings are for.
Back to post #1706, could you now answer my question:
Who would you expect to pay for the rising cost of (mainly) later life care?
You sidestepped it in your post #1709. I'm sure other's here would like to know your solution.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,808
Think the answer is everyone pays the same percentage/proportion; so someone on a low wage pays the same % as someone very high - and those with £m's in the bank have to pay an additional amount on the income from their interest.
So if £1m brings in £10,000 p/a interest, at the moment that is taxed at 20% (allowing for sliding scales if those with savings are also working) so that 20% should have a care addition.
If it's a case of hammering those with savings, especially if they want to pass some down to their children, what happens if everyone cottons on the principle that there's no point in saving (and owning property) whatsoever....so we have to fund their care in addition to those fitterers?
Ah, that old strawman, so, all older poor people are extravagant, gamblers, drinkers etc., and if they don't have the cash for basic care, they can just rot in their homes.
Mmm, nice attitude, - comes from the same school of thought that all gay people are responsible for aids, all Germans are warmongers and all muslims are terrorists. Sounds like the worst of '60s all over again.
A house is primarily to live in. I agree. What is wrong then, in principle, with a parent passing the house to their child, to live in? Is that not responsible management? Does that not solve the housing situation of at least one person? If the child then sells the house, because they are already on the ladder, then so what?
Farms are assets as well as businesses. There are a lot of wealthy farmers (as well as some very poor ones of course) - I struggle to see how you can justify a farm as being okay to pass onto a child, but a house is fair game for pilfering. Farms require investment, risk taking, responsibility - not that different to a house, surely. Nothing stopping a child from selling the family business - you reckon the proceeds they should get from such an inheritance should be capped at £100k?
I would much rather pay a tax to fund social care. I can completely accept that I am taxed according to my income, but find it totally unjust to suggest eviscerating my (estate's) assets which were built up responsibility. One of the social benefits of having assets like a house, or a savings account, or anything else is it reduces your life burden on the state, and is an eminently responsible thing to do - as long as you do it legally and without moral qualms. This is the fundamental difference, as I see it, between means testing by income and by asset.
What people are missing from May's plan is that the half of the idea is to fund social care from the equity in the deceased's homes - do you think Mrs May will therefore make it a priority to ensure the market is:
a) affordable, with measures to limit the housing bubble, or
b) rising, with equity sloshing about?
Answers on a postcard.
No more or less a strawman than suggesting older people with assets which were gained legally and responsibly are "fortunate" (as one poster put it) and therefore fair game to part-fund the care of the "unfortunate" poor and disadvantaged.
If your view did prevail, the dire shortage of housing situation would resolve itself pretty quickly as there wouldn't be as much hoarding of second homes, holiday homes, sitting on building land, etc.. Home would be like they manage on the continent where they are for living in, not speculation.
We would also end up with a more equal society as a few children would be less likely to have such unfair advantages.
Not sure what a "fitterer" is.
I've just had my first election communication, from the ex-MP and current Labour candidate. It's the equivalent of 6 pages of A5 in size and it doesn't mention Jeremy Corbyn once, let alone people like McDonald, Abbott, and Thornberry. Are the Labour leaflets in other constituencies equally silent about the party leadership?
My answers are mostly contained in post #1727 in that it constrains* the concentration of wealth to those who have it and pass it on to children as an advantage to deny others with, thereby perpetuatiing the inequality. That is similar in intent to the original justification for death duties.
Also, the change in the attitude to speculating on such a fundamental requirement of safe affordable housing will stop or slow the spiralling of house prices so not much incentive for the government to rely on that.
As has been said more than once today on radio 4, everybody has a view on how care should be paid for, and what cash thresholds should be, - usually carefully crafted to minimise their own contribution. That's the nature of our financially selfish society. Personally, although a £100k threshold would fiancially affect my children (but gratefully, they have the same attitude as me and aren't counting their potential inheritance whilst I am still alive) almost as much as the existing £23250 limit, I still think it better than a tax increase on everybody, including them. I can pay an additional 3-4p per pound easily, but I fear for the many who can't, and the situation that it might create. If a tax change is the only way, maybe a lowering of all of the tax thresholds by £1000, (or whatever it equates to) would be fairer.
* of course, not everbody will have a need for care so will not draw on their wealth for themselves, (but some views seem to suggest that the more deprived they are, the greater their medical need for such care).
Desirable:
it depends whether the person answering it sees their (or their offspring') position rising or falling
Achievable:
the are plenty of developed countries far more equal than ours, which are neither communist nor poor. One of the keys to equality is uniform education standards and quality which certainly isn't true here, but that is off topic for this thread.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
We could call it a social care premium on inheritance tax, so that the beneficiaries of significant windfall income contribute towards the cost of the social care their families benefitted from.
Would that sound any better?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
That's pretty much my view as well.
My wife's mother is 77 and has Parkinson's. If she has to go into a care home, it's going to eat through her money very rapidly. From a personal perspective, my wife and I would do very well out of the state funding all her social care, well into the six figures. But how is whacking up tax on the poorest people so my wife and I can get a six-figure windfall equitable?
Not sure where the 'wealtheir pensioners' start in respect of taking away Winter Fuel Payments.
No problems with the pensions 'triple lock' being downgraded to 'double lock' however. Brexit issues have driven inflation up to 2.7% so 2.5% just wouldn't be good enough. I'm quite happy to go with RPI/CPI or average earnings. After all, 'were all in it together'.
No problems with the pensions 'triple lock' being downgraded to 'double lock' however. Brexit issues have driven inflation up to 2.7% so 2.5% just wouldn't be good enough. I'm quite happy to go with RPI/CPI or average earnings. After all, 'were all in it together'.
Butts
Veteran Member
Well now the three main parties have released their Manifestos are the Conservatives still heading for victory ?
I fear in Wales Llafur Cymru will give Plaid Geidwadol Cymru a bloody nose but we should increase our representation.
Plaid Cymru and the others will be also rans
I fear in Wales Llafur Cymru will give Plaid Geidwadol Cymru a bloody nose but we should increase our representation.
Plaid Cymru and the others will be also rans
Well so far I have received 3 leaflets from Labour and nothing from the other parties, and particularly the Tories in second place in this constituency need to get their act together.
My Dad has received a personal letter from Mrs May well of course its not a real personalised letter but its the only thing I have seen from the Tories so far.
It is noticeable how there is no mention or pictures of Corbyn on the leaflets, the latest one has a picture of her stood with Tom Watson.
My Dad has received a personal letter from Mrs May well of course its not a real personalised letter but its the only thing I have seen from the Tories so far.
It is noticeable how there is no mention or pictures of Corbyn on the leaflets, the latest one has a picture of her stood with Tom Watson.
Last edited:
It is interesting. The Tory campaign is basically almost a cult of personality surrounding Theresa "Automaton" May. The Labour campaign is ten times more collegiate with Corbyn given a very low profile.
Nope. Not a dickie bird about any of them in the one leaflet we've had from our Labour candidate.
There is an argument for taxing inherited wealth as passing on assets does deny them to others. However, whereas inheritance tax has limits and boundaries that people can understand and foresee, there's no way of knowing who's going to get clobbered with massive care bills. So even though the conservative rank and file generally hate inheritance tax (inspite of it being less regressive than most) funding social care by raising inheritance tax would still be fairer than care charges.
If we're concerned about working people denied housing through inheritance, we should also be concerned about commercial and non-resident wealth buying up housing as an investment and depriving residents of the chance to own. I'm not aware of this issue being addressed in any of the manifestos, however I haven't read them through.
If we're concerned about working people denied housing through inheritance, we should also be concerned about commercial and non-resident wealth buying up housing as an investment and depriving residents of the chance to own. I'm not aware of this issue being addressed in any of the manifestos, however I haven't read them through.
Last edited:
Indeed, and I don't know about you but she delivered ours herself.
- Status