What do people think of Labour's proposed "death tax"

drc

What do people think of Labour's "death tax"?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7026357.ece

A new 10% death tax on every estate is being considered by the government as a way of funding care for the elderly, it was claimed last night.
The Conservatives say ministers have been secretly gauging public support for the levy to pay for free care for every pensioner who needs it.
The suggestion was dismissed as black propaganda by Labour last night, which accused the Tories of putting political point-scoring ahead of finding a solution to the plight of vulnerable pensioners faced with crippling care bills.
Andy Burnham, the health secretary, threw down the gauntlet to his opposite number, Andrew Lansley, demanding he tear down Tory posters that feature gravestones and a separate claim that Labour wants to impose a £20,000 death tax on everyone.
In a manoeuvre designed to force Lansley’s hand, Burnham is to convene an emergency national conference on care for the elderly this week involving every main charity and quango affected by the problem, to which the shadow health secretary will be invited only if he complies.
Lansley’s absence from the summit could severely damage the Tories’ relationship with the organisations and undermine their claim to be committed to reforming the system.
Burnham said: “If the posters come down, and they call off their campaign on the doorsteps, the Tories can join this convention. But if they don’t, they’ll be excluded. Either they’re in this debate or they’re not. It’s far too important to reduce to scare tactics.”
Burnham also claimed that during secret cross-party talks on the care crisis, Lansley refused to promise that the Conservatives would introduce legislation to reform the system if they won the election.
“I wanted every party to commit to a bill, regardless of who wins the election. He didn’t seem able to,” the health secretary said.
Claims that the government is secretly planning a 10% tax on estates were prompted by evidence that market researchers Ipsos Mori has been polling voters on the issue.
Householders were telephoned and asked whether they would be in favour of a system of social care that was free for all if they were taxed 10% of their estate when they died. The interviewer gave an example of a £500,000 estate, from which the taxman would take £50,000. Respondents were also asked if they knew any old people receiving social care.
The Department of Health repeatedly refused to confirm or deny that it had commissioned the research, fuelling speculation that the government was behind it.
It is not clear whether the levy would be charged only on estates above the inheritance tax threshold of £325,000 or would be applied to every individual whatever the value of their estate.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Burnham refused to comment on options being considered for funding care for the elderly, insisting a consensus was first needed on how to reform the system.
He labelled the current system, under which elderly people are helped with costs as “unfair”, “random” and “inadequate”. At present, eligibility for help varies widely among local authorities.
He said: “We cannot go on like this. Some people are having to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for their care. It is outrageous that someone with Alzheimer’s who gets wiped out physically, mentally and emotionally should also get wiped out financially.”
The debate over care for the elderly exploded last week when it emerged that Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems were holding secret talks in the hope of agreeing a solution.
The talks collapsed amid bitter recrimination when the Tories unveiled the poster claiming Labour was planning a £20,000 death tax on every individual. The slogan was based on one option mentioned among several in a government green paper on the issue.
The poster incensed Labour, with Lord Mandelson describing it as “contemptible behaviour”. Labour claims that Tory parliamentary candidates are spreading misinformation about its plans on the doorstep.
Burnham said the episode had seriously undermined his trust in Lansley. He added: “My instinct is that he has forfeited his right to be part of the debate, but it is the right thing to do to invite him, if he is prepared to meet the terms.”

C_Mababejive

How will they tax the dolehoppers..or will the rest of us pay their share?

Why not go the whole hog and build mass incineration plants at power stations.

Burn our useless bodies in them to create green energy and pipe the hot water produced straight to the Palace of westminster to warm their self serving backsides?

Spartacus_Mills

Once again Labour is penalising thrift in favour of !!!!lessness. If you work hard and save into your old age your estate will be penalised. If you p1ss your money up the wall all your life you can rely on the thrifty to look after you.

The Tories are onto something here. This policy of Labours is counter-aspirational. It will cost Labour votes in the key marginals.

drc

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Once again Labour is penalising thrift in favour of !!!!lessness. If you work hard and save into your old age your estate will be penalised. If you p1ss your money up the wall all your life you can rely on the thrifty to look after you.

The Tories are onto something here. This policy of Labours is counter-aspirational. It will cost Labour votes in the key marginals.

Exactly. It seems that Labour are too thick to realise that people who have saved and been prudent are not just going to keep bending over to be screwed like good little citizens in order to fund the retirement of the bone idle and Labour's social engineering projects. Instead there will be no incentive to save and the middle class (who seem to be Labour's favourite cash cows) will just spend their hard earned money before they reach old age and then the state will have to find money for their care too.

JP45

He labelled the current system, under which elderly people are helped with costs as “unfair”, “random” and “inadequate”. At present, eligibility for help varies widely among local authorities.

He said: “We cannot go on like this. Some people are having to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for their care. It is outrageous that someone with Alzheimer’s who gets wiped out physically, mentally and emotionally should also get wiped out financially.”

There may be disagreements over the solution but I think most people would agree with the above - that the current arrangements are grossly unfair.

But I don't agree with the Tories approach. I don't think anything should be ruled out at this stage, including a so called 'death tax'. The fact is there is no 'free lunch' option.

If the death tax is such a flawed option, as the Tories seem to believe, then the answer surely is for them to point out the flaws rather than rule it out altogether and abandon the cross-party talks.

This is too serious an issue for people to be playing party politics (he said naively).

Kohoutek

The direction of virtually all policy in the pensions/benefits under New Labour has been to continue to move away from a system based on contributions, to one based on 'universal' benefits. We need to make a decision whether we want to keep the latter and have Scandinavian levels of taxation to sustain it, or transition to a more limited system.

I think we should radically rethink the social protection system, and make it a contribution based system with some safety nets to mitigate against exceptional hardship. Abolish all the freebies like free bus passes and TV licences, severely limit benefits for people with no national insurance contributions, e.g. pregnant teenage girls who are eligible for housing benefit.

As the saying goes, 'you get out of life what you put in', I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to benefits, with some exceptions for genuine hardship.

carolt

Can someone explain - is this 10% tax to fund the current system only, or is it to provide everyone with free care (as they have in Scotland, say)?

If the latter, then I'm strongly in favour. If the former...possibly still in favour.

Better surely to tax the dead than the living.

abaxas

Personally there should be 2 tiers of care.

A crap free one, basic provision only.

A better one you can opt into, with the above system.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Dead on its feet

carolt

abaxas wrote: »

Personally there should be 2 tiers of care.

A crap free one, basic provision only.

A better one you can opt into, with the above system.

Because you'd be happy with old people receiving 'crap' care?

baby_boomer

It's a death trap politically for Labour. It risks losing the votes of both homeowners and their children.

Personally I can't see the problem of paying for your care when you die if you've not been responsible enough to make provision in your own lifetime. You can argue that it's very kind of the state to leave the bill unpaid until your death . And why should your house automatically be passed on to your family at the expense of society and other taxpayers, when you haven't bothered to look after yourself?

If you support Labour then ideologically the charge helps with redistribution of wealth from homeowners to the rest.

If you support the Conservatives then ideologically the charge rightly rewards taking responsibility for your own care, rather than carelessly leaving it to the ever expanding state.

But when I make these obvious points to my contempories it feels as if I had just proposed early release for child killers .

So the issue will play well for Conservative populists at the election IMHO.

It is outrageous that someone with Alzheimer’s who gets wiped out physically, mentally and emotionally should also get wiped out financially

That's fine and dandy, Andy. And when are you going to put the basic rate of tax up to 30 pence in the £ ?

Why has it taken New Labour 13 years to even begin to discuss the Alzheimer's issue?

At one stage they had money to burn on it. Now they haven't got a penny.