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

amcluesent

I'd suggest peeps can obtain enhanced-care vouchers in exchange for signing up to schemes to take part in drug testing, transplant donors, body left to science and, of course, ultimately Soylent Green.

abaxas

carolt wrote: »

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

What else can we do? People have to be disadvanatged if they decide not to care for themselves. Why I should I pay for someone who !!!!ed their money up the wall?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

baby_boomer wrote: »

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.

I think the point is that this "cost" should be managed through general taxation.

People will die (kill themselves) early to save the money after paying hundreds of thousands or more to HMRC throughout their lives..

nic_santorini

Kohoutek wrote: »

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.

I think you are 100% right - run for prime minister - this is the sensible, fair and proper way forward. I am sick of paying for all the state handouts and now they are considering taxing my money if I kick the bucket!! Is there an age limit on kicking the bucket too?? As I really think that it would be awful to peanalize those people who lost their life unexpedtedly early in life. That would just be a kick in the teeth for the families left behind to pick up the pieces.

baby_boomer

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I think the point is that this "cost" should be managed through general taxation.

I think the bigger point is that the economy & hard working individuals could suffer for decades if it were. It would affect every budget in the country.

It makes more sense for the dead to pay it. Then it would only affect those who are about to receive a handy windfall anyway.

kabayiri

Why should we trust the estimate of 20K cost from Labour? Their estimating ability is pretty appalling :-
- Tax Credits; overpays by 2bn per annum in its first years
- Olympics; 3 to 4 times original estimate
- NHS IT system; 12-15bn and still rising, also well behind schedule

plenty of others too.

If you accept this, all you are signing up to is the idea of them taking 'some amount of money' from your estate. Once the principle is established, what would stop the 'estimate' from growing and growing ?

Kohoutek

If you have any doubts about the future of tax and spend under Labour, just watch this video of Brown from last year (the relevant bit starts at 0:40)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAr5zu7YdRA&feature=related

"Public spending is rising every year...public spending is due to rise every year...in every year in the future public spending will continue to rise"

baby_boomer

kabayiri wrote: »

If you accept this, all you are signing up to is the idea of them taking 'some amount of money' from your estate. Once the principle is established, what would stop the 'estimate' from growing and growing ?

I agree that the the estimate would have to grow because it is bound to be too low a) for political reasons and b) because we have persistently underestimated longevity.

People instinctively, if not rationally, understand this - which is why Labour is on to a political loser.

JP45

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.

In general, I'd agree with you, but in this particular case I think the current situation is grotesquely unfair. At present, if someone is unfortunate enough to succumb to dementia then they face the possibility of having almost their entire life savings wiped out (all bar the last £16k). Is that not an even greater example of penalising thrift?

Torry_Quine

carolt wrote: »

provide everyone with free care (as they have in Scotland, say)
.

Sorry to disappoint but we don't actually have free care in Scotland. Just a small amount towards it. People here still use up their savings and sell houses.

Something needs to be done and soon.