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

bear1969

and if someone goes out gets !!!!ed ends up in hospital or overdoses on drugs charge them for care as its self inflicted ,why should we pay for their recklessness

baby_boomer

I thought this thread was about Labour's "death tax" to pay for care for the elderly.

Not the wasted taxpayers' money on irresponsible young louts whose treatment should perhaps be charged to their parents if they are under 18.

Please choose another thread to discuss this issue if you feel as strongly about it as I do.

FATBALLZ

The problem is always those who can't be bothered to provide for themselves. Until it is recognised that not all old people are deserving of a high level of care (ie the ones that could have tried to provide for the future but didn't bother) the system will always be a mess. There has to be a bog standard cheapo level of care for those who didn't provide for their own futures.

Sapphire

Perhaps a 'death tax', but only for those who are affluent and hold above a certain amount in their estate (including their homes), e.g. more than £750,000? That would bring in quite a bit of money.

I also think it's a bit unfair that those who would not need to have care should have to contribute to such a system.

I am nervous about such a tax in principle, since the people who are in the Houses of Parliament (I'm so angry with them about many issues that I find it difficult to call them a 'government'!) could bring in annual increases to it once it was in place.

Graham_Devon

The issue is for me, not so much the 10% death tax.

It's the way the NHS is becoming far more segmented. The national health service was always "care for all". Over recent years, it has become came for some, a postocde lottery, and care for certain people on benefits (dentists, prescriptions etc).

It's going down the line of becoming a class system, but not a class system as we all know it, a class system where a certain class pays, and another class gets it free.

That's no longer care for all. That's care for some, based on some paying in. Those that pay nothing get the free care, while those that pay in over their lifetimes, have to pay a second time.

It seems to me that we need money, so instead of looking at the current system and issues with it, it's easier to target some of the population with a new tax.

baileysbattlebus

I thought we were taxed to death already......

StevieJ

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I thought we were taxed to death already......

Well they make good bed fellows, as Franklin said

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

BTW it seems like a very good idea to me a bit like insurance, if we don't have this and the parents end up in care then the inheritance is up in smoke, unless of course the spendthrift Tories get in and allow the people (or rather their hard working kids) in care homes to keep their fortune.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

baby_boomer wrote: »

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.

I get the point but the application would see people dying with 20k in the bank dying effectively broke & mostly without using any care facility at all.

Its not right.

treliac

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I thought we were taxed to death already......

And the economy's still failing.


Are we going to accept a tax that won't be paid by those the rest of us already keep.... for support that will not be required by all of those who have to pay?

Sounds a bad move to me.

peterg1965

I am p****d off by the way that Labour say that the consensus of professionals is in favour of a one off tax, why don't they ask us????