National Care Service

misskool

yay! more taxes.

ukcarper

I personally can't see what's wrong with the 10% death tax. The insurance at 65 assumes you have 6k (I have heard higher figures mentioned) to spare if not what would you do release equity using one of the rip of equity release schemes.

treliac

Linton wrote: »

Is there any mileage in allowing councils to take a charge on the house rather than forcing a sale immediately? This would need some additional financing to cover the time gap between cost and payment.

This option is already available under the deferred payments scheme. Even when paying full care costs a resident can continue to claim state pension and attendance allowance which helps to eke out their personal capital for the time they need it, which is not usually very long.

Rochdale_Pioneers

I haven't heard anyone make a serious proposition about how to pay for this. The "Death Tax" option (never a policy but why let the facts get in the way of a bad poster) is probably the best way to fund it in the least disruptive way, but politically its impossible.

The insurance proposal from the Tories is also a non-starter. Assuming that enough people take up the insurance - which the French experience demonstrates they wont - its still no solution for the masses who don't.

Kohoutek

ukcarper wrote: »

I personally can't see what's wrong with the 10% death tax. The insurance at 65 assumes you have 6k (I have heard higher figures mentioned) to spare if not what would you do release equity using one of the rip of equity release schemes.

Well it would disproportionally hits estates of people living in areas where house prices are higher - i.e. the South East, and imposing a compulsory 10% levy on every estate means the tax has no relationship with the amount of care you receive.

You could be a spendthrift with no assets that requires care from the age of 65 and pay nothing, or you could be a saver in good health facing 10% of your wealth being confiscated before you can pass it onto your offspring.

FATBALLZ

No proposal will ever work until it realises those who don't pay shouldn't get the same standard of care as those who do. As an aside, euthanasia for those who get dementia should be considered, with people signing up to be part of it while they still have their mind in tact. As far as I'm concerned once I lose my mind I'm already dead, I don't want my shell of a body being kept alive at vast expense for no reason at all.

treliac

FATBALLZ wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned once I lose my mind I'm already dead, I don't want my shell of a body being kept alive at vast expense for no reason at all.

Lots of us think that. Trouble is, by the time you get dementia it's too late - you've become too confused to do anything about it!

Rochdale_Pioneers

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well it would disproportionally hits estates of people living in areas where house prices are higher - i.e. the South East, and imposing a compulsory 10% levy on every estate means the tax has no relationship with the amount of care you receive.

I thought the proposal being discussed was £10k not 10%?

ukcarper

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well it would disproportionally hits estates of people living in areas where house prices are higher - i.e. the South East, and imposing a compulsory 10% levy on every estate means the tax has no relationship with the amount of care you receive.

You could be a spendthrift with no assets that requires care from the age of 65 and pay nothing, or you could be a saver in good health facing 10% of your wealth being confiscated before you can pass it onto your offspring.

I live in the Southeast and all what you say is true but none of the ideas are ideal and I don’t think it is fair to increase the tax burden on the young to pay or a growing elderly population. I think that if my children received 10% less when I die it would'nt make that much difference to them and it would be better that they pay less tax now.

Kohoutek

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I thought the proposal being discussed was £10k not 10%?

There's no firm proposals at the moment, but the original plan by Labour which was derailed by the Tories was 10%, which was what ukcarper was referring to.

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

ukcarper wrote: »

I live in the Southeast and all what you say is true but none of the ideas are ideal and I don’t think it is fair to increase the tax burden on the young to pay or a growing elderly population. I think that if my children received 10% less when I die it would'nt make that much difference to them and it would be better that they pay less tax now.

True, I agree it's preferable to taxing the working population. But I think its dangerous to keep introducing these universal benefits, which anyone is eligible for regardless of how much they've contributed to the system.