National Care Service

Sir_Humphrey

Whether we can afford this or not is a pointless question. Either we pay a tax and the government provides, or we do not and people have to make their own provision. The only alternative is to terminate people at the age of 75. The effect on having money to buy toys with is same either way (i.e. ceteris paribus it will be less).

The question is "how do we as a society pay", not "do we pay".

Spartacus_Mills

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Why is everyone calling it a "death tax" and not just plain old inheritance tax?

Why do people get so het up about inheritance tax? Which would you rather tax: what a person earns, or what falls into a person's lap through the luck of birthrights?

Why did people call the "Community Charge" the "Poll Tax" ?

People get "het up" about it, as you put it, because they want to leave a legacy to their children/family and the money has already been taxed.

You don't agree with it or like it. Well sorry about that but that is just the way it is as it is a generational thing and will probably be different in 30years time. T

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

Wait a minute these guys are dead

Many of whom would have wanted to pass a lasting legacy to their family and it would have played very badly with them during the election as it is counter-aspirational - hence why Labour dropped it and why the Tories made a big deal of it.

Smart ploy by the Tories, smart ploy by Labour to defer a vote loser while not completely canning it and trying to retain the moral higher ground. More of the same to come for the next 5 weeks.

Sir_Humphrey

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Many of whom would have wanted to pass a lasting legacy to their family and it would have played very badly with them during the election as it is counter-aspirational - hence why Labour dropped it and why the Tories made a big deal of it.

How is being a trustafarian aspirational? Says a lot about the state of the country that people think that.

Spartacus_Mills

misskool wrote: »

seriously though, why not have a credit system where you pay what you owe when you die. If your estate is worth something then fine, if not then the state makes up the shortfall.

Would not work. It does not incentivise people to put aside for their old age or make provision for themselves. They would simply gift the money or spend, spend, spend.

The only solution to this issue from what I can see is, if we are to have a universal system, is for the politicians to take the decision to add it to general taxation and ring fence that element of tax. Not a palatable idea granted but it would guarantee the money would be collected and people would pay over their lifetime of work.

ukcarper

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Many of whom would have wanted to pass a lasting legacy to their family and it would have played very badly with them during the election as it is counter-aspirational - hence why Labour dropped it and why the Tories made a big deal of it.

Smart ploy by the Tories, smart ploy by Labour to defer a vote loser while not completely canning it and trying to retain the moral higher ground. More of the same to come for the next 5 weeks.

It's very easy to criticise the death tax but what alternative do you have. I am in the position of owning a house which lets say is worth £300k and I have three children if I die and the children get £90k each instead of £100k will it make much difference to them.

Is it better to increase income tax or NI and hit them in their pockets now when they are probably least able to afford it.

Of course we could do nothing and then if I do not need any care they will be £10k better off or on the other hand I might need care and they could lose all of their inheritance.

I don’t claim to know the solution and I’m not sure anybody does.

Spartacus_Mills

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

How is being a trustafarian aspirational?

Irrelevant comment.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Says a lot about the state of the country that people think that.

Well they do and they are in the demographic most likely to vote so the politicians need to listen to what they say and think.

Sir_Humphrey

It would help if people in low to average incomes gained a greater proportion of national wealth rather the lion's share always going to the top. Then perhaps people would not need so much state assistance?

Spartacus_Mills

ukcarper wrote: »

It's very easy to criticise the death tax but what alternative do you have. I am in the position of owning a house which lets say is worth £300k and I have three children if I die and the children get £90k each instead of £100k will it make much difference to them.

Is it better to increase income tax or NI and hit them in their pockets now when they are probably least able to afford it.

Of course we could do nothing and then if I do not need any care they will be £10k better off or on the other hand I might need care and they could lose all of their inheritance.

I don’t claim to know the solution and I’m not sure anybody does.

I think the only solution is to increase taxation to pay for it. It is the only solution that would guarantee the money required.

I am not saying the Death Tax is right or wrong, just identifying why I think it is unpalatable to a decent portion of the electorate. If Labour want to go for the Death Tax their only viable option is, if they win the election, implement it immediately in the hope they can tighten up the regs and rules with regards to IHT avoidance and gifting as well as hoping they have 5 years before the next election and people forget/are less concerned about it.

Spartacus_Mills

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It would help if people in low to average incomes gained a greater proportion of national wealth rather the lion's share always going to the top. Then perhaps people would not need so much state assistance?

Well a vote for the Lib Dems would be a positive step forward.