National Care Service

ukcarper

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Okay, you're looking at it for the point of view of living people who are anticipating the state of affairs after their death.

Anyway, I'm sure young people eyeing a large inheritance would vote against inheritance tax too. Self interest rules.

It's still the least bad tax IMO.

I agree self-interest normally rules I would be effected by the death tax but as I would be dead I don't think I would worry about it too much. As for my children what’s best 90% or nothing I suppose it all depends on how much of a gambler you are.

Spartacus_Mills

misskool wrote: »

That's the point. You pay more as you get older.

Because the older you are the more likely you are to need care.

The reality is many people would cancel their insurance because they could not afford it and as a consequence it would not help. It needs to be a state scheme/taxation to ensure a universal provison. I only see general taxation as the solution although ukcarpers excellent point about an ageing population means this can only increase in the future.

misskool wrote: »

Why are people so poor at future provision planning?

Because we have lived through a 13 year credit fuelled boom where the economic prosperity was based on living for the moment and spending money.

Spartacus_Mills

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree self-interest normally rules I would be effected by the death tax but as I would be dead I don't think I would worry about it too much. As for my children what’s best 90% or nothing I suppose it all depends on how much of a gambler you are.

Personally it does not bother me either. I would be quite happy for 10% of my estate to go to the state when I die. Not bothered about leaving it to anyone they can all make their own way in the world.

I am not saying I agree with those who oppose the death tax but I do understand their reasons for doing so.

JayScottGreenspan

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

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.

I'd like to see non-charitable trusts abolished.

Currently the super-rich can ringfence huge estates in trusts, keep enough to live on, and pay a tiny effective IHT rate. If we have to pay IHT, the toffs should too.

I'd make them pay 40% on everything over £325k too. No trusts. No exceptions.

ukcarper

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Personally it does not bother me either. I would be quite happy for 10% of my estate to go to the state when I die. Not bothered about leaving it to anyone they can all make their own way in the world.

I am not saying I agree with those who oppose the death tax but I do understand their reasons for doing so.

Yea I can see why people do object but no solution is going to be popular perhaps that's why all the parties are not telling us very much before the election

wymondham

misskool wrote: »

It's unfair to collect your payments over a lifetime for a service you're never going to use

that same argument then applies to any insurance??

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Personally it does not bother me either. I would be quite happy for 10% of my estate to go to the state when I die. Not bothered about leaving it to anyone they can all make their own way in the world.

I am not saying I agree with those who oppose the death tax but I do understand their reasons for doing so.

Are you going to bury yourself with the other 90% then?

Sounds about right.

wymondham

Provision of care for when you're elderly and your estate should be two seperate issues. Alternative means should be found to fund care without having to penalise people for their *prudence in earlier life.

(*just thought I've not heard Gordon use this word for a while?)

JayScottGreenspan

wymondham wrote: »

Provision of care for when you're elderly and your estate should be two seperate issues. Alternative means should be found to fund care without having to penalise people for their *prudence in earlier life.

They are not being penalised for their prudence.

Their offspring are being rewarded for their prudence. But benig rewarded a bit less, that's all.

You can't take it with you, you know.

misskool

wymondham wrote: »

that same argument then applies to any insurance??

yes, so if you're capable of forethought then you provide yourself for the care which you want.

I buy house and contents insurance but not mobile insurance. We have car insurance but not the associated bumpf with it. Why should my taxes pay for someone else's longevity?