National Care Service

wymondham

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

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.

OK, whats with the hangup with people between homes and elderly care. Why is there an unwritten connection between the two - they have nothing to do with each other??

We need a viable and affordable means to fund elderly care. Simply assuming selling homes will solve this is crazy. People need to start paying when they are young to fund the next generation's care.

wymondham

misskool wrote: »

Why should my taxes pay for someone else's longevity?

I think this train of thought highlights the problem as it's an insular approach to a wider social problem. Everyone has to pay as the costs are too high for this approach.

wymondham

misskool wrote: »

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?

Why buy contents insurance unless you know you will have a fire or get burgled? Nobody knows how old they will live to......

JayScottGreenspan

wymondham wrote: »

OK, whats with the hangup with people between homes and elderly care. Why is there an unwritten connection between the two - they have nothing to do with each other??

We need a viable and affordable means to fund elderly care. Simply assuming selling homes will solve this is crazy. People need to start paying when they are young to fund the next generation's care.

One viable means to fund elderly care is higher inheritance tax.

What would you propose instead?

wymondham

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

One viable means to fund elderly care is higher inheritance tax.

What would you propose instead?

Raise NI to whatever level is needed to comfortably fund the level of care we need. This reduces costs as it's using an existing system and spreads the cost out so everyone pays. Everyone must share this burden as the costs are enourmous and getting bigger!

JayScottGreenspan

wymondham wrote: »

Raise NI to whatever level is needed to comfortably fund the level of care we need. This reduces costs as it's using an existing system and spreads the cost out so everyone pays. Everyone must share this burden as the costs are enourmous and getting bigger!

* Person A works full time at minimum wage. Parents are poor, so no inheritance.
* Person B does not need to work. Has rich parents. Will inherit £5m when they peg it.

Your solution is to take tax person A more heavily.

wymondham

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

* Person A works full time at minimum wage. Parents are poor, so no inheritance.
* Person B does not need to work. Has rich parents. Will inherit £5m when they peg it.

Your solution is to take tax person A more heavily.

There is no absolute fair way that caters for all scenarios - especially those sort of extremes, but its a way that is far more realistic than what I've heard proposed in the last few days. Most of us sit somewhere inbetween Person A and B.

ukcarper

As it doesn’t really effect the homeowner perhaps their children should be consulted. Do they want to lose 10% of their inheritance when they are probably quite well set up themselves or do they want to pay another £40 or £50 pounds a month now.

JayScottGreenspan

wymondham wrote: »

There is no absolute fair way that caters for all scenarios - especially those sort of extremes, but its a way that is far more realistic than what I've heard proposed in the last few days. Most of us sit somewhere inbetween Person A and B.

The current balance is wrong.

You can currently inherit £325,000 tax free. You didn't work for it. It's just the luck of being born to rich parents.

You can currently earn £6,475 per year tax free.

puddy

person b also gets taxed on their interest income though, so they will also pay surely?

i think what people object to and cant understand is that if we take people who dont work and never worked, they still get the same care as those who pay themselves

thats because the welfare state is based on need, not ability to pay. if i need it because of my health but i have no money, i still get the care
if i need it because of my health but i can pay for it, then i dont get free care because i dont 'need' it

so this is really about whether we want a welfare state based on need, or whether we want something more americanised which means that those who can pay, get the care