Inhertitance - Care homes get it!!!

property.advert

roddydogs wrote: »

So the state(ie us taxpayers) should pay for all care home fees no matter how much assets the person has?, so if Paul McCartney eventually need a care home, we should all foot the bill?

Cradle till grave was the quote wasn't it ?

Nothing about stopping off along the way to relieve you of all your assets whilst funding those who saved nothing through their lives.

vax2002

They will do un to us...What we will stand for....

nearlyrich

I work hard pay lots of tax and save for my retirement because I want to be able to ontinue to enjoy my life I know people who don't work get free everything etc but I would rather have my life than theirs. If the country could afford to pay for everyone to have free care that would be great but I ldon't want to pay anymore tax to fund this.

Loughton_Monkey

I'm sure it is not beyond the wit of a Government Actuary to work out the following:

1. Ignoring all those with only £23K (or whatever) assets, what is the population of (say) over 60's and what is their total asset base? How does this dwindle over time?

2. Taking this same population, what would be the cost of providing 'free' care of a reasonably basic (but comfortable) standard?

3. Now what, therefore, would be the percentage of additional Inheritance Tax required to fund for this amount?

When you think about it, this type of calculation gives you an automatic 'fully insured' state system which is self funding. The 'premium', in effect, doesn't have to be paid until you die, and then only out of 'money' you no longer need.

The current 'system' [or lack of it] is very broadly the same thing isn't it? Only difference is that everyone is 'self insured'. If you are 'hit' (one in ten?) then you simply pay 100% until you've spent it all. Then when the cash is gone, the house is sold. You are simply eating into what would otherwise be your estate.

Of all taxes, I find Inheritance Tax the least 'obnoxious' not least because it broadly speaking doesn't need to affect lifestyle. The ones who 'suffer' are the potential heirs who - after all - have a moral duty to spend money on parents' care in priority over themselves. OK. Quite a few 'wrinkles' to sort out to make it work properly, but I believe it to be along the right lines.

Oldernotwiser

p00hsticks wrote: »

If you want an inheritance ,then look after your elders yourself. If you can't or won't, then that's fine, but don't expect the state to fund their care just so you can preserve your inheritance.

I'd rather be cared for by professionals than relatives who were only doing it so they could get their hands on my money!

Oldernotwiser

AdamS wrote: »

IMO, anyone who has a house worth under the average house price should not have to sell it to pay for care, so lets say £170,000. If parents have bought that house, the kids have a right to it IMO!
.

Nobody has the right to an unearned windfall.

jamesd

Agreed about inheritance tax. High taxes on pension pots after death are also a friendly way to do things like this, since the money has served its purpose at that point. Higher drawdown rates for pension pots also make sense once care is needed, since that's likely to be associated with a substantial drop in life expectancy.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

?

3. Now what, therefore, would be the percentage of additional Inheritance Tax required to fund for this amount?

.

One issue I see is that many of those that are likley to be hit by IHT sort it out before and avoid it IME unless they don't want to of course.

grizzly1911

jamesd wrote: »

The average pensioner has an income of about £18,000 a year.

Interesting figure where did that come from?

I can think of 4 that get no where near that.

The basic pension is only around the 7K mark with uplifts.

Works/private pensions for the current generation would be hard pushed to make up that difference IMO

chris_m

property.advert wrote: »

Cradle till grave was the quote wasn't it ?

The whole point of the welfare state was to help those who CAN'T help themselves, not those who WON'T.

The idea is that you support yourself and contribute to the system when you can, in return you get support if/when you are unable to support yourself.

If, in your twilight years, you have savings/assets that can be used to support you it is only reasonable that you be expected to use them rather than expecting the welfare state to provide for you whilst you sit on those savings/assets.