'Pay When You Die' proposed for elderly needing care

bankhater_1965

no_debt wrote: »

all a load of bull me for example left school at sixteen 1981 i had 50 pound dole for 2 weeks got a job and have worked since then , paid my tax and ni ,
now ny house is paid off i live with no debts because i worked for it , 75 % of my familey ie marrige , they have left school have had kids given house live free not paying anything in to the pot boys and girls , there is no way the goverment will get one penny off my house ( ok 50 quid } i hope my kids are rubbing there hands with glee at there share. they are my kids i brought them into this world and they will get there share of this house i will not go into care , yet 75% of my family will they have paid nothing in and will take everything out from leaving school and i that have not lived off the goverment has to pay for them . screw them and all the do gooders that i hope will reply to this .

great comment , very true to life , 5 stars xxxxx , this country like yourself isnt getting a penny of mine either , the kids are having my wealth(house)
screw the bloody lot like you say

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

On sky news it was reported this evening that 20,000 pensioners a year are forced to sell their homes to pay for care.

In other words ever year 0.1667% of pensioners are forced to sell their home to pay for care.

Talk about a non issue. Why is the govt wasting time on this?

Interesting facts and I agree it should be a non-issue. Its not because we are dealing with individuals and its a lottery.

While some people have enough money when the time comes to pay the costs for 20 years or more, most are less fortunate and either have very little (so face the prospect of ending their lives in a not very nice care come) or have enough for a limited period (and they must accept it will be used for care whether they agree or not). Then you have issues of the affect on spouses and the expectations of offspring.

There are always going to be people who cannot afford to fund care so the state will need to stump up the funds. For the rest I think the way to stop this being a burden is to spread the cost amongst all who live beyond a certain age (say 60). It could be done through compulsory insurance, but this would require a lot of regulation. But the best way is to impose a tax on all estates when someone dies or when someone goes into a home.

If we all paid it would probably amount to a one or two percent tax on individuals after they die or when they go into a home. It would not seriously impact an anyone's inheritence, we would all pay a little and the proceeds could fund good care for the small propoertion who need it, and would not stop those could afford it from paying extra. Obviously the more you leave the more you pay but if you leave £200K, whats £3K compared with the peace of mind of knowing the problem is sorted.

Personally I have every intention of slitting my throat before I go into a care home, but if the plan does not work out, I for one would not object to paying a small death duty allow me or someone else to live in one if needed. What is wrong with this?

BobQ

MacMickster wrote: »

Personally, I would rather pay far more tax when I die, if it means that both I and my children pay far less whilst we are alive.

I agree with this as I say above, lets have a "death tax". You would probably need to assess the tax based on disallowing gifts made before death ( like inheritance) but I suspect most people would not give away their wealth because of a relatively small tax on everyone.

BobQ

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

the ideas today will not come in because im convinced its a 1 term goverment anyway

I agree about the 1 term but we need a cross party solution to this problem NOW.

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

I agree about the 1 term but we need a cross party solution to this problem NOW.

It's still at the 'market research' stage now, like most of this government's proposals.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Interesting facts and I agree it should be a non-issue. Its not because we are dealing with individuals and its a lottery.

While some people have enough money when the time comes to pay the costs for 20 years or more, most are less fortunate and either have very little (so face the prospect of ending their lives in a not very nice care come) or have enough for a limited period (and they must accept it will be used for care whether they agree or not). Then you have issues of the affect on spouses and the expectations of offspring.

There are always going to be people who cannot afford to fund care so the state will need to stump up the funds. For the rest I think the way to stop this being a burden is to spread the cost amongst all who live beyond a certain age (say 60). It could be done through compulsory insurance, but this would require a lot of regulation. But the best way is to impose a tax on all estates when someone dies or when someone goes into a home.

If we all paid it would probably amount to a one or two percent tax on individuals after they die or when they go into a home. It would not seriously impact an anyone's inheritence, we would all pay a little and the proceeds could fund good care for the small propoertion who need it, and would not stop those could afford it from paying extra. Obviously the more you leave the more you pay but if you leave £200K, whats £3K compared with the peace of mind of knowing the problem is sorted.

Personally I have every intention of slitting my throat before I go into a care home, but if the plan does not work out, I for one would not object to paying a small death duty allow me or someone else to live in one if needed. What is wrong with this?

What's wrong with this?

You are proposing levying a tax to transfer wealth from the whole population to a small number of people. The purpose of this redistributive tax is to ensure that a small number of people are able to retain their assets and receive care they can afford to pay for free. All this ensures is that those people can leave those assets to the beneficiaries of their wills. What is the point of his and why should one person be taxed so another can pass an asset their hold onto their children.

Whilst I understand it seems unfair that some people get something for free that another person has to pay for, that is the way the whole of the welfare state works, across the board. It is illogical to legislate to address this imbalance in just this one peripheral and irrelevant part of the system.

Otherwise where do we stop? Why don't we increase tax so everyone can have free dental treatment? So everyone can have housing benefit of £1,000 a month? So everyone can have a free bus pass? So the govt pays everyone's council tax. It's only fair that we all get what people who haven't paid into the pot get, so let's increase tax to 100% to pay for it all.

PaulF81

vivatifosi wrote: »

This is covered in most papers today. Plan is to stop pensioners having to sell house to pay for care. Here's a selection of the coverage (no particular order):

Indie: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pay-when-you-die-pensioners-told-loans-to-cover-care-will-stop-them-having-to-sell-homes-7932721.html
Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/11/elderly-people-borrow-cash-government?newsfeed=true
FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1752b678-caaa-11e1-89be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20Io8KBRj
Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9390844/Pay-when-you-die-solution-for-pensioners-moving-into-care-homes.html

The FT states that the changes are claimed to be the biggest shake up of social care since 1948.

From the Indie article:

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, will announce today that many of the 40,000 old people who have to sell their homes each year will be offered a form of loan through their local authority from April 2015.At present, for the first 12-week period when someone enters residential care, housing wealth is excluded from the means test under which people do not get state help if they have £23,000 of assets. But organising a sale during this period is often difficult and stressful – especially if the person's partner still lives in the home.

The "universal deferred payments" would allow people to delay selling their property for much longer than 12 weeks. Ministers say central government will work out the details with councils and ensure they have enough money to provide a nationwide scheme. Relatively low interest rates are likely, with the "loans" covering the fees recouped when the home is eventually sold or when the person dies. Mr Lansley said the plan will give people greater flexibility. "The last thing people want to think is having to immediately sell their home to pay for residential care," he said.

Posted this as a solution on here when trolls were suggesting younger people pay of it. What will stop the living dead spending it though before they get thrown in a home?

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What's wrong with this?

You are proposing levying a tax to transfer wealth from the whole population to a small number of people. ........

Maybe what is wrong is the way you are looking at it! My suggestion is no different than having compulsory private insurance in which the many pay small premiums in order that the few do not have to worry about the potentially high cost of
a claim. I have never made a claim on my car insurance in 40 years of motoring yet we all appreciate that we cannot allow people to opt out of paying it.

In some respects I agree that those who can pay should do so and that nobody should expect to inherit money, but the question is how should they pay. A death tax really comes down to whether you believe that a small number of individuals who lose the lottery should pay the full cost or whether you believe that we should insure against losing this lottery.

You say where do we stop, well we could go the other way and remove all tax and make people pay for all services they use education, heath, council, etc. But in the real world, care costs are an issue and a worry to individuals. The proposed system will only help the wealthy. For the rest, there will be no incentive to save at all.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Posted this as a solution on here when trolls were suggesting younger people pay of it. What will stop the living dead spending it though before they get thrown in a home?

Nothing. They can do it at present and some do, or transfer the assets to their relatives.

grizzly1911

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe what is wrong is the way you are looking at it! My suggestion is no different than having compulsory private insurance in which the many pay small premiums in order that the few do not have to worry about the potentially high cost of
a claim. I have never made a claim on my car insurance in 40 years of motoring yet we all appreciate that we cannot allow people to opt out of paying it.

I think your point is valid and was no doubt how the idea behind NI and the welfare state started. We all pay a little and spread the burden knowing that a few will have a greater need than others.

Trouble is we are now being asked to start all over again but nothing gives elsewhere. I certainly wouldn't trust them (any of them) to ring fence the extra Insurance/Tax.

On a more general note it must make the younger generation wonder just exactly what they are paying for with all this open debate. It wasn't this transparent 30 year ago, perhaps if it had been we wouldn't be in the carp we are now.