We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Care fees to be limited to £35K, Cameron pledges to end forcing elderly to sell homes
Comments
-
He means people who have money should have a better service as they are paying for it.
I thought that was a given?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
I thought that was a given?
I'm not sure it is a given.
If long term care was cheap then people with small savings would be able to able to use those savings to get a better service. However, even basic care is expensive and therefore a leveller between people who have made no provision and those that have.0 -
Great news for chavs, not so for the people who work.
The "chavs" have nothing to lose, its the Tory supporting moderately wealthy whose hiers get to keep all but £35K of their £500K house.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
As I have said on previous occasions, if we put a 5% tax on all estates left by those over 60, whatever the size and whether or not the deceased needed care, the proceefds would pay for all the care that people needed. Obviously deprivation of assets rules would have to apply.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0
-
As I have said on previous occasions, if we put a 5% tax on all estates left by those over 60, whatever the size and whether or not the deceased needed care, the proceefds would pay for all the care that people needed. Obviously deprivation of assets rules would have to apply.
That's a stupid idea for many reasons.
While it's cost effective for the state to chase people whose estate is worth £300K to pay inheritance tax, it's not cost effective for the state to chase people whose estate is worth small amounts like £200 to pay 5% of it.
The more taxes you have to collect the more you find people will try and evade or avoid it.
Plus 60 nowadays isn't old. That's why the government is raising the pension age.
Also older people vote and are making up a bigger proportion of the population. If you don't want to be elected as a government you can propose a measure like this.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
The "chavs" have nothing to lose, its the Tory supporting moderately wealthy whose hiers get to keep all but £35K of their £500K house.
I forgot everyone started in life with exactly the same background and opportunities.
I would rather use my assets to pay for my care then give it to some f***ing children and relations to argue over who didn't work for it.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
This means that the social services that you pay into every year of your working life count for nothing when you reach old age and need care, until you've stumped up another £35k, which for most older people will mean selling their homes. Oh hang on, that'll create another housing boom won't it! Sign me up.0
-
That's a stupid idea for many reasons.
While it's cost effective for the state to chase people whose estate is worth £300K to pay inheritance tax, it's not cost effective for the state to chase people whose estate is worth small amounts like £200 to pay 5% of it.
The more taxes you have to collect the more you find people will try and evade or avoid it.
Plus 60 nowadays isn't old. That's why the government is raising the pension age.
Also older people vote and are making up a bigger proportion of the population. If you don't want to be elected as a government you can propose a measure like this.
I accept the idea can be refined, so maybe you only put this levy on estates above a higher amount, say where probate is needed which would make it easy to collect since the executor would be obliged to make the payment. Those with smaller estates do not generally pay now in any case.
Of course people will try to avoid it as they do now but because we are talking about a small % there is less incentive to do so. Remember that in return for accepting that all estates pay this they would be guaranteed that they would receive care. All sorts of people transfer houses to their children now to get around the rules just in case its a problem. There would be less incentive to do so for a small % that everyone paid.
I said 60 because that is the earliest most people might need care but personally I would be happy for it to be levied on all estates. All I am suggesting is that if we all had to pay a little when we die it would be fairer than a lottery where a few have to pay a lot.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
KrytenIceCubeHead wrote: »This means that the social services that you pay into every year of your working life count for nothing when you reach old age and need care, until you've stumped up another £35k, which for most older people will mean selling their homes. Oh hang on, that'll create another housing boom won't it! Sign me up.
No it means that those who have small amounts of assets will have to spend most of them but those who have a lot will get to keep most of theirs to fund the lifestyle of their beneficiaries.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards