Really worried about my mother's home and my brother

Red-Squirrel_2

sarahsays wrote: »

Of course it's not a God given right for children to inherit - however, I do feel that parents have the right to provide for their children's future - particularly when, as in the OPs case, one of those children is vulnerable. I don't expect my children to pay for my nursing home fees - I expect my taxes which I have consistently paid to do that - I have not used up much in terms of health care, and have not claimed benefits, so I expect that taxes paid to date might go some way to pay for a nursing home. Whilst my children may well want me to be in the best one available, I myself would chose a budget one if it came to it in order to protect their inheritance - my children, my responsibility, my decision to have them, therefore it's up to me to look after them, not the other way about. Furthermore, if it's free for one, it should be free for all - not fair that people in the same nursing home are paying two different amounts.
I also think my children would be asked to pay the same taxes whether I paid for my own nursing home care or not - so they're paying into the public pot not mine.

Are you in favour of raising taxes so that they can cover all the social care needs of every person in the country as they age then?

Oddly, a lot of people who expect that their taxes will pay for all their care needs have spent a lot of their working lives trying to avoid paying tax or complaining about the fact that they have to!

happyandcontented

euronorris wrote: »

On the assumption that people who don't have significant assets (ie, above the current thresholds), haven't worked hard, or saved hard.


Whilst that may be true for some, it is certainly not the case for all. Many people work damn hard, for their entire lives, just about scraping by each month on minimum wage (because we can't all be high earners). Some people have no room in their budget to save. Zero. Zilch. Or circumstances have meant that their money has had to spent elsewhere (ill health, death of a partner/spouse, redundancy, disability etc).


To assume that all those who benefit from free care are doing so because they were reckless with their money, is just nonsense.

Which is why a mandatory care policy which is paid into by all at source makes sense. It would remove that assumption and stop the arguments. It could be levied lke NI but ringfenced for care.

happyandcontented

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Are you in favour of raising taxes so that they can cover all the social care needs of every person in the country as they age then?

Oddly, a lot of people who expect that their taxes will pay for all their care needs have spent a lot of their working lives trying to avoid paying tax or complaining about the fact that they have to!

Absolutely. No one likes to pay tax but most of us accept that we have to and often for things we don't approve of. I imagine most people would be happy to pay extra tax as long as it funded vital services that we all use or may all have to use. Coupled with a root and branch overhaul of how the NHS is run and how many managers are overpaid, re hired after pay offs etc.

pimento

All this makes me think I might sell my house, rent a small flat, put the money under the mattress and spend, spend, spend.

jackieblack

sarahsays wrote: »

I don't expect my children to pay for my nursing home fees - I expect my taxes which I have consistently paid to do that -

Oh... so you don't want your children to pay for your nursing home fees, you just want everybody else (and everybody else's children) to pay for them so your children can inherit your assets intact :cool:

happyandcontented

jackieblack wrote: »

Oh... so you don't want your children to pay for your nursing home fees, you just want everybody else (and everybody else's children) to pay for them so your children can inherit your assets intact :cool:

But if everyone paid at source for a care policy that argument would cease to exist. We would all be in the same boat.

We have to accept that whatever has gone before has to be left in the past, we all think that monies should have been ringfenced, the issue should have been addressed sooner, that forecasting numbers needing care from an aging population should have been acted upon etc,etc. It hasn't happened. So, we have to start from we are now.

jackieblack

happyandcontented wrote: »

But if everyone paid at source for a care policy that argument would cease to exist. We would all be in the same boat.

We have to accept that whatever has gone before has to be left in the past, we all think that monies should have been ringfenced, the issue should have been addressed sooner, that forecasting numbers needing care from an aging population should have been acted upon etc,etc. It hasn't happened. So, we have to start from we are now.

I completely agree.


Although I expect a lot of people feel that that is exactly what they thought they have been doing by paying their tax/NI payments all their working lives...

happyandcontented

jackieblack wrote: »

I completely agree.


Although I expect a lot of people feel that that is exactly what they thought they have been doing by paying their tax/NI payments all their working lives...

Yes, me included! However, we can't just keep bleating about the unfairness of it all, the incompetence etc, we have to do something and be prepared to pay for it in an equitable way. Either raise taxes or make an insurance policy mandatory would be my suggestion.

Also, overnight create the post of Multinational Company taxation Tzar....whose sole job it was to shame/co erce/mandate companies to pay their full share of UK tax, all of which would go to the care system. How badly would it affect Amazon, Starbucks etc, if they were shown to be avoiding tax that was meant solely to fund care ?

Red-Squirrel_2

happyandcontented wrote: »

Yes, me included! However, we can't just keep bleating about the unfairness of it all, the incompetence etc, we have to do something and be prepared to pay for it in an equitable way. Either raise taxes or make an insurance policy mandatory would be my suggestion.

Also, overnight create the post of Multinational Company taxation Tzar....whose sole job it was to shame/co erce/mandate companies to pay their full share of UK tax, all of which would go to the care system. How badly would it affect Amazon, Starbucks etc, if they were shown to be avoiding tax that was meant solely to fund care ?

Jeremy Corbyn would raise taxes to fund public services, for some reason it doesn't actually seem to be very popular even though so many people claim that's what they want!

Pixie5740

Why would you need a Multinational Company Taxation Tsar to shame companies into paying tax which they can legitimately avoid paying? Would it not make more sense to change the tax laws to turn avoidance into evasion? Then you wouldn't have to shame the companies or hire a Tsar.