|Call it a stealth inheritance tax. As said if Labour had come up with this, they would have been crucified in the press
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
|Call it a stealth inheritance tax. As said if Labour had come up with this, they would have been crucified in the press
I think if your response is wholly ad hominem, that's worse.
Also, shame on me for trying to add a little humour! :/
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
Sounds good but less opportunities and lower wages here. Although I agree prices are ok here overall
Anecdotal: My MiL worked her fingers to the bone all her life, her husband died young and she brought 3 children up on her own, and paid off a mortgage. She didn't stop working until her mid seventies.
Then she got cancer, and after a few months of fighting it passed away. I was the executor, and the house, her only asset after a lifetime of tax paying and working all hours, sold for 250k. That was split between her 3 grown up children, and they each got 70k or so. She went to her death knowing that her years of hard graft had meant her children would benefit, and have some help in what is a pretty expensive world. I thought that was the Conservative way, work hard and better yourself? She would have been distraught if she thought it had all been for nothing, and the government could just sweep in and take most of what she had worked hard for all her life.
As I've already said, people would be going ballistic if Corbyn had come up with it.
Then she got cancer, and after a few months of fighting it passed away. I was the executor, and the house, her only asset after a lifetime of tax paying and working all hours, sold for 250k. That was split between her 3 grown up children, and they each got 70k or so. She went to her death knowing that her years of hard graft had meant her children would benefit, and have some help in what is a pretty expensive world. I thought that was the Conservative way, work hard and better yourself? She would have been distraught if she thought it had all been for nothing, and the government could just sweep in and take most of what she had worked hard for all her life.
As I've already said, people would be going ballistic if Corbyn had come up with it.
Houses weren't counted before, now they are apparently.If you own a house, you're screwed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,682
Yeah my dad fell for Hammond's spin this morning that it was increasing from 24k...
I pointed out they only used to take earnings and savings in to account, not property. Most people have more money in property than anything else.
I pointed out they only used to take earnings and savings in to account, not property. Most people have more money in property than anything else.
A few issues there.
1. The Tory plan means that the reimbursement for social care only comes out of the estate when the person dies so for now the govt will have to borrow the cost of the care, albeit knowing they will get it back in years to come.
2. In the meantime, people in care homes have their limit quadrupled to £100k (it already includes their house value) and this will cost a few billion according the Hunt so immediately the govt is paying out a few billion more each year and wont see the return on the other side until later years.
3. What happens with the situation where a house is jointly owned and one person needs home care? Then that person dies and the other person is then forced to sell the house to settle the bill and then move into rented accommodation?
4. If more people transfer their assets now to their children, then the Tory plan wont bring in the expected future revenues either as with tax, people change depending on the rules so you never get what you think you are going to get.
5. It does nothing to encourage anybody to sort out plans for their future care. It basically sends the message out that blow all your money above £100k, the state will look after you.
The proposal from the report into health care suggested an insurance scheme was needed to social care which would be more sensible but the Tory's have ignored that advice and come up with an scheme which I would have expected from Labour, not them.
Relative to plenty of people in their 20s and 30s who don't even have a deposit for a house it is a large asset! Essentially you're saying you'd be happy for people who can't afford to buy a house themselves to subsidise the care you need despite the fact you're capable of paying for it yourself.
I think if your response is wholly ad hominem, that's worse.
If it was an ad hominen I would have called you as vile and pernicous as the person you quoted....but I would never do that
Edit : And that's just humour as well
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,203
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
If the general public cotton on to this change, where homes are now included in the £100k assets that are means tested, this manifesto policy could well be the one that sinks the "unsinkable Tory Titanic" on June 8th. It's a massive game-changer for many people.
Previously assets, which included your house were taken into consideration when paying for care costs. So in essence they have increased the threshold from 24k to 100k.
There was an anecdotal example on the radio this morning about a woman who sold her house for £100k when she had to move into a care home, which meant that the care home got £75k of that money before she died.
BTW - in your MiL's case, I wonder if these changes would have affected her situation, I wonder if there's a distinction between medical care e.g. for cancer patients and social care i.e. elderly people. Not sure, a lot of the examples revolve around dementia patients which I'd suggest would muddy the waters of my distriction, just pondering the implications...
tbh... I don't see the issue with ramping up IHT either - why shouldn't unearned wealth be taxed more... Labour are falling over themselves to whack an even larger tax burden on the most economically productive people in our society in the form of higher income taxes when they already contribute a disproportional share - yet there are plenty of people benefitting from huge rises in house prices which can then be passed on etc..
In relation to the so-called Dementia tax.
In looking at the detail and I'm even more confused. What exactly has changed? Previously assets were taken into consideration with the first 24k being ignored. The suggestion now is that that will increase to 100k. I must be missing something here.
In looking at the detail and I'm even more confused. What exactly has changed? Previously assets were taken into consideration with the first 24k being ignored. The suggestion now is that that will increase to 100k. I must be missing something here.
BBC said:
So, it's quadrupling the threshhold, but including the house that wasn't included before
But the house was included before. It was included in the care-cost calculation with a charge being placed against the property by the LA if the costs were deferred vs the property being sold.
This is in relation to placing the individual in to direct social care (nursing/care home).
This is in relation to placing the individual in to direct social care (nursing/care home).
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,290
- Location
- deep space nine
100k is the floor - you can keep 100k that's it
I'm confused as well, having re-read the article I now thing there are two issues:
- Change to the means-test for entitlement to free social care. Currently income and savings are evaluated; if they're over £24k then you have to pay for social care (until you're down to your last £24k). The Tories are proposing to include house value in this means test, but raising the entitlement threshold to £100k;
- Change to how you're charged for social care if you have to pay for it. Currently you may find yourself having to sell your house to pay for social care. In future this won't happen, but the money spent on your social care will be recouped after you die.
I'm not really sure what's best here; both the current and proposed situations look awful. Sir Andrew Dilnot wrote a report suggesting that social care costs should be capped at £35k, which sounds better but I'm not really sure how affordable that is.
Edit: thinking about it a bit more I think the Tory proposal is better on the grounds that it will allow more people to stay in their own homes for longer. Still not great but the country is recovering from the great depression.
Yeah, I mean you're taxed throughout your life so you may as well get bent over when you die as well.
- Status