Cost of Living Crisis

[Soapy FFC]

I don’t see an issue that people can pass on stuff tax free to whoever they want after they pass away, and it’s reasonable that everyone has an allowance to do that. The problem is that, like so many other tax issues, the tax is not binary so that you either pay it or you don’t depending on if your wealth is more or less than the limit.

There are too many ways to avoid paying IHT and these are aggressively exploited by the very wealthy. It’s not unfeasible that a multibillionaire may pay less INT than the accidentally wealthy that may have a modest amount of savings that have been built up over a lifetime, and a house that that they have owned for 40 years that has increased in value so that it is now above the IHT limit.

Rather than saying people shouldn’t be allowed to pass on assets tax free, we should be focusing on removing all the tax loopholes and get outs that the seriously wealthy use to avoid paying their share, so that everyone actually does have the same allowance.

[Dawson Park Boy]

9 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

I don’t see an issue that people can pass on stuff tax free to whoever they want after they pass away, and it’s reasonable that everyone has an allowance to do that. The problem is that, like so many other tax issues, the tax is not binary so that you either pay it or you don’t depending on if your wealth is more or less than the limit.

There are too many ways to avoid paying IHT and these are aggressively exploited by the very wealthy. It’s not unfeasible that a multibillionaire may pay less INT than the accidentally wealthy that may have a modest amount of savings that have been built up over a lifetime, and a house that that they have owned for 40 years that has increased in value so that it is now above the IHT limit.

Rather than saying people shouldn’t be allowed to pass on assets tax free, we should be focusing on removing all the tax loopholes and get outs that the seriously wealthy use to avoid paying their share, so that everyone actually does have the same allowance.

Sorry, I think the whole principle is wrong.

If you have acquired your assets from income that has been already taxed- savings, investments, your house, etc., etc., what business is it of the state? This isn’t a communist regime were living in. On the other hand, if you need to go into care then it is correct that your assets are sold to pay for that care. The state shouldn’t pay for that if you have assets to pay for it. As far as possible the individual should pay their way and the state should butt out of our business.

[strichener]

3 hours ago, scottsdad said:

In terms of inheritance, a distant relative in her late 80s recently had to move into a nursing home. Her house in Dunblane was sold to pay for it. The home just ate through that in no time. She now has to get government help. There is no inheritance for her kids.

Exactly how it should be.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

It also makes me think about what happens to people who don't have houses to sell when they need care. 

They'll undergo a financial assessment. Assuming they have not much capital or property, their contribution will be minimal. I think the capital disregards are: 

• Under £18,000 is totally disregarded
• £18,000 to £29,000 assesses for tariff income
• Over £29,000 zero disregard

 

[strichener]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

IHT is an easy enough thing to avoid for most people anyway TBH if the desire is there to do so.

Less sure about whether I agree on having to sell your assets to pay for personal care. I think we should have good quality, universal care regardless of wealth.

You have the pretty much the same access to care regardless if you have to sell your home or not to get it.  There is absolutely no reason why the state should pay for care that you could afford to pay for from an asset that you no longer need.  Why should it be any different to any other stage of your life where you may need to sell your home to pay to release money for other expenses.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

You have the pretty much the same access to care regardless if you have to sell your home or not to get it.  There is absolutely no reason why the state should pay for care that you could afford to pay for from an asset that you no longer need.  Why should it be any different to any other stage of your life where you may need to sell your home to pay to release money for other expenses.

Using that logic there should be no universal health care, it should be means tested.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Using that logic there should be no universal health care, it should be means tested.

Not really the same thing though tbh. If you're in hospital for a operation (for example) you haven't moved there permanently. You still own and legally reside at your home address. 

Also, given that most residential homes are privately run outfits, you could argue that it's the same as paying for private healthcare, which i imagine is already means tested. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

8 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Using that logic there should be no universal health care, it should be means tested.

The more you earn, the more you pay in tax and NI towards it.

So it is means tested.

Only problem is, it’s so poor that more and more people are going private and paying twice.

[Aufc]

18 hours ago, strichener said:

The hypocrisy in this section of the forum beggers belief.  Loads of moaning about rich Tories (mostly inherited wealth) whilst complaining about inheritance tax and double taxation and the wish to leave their own wealth to family.

You come into the world with nothing, you leave with nothing.

Thankfully not everyone agrees with you

8 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

I always found the desire to leave your kids everything pretty weird. When my old man first got his cancer diagnosis, he had "the chat" with my sister and I about what he was going to leave the rest of us (way before he knew how serious it was). I found it a pretty mystifying concept. What's the point in working for 50+ years to save a bit of money then leave the majority of it sitting there for your kids? Ultimately he made sure mum was going to be ok financially, they had a couple of quality cruise trips before things took a turn for the worse and he went. I don't have kids, so i'll just be making sure my disabled partner will be OK and enjoying the rest of whatever I have. 

As someone else said, it is possible to have a nice life and give your kids whatever they need whilst also being able to leave some to them when you leave. 

4 hours ago, Soapy FFC said:

I don’t see an issue that people can pass on stuff tax free to whoever they want after they pass away, and it’s reasonable that everyone has an allowance to do that. The problem is that, like so many other tax issues, the tax is not binary so that you either pay it or you don’t depending on if your wealth is more or less than the limit.

There are too many ways to avoid paying IHT and these are aggressively exploited by the very wealthy. It’s not unfeasible that a multibillionaire may pay less INT than the accidentally wealthy that may have a modest amount of savings that have been built up over a lifetime, and a house that that they have owned for 40 years that has increased in value so that it is now above the IHT limit.

Rather than saying people shouldn’t be allowed to pass on assets tax free, we should be focusing on removing all the tax loopholes and get outs that the seriously wealthy use to avoid paying their share, so that everyone actually does have the same allowance.

IHT doesnt need to be aggressively exploited. You literally just need to live for seven years before any gift is exempt from it. Anything within the last 7 years is tapered. The stuff on death could easily be within the allowance so you pay nothing. If you have a multi billionaire then i would imagine he will have a tax base elsewhere so wouldnt be subject to IHT in the UK. 

[ICTChris]

During the 2017 General Election, the Tories and Theresa May were attacked for their social care proposals, which were labelled a 'dementia tax'.  It was the start of the unravelling of the Tory campaign in that election, which may have happened anyway but was kicked off by the backlash the Tories got for proposing that the threshold for costs of in-home social care should be raised.

https://fullfact.org/health/what-dementia-tax/

It was hugely unpopular.  I doubt anyone in UK politics will consider proposing anything similar again soon.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

3 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

The more you earn, the more you pay in tax and NI towards it.

So it is means tested.

Only problem is, it’s so poor that more and more people are going private and paying twice.

Jesus wept

[Granny Danger]

3 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

Not really the same thing though tbh. If you're in hospital for a operation (for example) you haven't moved there permanently. You still own and legally reside at your home address. 

Also, given that most residential homes are privately run outfits, you could argue that it's the same as paying for private healthcare, which i imagine is already means tested. 

It is the same thing.  It’s saying that if you have the means to pay for something then the state shouldn’t provide.  The only difference is the something is care rather than medical treatment.

FWIW residential care homes should not be run for profit imo.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Granny Danger

[strichener]

39 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

It is the same thing.  It’s saying that if you have the means to pay for something then the state shouldn’t provide.  The only difference is the something is care rather than medical treatment.

FWIW residential care homes should not be run for profit imo.

If I own a house but can't afford to travel to work are you suggesting that the state should pay for my transport or my moving costs to be nearer to work?

As pointed out residential care requires you to be in residence.  Why should you keep your house whilst "the state" or in other words taxpayers fund your residential care?

2 hours ago, Aufc said:

Thankfully not everyone agrees with you

Why thankfully?  The entire British class system is now built on inherited wealth.  Are you suggesting that your kids deserve a leg up over someone else because their parents managed to save a bit of cash during their lifetime or even inherited it from their own parents.

Next you will be telling me the monarchy are deserving of their privilege.  Jesus.

[Aufc]

Why thankfully?  The entire British class system is now built on inherited wealth.  Are you suggesting that your kids deserve a leg up over someone else because their parents managed to save a bit of cash during their lifetime or even inherited it from their own parents.
Next you will be telling me the monarchy are deserving of their privilege.  Jesus.

I just don’t agree with you that IHT should be taxed at 100%. Pretty simple.

[BILmac1967]

A big part of this argument is that people with dementia/ younger people with disabilities were looked after by their own families in the 1960's through the 70's but that changed as we became more materialistic, now we dump them on the NHS / "the state" in general.

The people I grew up with as "socialists" now also want to have savings as well as keeping property,

now we all rage when the gov. can't afford everything.

[jakedee]

A big part of this argument is that people with dementia/ younger people with disabilities were looked after by their own families in the 1960's through the 70's but that changed as we became more materialistic, now we dump them on the NHS / "the state" in general.
The people I grew up with as "socialists" now also want to have savings as well as keeping property,
now we all rage when the gov. can't afford everything.

People with mental health problems in the 60's and 70's, and indeed before and for a time after, were dumped into mental institutions. Receiving inhumane "therapy's".
Not something I would like to see return.
I believe you are also confusing "Socialism" with "communism".

[BFTD]

5 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

Jesus wept

On DPB's posts about healthcare, there's always a missing asterisk followed by "for the percentage of people who are able to afford it".

Not that he wants to deny healthcare to people at the bottom of society, you understand. He just thinks it should be considered. Total coincidence that he mentions paying twice for his healthcare every time, as though he thinks he'd personally make any worthwhile savings if the NHS didn't exist.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

34 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Because I believe that healthcare should be universal and free at the point of need - no exceptions.

Care homes aren't quite as straightforward though. It's basically your new house with added nursing care, meals etc. Given the previous hotly contested debates over how pay rises etc etc are going to be funded, they'd be chicken feed compared to taking residential care out of the hands of private entities and making it all free. 

Personally I feel increased taxes to fund pay rises for people suffering from a massive cost of living crisis aren't quite as hard a sell as tax rises to pay for free residential care for Mrs Smith so that her three children can squabble over who gets the £500,000 house she's just moved out of. 

 

[Billy Jean King]

If access to free transport ever becomes a human right in the way access to healthcare is (or should be), maybe your comparison will make sense.

Should being the operative word there however as it stands there will be far more access to free public transport worldwide than access to free healthcare unfortunately.

Talk of it being a human right (I actually agree) tends only to exist in the relatively few countries where there actually is universal access to free healthcare. For many nations it's an alien concept and unfortunately most of these are where it's actually needed most.

[Paco]

Inflation now averaging at 11.1%, driven mainly by fuel and energy.

We’ll see what happens tomorrow but the chat is the Treasury plan to put up the energy price cap by at least £500, remove the £400 grant, and ditch the 5p cut to fuel duty.

Problem solved.