Knife in the back for pensioners..

Rocker

Fretwired said:

Rocker said:

hywelg saidlp

fretmeister said:

They have paid National Insurance for 40+ years at that point. So they have paid for that care.

In a nutshell, that is the way it is. Otherwise why pay National Insurance!

No it isn't ... the tax raised in a single year doesn't even cover the government's expenditure. People have a view there's a fund. The NHS needs billions the care system needs billions .. the cash has to come from somewhere so be prepared for tax increases.

And if you bought a house in the 1960s for say £15K and it's now worth £1.5 million don't you think you should use some of the value you'll get from the house sale to fund your care?

I understand your point my friend but the funding is now the government's problem. Anyone who has paid their National Insurance payments as required, has already paid their share. And having spent most of their working lives paying off a mortgage on their home, why should they have to sell it then?

BigMonka

Rocker said:

Fretwired said:

Rocker said:

hywelg saidlp

fretmeister said:

They have paid National Insurance for 40+ years at that point. So they have paid for that care.

In a nutshell, that is the way it is. Otherwise why pay National Insurance!

No it isn't ... the tax raised in a single year doesn't even cover the government's expenditure. People have a view there's a fund. The NHS needs billions the care system needs billions .. the cash has to come from somewhere so be prepared for tax increases.

And if you bought a house in the 1960s for say £15K and it's now worth £1.5 million don't you think you should use some of the value you'll get from the house sale to fund your care?

I understand your point my friend but the funding is now the government's problem. Anyone who has paid their National Insurance payments as required, has already paid their share. And having spent most of their working lives paying off a mortgage on their home, why should they have to sell it then?

Who says that your national insurance contributions were to cover your care when elderly?
According to https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/what-national-insurance-is-for it's for pensions, job seeker's allowance, employment and support allowance, maternity allowance, and bereavement benefits.

quarky

grungebob said:

perhaps im not relaying my point eloquently enough?

Im not saying paying tax eventually Im saying taxation has already occurred and will continue to as the money is spent or invested.  Your taxed at point of wages, your taxed at point of spending wages and your taxed again at point of investing any of said wages left, money that has already been taxed shouldnt in my opinion be liable to be taxed again simply because one person chose to give it to another?

In my example above the money from parent will be given to child, child will use this money and the majority of thiers to purchase a house for both.

But you can apply that to almost any income. It is all taxed somewhere already, yet we still understand the value in taxing income. So my salary comes from a company, which pays corporation tax (and others). Before the money got to my company, it came from other companies (who paid the same), or consumers, who paid tax on their income. And those consumers mostly received their money from companies, who paid corporation tax (and others), and took their money from other companies (who paid the same), or consumers, etc.

If my company buys me a car, there was tax to be paid when the car was bought (some of which can sometimes be claimed back), but I will still pay tax on it when I receive it. I know the example is very different from what you are describing, but not taxing something because it has already been taxed at some point in history doesn't seem valid to me.

Or to take another example, if I receive dividends (bank pays you dividends of £50), that is still income and I expected to pay tax on it, even though the company has already paid tax (as far as I understand it!)

Fretwired

Rocker said:

I understand your point my friend but the funding is now the government's problem. Anyone who has paid their National Insurance payments as required, has already paid their share. And having spent most of their working lives paying off a mortgage on their home, why should they have to sell it then?

National Insurance doesn't cover care home costs.

Let's turn it round another way .. buy a house for £15K and let's say your mortgage payments ended up being £50K and you spent say £200K on maintenance, new kitchen and bathroom etc. Now let's say the house is worth £1.5 million. You've made £1,250,000 ... so you should be liable for Capital Gains Tax at say 40% ... so you now owe £500K.

grungebob

quarky said:

grungebob said:

perhaps im not relaying my point eloquently enough?

Im not saying paying tax eventually Im saying taxation has already occurred and will continue to as the money is spent or invested.  Your taxed at point of wages, your taxed at point of spending wages and your taxed again at point of investing any of said wages left, money that has already been taxed shouldnt in my opinion be liable to be taxed again simply because one person chose to give it to another?

In my example above the money from parent will be given to child, child will use this money and the majority of thiers to purchase a house for both.

But you can apply that to almost any income. It is all taxed somewhere already, yet we still understand the value in taxing income. So my salary comes from a company, which pays corporation tax (and others). Before the money got to my company, it came from other companies (who paid the same), or consumers, who paid tax on their income. And those consumers mostly received their money from companies, who paid corporation tax (and others), and took their money from other companies (who paid the same), or consumers, etc.

If my company buys me a car, there was tax to be paid when the car was bought (some of which can sometimes be claimed back), but I will still pay tax on it when I receive it. I know the example is very different from what you are describing, but not taxing something because it has already been taxed at some point in history doesn't seem valid to me.

Or to take another example, if I receive dividends (bank pays you dividends of £50), that is still income and I expected to pay tax on it, even though the company has already paid tax (as far as I understand it!)

I get what your saying, I even see your point of view and it does make sense, but its a never ending cycle on personal tax that I do not see to be a fare system.  
I think we need to separate personal tax liabilities from your example above. I'd be more in favour of paying a higher % NI as I earn than IHT.

Voxman

Fretwired said:

Voxman said:

And as for the NHS - the ratio of managers/administrators to trained medical staff is 4:1!  Its one of the most corrupt systems in the world, and if you want to save billions even reducing that ratio to 3:1 will solve NHS funding problems overnight. 

Have you got some evidence of that? I'd be interested in reading it.

My neighbour is an NHS Manager - and even he thinks its ridiculous!  But trying to find accurate figures is impossible - because its the NHS beaurocrats that supply the figures ...and as we all know, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.  One survey shows two non-medical staff for each nurse.  Another the same but for doctors.  

Here's an example:
 https://fullfact.org/news/two-managers-every-nurse-our-nhs/

Voxman

quarky said:

Voxman said:

quarky said:

Or is it? Is it really fair that as people get older, they can pass on their £500,000 house to their kids and expect the state to pick up the cost of their care? I must admit, that doesn't seem right to me.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tories-to-cut-winter-fuel-payments-for-wealthiest-pensioners-as-they-launch-manifesto/ar-BBBfr2Z?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

You want to talk about fair?

Is it fair that someone who has already paid tax on EVERYTHING throughout their lives:

1. Income tax on their earnings and their pension and their savings (when interest used to be paid!)
2. Capital gains tax on any asset that they have acquired and sold at a profit
3. Corporation tax on the profits of any business they built up
4. VAT on goods & services purchased throughout their lifetime
5. Car duty, road fund licence, TV licence (all taxes by another name), P11D on company benefits, etc etc
6. National Insurance (just another form of tax)
7. Council tax
8. Umpteen duties (ie tax) Cigarette, alcohol, petrol duty, airline duty, Excise duty
9. Insurance premium tax
10. Stamp duty


That when they try to pass down to their children whatever is left their children are mugged blind by the government to the tune of another 40% of their assets (less a modest and inadequate 'allowance' that has not kept pace with inflation let alone rising property prices, esp in London).  This is a tax applied after all the above taxes have already been paid!! 

Fair? IHT is nothing less than legalised Government thuggery and it should be stopped completely for ordinary people and reserved only for literally the mega-wealthy.  

So no, people shouldn't have to pay for their care - the government already took their money throughout their lives on everything they had. They spent the tax unwisely and now expect people to pay all over again. 

And as for the NHS - the ratio of managers/administrators to trained medical staff is 4:1!  Its one of the most corrupt systems in the world, and if you want to save billions even reducing that ratio to 3:1 will solve NHS funding problems overnight. 

I had to pay for my mothers care and on a modest estate my sister and I had to pay some £114,000 of IHT and we had to pay it in advance before selling her home.  Don't talk to me about fair!

That is the point. They paid tax throughout their lives, and are not being taxed again. **The kids** are being taxed when the receive it. So, yes, I think inheritance tax is perfectly fair at a fundamental level. Why should the money that I earn through hard work be taxed to buggery, but some kid gets a boatload form a family member and doesn't have to pay tax on it?? That would be blatantly UNFAIR. So the real question is around a fair level. £325k (or whatever it is) is a staggering amount of income to receive without paying tax on it. What I would change, is calculate the tax per recipient, although I can see the problems and potential for abuse with this.

So you believe in double taxation then!  The source of the money has already been taxed - sometimes more than once or even twice.  Why in hell should my kids be taxed on money left over after its been taxed to hell already!?  And I speak as a chartered financial adviser!   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3533114/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-politics-envy-s-inheritance-tax-s-immoral.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/inheritance-tax-should-be-scrapped-its-unpopular-and-barely-raises-any-money-a6979036.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11907392/George-Osborne-should-abolish-inheritance-tax-in-its-entirety.html

quarky

@Voxman ; Double-taxing is a meaningless buzz word here. As I wrote up above, all income is taxed already somewhere.

Fretwired

Voxman said:

So you believe in double taxation then!  The source of the money has already been taxed - sometimes more than once or even twice.  Why in hell should my kids be taxed on money left over after its been taxed to hell already!?  And I speak as a chartered financial adviser!   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3533114/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-politics-envy-s-inheritance-tax-s-immoral.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/inheritance-tax-should-be-scrapped-its-unpopular-and-barely-raises-any-money-a6979036.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11907392/George-Osborne-should-abolish-inheritance-tax-in-its-entirety.html

Rubbish. In the UK we have the concept of CGT (Capital Gains Tax) - see my example above. If someone bought a home in the 1960s for £15K it could be worth £1 million today. That's a massive gain. Let's tax it ...

Hanging around here I've come to the conclusion that I'm left wing. I can't actually believe the number of greedy sod everyone posts. I own my own home and I'm happy for it to fund my care it that's what it takes.

quarky

Interestingly, the counter-argument I can see against this, is that it stops the building of wealth across generations. Someone would say that this just "keeps a man down" and ensures the rich stay rich and the rest of us never get there. I am not sure I really buy that, but I would accept that there are obviously problems with the way that the rich get around inheritance tax.

Budgie

I'm just going to buy a bigger boat and get kidnapped off the coast of Somalia by pirates when I grow up. They can look after me. I imagine compared to the Tory funded care, it wouldn't be much worse. I might even get a sun tan.

Teetonetal

digitalscream said:

Teetonetal said:

I absolutely think that people should pay for their own care until the money runs out. But also that the children should not pickup the cost.

By definition, that means the children are picking up the tab in the form of losing their inheritance.

I disagree completely. Children do not have a right to parents wealth. It's a bonus. So they do not pick up the tab at all. Their parents, rightfully, do.

Voxman

Fretwired said:

Voxman said:

So you believe in double taxation then!  The source of the money has already been taxed - sometimes more than once or even twice.  Why in hell should my kids be taxed on money left over after its been taxed to hell already!?  And I speak as a chartered financial adviser!   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3533114/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-politics-envy-s-inheritance-tax-s-immoral.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/inheritance-tax-should-be-scrapped-its-unpopular-and-barely-raises-any-money-a6979036.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11907392/George-Osborne-should-abolish-inheritance-tax-in-its-entirety.html

Rubbish. In the UK we have the concept of CGT (Capital Gains Tax) - see my example above. If someone bought a home in the 1960s for £15K it could be worth £1 million today. That's a massive gain. Let's tax it ...

Hanging around here I've come to the conclusion that I'm left wing. I can't actually believe the number of greedy sod everyone posts. I own my own home and I'm happy for it to fund my care it that's what it takes.

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. When my mother passed away in August she had just sold a holiday home.  We had to pay CGT on it. THEN we had to pay IHT on it - DOUBLE TAXATION!  Being taxed is one thing, but being taxed twice on the same property is not fair.  The IHT system needs a root & branch review.   

Fretwired

Voxman said:

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. When my mother passed away in August she had just sold a holiday home.  We had to pay CGT on it. THEN we had to pay IHT on it - DOUBLE TAXATION!  Being taxed is one thing, but being taxed twice on the same property is not fair.  The IHT system needs a root & branch review.   

Sorry, but I do know what I'm talking about. You don't pay CGT on your main home if you've lived in it. Your mum had to pay CGT as it was a holiday home and not a main residence. That's fine and fair. You then inherited the cash I assume so IHT was due.  I can't see there is a problem.

I would charge CGT on the main home as well.

Fretwired

Teetonetal said:

digitalscream said:

Teetonetal said:

I absolutely think that people should pay for their own care until the money runs out. But also that the children should not pickup the cost.

By definition, that means the children are picking up the tab in the form of losing their inheritance.

I disagree completely. Children do not have a right to parents wealth. It's a bonus. So they do not pick up the tab at all. Their parents, rightfully, do.

^^

This ... when the NHS is in crisis the government needs to raise more tax and CGT on property is a good way to do it.

holnrew

I'm not getting any inheritances so introduce a 100% inheritance tax tbh

capo4th

There's a lot of self entitlement on this thread. 

"I have paid my NI so I am entitled to everything  as a pensioner......"

Life is about choices some people make good ones some people make poor ones.

In truth people need to plan for later life job, savings, insurance, property, whatever it may be too many people think they should be looked after by the government. Good luck with that.

Budgie

capo4th said:

There's a lot of self entitlement on this thread. 

"I have paid my NI so I am entitled to everything  as a pensioner......"

Life is about choices some people make good ones some people make poor ones.

In truth people need to plan for later life job, savings, insurance, property, whatever it may be too many people think they should be looked after by the government. Good luck with that.

yawn at your arrogance.

You can certainly make the most watertight of plans for the future, right up to the point when the unplanned ruins the plan. Major illness, bereavement, redundancy, bad accidents, being reliant on ssp or some other benefit for a long period of time, possibly leading to being unable to meet financial commitments etc. It's not exactly uncommon.

I think earlier you claimed to be 'self-reliant' but you appear to be an employee of somebody? Your reliance is actually beholden to your employer. Let's suppose that your employer decides that s/he has had enough of sharing a workspace with an odious individual and you end up being an ex-employee and have a period of time trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to get a similar role at a similar level of pay. Where does that leave your masterful plan. Let's also suppose your partner is also made redundant/decides s/he's prefers the company of someone else, or whatever. It's not long before you're in the shit. Again, it's not exactly uncommon, in fact I know somebody that most of the above is happening to right now. 

It's not going to happen to you though is it.

Garthy

So the Tories are grabbing everything but your first £100k, the other parties would carry on with everything but the first £23,500? It's a straight not a loaded or rhetorical question.

martinw

People live too long.

Shit, or get off the pot.