Knife in the back for pensioners..

Nitefly

Soylent green.

Fretwired

Garthy said:

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.

That's not right. At the moment there's a limit of around £75K so after you've paid that the government (local or national) picks up the tab. The Tories have scrapped that so if you own a house worth £500K under the Tories proposed scheme you could pay up to £400K as opposed to £75K.

Boris has been on to say they're off for a rethink .. expect a U-turn.

Axe_meister

The trouble is the 75k will only pay for a few years care? 

Fretwired

Axe_meister said:

The trouble is the 75k will only pay for a few years care? 

Exactly ...

capo4th

They take everything right now down to your last £14000

£100000 is a nice windfall

ToneControl

hywelg said:

fretmeister said:

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

Myth.

So you paid some tax. And you think that entitles you to £2k a week in nursing home fees? For how long? For how many people? Everyone?

Nuts. Current taxation pays for current expenditure. Barely.

The common understanding is:

National (everyone in the country)

Insurance (insured against misfortune)


wikipedia:
"In the United Kingdom, National Insurance (NI) is a system of taxes paid by workers and employers, used primarily to fund state benefits. It was initially a contributory system of insurance against illness and unemployment, and later also provided retirement pensions and other benefits.[1] It was first introduced by the National Insurance Act 1911 and expanded by the Labour government in 1948, and has been subject to numerous amendments in subsequent years."

So, like any other insurance, the expectation is naturally that if you are one of those who fall ill, who don't have to pay all your extra outgoings yourself, because the risk is pooled.
If it needs more tax to pay for it, then we need to pay more tax
Otherwise are we going to means-test operations on the NHS??

ToneControl

Sporky said:

mart said:

Do "ordinary people" typically leave an estate worth a third of a million? Or two thirds of a million if they're married? I suspect a lot of people would class that as mega-wealthy.

"Mega-wealthy" to have paid off the mortgage? Average house price is what, about a quarter of a million, so I'd say you're a factor of at least a hundred, probably nearer a thousand out.

I googled "Do "ordinary people" typically leave an estate worth a third of a million"

it seems to say "YES"

second entry after tFB:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10900579/Middle-class-families-braced-for-inheritance-tax-time-bomb.html
from 2014:

Britain has some of the highest death duties of any country, and it has been estimated that more than a third of home owners face the threat of inheritance tax bills because of rising house prices.
The system is seen as unfair because it taxes assets such as family homes bought with income that was taxed when it was earned.
Estates become liable for the tax when the value rises above £325,000. Married couples are entitled to double the allowance, passing on assets to their children or other relations worth up to £650,000.
However, this arrangement is less generous than any other western country apart from Ireland. The threshold for death duties in the United States is about £3.2 million.

ToneControl

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?

If we need the cash, they should tax all estates at 10%, not just some at 40%

ToneControl

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?

some?

how much? 40% ?

the trouble is - the house is worth more because house prices went up, so you can't consider the gain in a vacuum: for the cash left to have a material effect on the kids of the deceased, it will need to be proportional to the current housing market, not that of 50 years ago

ToneControl

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.

so you would prefer a system where there is an incentive for the elderly to blow all their cash on cruises and gifts to their kids and then to entirely depend on the state?

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

Garthy said:

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.

That's not right. At the moment there's a limit of around £75K so after you've paid that the government (local or national) picks up the tab. The Tories have scrapped that so if you own a house worth £500K under the Tories proposed scheme you could pay up to £400K as opposed to £75K.

Boris has been on to say they're off for a rethink .. expect a U-turn.

I thought the current system used up all your cash until you had about £20k left?

ToneControl

ah, this was the plan

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/social-care-funding-changes/care-cap-and-means-test-changes/

if you have:

• between £14,250 and £23,250 in capital and savings and you are eligible for care, the council will contribute towards your care costs

• capital and savings above £23,250, you will have to fund all of your own social care.

After April 2020:

• the £23,250 upper limit will be raised to £118,000

• the lower limit will be raised to £17,000

Therefore, anyone with assets of between £17,000 and £118,500 who meets the eligibility criteria for care will be entitled to some financial support according to a sliding scale.

So although the Tory plans are better than current law, the previous tory plans were more generous

capo4th

I still believe a flat fee of £10 to visit a doctor or hospital would be a great idea. Pay as you go!

It would discourage the casual cough and cold visitor and the NHS could provide more web and phone based solutions whilst people were contributing to their care.

£10 would be a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things but would make people appreciate what we have.

ToneControl

capo4th said:

I still believe a flat fee of £10 to visit a doctor or hospital would be a great idea. Pay as you go!

It would discourage the casual cough and cold visitor and the NHS could provide more web and phone based solutions whilst people were contributing to their care.

£10 would be a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things but would make people appreciate what we have.

I still really oppose this
too many (blokes especially) already avoid going to the GP
catching illnesses early saves the NHS a fortune

capo4th

I think in the longer term we will have to contribute to health care due to increasing costs.

capo4th

Men need to go to the doctors when they have a problem.

I think knowledge and awareness is improving amongst men in this area. 

ThePrettyDamned

capo4th said:

I think in the longer term we will have to contribute to health care due to increasing costs.

So you agree with increased taxes? 

ToneControl

capo4th said:

Men need to go to the doctors when they have a problem.

I think knowledge and awareness is improving amongst men in this area. 

so how would charging £10 (or 40 Euro in Ireland I think) help?

ToneControl

ToneControl said:

capo4th said:

Men need to go to the doctors when they have a problem.

I think knowledge and awareness is improving amongst men in this area. 

so how would charging £10 (or 40 Euro in Ireland I think) help?

someone already tested this for us in Ireland:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2213856/

more than one in four of adult patients who have to pay for GP consultations had a health problem during a 12 month period but did not see their GP because of cost (European Journal of General Practice doi: 10.1080/13814780701815082). About 70% of people in Ireland have to pay a GP consultation fee, those in the lowest income groups being exempted.
In comparison, just 4.4% of non-paying patients with a health problem said that they did not see their GP because of the cost. And across the border in Northern Ireland, where services are free at the point of delivery, only 1.8% of patients were put off by cost from seeing their GP.

ThePrettyDamned

ToneControl said:

capo4th said:

I still believe a flat fee of £10 to visit a doctor or hospital would be a great idea. Pay as you go!

It would discourage the casual cough and cold visitor and the NHS could provide more web and phone based solutions whilst people were contributing to their care.

£10 would be a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things but would make people appreciate what we have.

I still really oppose this
too many (blokes especially) already avoid going to the GP
catching illnesses early saves the NHS a fortune

Beyond that, if you're homeless... 

I would like to see more respect for healthcare though. Paramedics waste a lot of time dealing with drunk people coming out of clubs and vomiting or fighting. Perhaos a fine for those who waste NHS time, similar to a wasting police time thing but... Just a fine. 

The problem is issuing and enforcing these could be more hassle than it's worth. And it'll only last until some twat on mdma has a hemorrhage because they drank too much. 

There could be other ways to both raise more tax money and simultaneously increase the health of the nation? 

For example, I would sugar tax the fuck out of stuff - the argument is disproportionately hits the poor is bogus as they're luxury foods anyway - no one *needs* cake and haribo. It could go hand in hand with a big push for healthy, cheap eating. 

Likewise for alcohol. Although that's already pretty heavily taxed. 

As a trade off, tax could go down on vegetables and fruits a tiny bit. 

Although this is complicating an already complex system.