Talks back compulsory levy to fund social care

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 16:20

The government has been advised to back a compulsory fee to pay for social care at the end of a day of talks.

The meeting with charities, council chiefs and care providers agreed a levy payable on death was the best option.

The meeting, which was boycotted by the Tories, came after a fortnight of rows between the parties over the best way to reform the means-tested service.Last year, Labour set out a range of options in a Green Paper on how the system could be overhauled. One of the suggestions was a compulsory fee, possibly up to £20,000, which could be taken from an individual's estate after death.

The Conservatives vehemently oppose this idea, claiming it would penalise families who want to look after elderly relatives themselves. While there was a consensus in favour of the compulsory levy, ministers still refused to say whether they favoured it.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 16:22

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8522734.stm

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 16:32

"Declare the pennies on your eyes" Taxman Lennon & McCartney

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 17:01

That's a good line wanderer.

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 17:44

What happens when the person who dies doesn't have £20,000 to put in the pot? I see this as just another way to tax the people who have been careful and have saved hard all their lives, to pass on something to their children. If you smoke, drink, gamble and spend every penny you earn on enjoying yourself, or if you live off the state all your working life, then when you pop your clogs there isn't £20,000 to give to the tax man. I just despair of what this labour government will think of next. Another case of robbing those who help themselves.





The butlers wife

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 18:13

Both parties are the same tax and tax again

The shadow chancellor scares the city to death he is any exact copy of Fletcher Durbisher from Rick Mayall new Statesman satire of political life

The real answer is to lower taxes so people are willing to pay them and get the economy going again

The UK debt is big but repayments is not short term like Greece otherwise it would be a problem

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 18:18

oh god even in death, what are they trying to take us back to the dark ages. People are leaving the UK in droves, Europeans are leaving thier countries in droves, new EU countries end up in UK to claim how can they pay tax let alone leave money on death. I cant wait for the day I see the demise of the EU x

japeal



Joined: 12/09/2008
Posts: 1052

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 21:06

Is there a proposed age limit?



What if you die say 35yrs old car accident or cancer you leave maybe a family behind who need your estate to live!

kaysera


Joined: 14/07/2009
Posts: 103

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 21:26

msg 5. "If you smoke, drink, gamble and spend every penny you earn on enjoying yourself"



And why not, you can't take it with you???

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
23/02/2010 22:35

I agree with the Butlers Wife. You work hard and save all your life for what? So that they can take £20k off you. Mind you, that's the figure now. No doubt in ten years time it will be £40k.

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
24/02/2010 14:51

Kaysere,



The majority of my friends would like to think that they are going to leave what they have worked all their lives for to their children or even grandchildren. I agree you cannot take it with you, but you can leave it to the next generation. So why should these people who have been careful have to pay £20,000 in taxes when they die? Whilst those who have lived for the moment and have nothing left and have possibly lived off the state for the last years of their lives end up paying nothing, where is the fairness in that? I lost my father last year aged 89, my sister and I nursed him at home until the last week of his life. Neither of my parents ended their lives in care, because we nursed them at home. If this rule had been in place then, they would have had to pay £20,000 each from their very small estate. Why??



The butlers wife

Marvo


Joined: 30/04/2007
Posts: 194

Message Posted:
25/02/2010 12:17

This is basically a class tax, it has nothing to do with funding social care for the elderly. All the funds raised through taxation go into the one pot anyway.

What they should do is drastically reform the benefits system, stop dishing out taxpayers cash to people who have no intention of working. Stop the invalidity payments to bogus claimants and distribute it to genuine disabled people.

Make it that non UK citizens have to work and contribute into the tax system for say 5 years before they are eligible for any benefits.

If they were more stringent with the taxpayers cash they already have they would not have to tax the dead.



Marvo

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
25/02/2010 12:31

Whether we all like it or not, the Government will extract their pound of flesh regardless so it is just a case pf which way is going to be acceptable. I would much rather be taxed in my after life than in my present life.

AJ

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
25/02/2010 19:19

Damned if you do ,damned if you dont.

A friend of mine probably wishes he could have paid £20,000 out of his mothers inheritance instead of losing the bulk of its value to care home.

This was a proposal in response to the unpopular situation where the total value of ones house was used to fund care rather than being left to ones children. If thats what people prefer ,then fine.People when they reach 60 could then sign a form saying they do not wish to pay the £20k out of inheritance but rather would pay it out of assets while alive.

Bearing in mind how long people are living, the cost to the taxpayer (our children) will become intolerable should the burden be removed from us to them.

'The Conservatives vehemently oppose this idea, claiming it would penalise families who want to look after elderly relatives themselves. ' Thats easy to solve ,if you pay for their care or look after them yourself then on death, once they check that you hadnt received state help, 20 k is not taken.