Osboro
Well-known member
What system??? The NHS is not there to care for old people. Its there for ill people and old age is not an illness.
National insurance tax hike
- Thread starter ThatFragranceGuy
- Start date
JM14
Well-known member
What’s the difference between that and paying for someone’s care because they don’t have assets to sell?
Same_as_before
Well-known member
I worked hard, I dont need to leave my kids anything. They look after themselves.
JM14
Well-known member
Why wouldn’t you want to? Sure everyone wants to make a better life for their kids, not basically hand back their assets to the state. Might as well not bother working, have any assets etc if that’s the case
Osboro
Well-known member
I don’t really understand that statement.
I wrote a quite lengthy post earlier on how the current system on Aged Care works.
If you read it and then have a genuine question I’ll be happy to ( try) and answer it.
Are you objecting to paying for Care? If you want it “ free” does that mean it’s provided by volunteers? If you want to pay into some national scheme where do you set the quality standard of domicilary care , the hotel part of the care.how do you ensure it’s fair
Can every one get a country house with a lake, or should everyone be housed in a industrial park somewhere.
Does someone who has earned well below the national average get the same hotel room as the guy who’s been on 200% of national earnings all their lives.
Its a difficult subject, simply saying,” I want my kids to get my wealth but Idont want to contribute to any care I receive ”;just Won’t cut it, someone has pay . Either you pay for it all your life or you partially pay towards it IF you need it.
If you have no assets you will get a very basic form of care , if you have funds you could volunteer for the basic care, not a nice reward for a life’s work,
or you can contribute towards a better and better form of care if you want.
Your working all your life gives you a choice IF you end up in care, remember you might not!
JM14
Well-known member
You won’t ever make an argument to convince me otherwise. It’s one of the most unfair things to happen in society for me. I’m certainly no tory but it’s something I would happily pay anything extra towards
My generation will be working until we drop, if we then have to loose the biggest asset most of us will ever own to pay for our care that’s just completely unfair, and nothing you say will ever change my mind on that. It’s not about protecting the super rich, it’s ordinary working people
Osboro
Well-known member
Ok, and can I say it’s nice to disagree with someone politely on this board.
Its a very big subject, some people would ask why the kids you are so keen to pass wealth on too aren’t able to look after you in your old age.
Unfair , really doesn’t come into it, as I said , your health care IS FREE, it’s the hotel facility’s you pay for .
I seem to remember that it was only 1 in 6 are likely to need care and most don’t last long any way so, just enjoy life , but do rearrange how you own your home and rewrite your will as I explained.
LaPennaBianca
Well-known member
I'm the same generation and do you not think that taking this money from NI is counterproductive? You've not engaged with any of the detail, just taken a doctrinaire position.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Because they are not kids, they will hopefully be in their late 50's early 60's. By then it will make no difference.
JM14
Well-known member
Completely respect and understand your position on this, like you say its a really big subject for people. But I have to disagree with that, there is no chance many people in their 20s will ever be in a position to look after their parents at least financially in their old age. Property ownership for people in their 20s even in areas of low house prices in the NE will still struggle to ever afford their own property (We can all thank the government for that). Thats why it will be so important for some people to pass on something to kids/grandkids etc so each generation can live a little more comfortable
But yes there are currently ways around it at least, just hope this makes things a little easier. Who knows if this is the right way to approach this but social care for the elderly needs huge reform in any case as the standard of care can be shocking at times
newusername
Well-known member
I think @Osboro meant the children actually care for their parents in their dotage rather than bung them some money to live in a suitable care home.
While you've hit the nail on the head here...
... you still want those 20 year olds that can't afford to help their own parents or buy a house, to help all the current pensioners in the SE keep their wealth to pass on to their children.
JM14
Well-known member
I can list plenty of things that will stop a fair amount of this generation from ever being able to own a home, a small rise in NI will be close to bottom of that list
Redwurzel
Well-known member
There seems to be a lot fo debate about anti-semitism and Palestinians around the Labour Party - OK it could be people causing trouble that are anti-Labour, but to people living in poverty in Redcar and Hartlepool it seems along way away.
Look at what Roofie posted about the efforts Starmer has made to track down anyone in the Labour Party taking about anti-semitism - on the Ken Loach thread.
Last edited:
newusername
Well-known member
It isn't about stopping them owning a house.
It is about the fairness of someone unable to afford to buy a house, on Universal Credit & having that docked by £20 a week but paying more national insurance so that a person exempt from NI can pass on the full value of their house to their children.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Austerity #2 has started, albeit they're never going to call it that.
Lack of labour and drivers, and many other things pandemic, brexit and tory related will drive up the cost of things that all of us need, yet hit those on the lowest incomes the most, just as a NI hike does.
The way it works, NI is always charged at effective higher overall percentage rates on those with lower earnings (less tory voters) than it is on big earners (more tory voters), and funnily enough those of retirement age (more tory voters) or those with enough where they're so rich that that they don't have to work (massively tory voters).
They should be taxing those who have gained most, or suffered least during the pandemic or brexit issues, but instead, as always, the tories will prioritise their core voters and funders.
Lack of labour and drivers, and many other things pandemic, brexit and tory related will drive up the cost of things that all of us need, yet hit those on the lowest incomes the most, just as a NI hike does.
The way it works, NI is always charged at effective higher overall percentage rates on those with lower earnings (less tory voters) than it is on big earners (more tory voters), and funnily enough those of retirement age (more tory voters) or those with enough where they're so rich that that they don't have to work (massively tory voters).
They should be taxing those who have gained most, or suffered least during the pandemic or brexit issues, but instead, as always, the tories will prioritise their core voters and funders.
Last edited:
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
this is something
For example one friend of mine lives in a large 7 bed house. Imagine a bit less privacy but cuts down in costs massively and everyone mucks in. As a result, when his elderly parents pass on, he inherits the house (and he currently has no mortgage to pay for) and money etc and is planning on retiring at 50. All of his kids have tens of thousands saved up and good degrees etc
obviously doesn't work that well for everyone as only one child can inherit the house etc, but there is more emphasis on family care.
While I don't think I'd like to live with my parents, I probably would if it meant I didn't have to pay for a house for 25 years
Yeah I've got fair few Asian friends and they've got this right imo. The elderly still live with the family where possible and help out with looking after kids etc.
For example one friend of mine lives in a large 7 bed house. Imagine a bit less privacy but cuts down in costs massively and everyone mucks in. As a result, when his elderly parents pass on, he inherits the house (and he currently has no mortgage to pay for) and money etc and is planning on retiring at 50. All of his kids have tens of thousands saved up and good degrees etc
obviously doesn't work that well for everyone as only one child can inherit the house etc, but there is more emphasis on family care.
While I don't think I'd like to live with my parents, I probably would if it meant I didn't have to pay for a house for 25 years
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
why does it have to
Family care is all well and good, but if you and partner both have no option financially but to work full time then you cant do it. Similarly if your parents get dementia its a huge ask to give them 24 hour care. We had to take the decision to put my dad who has Alzheimer's into a care home last year, it was a heartbreaking decision, but it was the right one for him and for us. Its not always as cut and dry as providing live in support, there's lots of circumstances to consider.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Ref social care costs
No one will change my mind that someone who has an house worth say £500,000 should have their social care costs paid by low income people in theIr 20s and 30s whose income is probably lower, if that older person is in a care home.
If people want to leave something for their middle aged children (the typical age inheritance is received is 58) they can gift money throughout their lives. I think its £3,000 a year, more if paying for a wedding. Money gifted I believe 7 years before death is also exempt from inheritance tax and later assessment for care costs.
Surely the majority of people in this country believe social care costs should be shared, with some paid by the receiver and some by the state, indirectly all tax payers. Allowing the elderly person to keep say £80,000 to pass from their total assets allows this. If taxes need to be raised I would put 1% on all everyone's income tax as all ages pay that with income above £12,800 unless you are Donald Trump & Co.
No one will change my mind that someone who has an house worth say £500,000 should have their social care costs paid by low income people in theIr 20s and 30s whose income is probably lower, if that older person is in a care home.
If people want to leave something for their middle aged children (the typical age inheritance is received is 58) they can gift money throughout their lives. I think its £3,000 a year, more if paying for a wedding. Money gifted I believe 7 years before death is also exempt from inheritance tax and later assessment for care costs.
Surely the majority of people in this country believe social care costs should be shared, with some paid by the receiver and some by the state, indirectly all tax payers. Allowing the elderly person to keep say £80,000 to pass from their total assets allows this. If taxes need to be raised I would put 1% on all everyone's income tax as all ages pay that with income above £12,800 unless you are Donald Trump & Co.
newusername
Well-known member
The proposal I heard this morning was they wanted you to pay for the 1st £80k of your care & then you could keep the rest.
Fine if you've got £1m house, not so much if it is a 2 bed terrace in the Boro town centre.