DT: Dementia tax row - Pensioners told homes are not 'assets to pass on to offspring'

[Fairyland]

Telegraph: Pensioners told homes are not 'assets to pass on to offspring' as minister revives dementia tax row

Quote

Pensioners with care needs must stop regarding their homes as “an asset to give to their offspring”, the social care minister has said, as she revived the row over the Conservatives’ so-called “dementia tax”.

Jackie Doyle-Price said it was “unfair” for younger taxpayers to “prop up people to keep their property” when it could be sold to help pay for their own care needs.

The stark language contrasts with the Tories’ promises last year to make sure that homes people have “worked for and saved for” could be passed on to their children. 

 

I thought this was discussed here a while ago.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Fairyland

[Simhadri]

They will go heaven and earth to get young vote but its too late. Moreever if she dare to impose tax on boomers, she'll be relaced another tory leader. She is giving opportunities to Boris.

[iamnumerate]

The Tories suggested this before the election and lost their majority.  I know someone who would not vote Tory because "I don't want to lose my house".

[sikejsudjek]

The Tories do seem to be on self destruct mode at the moment. Their core vote seems to be left to the very rich and Sun readers. 

[TheCountOfNowhere]

27 minutes ago, sikejsudjek said:

The Tories do seem to be on self destruct mode at the moment. Their core vote seems to be left to the very rich and Sun readers. 

2 words.

 

BrExit

 

Subvert

[Greg Bowman]

7 hours ago, Simhadri said:

Moreever if she dare to impose tax on boomers, she'll be relaced another tory leader. She is giving opportunities to Boris.

Its not a tax on boomers its outright robbery.

Whilst the country fills itself with millions of people who haven't contributed through the ages to our society but take out from day one or never do a days work in their life sponging off the working population and then get care free this will be controversial

Set aside house price gains which are a separate issue - it's theft pure and simple until that system is sorted out

I also fail to see how it will appeal to younger generations - stealing Mum and dad's or Grans house

As sikejsudjek  says self destruct and I would say not sure even Sun readers are on side now

Edited October 12, 2017 by Greg Bowman

[skomer]

6 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

The Tories suggested this before the election and lost their majority.  I know someone who would not vote Tory because "I don't want to lose my house".

This spooked the elderly neighbours where I live....Probably cost the Tories a few percentage points and seats like Eastbourne...

[pmgdawau]

if my quality of life had reduced so that I was a burden with no enjoyment in day to day living then I would be happy to consider options. Suspect those options will become officially sanctioned in the next 20-30 years.

[Simhadri]

9 minutes ago, Greg Bowman said:

Whilst the country fills itself with millions of people who haven't contributed through the ages to our society but take out from day one or never do a days work in their life sponging off the working population and then get care free this will be controversial

Agreed. People who worked and paid into system shouldn't be punished.

I would rather be happy if she taxed BTL a bit more.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Political hot potato that no-one wants to deal with.

Probably best to get a cross party committee together to sort it out.

[winkie]

I don't have much of a problem with it......life chances, not everyone will get dementia, not everyone will own a home, not everyone earns good money....can't take it with you so give it away if there is a risk might have to use it as rent for old age care if don't want to pay your own rent....thousands already pay rent all of their lives, paying rent at the end of life is something that happens to a few.....if have it why not pay for it, equity earned on homes was a given for being fortunate enough to own a home, it was not earned, got it why not spend it on quality care if others are unable to care for you.

[Greg Bowman]

6 minutes ago, winkie said:

I don't have much of a problem with it......life chances, not everyone will get dementia, not everyone will own a home, not everyone earns good money....can't take it with you so give it away if there is a risk might have to use it as rent for old age care if don't want to pay your own rent....thousands already pay rent all of their lives, paying rent at the end of life is something that happens to a few.....if have it why not pay for it, equity earned on homes was a given for being fortunate enough to own a home, it was not earned, got it why not spend it on quality care if others are unable to care for you.

Why do you write such sensible stuff !

[crouch]

My understanding is that you do have to sell your property down to the SS limit (£23K?) now. I don't think this woman is proposing anything new; she is actually trying to justify the current system.

I believe I read somewhere that around 70,000 houses are sold each year to meet care bills.

[RentingForever]

5 minutes ago, crouch said:

My understanding is that you do have to sell your property down to the SS limit (£23K?) now. I don't think this woman is proposing anything new; she is actually trying to justify the current system.

I believe I read somewhere that around 70,000 houses are sold each year to meet care bills.

That's if you have to move into a care home.

The Tory policy that caused the uproar was that if you didn't need to move into a home, but did need care provided in your own home, then the cost would be put as a charge against your house, to be paid back on sale when you died. So nobody would lose their home.

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

They need a Nightwatch man (or woman)  to the blame for screwing up Brexit.  They are trying to get her to "own" all the Toxic Waste.  She is in such a weak position, that they can blame all Richards on her, and be more (or appear) "yoof pro" for the next GE.

[Mrs Bear]

18 minutes ago, crouch said:

My understanding is that you do have to sell your property down to the SS limit (£23K?) now. I don't think this woman is proposing anything new; she is actually trying to justify the current system.

I believe I read somewhere that around 70,000 houses are sold each year to meet care bills.

I think what was new was the idea of rolling up the cost of at-home care visits, to be repaid once the house is finally sold.  At the moment AFAIK a person's contribution depends on their income, so someone living in even an expensive house, if their income is very low (not unknown among pensioners) they might pay nothing or very little for care visits. 

People with sufficient assets have always had to fund their own care home fees AFAIK.  We had two wholly self funded relatives well before the Tories even came to power.  Evidently some people were naive/clueless enough to think care homes had always been funded by local/national govt aka the taxpayer. 

[crouch]

15 minutes ago, Mrs Bear said:

I think what was new was the idea of rolling up the cost of at-home care visits, to be repaid once the house is finally sold.  At the moment AFAIK a person's contribution depends on their income, so someone living in even an expensive house, if their income is very low (not unknown among pensioners) they might pay nothing or very little for care visits. 

People with sufficient assets have always had to fund their own care home fees AFAIK.  We had two wholly self funded relatives well before the Tories even came to power.  Evidently some people were naive/clueless enough to think care homes had always been funded by local/national govt aka the taxpayer. 

If that is the case ( and I'm sure you're right)it seems to me that what is being proposed is consistent with the current system. Clearly you'd pay less for home visits than care home residence but I can't see this proposal as being inconsistent with what is happening now. OTOH if you disagree with the current system...

[Calcutta]

If someone hasn't handed over valuable assets to their children long before they go demented then they probably weren't that fond of them anyway.

[durhamborn]

2 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

Its not a tax on boomers its outright robbery.

Whilst the country fills itself with millions of people who haven't contributed through the ages to our society but take out from day one or never do a days work in their life sponging off the working population and then get care free this will be controversial

Set aside house price gains which are a separate issue - it's theft pure and simple until that system is sorted out

I also fail to see how it will appeal to younger generations - stealing Mum and dad's or Grans house

As sikejsudjek  says self destruct and I would say not sure even Sun readers are on side now

Agreed.The issue isnt people paying,its them paying while those who have never worked get it free.Means testing is the problem.Give nobody it free.Politicians are stuffed because everyone knows the UK is flooded with migrants claiming and massive amounts given out in aid (corruption mostly).Right or wrong the fact is people think i dont really want my lifes work to be stolen to pay for Ethiopian music projects or the tax credits that fund the local mosque.

[Roman Roady]

Keep an eye out for this sort of thing. We keep being drip fed about dementia, mental health etc. The Boomers fried their brains in the '60s and '70s and subsequent generations ratcheted up the anti with more and more exotic drugs. Now the chickens are home to roost for the Boomer generation and things will only get worse...however with intergenerational fairness being the current political "hot potato", no one will want to tell the younger generation that they have to cough up the readies to pay for the care that is needed for older more reckless generations.

Stealthy as she goes!

[ThoughtCriminal]

So save money/buy a house and we'll hammer you when you're ill.

 

Pi*s every penny up the wall and you get everything free.

 

No moral hazard there then.......?

[Tulip_mania]

The problem is really one of the Tories own making. For at least 10 years, they have via; increasing IHT thresholds (particularly for housing wealth) and the 'Death Tax' attacks during the 2010 election been embedding the concept that taxation of estates is wrong. Their media cheerleaders Mail/Telegraph/Express are very keen to join them in this.

You can't just undo that 4 weeks out from an election, if they want to do it they need to keep gently banging on about it for a few years so if they propose it in future it's not a shock. The actual plan was a bit rubbish, it was a lottery not a tax.

Much better would be to have 20% IHT from £125,000, 40% IHT from £500,000 and 50% IHT from £1,000,000.  Though it's a general problem in the UK that wealth inheritance/capital gains are taxed much less heavily than earned income. Capital Gains should be taxed as income (of the gain adjusted for CPI over the period which the asset was held).

[Futuroid]

3 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

Its not a tax on boomers its outright robbery.

Whilst the country fills itself with millions of people who haven't contributed through the ages to our society but take out from day one or never do a days work in their life sponging off the working population and then get care free this will be controversial

Set aside house price gains which are a separate issue - it's theft pure and simple until that system is sorted out

I also fail to see how it will appeal to younger generations - stealing Mum and dad's or Grans house

As sikejsudjek  says self destruct and I would say not sure even Sun readers are on side now

It's the immigrants innit! 

[chicker]

15 minutes ago, Roman Roady said:

Keep an eye out for this sort of thing. We keep being drip fed about dementia, mental health etc. The Boomers fried their brains in the '60s and '70s and subsequent generations ratcheted up the anti with more and more exotic drugs. Now the chickens are home to roost for the Boomer generation and things will only get worse...however with intergenerational fairness being the current political "hot potato", no one will want to tell the younger generation that they have to cough up the readies to pay for the care that is needed for older more reckless generations.

Stealthy as she goes!

I'm just about a boomer but  my parents had years of rationing , hardship, national service but full employment and cheap housing after ww2.  Their care costs will wipe out any equity they have in their home. I don't expect to inherit anything  and I think you should pay for your own care. My parents expect to pay their way but their values are from a different time when the nation was more equal and shared the same experiences.  Everyone worked at something and respect was gained from doing even the most menial job .

.

[Roman Roady]

22 minutes ago, chicker said:

I'm just about a boomer but  my parents had years of rationing , hardship, national service but full employment and cheap housing after ww2.  .

Ditto for me and my family