That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
I've made a massive profit on my house (on paper), and in no sense do I regard it as 'hard won'.
You're right about the social care part -- but to my mind IHT is a decent way of covering that, payable whether you needed that care or were lucky enough (and it IS luck) to live out your last days at home
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
spunking their mum and dads money in this country on stuff which tax is paid on
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
I've made a massive profit on my house (on paper), and in no sense do I regard it as 'hard won'.
You're right about the social care part -- but to my mind IHT is a decent way of covering that, payable whether you needed that care or were lucky enough (and it IS luck) to live out your last days at home
Well you have a lot more stamina than me if you don't regard it as 'hard won.'
I've struggled over more than 30 years to pay off my mortgage, which admittedly includes a substantial further advance to enable me to assist other family members, and have continually had worries as to whether there would be enough to meet the months bills.
I don't (and have never) smoke, go on holiday, have Sky television and drink rarely as I am always driving either for work or family reasons so I have not squandered my earnings. The margins have just been very tight.
In those circumstances I consider my property 'hard won' but you probably consider me a wimp!
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
I've made a massive profit on my house (on paper), and in no sense do I regard it as 'hard won'.
You're right about the social care part -- but to my mind IHT is a decent way of covering that, payable whether you needed that care or were lucky enough (and it IS luck) to live out your last days at home
Well you have a lot more stamina than me if you don't regard it as 'hard won.'
I've struggled over more than 30 years to pay off my mortgage, which admittedly includes a substantial further advance to enable me to assist other family members, and have continually had worries as to whether there would be enough to meet the months bills.
I don't (and have never) smoke, go on holiday, have Sky television and drink rarely as I am always driving either for work or family reasons so I have not squandered my earnings. The margins have just been very tight.
Given all that I consider my property 'hard won' but you probably consider me a wimp!
I should add before I am accused of selfishness that I am not rich enough, nor likely to be, to be personally troubled by inheritance tax problems but strongly feel it is an immoral, spiteful tax.
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
I've made a massive profit on my house (on paper), and in no sense do I regard it as 'hard won'.
You're right about the social care part -- but to my mind IHT is a decent way of covering that, payable whether you needed that care or were lucky enough (and it IS luck) to live out your last days at home
Well you have a lot more stamina than me if you don't regard it as 'hard won.'
I've struggled over more than 30 years to pay off my mortgage, which admittedly includes a substantial further advance to enable me to assist other family members, and have continually had worries as to whether there would be enough to meet the months bills.
I don't (and have never) smoke, go on holiday, have Sky television and drink rarely as I am always driving either for work or family reasons so I have not squandered my earnings. The margins have just been very tight.
In those circumstances I consider my property 'hard won' but you probably consider me a wimp!
Not at all - i feel I've earned the nice house I live in, just as you have. But I'd have felt that if it was 'worth' half the paper amount. I've benefited from an extraordinary inflation in house prices, more so than someone who has worked just as hard as me in (say) Birmingham.
As someone whose grandparents were pretty poor, and had all died by the time I was 5, I don't find it greatly appealing that a lot of people's life chances are now down to how much of a pile their elderly relatives leave them. My kids are likely to be on the lucky side of that argument, but it depresses me somewhat that we have regressed over the last 20-30 years, such that a hard-working middle-earner stands little chance of getting on the housing ladder without family help. Skewing the tax system towards property will surely make that situation worse
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
What do they take from Society just for being rich?
Perhaps they save the NHS money by going private and save the education system from collapsing by going to private schools.
Perhaps they buy goods and services that provide VAT and employment for more people to earn money and pay tax.
Perhaps it's better that mummy and daddy give them money to spend to generate economic activity than keep it themselves and stuff it under the mattress.
Perhaps they attend charity auctions and being so dumb pay squillions for a shirt signed by Simon Church.
Just because there are people we dislike because they are rich bastards, doesn't mean they don't contribute to society.
Anyway, their wealth will be gone in a generation if they bring up their kids like that, so no need to get too worked up. Sensible view would be to show pity rather than animosity and envy.
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
Are you saying it is moral that if you should need 24 hour social care when you reach old age and you have assets worth over 1/2 million myself, and all the other tax payers on Charlton Life should pay for that care without any contribution from yourself so that you can pass on those assets to your children?
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
Are you saying it is moral that if you should need 24 hour social care when you reach old age and you have assets worth over 1/2 million myself, and all the other tax payers on Charlton Life should pay for that care without any contribution from yourself so that you can pass on those assets to your children?
Well that's just not going to happen is it?
If you have over £23,250 in capital you will be assessed as being able to meet the full cost of your care.
If you own your home then it will usually be counted as capital 12 weeks after you move permanently into a care home. (Unless, say, your spouse still lives there.)
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
Are you saying it is moral that if you should need 24 hour social care when you reach old age and you have assets worth over 1/2 million myself, and all the other tax payers on Charlton Life should pay for that care without any contribution from yourself so that you can pass on those assets to your children?
Well that's just not going to happen is it?
If you have over £23,250 in capital you will be assessed as being able to meet the full cost of your care.
If you own your home then it will usually be counted as capital 12 weeks after you move permanently into a care home. (Unless, say, your spouse still lives there.)
Yes, but I thought Len was saying it was immoral that this was the case.
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
I included mummy and daddy in the set of people, they have earned that money, paid and continue to pay tax on those earnings, it is their right to decide how that money is spent.
I don't have an issue with the taxation of un-earned income. And inheritance is the most obvious example of it.
Except it has been earned. IHT is levied against the corpse, not the beneficiary. The beneficiary gets whatever is left after the taxman has finished rooting around the corpse's pockets and sofa cushions.
As the rules stand at the moment.......Man owns expensive house and leaves it to his partner (they are unmarried). She would like to continue to live in the house after his death (they've lived there together for many years) but she has to sell the house to pay the CGT because the Govt want their money the moment she inherits the house......seems like she's getting taxed and she's the survivor.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
What do they take from Society just for being rich?
Perhaps they save the NHS money by going private and save the education system from collapsing by going to private schools.
Perhaps they buy goods and services that provide VAT and employment for more people to earn money and pay tax.
Perhaps it's better that mummy and daddy give them money to spend to generate economic activity than keep it themselves and stuff it under the mattress.
Perhaps they attend charity auctions and being so dumb pay squillions for a shirt signed by Simon Church.
Just because there are people we dislike because they are rich bastards, doesn't mean they don't contribute to society.
Anyway, their wealth will be gone in a generation if they bring up their kids like that, so no need to get too worked up. Sensible view would be to show pity rather than animosity and envy.
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
I included mummy and daddy in the set of people, they have earned that money, paid and continue to pay tax on those earnings, it is their right to decide how that money is spent.
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
I included mummy and daddy in the set of people, they have earned that money, paid and continue to pay tax on those earnings, it is their right to decide how that money is spent.
That wasn't what was said though, was it.
You asked how I thought a set of people contributed to society, I explained.
Either way, those living off their parents are much loss of a burden than those living off the state.
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
Are you saying it is moral that if you should need 24 hour social care when you reach old age and you have assets worth over 1/2 million myself, and all the other tax payers on Charlton Life should pay for that care without any contribution from yourself so that you can pass on those assets to your children?
Hard to know how to put this.
However the underlying premise is that Care on the NHS is "free" for the sick.
Alzheimers Disease and other forms of dementia are illnesses.
However if you are a property owner then weaselly NHS managers call the care you need as a result of your illness 'social care' rather than 'health care' because they can charge for 'social care' and compel you to sell your property.
Bear in mind that this is care that is only necessary because of the illness and we supposedly have a "free" NHS for the sick! However play with semantics and the government / NHS can mug sick, vulnerable people and steal their properties to fund their care.
Those who do not own a property are not subject to such financial penalties. Unless they have a lot of savings their care is quite properly free as one would expect under the NHS.
Please bear in mind that these evil property owners worked a lifetime paying tax and national insurance as well as buying their own properties so as not to be a burden on the social housing stock and in many cases fought a war to defend what has become a shithole of a country in many ways.
Yet when they need help from the free NHS they worked close on 50 years to fund they are denied it and have their property stolen because their illness does not permit them to resist the licenced muggers.
That is why I consider the both the thieving concept of 'social care' and inheritance tax to be morally wrong.
Here's my view. Work as hard as you like; and earn as much as you like in your lifetime. And, whether that pile of dough is minuscule or gargantuan, spend as much of it as you like, in your lifetime. But don't complain that, when you no longer have use of it yourself, we - as a country - decide to take some of it, to share among everyone, when you decide whom you want to be your beneficiaries.
I much prefer a society that agrees - through the democratic process - to share some of everyone's wealth, with everyone who needs it; than one that pursues an imbalance of wealth based entirely on accidents of birth.
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
Are you saying it is moral that if you should need 24 hour social care when you reach old age and you have assets worth over 1/2 million myself, and all the other tax payers on Charlton Life should pay for that care without any contribution from yourself so that you can pass on those assets to your children?
Hard to know how to put this.
However the underlying premise is that Care on the NHS is "free" for the sick.
Alzheimers Disease and other forms of dementia are illnesses.
However if you are a property owner then weaselly NHS managers call the care you need as a result of your illness 'social care' rather than 'health care' because they can charge for 'social care' and compel you to sell your property.
Bear in mind that this is care that is only necessary because of the illness and we supposedly have a "free" NHS for the sick! However play with semantics and the government / NHS can mug sick, vulnerable people and steal their properties to fund their care.
Those who do not own a property are not subject to such financial penalties. Unless they have a lot of savings their care is quite properly free as one would expect under the NHS.
Please bear in mind that these evil property owners worked a lifetime paying tax and national insurance as well as buying their own properties so as not to be a burden on the social housing stock and in many cases fought a war to defend what has become a shithole of a country in many ways.
Yet when they need help from the free NHS they worked close on 50 years to fund they are denied it and have their property stolen because their illness does not permit them to resist the licenced muggers.
That is why I consider the both the thieving concept of 'social care' and inheritance tax to be morally wrong.
You make some good points. I think I understand better where you are coming from now. However I disagree with your premise that the NHS was set up to deal with the sickness of 'old age'. Something it is increasingly having to do today as many more people live well into their 80s and 90s compared to 60 years ago when the NHS was set up. The increasing cost of treating the sickness of 'old age' is becoming a big burden on the NHS and the current policy of expecting people who need this treatment, who have significant assets, to contribute to this cost seems reasonable to me.
To a large extent this discussion is quite frankly academic in this day and age.
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
Are you saying it is moral that if you should need 24 hour social care when you reach old age and you have assets worth over 1/2 million myself, and all the other tax payers on Charlton Life should pay for that care without any contribution from yourself so that you can pass on those assets to your children?
Hard to know how to put this.
However the underlying premise is that Care on the NHS is "free" for the sick.
Alzheimers Disease and other forms of dementia are illnesses.
However if you are a property owner then weaselly NHS managers call the care you need as a result of your illness 'social care' rather than 'health care' because they can charge for 'social care' and compel you to sell your property.
Bear in mind that this is care that is only necessary because of the illness and we supposedly have a "free" NHS for the sick! However play with semantics and the government / NHS can mug sick, vulnerable people and steal their properties to fund their care.
Those who do not own a property are not subject to such financial penalties. Unless they have a lot of savings their care is quite properly free as one would expect under the NHS.
Please bear in mind that these evil property owners worked a lifetime paying tax and national insurance as well as buying their own properties so as not to be a burden on the social housing stock and in many cases fought a war to defend what has become a shithole of a country in many ways.
Yet when they need help from the free NHS they worked close on 50 years to fund they are denied it and have their property stolen because their illness does not permit them to resist the licenced muggers.
That is why I consider the both the thieving concept of 'social care' and inheritance tax to be morally wrong.
You make some good points. I think I understand better where you are coming from now. However I disagree with your premise that the NHS was set up to deal with the sickness of 'old age'. Something it is increasingly having to do today as many more people live well into their 80s and 90s compared to 60 years ago when the NHS was set up. The increasing cost of treating the sickness of 'old age' is becoming a big burden on the NHS and the current policy of expecting people who need this treatment, who have significant assets, to contribute to this cost seems reasonable to me.
You don't have be old or suffering an age related illness to be liable for your care. Hopefully when my time comes I'll Be brave enough and aware to make my own decisions. Thin end of the wedge,paying for healthcare.
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
I included mummy and daddy in the set of people, they have earned that money, paid and continue to pay tax on those earnings, it is their right to decide how that money is spent.
That wasn't what was said though, was it.
You asked how I thought a set of people contributed to society, I explained.
Either way, those living off their parents are much loss of a burden than those living off the state.
Incorrect. Read the thread, a specific question was put, an answer was given, then you suddenly brought the parents into the equation to suit your argument. Moving the goalposts, that's the expression I believe. You are right, but that was not the point made originally.
That's up to them and their conscience as to whether to accept this lifestyle but I know people who happily do and in 10 or 20 years time will also be inheriting multimillion pound properties, which our government feels should now be exempt from tax on the first million.
Sorry but that just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Or perhaps it's a compromise, the government couldn't see a better way to avoid those with less than a million being taxed.
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
The government with their endless propaganda about what a burden the unemployed and unfit for work are on our tax revenues certainly appear to think there is a huge difference, Dippenhall. One lot they are always picking on (and not without justification in SOME cases) the others they are falling over themselves to appease and make even more comfortable...
One set of people contribute to society，the other doesn't.
How do the people who choose not to work and live off Mummy and Daddy's money contribute to society Stu?
I included mummy and daddy in the set of people, they have earned that money, paid and continue to pay tax on those earnings, it is their right to decide how that money is spent.
That wasn't what was said though, was it.
You asked how I thought a set of people contributed to society, I explained.
Either way, those living off their parents are much loss of a burden than those living off the state.
Incorrect. Read the thread, a specific question was put, an answer was given, then you suddenly brought the parents into the equation to suit your argument. Moving the goalposts, that's the expression I believe. You are right, but that was not the point made originally.
How can the parents not be in the equation, it's them spending the money.
Comments
By the way, what's the difference if you choose not to work if you are poor and have the State look after you, but it's wrong if you choose not to work, are rich, and mummy and daddy look after you?
Inheritance tax is now called 'social care' and the cynical aim of successive parasitic governments in stopping decent hard working people passing on the hard won fruits of their labours to their children or grandchildren is simply achieved under another guise as the NHS tells sick property owners that they are receiving social care rather than health care therefore they have to sell their properties to fund their treatment and care.
Source? Personal family experience.
However, ignoring the significant 'social care' point I make for a moment, I consider inheritance tax to be an immoral tax as in my view it is a basic human right and instinct to provide for and protect your family which leaving one's assets to one's children does.
The points made about about property are something of a red herring. If it is the principal private residence (PPR) it is exempt from capital gains tax in the event of sale anyway so it makes no difference if a parent passes their PPR to their children. The property will gain a probate value on death and if the children subsequently sell it capital gains tax will be payable (subject to individual annual exemptions) as that property is unlikely to be their principal private residence.
However the property issue will soon be taken care of via 'social care' anyway as I opened with.
You're right about the social care part -- but to my mind IHT is a decent way of covering that, payable whether you needed that care or were lucky enough (and it IS luck) to live out your last days at home
I've struggled over more than 30 years to pay off my mortgage, which admittedly includes a substantial further advance to enable me to assist other family members, and have continually had worries as to whether there would be enough to meet the months bills.
I don't (and have never) smoke, go on holiday, have Sky television and drink rarely as I am always driving either for work or family reasons so I have not squandered my earnings. The margins have just been very tight.
In those circumstances I consider my property 'hard won' but you probably consider me a wimp!
I've struggled over more than 30 years to pay off my mortgage, which admittedly includes a substantial further advance to enable me to assist other family members, and have continually had worries as to whether there would be enough to meet the months bills.
I don't (and have never) smoke, go on holiday, have Sky television and drink rarely as I am always driving either for work or family reasons so I have not squandered my earnings. The margins have just been very tight.
Given all that I consider my property 'hard won' but you probably consider me a wimp!
As someone whose grandparents were pretty poor, and had all died by the time I was 5, I don't find it greatly appealing that a lot of people's life chances are now down to how much of a pile their elderly relatives leave them. My kids are likely to be on the lucky side of that argument, but it depresses me somewhat that we have regressed over the last 20-30 years, such that a hard-working middle-earner stands little chance of getting on the housing ladder without family help. Skewing the tax system towards property will surely make that situation worse
What do they take from Society just for being rich?
Perhaps they save the NHS money by going private and save the education system from collapsing by going to private schools.
Perhaps they buy goods and services that provide VAT and employment for more people to earn money and pay tax.
Perhaps it's better that mummy and daddy give them money to spend to generate economic activity than keep it themselves and stuff it under the mattress.
Perhaps they attend charity auctions and being so dumb pay squillions for a shirt signed by Simon Church.
Just because there are people we dislike because they are rich bastards, doesn't mean they don't contribute to society.
Anyway, their wealth will be gone in a generation if they bring up their kids like that, so no need to get too worked up. Sensible view would be to show pity rather than animosity and envy.
If you have over £23,250 in capital you will be assessed as being able to meet the full cost of your care.
If you own your home then it will usually be counted as capital 12 weeks after you move permanently into a care home. (Unless, say, your spouse still lives there.)
Either way, those living off their parents are much loss of a burden than those living off the state.
However the underlying premise is that Care on the NHS is "free" for the sick.
Alzheimers Disease and other forms of dementia are illnesses.
However if you are a property owner then weaselly NHS managers call the care you need as a result of your illness 'social care' rather than 'health care' because they can charge for 'social care' and compel you to sell your property.
Bear in mind that this is care that is only necessary because of the illness and we supposedly have a "free" NHS for the sick! However play with semantics and the government / NHS can mug sick, vulnerable people and steal their properties to fund their care.
Those who do not own a property are not subject to such financial penalties. Unless they have a lot of savings their care is quite properly free as one would expect under the NHS.
Please bear in mind that these evil property owners worked a lifetime paying tax and national insurance as well as buying their own properties so as not to be a burden on the social housing stock and in many cases fought a war to defend what has become a shithole of a country in many ways.
Yet when they need help from the free NHS they worked close on 50 years to fund they are denied it and have their property stolen because their illness does not permit them to resist the licenced muggers.
That is why I consider the both the thieving concept of 'social care' and inheritance tax to be morally wrong.
I much prefer a society that agrees - through the democratic process - to share some of everyone's wealth, with everyone who needs it; than one that pursues an imbalance of wealth based entirely on accidents of birth.
Hopefully when my time comes I'll Be brave enough and aware to make my own decisions.
Thin end of the wedge,paying for healthcare.
Don't "Stay too long."
Do "Spend my money."
The "Writing's on the Wall"
"Welcome to Hell"