General Election June 2017

Its an absolutely evil policy. A person's house has been paid for with money that has been taxed already, including NI which is supposed to cover the cost of your social care anyway.

This won't affect wealthy property owners, they will have enough cash in the bank to pay for their own care anyway. To scrape from ordinary people's estates is evil to the core.

@greenhell calling you a Tory cunt in 3, 2, 1...

(when he does I'm going to agree with him)

I bet you'd have to pay inheritance tax on what is left too. They can fuck right off.

EDIT: The government is already taking 12% of my annual income in addition to income tax to pay into the health and social care pot. Why not divert a portion of stamp duty to the shortfall instead? They can double fuck off!

Start here and come back with any questions:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/oct/07/comment.inheritancetax

Actually, I don't think you're a cunt. I think you've probably just not thought it through.

There is definitely value in a proportionate inheritance tax. I just think that a system where even basic rate tax payers pay over 40p in the pound (once you total everything up) shouldn't be fleecing people for any care they need in the future.

On the flip side, May currently has a majority of 12 - woop de doo. 331 seats.

But just a 2% swing would result in 420 seats and a 190 majority.

To lose seats to Labour there would need to be a swing to Labour from 2015, which seems unlikely. Still, fingers crossed...

To scrape from ordinary people's estates is evil to the core.

No it's not. Why? Because it's been doubly taxed? That makes no sense. Is any policy, however progressive, which involves something being taxed twice morally repugnant to you?

All inheritance does is further social inequality by giving people money and/or assets that they haven't earned. Fuck inheritance.

The whole problem is that there's not enough money for social care. Increasing the basic rate of tax is one option, but personally I'd rather pay for my social care when I'm dead and don't care.

You can't take it with you.

I thought one of the most important things for dementia patients were familiar surroundings and stability, so forcing them to sell their homes and move out of them (have I understood that correctly?) would seem to be wrong. (I have to say that in this I don't really care if the person concerned is rich or not--you simply don't treat vulnerable people that way.)

I think they can sell the house AFTER, the government then takes money out of the sale.

Yes, I think double taxation is murky and shit. Why should anybody pay 12% of their income towards possible health and social care costs and then have to stump up a chunk of their house value at death?

Sure, there are strong a guments for inheritance tax. I agree that I can't write that off as unfair double taxation, but the dementia tax definitely is.

A person on the average UK salary could expect to pay £150,000 of national insurance between the age of 20 and 60. Not forgetting that employers pay similar into the pot. £300,000 per average earner...shouldn't that be enough?

I agree with inheritance leading to more inequality.

But I also find it hard to trust the government not to screw over my kid after I'm gone.

See the dilemma? How can it be sold? :)

Not when every NHS Trust has a (tory voting?) Director of Communications on £100k+.

The government won't be dirtying their hands with this job. They'll give it to our wonderful financial services industry, who have a long track record of dealing sensitively with people in an equitable way.

shouldn't that be enough?

I think the point is that it's not enough. The care system is at breaking point and needs more money. Care is expensive. Your £150k pays for 3 years if you just get old, maybe 1 or 2 if you get ill.

Those that can afford to pay should pay, one way or the other.

Everything you buy with VAT is double-taxed, as is fuel and booze and all sorts of other stuff. Is that murky and shit?

I think there should be at least 80% inheritance tax, maybe even 100%.

Just watched May being interviewed by Andrew Neil. No wonder she's been hiding away, she was utterly useless. Not that defending, as Neil put it, "breaking a manifesto pledge before the election has even been held", would ever be easy. Noticed they've started to slip the word 'fake' in as well, taking a leaf from Trump's book.

I'm so old, I can remember my father's grandmother, living with his aunt in her family home.
This in back in the mid-'60s.
Don't think any working people expected the state to care for aged family members in their dotage. No idea if she, (fathers' grandmother), slipped into dementia, or just died of old age.

HM yeah fair enough. No guarantees of fairness.

Tories now hostage to another wheeze from George Osborne.
Gordon Brown, straight after his coronation, having depose Blair,
was supposedly seriously considering holding an early General Election in Autumn 2007 or Spring 2008.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jun/26/gordonbrown.labour

Osborne gazumped Brown by announcing the intention to raise the Inheritance Tax threshhold to £1M.

That exempts most householders outside of the south east.

Anyone know if the Government releases figures showing how much IT is collected each year?

https://youtu.be/v9weOAp7RmA

So she's wearing a seat belt for this interview. Expecting a car crash perhaps

Even BBC Radio4 news, (9pm), have given up polishing the turd of Maggie May's u-turn.

Spend it all before you die so they can take fuck all thats my plans.

A person on the average UK salary could expect to pay £150,000 of national insurance between the age of 20 and 60. Not forgetting that employers pay similar into the pot. £300,000 per average earner...shouldn't that be enough?

The problem is that all of this works on a PAYG system. There is no setting aside of your contributions. This works fine when you have a growing population and growth - more new entrants to the job market mean that the tax burden is spread amongst more people. The post WWII baby boom means that as the birth rate has shrunk, there are fewer people in the work force propping up the large elderly population. So the tax burden cannot be spread so thin, and they are all living longer so that adds to the longer term costs.

This is not news. This has been a known thing for 40 years and little has been done to mitigate it.

Horse. Bolt. Barn door.

Any solution sounds terrible and heartless. Although NI contributions paid out of retirement incomes would go some way to plugging that gap. I am sure that there are more clever solutions out there.

fuck me that interview was excruciating. well there goes her no claims bonus.

For a moment I thought I was watching a follow-up to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNjevGdB5g