advertisement


Who should pay for social care ?

The system has been designed so that the very-very few who own so much of the country, don't pay tax, so that inevitably they will eventually own all of the country. This happened before when the Church was tax exempt and took money for promise of heaven. It reached a climax when Henry VIII grabbed their assets.
 
There is no reason for anyone to be able to leave more than 100 million to their heirs tax free. Bigger businesses than that can be taxed, if they break up a bit, so what.
 
The most worrying comment there is from Hammond who seems to want to kick the door open to a US-style insurance approach. I’m sure there will be others on the Tory benches funded to push that idea.
 
davidsrsb said:
Something is wrong with a tax system that allowed the new Duke of Westminster to be worth 10B
Click to expand...

Agreed. Stinks that we have laws in place that allows such ridiculous tax loopholes, evasion and offshoring to the Caymans and Jersey.
I understand that argument of "meritocracy", but even that is supposed to be based upon people playing using the same rules. When the rich can have their own rules put in place to suit them, well it's just not on.

I have to same that my underlying wonder is whether Brexit was never about what is typically talked about in the media, and whether it was really just to allow the continuation of such stupid tax laws for the top 5%.
 
paulfromcamden said:
And to pay basically FA tax on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions
Click to expand...

Thing is, these Estates cost an absolute fortune to run and maintain. A land owner I know of, when a neighbouring Estate became available, just bought it. Lovely house and agricultural land, circa £45M. You need pretty reasonable levels of resources to do that on a whim, let alone look after it. No matter what the tax regime, it’ll be the same set of people with very deep pockets who’ll own them as custodians for future generations. If that helps keep them out of Russian hands etc, maybe it’s not all so bad.
 
Ponty said:
Thing is, these Estates cost an absolute fortune to run and maintain. A land owner I know of, when a neighbouring Estate became available, just bought it. Lovely house and agricultural land, circa £45M. You need pretty reasonable levels of resources to do that on a whim, let alone look after it. No matter what the tax regime, it’ll be the same set of people with very deep pockets who’ll own them as custodians for future generations. If that helps keep them out of Russian hands etc, maybe it’s not all so bad.
Click to expand...

But in this case the 'estate' is basically Mayfair and Belgravia.
 
I suspect Tory MP David Gawk has just dropped the underlying motivation behind the upcoming social care changes on C4 News. The implication being the tax aspect is the part that will be argued over (NI vs. income tax), but the real payload will be a fixed cap on estates and inheritance, e.g. somewhere between £40-80k as an absolute maximum that will be taken by the state to pay for a person’s end of life care. This being a fixed figure, not a percentage, is obviously entirely regressive. It would represent most if not all the inheritance someone like me could expect, yet nothing for a multi-millionaire Tory born into huge wealth to find. It will be interesting to see if this is true, and if so how they’ll try and sell it in the red-wall seats they are trying to “level up”. This is what I’ll be watching for in the fine print anyway.
 
Ponty said:
Yes, and costs a fortune to look after properly. I’d still prefer that than it falling into Russian hands.
Click to expand...

He owns the most expensive commercial property in London! Mayfair office space is £100+ per square foot. I'm sure the income must go some way to offset his costs.

I just don't see why a bloke who owns great chunks of London, with a net worth of £9 billion, should get a free pass while the rest of us are paying our way.

If he can't afford to pay his fair share the estate should be broken up and sold off. Who cares who actually owns an office block in Mayfair?
 
paulfromcamden said:
He owns the most expensive commercial property in London! Mayfair office space is £100+ per square foot. I'm sure the income must go some way to offset his costs.

I just don't see why a bloke who owns great chunks of London, with a net worth of £9 billion, should get a free pass while the rest of us are paying our way.

If he can't afford to pay his fair share the estate should be broken up and sold off. Who cares who actually owns an office block in Mayfair?
Click to expand...

Chances are, whoever owns it won’t be paying much tax on it!
 
Tony L said:
I suspect Tory MP David Gawk has just dropped the underlying motivation behind the upcoming social care changes on C4 News. The implication being the tax aspect is the part that will be argued over (NI vs. income tax), but the real payload will be a fixed cap on estates and inheritance, e.g. somewhere between £40-80k as an absolute maximum that will be taken by the state to pay for a person’s end of life care. This being a fixed figure, not a percentage, is obviously entirely regressive. It would represent most if not all the inheritance someone like me could expect, yet nothing for a multi-millionaire Tory born into huge wealth to find. It will be interesting to see if this is true, and if so how they’ll try and sell it in the red-wall seats they are trying to “level up”. This is what I’ll be watching for in the fine print anyway.
Click to expand...

It has to be a monetary value, a % of net worth simply wouldn’t work. People would be arguing over it for years. This will be zero change for the rich, they pay for whatever care they need anyway. If it prevents lots of ‘normal’ people from having to sell their home to fund care, that has to be a good thing.
 
I’ll wager any “cap” will be on social care only and care home residents will still be charged any uncapped amount for board and lodge.
 
Recently had this conversation with my Mum, as she asked me about signing over her house to me now so if it ever comes to it she doesn't have to sell it.
 
matt j said:
Recently had this conversation with my Mum, as she asked me about signing over her house to me now so if it ever comes to it she doesn't have to sell it.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of complexity in doing this. It certainly can work…just check the details. Ie will she pay you commercial rent, there’s a time scale issues…when she does this vs when she possibly goes into a home. You’d need to pay stamp duty on the house, depending on value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top