Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

What has brexit to do with death taxes Fred?

labour would certainly be very happy to raise more by way of IHT ....

fred - have not labour suggested as much or similar? .... labour is of course very happy to strip you of your wealth while you're still alive

=============

on a non-partisan note, apart from the misconception that nhs should look after us for free and regardless from cradle to grave, is there actually good reason why one should not be obliged to take care of oneself if one has the means?

Social care funding in the UK is currently means-tested. Anyone with assets over £23,250 has to pay for it excluding the value of their house if they are cared for in their own home. But the value of the house may be considered if they move into a care home unless a close relative is still living in the property.

Significantly, the 2015 Conservative manifesto under David Cameron proposed that by 2020 there would be a cap of £72,000 on any social care fees. This meant that for the first time since the Second World War, there would have been a limit on how much people had to pay for their care.

But now Tories are saying in their 2017 Conservative manifesto, that anyone with assets over £100,000, including any property, will have to pay for their care after they die.

This means that people who previously were cared for at home, who got help without the cost of their property being taken into account, will now have to pay huge fees.

Andrew Marr pointed out the following discrepancy:

1. The value of a person's house, if they are being cared for at home is now being classed as an asset.

Using an example of a family in Twickenham to make the point:

An average house there costs £545,000… The chap’s got early on-site dementia. He’s being cared for in his home. He’s got a little bit of money in the bank but not much. Under the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposals they could lose virtually everything.
Their children and their grandchildren who were hoping to inherit some of that wealth won’t be able to.

This is a vast secret inheritance tax!

Stealth tax

In fact, even the Bow Group in its Press Release on Elderly Care, itself a Conservative think tank, has called the proposals the “biggest stealth tax in history”:

It is a tax on death and on inheritance. It will mean that in the end, the government will have taken the lions share of a lifetime earnings in taxes. If enacted, it is likely to represent the biggest stealth tax in history and when people understand that they will be leaving most of their estate to the government, rather than their families, the Conservative Party will experience a dramatic loss of support.

Why has she done it?

The older voter [ with a house and saving's ] , votes Tory. This will lose vote's, why didn't they wait until after the election. It goes against everything Thatcher stood for.

She is frightened about paying the bills which will come in after Brexit.

Couldn't do it after Election as it wouldn't be in manifesto and would be voted down in Lords.

MaxK

"Why has she done it?"


Ask yourself what age group in the main voted for Brexit....Who will this death
policy effect the most?.

Most of us are aware that the establishment do NOT want to LEAVE the EU, the
fact that the tory's have this death tax in their manifesto gives sceptics like me
the idea that May wants to diminish their lead they have in an effort to get an hung
parliament, thus she would have an excuse and put the blame on the coalition party
to water down brexit to being meaningless..

I will not vote Tory... taxing our loved ones for our death... disgusting.

This may be the problem with having this big lead at the start , they feel they can get away with policies that are unpopular , since the start they've made poor choices , now Labour are coming out with policies that sound good to certain groups . There's been a big rush to register and that suggests people want to make a point , if they carry on like this the Cons are in trouble .

ALL the news channels are pushing it being the last day for registration,
and the registration site will close at 11.59pm..Unless of course there is
a malfunction and the site goes down like it did before the referendum,
which allowed cameron to extend the registration availability by several
days..All in the attempt to get as many of those who were most likely to
vote 'remain' to register...

You've got to understand the deception the establishment WILL go too in
avoiding a brexit..

bugger off fred :-)

the fact of the matter is that the country cannot afford free cradle to grave health care

without getting into contentious side-issues, while this is assuredly a serious asset grab that just may be used in part for nhs benefit, what other suggestions do you guys have?

btw, both my parents and and also in-laws were cared for at home in their last years, partly by their respective spouses, but also with expert outside help when required
most assuredly this was not paid for by the state

The problem as I see it, is that the very people who the tories supposedly look out for are the main targets for this tax.

People who have worked and saved, bought a house etc, are now in the firing line.

The feckless will continue to draw on the state and the rich don't give a toss as they wont be effected.


I am at a loss to explain the logic behind the tory position.

because the tories are still likely to end up with something like a 40 seat majority
when one has a tight election, as is usually the case, all parties steer clear of contentious tax issues such as this

it still won't be an easy law to frame, for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons

Manuel,

Post 76953

Bugger off Jack.

Seems you believe in the "I am alright Jack" approach to other peoples' lives.

I think you are getting to be a little creaky.

Watch out they have care plans for you.

-=-=-=-=

Could scrap Trident, which will probably be obsolete by the time of introduction, and as a right winged banana state the UK won't need it.

so come on the fred ...... you're great at slagging off everyone and everything, so tell us how you would propose to fund nhs ..... scrapping trident might give you a one-off saving - let's ignore how it would decimate the scottish economy yet further - but what then?

certainly you (profess to) hate anything to do with inherited wealth, so why would you suddenly spring to its defense?
in this instance, it becomes a version of iht, and presumably not even enforceable until the 2nd partner has died, and that leaves aside how this tax might be mitigated or even circumvented by other perfectly legit means

Nothing wrong with the tax except the amount which can be kept is too low. I can see this being adjusted upwards before the law is passed.

"inherited wealth".

Interesting expression.

Reminds me of typical torrid party morality and its values:

"O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,"

and

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,"

-=-=-=-=-=

The wealth or of a country is produced by "all" of that country. (Not necessarily in easily observed ways. How that wealth is distributed is the problem.

Your luck is probably down to the family you were born into. Their luck is questionable.

8-)