As we all know there are many unfair forms of taxation out there. From having to pay death duties, to corporation tax. We all think most taxes are unfair, but to have to sell your house when you are elderly to pay for your care, is one of the worst I think.
Now the Tories have come up with this if they get into power...
Take two scenarios in life....scenario one.
A couple buy their house when they are young and have their kids and go through the massive struggles in life, to pay for their mortgage and everything else.
They may move a couple of times to a bigger property in a nicer location. After a long hard slog they pay off their mortgage and then retire on the fruits of their hard work. Then one of them dies and at some point the other person falls ill. They become so ill they need long term care in a residential home. To pay for that care you will be FORCED to sell your property that you have paid for through your money you have already been taxed on, to pay for your care.
The long hard years of paying for your house and giving up some of the nicer things in life, all end up being for nothing as residential care is so expensive that the money you get from the sale of your house, could be spent on your care in as little as five years.
Scenario two...
A couple rent a flat when they get together and then after a while move into a rented house. They have their kids but because of reasons known only to some, neither one of them work.
They spend years on benefits but spend it all on booze and fags, and save nothing for their old age. Their kids get free school dinners, they pay nothing for their prescriptions ( £ for each item now )and generally live week to week with no long term ambition.
They retire and one of them dies and then the other one falls seriously ill and needs long term care. That person has no money saved as has just blown it all over the years, so gets everything for free.
So it seems that you can be rewarded in life for not bothering whereby for those that sacrifice many things to make their lives better when old, ends up costing you more than you think.
I do not think £8000 should have to be paid at all. I think if you have worked hard all of your life to own your own home, why then heck should you be FORCED to sell it, just because you decided to buy rather than rent. I do not see the logic here other than the Governments see an opportunity to grab some of the money back, where in a persons case of just blowing their money over the years, they have nothing to grab back.
I know there are only two scenarios here, and no doubt there are many others but I think the gist of it is there......do not save for your old age as it could end up biting you up your arse. Spend your money whilst you have it because if you don't the powers that be will take it from you.
Tax unfair?.....on this occasion not only unfair but downright criminal.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Do not fall ill when old
last reply
19 replies
976 views
0 watchers
0 likes
It's called "means testing".
It applies to almost every benefit there is. Apart from disability: Most times.
Take unemployment benefit (now jobseekers allowance). That is per person. If the total income of the others in the household is more than then other benefits are disallowed.
Or incapacity benefit (now employment support allowance). The benefit is the same, the other benefits also have the same provisions applying. The difference is that ESA is subject to medical assessment now. Every claimant has to be examined by a private medical company to see whether they can still claim. The company is paid by result, work it out. Bear in mind that the NHS also does occupational health services....but you wouldn't want to use doctors that assess people on their actual condition would you....much easier to use a service that is paid a flat rate for a "no, not fit for work" and the same rate for a "yes, fit for work" and a bonus.
Interestingly, claimants on JA and ESA are now unable to claim free prescriptions or dental care (that is, those on contributions based allowance....which 75% of claimants are on)
The shift from incapacity benefit to employment support allowance saves the government a very large amount of money on prescriptions (as another aside: A course of antibiotics costs the NHS about (amoxycillin 250mg).... but costs the patient )
So the old and frugal are penalised the same as everyone else.
What's new then ?
As for those who "didn't spend their money on mortgages"...maybe they never had enough to be able to afford one ?
Don't forget...everyone gets tax benefit for their children now (depending on income)....Al I got was child allowance...and nothing else...having children now is a ticket to easy street (moneywise....if you are a bit bright)
It applies to almost every benefit there is. Apart from disability: Most times.
Take unemployment benefit (now jobseekers allowance). That is per person. If the total income of the others in the household is more than then other benefits are disallowed.
Or incapacity benefit (now employment support allowance). The benefit is the same, the other benefits also have the same provisions applying. The difference is that ESA is subject to medical assessment now. Every claimant has to be examined by a private medical company to see whether they can still claim. The company is paid by result, work it out. Bear in mind that the NHS also does occupational health services....but you wouldn't want to use doctors that assess people on their actual condition would you....much easier to use a service that is paid a flat rate for a "no, not fit for work" and the same rate for a "yes, fit for work" and a bonus.
Interestingly, claimants on JA and ESA are now unable to claim free prescriptions or dental care (that is, those on contributions based allowance....which 75% of claimants are on)
The shift from incapacity benefit to employment support allowance saves the government a very large amount of money on prescriptions (as another aside: A course of antibiotics costs the NHS about (amoxycillin 250mg).... but costs the patient )
So the old and frugal are penalised the same as everyone else.
What's new then ?
As for those who "didn't spend their money on mortgages"...maybe they never had enough to be able to afford one ?
Don't forget...everyone gets tax benefit for their children now (depending on income)....Al I got was child allowance...and nothing else...having children now is a ticket to easy street (moneywise....if you are a bit bright)
Sex God
You wouldn't be recommending a system whereby everyone receives equal treatment would you ?? a kind of universal system where everyone is the same ??
Bloody pinko liberal socialists they get in everywhere
Bloody pinko liberal socialists they get in everywhere
Am with you on this kent - its awful.
If you need to go to a care home and you have your own home, you have already paid tax on the wages paying the mortgage and quite possibly stamp duty too. Equally if you die in the house you have worked hard and paid for your relations get stung with inheritance tax another god awful tax. And if your lucky enough to earn enough you get stung with higher tax band too lol !
There is no real incentive here to better your self and work/save hard.
If you need to go to a care home and you have your own home, you have already paid tax on the wages paying the mortgage and quite possibly stamp duty too. Equally if you die in the house you have worked hard and paid for your relations get stung with inheritance tax another god awful tax. And if your lucky enough to earn enough you get stung with higher tax band too lol !
There is no real incentive here to better your self and work/save hard.
The IHT threshold is £325, The taxation rate is 40% on a value over that.
There are loads of exemptions to the spouse (etc)
There are also various schemes to avoid that tax.
If you do not like paying taxes here, you could move to another country: Where you will continue to pay taxes but with different names.
There are loads of exemptions to the spouse (etc)
There are also various schemes to avoid that tax.
If you do not like paying taxes here, you could move to another country: Where you will continue to pay taxes but with different names.
Quote by JTS
The IHT threshold is £325, The taxation rate is 40% on a value over that.
There are loads of exemptions to the spouse (etc)
There are also various schemes to avoid that tax.
If you do not like paying taxes here, you could move to another country: Where you will continue to pay taxes but with different names.
I have already said about various taxes, that is not the issue here.
Once again for fear of repeating myself.....why should you be forced to sell your home to pay for your care, when you have paid tax at source already on your mortgage payments???
You are getting hit twice. Forget about " other " taxes, it is this tax I am talking about.
Move the the USA.
Where those without, stay without.
And where you will still be taxed on your income and still pay for your care home.
Or: You could sort-out an insurance to pay for your care and then claim tax relief on the premiums.
Your choice.
There are loads of options to sort the problem of possible tax on your estate. You could always give it away to your relatives...or arrange multiple ownership...
Where those without, stay without.
And where you will still be taxed on your income and still pay for your care home.
Or: You could sort-out an insurance to pay for your care and then claim tax relief on the premiums.
Your choice.
There are loads of options to sort the problem of possible tax on your estate. You could always give it away to your relatives...or arrange multiple ownership...
Sex God
To the best of my knowledge this is how it is now anyway.
We had to sell granddads house when he went into residential care - no choice in the matter.
Regarding the colmments about USA - this is very relevant at the moment as there is a huge healthcare reform debate going on. Their insurance backed healthcare system is so expensive that the whole ageing society problem is a ticking time bomb in the USA as so many people have Medicair through work but nothing privately and with 10% now unemployed and an ageing population it could be a big problem.
Not sure what the answer is for the UK though because ultimately someone has to pay for the healthcare in later life and by the time we are there there will be twice as many people retired and alive than there will be working.
Tax increases anyone??
We had to sell granddads house when he went into residential care - no choice in the matter.
Regarding the colmments about USA - this is very relevant at the moment as there is a huge healthcare reform debate going on. Their insurance backed healthcare system is so expensive that the whole ageing society problem is a ticking time bomb in the USA as so many people have Medicair through work but nothing privately and with 10% now unemployed and an ageing population it could be a big problem.
Not sure what the answer is for the UK though because ultimately someone has to pay for the healthcare in later life and by the time we are there there will be twice as many people retired and alive than there will be working.
Tax increases anyone??
Take out insurance early.
We are already seeing the alterations going through the system now: the retirement age is soon going up, and will go up further. The reason given is that the population is getting healthier in old age...the real reason is that they need to save money.
Major changes are taking place in the benefits regime. Disabled people, and people with chronic ailments, are no longer "allowed" to draw benefit indefinitely. Since the introduction of ESA each claimant is being medically assessed for fitness to work. Even limbless people are being assessed as having a limited ability to work. These changes will gradually include all those claiming as sick/disabled.
All this is not so much to save US money as to save money FROM us to pay THEM. The public service pension is the most underfunded pension in the world. Even those now paying part of their salary as pension do not have those deductions invested: They are used to pay the already retired. Projecting the cost/s forward sees the public service pension black hole increase over the next 10 years to nearly 1.5 pounds.
That is the problem.
We are already seeing the alterations going through the system now: the retirement age is soon going up, and will go up further. The reason given is that the population is getting healthier in old age...the real reason is that they need to save money.
Major changes are taking place in the benefits regime. Disabled people, and people with chronic ailments, are no longer "allowed" to draw benefit indefinitely. Since the introduction of ESA each claimant is being medically assessed for fitness to work. Even limbless people are being assessed as having a limited ability to work. These changes will gradually include all those claiming as sick/disabled.
All this is not so much to save US money as to save money FROM us to pay THEM. The public service pension is the most underfunded pension in the world. Even those now paying part of their salary as pension do not have those deductions invested: They are used to pay the already retired. Projecting the cost/s forward sees the public service pension black hole increase over the next 10 years to nearly 1.5 pounds.
That is the problem.
Quote by JTS
Move the the USA.
Where those without, stay without.
And where you will still be taxed on your income and still pay for your care home.
Or: You could sort-out an insurance to pay for your care and then claim tax relief on the premiums.
Your choice.
There are loads of options to sort the problem of possible tax on your estate. You could always give it away to your relatives...or arrange multiple ownership...
That won't work...
They can back-claim if they see it as a tax avoidance issue :shock:
Sex God
Heres going to be one radical and unpopular idea courtesy of me 
All estates become the property of the state on the death of the last remaining owner. No passing on property to anyone after your gone. All cash realised and kept by the state. I know that would mean a mass giving of stuff away before anyone gets to elderly but hey i'm an ideas man - leave the implementation up to others :D
All estates become the property of the state on the death of the last remaining owner. No passing on property to anyone after your gone. All cash realised and kept by the state. I know that would mean a mass giving of stuff away before anyone gets to elderly but hey i'm an ideas man - leave the implementation up to others :D
There is a world of difference between arranging your estate to AVOID taxation after death and fraudulently evading tax.
Your estate is taxed at 40% on anything over £325, The executors have to value the estate and pay the tax due before they can arrange dispersal of the property (etc)
There are a whole rake of plans to avoid the tax. Planning for death is part of living: Get used to it. If you own property you should already have thought of things like that....if you haven't....do it.
You need a will.
That's the starting point.
If you're married (or partnered) and the property is in one name....you need advice.
As far as death and taxation is concerned, tomorrow is too late.
Don't forget, you could even give it all away....if you live longer than seven years after the gift then no death taxes can be levied on that gift (although the recipients may well be liable...)
Your estate is taxed at 40% on anything over £325, The executors have to value the estate and pay the tax due before they can arrange dispersal of the property (etc)
There are a whole rake of plans to avoid the tax. Planning for death is part of living: Get used to it. If you own property you should already have thought of things like that....if you haven't....do it.
You need a will.
That's the starting point.
If you're married (or partnered) and the property is in one name....you need advice.
As far as death and taxation is concerned, tomorrow is too late.
Don't forget, you could even give it all away....if you live longer than seven years after the gift then no death taxes can be levied on that gift (although the recipients may well be liable...)
kenty, ask yourself this question, "in who's interest's does it serve"? taxation that is, and enslavement to the state. taxation serve's the interest's of those who pay little or no taxes and i dont mean those on unemployment or sickness benefit.
the middle classes who become impoverished by increased taxation and falling income in an asset collapsing enviroment (depression) are easily diverted to blame the "have not's" for their demise. the system is designed to drive you back into poverty and desperation while the real criminals make off with the loot. i've put up an article for discussion and would be interested in your thought's. dave
the middle classes who become impoverished by increased taxation and falling income in an asset collapsing enviroment (depression) are easily diverted to blame the "have not's" for their demise. the system is designed to drive you back into poverty and desperation while the real criminals make off with the loot. i've put up an article for discussion and would be interested in your thought's. dave
Sex God
the problem is kenty like jts said is that it is already means tested...
at the moment, If you have assets of more than 23k then you don't state sponsored long term residential care payed for, which is were the selling of properties to pay for care cames from
so this was a tory proposal to counter people having to sell there homes to fund this...
I don't say I agree or disagree this, I got my house because the family I bought this from thru the estate agents had to do this....
kenty... it is going to have to be addressed at some point with the population getting older and older.... so what would you suggest? if you are going to scrap means testing, then what are you going to cut to fund this? all well and good suggesting one thing, but you don't say how you are going to pay for the outlay?
at the moment, If you have assets of more than 23k then you don't state sponsored long term residential care payed for, which is were the selling of properties to pay for care cames from
so this was a tory proposal to counter people having to sell there homes to fund this...
I don't say I agree or disagree this, I got my house because the family I bought this from thru the estate agents had to do this....
kenty... it is going to have to be addressed at some point with the population getting older and older.... so what would you suggest? if you are going to scrap means testing, then what are you going to cut to fund this? all well and good suggesting one thing, but you don't say how you are going to pay for the outlay?
Fabs....this tax may well be means tested, but it should be taken out of that category.
How should this care be paid for? Well as a taxpayer for over 55 years my Father owns his own house. He has paid his NHS contributions for the same ammount of time, yet himself he has rarely taken anything back, for all the years of paying in.
So why if the need arose would he have to sell his house to pay for his long term care? He has already paid into the poxy system for over half a century, yet the money is obviously there to pay for people that have contributed jack shit.
Example....we have a South African Asian working at my firm, who is living with a Polish woman. She has a child from another relationship and they together have twin boys who are a year old now.
She has never contributed nothing into our system, and he very little as he was originally over here on a students visa.
They in the short space of four years have taken more out of the NHS than my Father has in forty years, plus they have contributed next to nothing, whereby he has contributed for years and years.
So I ask again.....why should he possibly be forced to sell his home, that he has paid tax on through his taxed wages, to pay for his elderly care, even though he has paid into the said system for 50 years?
I know it is means tested, but why the heck should it be? He would have been better off spunking his money down the bookies or the boozer, saving nothing and then getting it all for free like so many others do, that have NOT saved for their old age.
He paid into a pension for years and years, and now because that pension takes his money over 12 grand a year in income, he has to pay flucking tax every year too. He is 77 ffs.
What pisses me off is the system bends over backwards for people that have put nothing in, but takes a shit load from people who have paid into it all their lives.....sorry it's bollox and unfair on the elderly all because they have tried to put things by for their retirement.
So anyone out there who is doing this I would say...stop....spend and spunk it all away, for getting older they will take it from you in one way or another. Or unless you decide to " give it away ", but then pray you do not snuff it before the seven years are up.
How should this care be paid for? Well as a taxpayer for over 55 years my Father owns his own house. He has paid his NHS contributions for the same ammount of time, yet himself he has rarely taken anything back, for all the years of paying in.
So why if the need arose would he have to sell his house to pay for his long term care? He has already paid into the poxy system for over half a century, yet the money is obviously there to pay for people that have contributed jack shit.
Example....we have a South African Asian working at my firm, who is living with a Polish woman. She has a child from another relationship and they together have twin boys who are a year old now.
She has never contributed nothing into our system, and he very little as he was originally over here on a students visa.
They in the short space of four years have taken more out of the NHS than my Father has in forty years, plus they have contributed next to nothing, whereby he has contributed for years and years.
So I ask again.....why should he possibly be forced to sell his home, that he has paid tax on through his taxed wages, to pay for his elderly care, even though he has paid into the said system for 50 years?
I know it is means tested, but why the heck should it be? He would have been better off spunking his money down the bookies or the boozer, saving nothing and then getting it all for free like so many others do, that have NOT saved for their old age.
He paid into a pension for years and years, and now because that pension takes his money over 12 grand a year in income, he has to pay flucking tax every year too. He is 77 ffs.
What pisses me off is the system bends over backwards for people that have put nothing in, but takes a shit load from people who have paid into it all their lives.....sorry it's bollox and unfair on the elderly all because they have tried to put things by for their retirement.
So anyone out there who is doing this I would say...stop....spend and spunk it all away, for getting older they will take it from you in one way or another. Or unless you decide to " give it away ", but then pray you do not snuff it before the seven years are up.
Quote by kentswingers777
Fabs....this tax may well be means tested, but it should be taken out of that category.
How should this care be paid for? Well as a taxpayer for over 55 years my Father owns his own house. He has paid his NHS contributions for the same ammount of time, yet himself he has rarely taken anything back, for all the years of paying in.
So why if the need arose would he have to sell his house to pay for his long term care? He has already paid into the poxy system for over half a century, yet the money is obviously there to pay for people that have contributed jack shit.
Example....we have a South African Asian working at my firm, who is living with a Polish woman. She has a child from another relationship and they together have twin boys who are a year old now.
She has never contributed nothing into our system, and he very little as he was originally over here on a students visa.
They in the short space of four years have taken more out of the NHS than my Father has in forty years, plus they have contributed next to nothing, whereby he has contributed for years and years.
So I ask again.....why should he possibly be forced to sell his home, that he has paid tax on through his taxed wages, to pay for his elderly care, even though he has paid into the said system for 50 years?
I know it is means tested, but why the heck should it be? He would have been better off spunking his money down the bookies or the boozer, saving nothing and then getting it all for free like so many others do, that have NOT saved for their old age.
He paid into a pension for years and years, and now because that pension takes his money over 12 grand a year in income, he has to pay flucking tax every year too. He is 77 ffs.
What pisses me off is the system bends over backwards for people that have put nothing in, but takes a shit load from people who have paid into it all their lives.....sorry it's bollox and unfair on the elderly all because they have tried to put things by for their retirement.
So anyone out there who is doing this I would say...stop....spend and spunk it all away, for getting older they will take it from you in one way or another. Or unless you decide to " give it away ", but then pray you do not snuff it before the seven years are up.
And one of the first things GB did as Chancellor when NuLabour took power was, he filched all the profits from the pension funds :shock:
Sex God
Picture the scene.
I buy a house. I pay it off - no mortgage and very nice it is too.
Once I get older I can't do the stairs any more. So I move into a rented bungalow. I want my son to inherit the house so I tell the government (ie the taxpayer) to get on with paying my rent while my house waits for me to pop off and get passed to my son.
Question:
Why is it ok to insist on retaining one home while someone else pays for me to live in an entirely different one?
If I live somewhere I expect to pay to live there. Whatever my age. If I have been lucky enough to develop savings (as a house or in cash) I expect to use them to pay for my old age. That's why I am saving, paying mortgage and paying into my pension - so I can pay for MY old age.
If I am unfortuntae enough not to have managed any savings I will need help. And I would never deny anyone the right to care, shelter and comfort in old age. But I would NEVER expect to profit by taking benefits WHEN I DON'T NEED THEM.
I buy a house. I pay it off - no mortgage and very nice it is too.
Once I get older I can't do the stairs any more. So I move into a rented bungalow. I want my son to inherit the house so I tell the government (ie the taxpayer) to get on with paying my rent while my house waits for me to pop off and get passed to my son.
Question:
Why is it ok to insist on retaining one home while someone else pays for me to live in an entirely different one?
If I live somewhere I expect to pay to live there. Whatever my age. If I have been lucky enough to develop savings (as a house or in cash) I expect to use them to pay for my old age. That's why I am saving, paying mortgage and paying into my pension - so I can pay for MY old age.
If I am unfortuntae enough not to have managed any savings I will need help. And I would never deny anyone the right to care, shelter and comfort in old age. But I would NEVER expect to profit by taking benefits WHEN I DON'T NEED THEM.
Sex God
You may well have paid taxes and NI contributions from 15 to 65 but unfortunately that goes into the daily cash flow of UK PLC and not into a savings pot.
The big, big problem is just about to happen when the cash flow cannot pay for the aged because there are too few people of working age contributing.
The big, big problem is just about to happen when the cash flow cannot pay for the aged because there are too few people of working age contributing.
