Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35899331)

HMRC can investigate anyone whose deemed to have tried to shift their assets ahead of death/court cases/etc to avoid paying tax or penalties. I think any 'gifts' from parent to child made 5 to 10 years before the parents death can be deemed liable to tax. I imagine they can do the same here. The details of course would need to be worked out. There will now be an army of lawyers looking for such loopholes.

As for paying into the system, well a lot of us do. We still run deficits and taxation isn't a savings account. Education is expensive, healthcare is expensive, social care is expensive and pensions are very expensive. If we had a system whereby your contributions during your lifetime were the basis for your pension and social care needs in old age then a lot of people who 'paid into the systems all their lives' would be getting less, not more.

This is a fair policy in my views. It doesn't mean old people will lose their homes but it's a solution to the crisis in social care. We need to pay for social care somehow and it seems fair to me that recipients who can afford it contribute to some of the cost from their existing assets after their death.

Where else would the money came from?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35899335)

taxing the dead eh
i'll see the taxman in hell then ,bring a cold drink ;)

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35899323)

How many OAPs voted UKIP originally I wonder?

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35899341)

There's a huge problem coming up because at the moment the bank of mum and dad is increasingly helping their adult offspring to get on the housing ladder and I doubt very much that this current generation of beneficiaries will be in the same position when it's their turn. If that's the case we're going to increasingly find that the number of older people with assets is to pay for all the social care they need is going to reduce. That'll mean everyone will have to make up the difference via taxation.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35899341)

There's a huge problem coming up because at the moment the bank of mum and dad is increasingly helping their adult offspring to get on the housing ladder and I doubt very much that this current generation of beneficiaries will be in the same position when it's their turn. If that's the case we're going to increasingly find that the number of older people with assets is to pay for all the social care they need is going to reduce. That'll mean everyone will have to make up the difference via taxation.

I think we all need to accept that social care has to be paid for and is creating massive extra costs for and pressures on the NHS which it can well do without so any investment in it will be money well spent IMHO. I see no reason why this shouldn't be paid for out of extra income tax or indeed out of something a tad more imaginative like a lottery which I'm sure a lot of people would find a very worthy cause indeed, even if they choose not to support the current lottery.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35899335)

taxing the dead eh
i'll see the taxman in hell then ,bring a cold drink ;)

Originally Posted by MarkC1984 (Post 35899359)

Only 4 candidates standing in Stevenage. Conservative, Labour, Liberals and Greens. No idea who to vote for, the incumbent candidate voted to Leave the EU so might well go for him. However, none of the parties really excite me. Which would be worse, not voting or voting for the Green party?

Originally Posted by MarkC1984 (Post 35899361)

I'm guessing the fact he was FOR leaving EU, that's why UKIP aren't standing. If they had been, I would have voted for them. Now, I need to consider who I vote for. Don't know much about the Greens to be honest, I do have a manager at work who stood in the local elections for them so might ask him about their policies before I vote. Mine is a postal vote again.