Actually it is, and it would stimulate the economy also.
And yet we had people complaining about it being called a “dementia tax”. 
What sid?
I cannot see any problem with a rich person paying for their own care.
I find your logic bizarre.
Speaking of dementia…
Transcript of May’s answers on the Andrew Neil show
I’d far rather be euthanized than die an undignified death.
Money or lack of it is irrelevant.
The only people who would actually suffer are the inheritees.
1 Like
That option should be on the social agenda in Ireland.
I spent most of my morning discussing the Fair-Deal scheme and will have a day on Thursday at a nursing home.It should be an interesting day but difficult day based on the stories I heard earlier.
1 Like
Your answers demonstrate that the policy is exactly what is being called, ie. a “dementia tax”.
I don’t count a person who bought their house under Thatcher’s right to buy scheme and has seen it rocket in value as a result of South East England’s property boom, “rich”.
And they’ll certainly be be far from rich if they’re unlucky enough to suffer from a condition that requires long-term care.
The Tories have completely torn up the advice of their own expert, Andrew Dilnot, and completely torn up the advice of their 2015 manifesto.
As Dilnot says, it’s like banning house insurance and telling everybody that you’re on your own if your house burns down, oh, but we’ll let you keep 100k, but we’re taking the burnt out house too.
The 30% - 50% income tax you are paying for your working life isn’t just sitting there waiting to pay for your social care when you retire. This is tax used for the day to day expense of running a country in addition to its use to pay you a pension when you retire.
As an example, use someone working for 40 years on the median wage of 33k, (ignoring the time value of money).If you retire by 60/65 and live to 90, drawing a pension the entire time and free health care etc, and then say you need social care costs for 5 of those years towards the end, the amount of resources you will have withdrawn from the state will far outweigh the tax you paid during your working life (when of course that tax is used for society as a whole, not just kept in some kitty for you, excluding pensions).
If you have bought a house in your early 30s it will have appreciated in value to such an extent there is a significant store of equity in it, it’s not uncommon for pensioners who may have a meagre income but primary houses with value in the hundreds of thousands, to the million range. This doesn’t imply they are part of the super rich but merely a function of how property values have appreciated over time. So assuming the tax they have paid has been more than paid back through pensions, health care, social care do you not think that when this property is sold some of it should be used to pay for social care costs at some level? Is it fair that the current tax payer has funded 5 years of substantial social care costs and then the children just inherit a million quid windfall? Working out the levels of how much and caps and so forth is obviously tricky business but I don’t think it is an unreasonable concept on the whole. Not exactly a vote winner.
If someone doesn’t have that asset value in their home, of course they should still be cared for and the bill is being subsumed by the tax payer. However, if there is wealth there this can be used to help the burden to the state, not necessarily every penny of the value. No one is getting kicked out of there homes. It is releasing some of the store of wealth to help fund their own care. The pensions/social care timebomb is constantly being kicked down the road, with the current taxpayer funding pensioners retirement costs. It is unsustainable but of course everyone wants something for nothing, someone else will pay for it.
6 Likes
Superb post mate.
I’d agree with most of that. We have a situation in Australia, in particular Sydney, where some pensioners are sitting on houses that have appreciated massively in the last 20 years in value, but are cash poor. Many draw a pension and associated health benefits, they toggle off after generally struggling for the last few years of their lives and relatives inherit a huge windfall. The issue here is that there is very little affordable housing for someone to downsize to, or else the will encouragement isn’t there for them to downsize early enough, reap some financial benefit which has a knock on effect on what they get from the state.
The timebomb you’re talking about is certainly on the way. But an example of how stupid governments and politicians are - here the Treasurer, a man with the economic understanding of a square of lichen, recently floated the idea of young people being able to access their superannuation (compulsory retirement savings) to enter the massively overinflated housing market. Which of course results in further inflating housing prices while reducing the retirement savings of the population and the subsequent knock on effect on state finances.
The superannuation rate here is currently 9.5% (so your employer pays that amount of your salary into your super account). When Paul Keating designed it, he would have had the rate at about 15% by now, but politicians are hopelessly afraid of doing anything about raising it. It should definitely be hitting 15% for everyone. Thankfully you can salary sacrifice, but few do it.
Meanwhile, it’s easier for people to buy 5 investment properties if you’re an established homeowner here through tax breaks (negative gearing) than to buy your first home if you’re young. It’s insane.
Politicians are again hugely to blame for most of this. The short sighted, self serving election cycle horizon they work in. Instead of actually working towards what will happen in 10, 20 years time and bringing the population along with them. Too easy to promise the easy thing now, we won’t cut spending, we won’t increase taxation where we should, everything will be grand sure.
1 Like
Except I pay my own pension and pay privately for my health care and don’t use any social services. I’m a net contributor and always will be. And on top of that I pay tax on my pension.
1 Like
Interesting thst few do it. Is there a tax benefit to contributing to pension yourself? Seems like a serious long term problem. 20% of my salary goes into my pension half my own contribution and half my employer.
Are you fully awake?
1 Like
Deary me
The trick to avoiding this grab is to enter old age penniless and at the mercy of the state.
Takes trust in your nearest and dearest, but how hum.
Huh
There are significant tax reliefs available when you divert income to your pension
Age Amount which qualifies for tax relief
Under 30 years 15% of net relevant earnings
30 to 39 years 20%
40 to 49 years 25%
50 to 54 years: 30%
55 to 59 years 35%
60 and over 40%
Eh yes pal. Are you fully awake. Fitzy is in australia which is why I asked him specifically considering he flagged personal contribution rate is low there
Possibly not awake
1 Like
I wouldn’t imagine 20% of 188 per week goes very far 
3 Likes