Burnhams Tax on Cash ISAS and Death tax

The currrnt situation in care homes, certainly in my county, is that the amount the council will pay is lower by quite a bit than the self funding residents are paying. In effect self funders are subsidising the council and contributing twice over to the profits of the private equity companies. Sorting all this out is going to be massive headache. Btw I know one of the people employed by the council who negotiates the contracts for the places the council fund. She was previously a contracts manager in a certain industry and certainly knows her stuff. The politicians in the council are not doing the negotiating

Whitewavemark2

I think that profiteering has been mentioned during the initial talks by the government.

They appear to recognise that this goes on.

It is widespread the companies are much cleverer than the government when negotiating contracts. Polititians that know very little about commercial contracts are the very last ones that should be involved.

David49

Aveline

98% tax!!!

To pay for the post war recovery and NHS the top rate if income tax reached 98% during the 1970s

In 1978-79, the average income was £3269. The basic rate (of 33%) was paid on incomes up to twice that amount, before rising in several increments to the top rate of 83% on incomes over £24k - significantly over average (in fact, about eight times average) and of course the whole income wasn't taxed at that rate.

The 98% rate only applied to those with over £24k in earnings and over £2250 in investments (about 9 months average wage), and applied only to the figures over those amounts, as before hitting that band tax was applied at lower rates. It wasn't a 98% tax across the board - very few people will have paid anything like that.

I think that profiteering has been mentioned during the initial talks by the government.

They appear to recognise that this goes on.

Aveline

98% tax!!!

To pay for the post war recovery and NHS the top rate if income tax reached 98% during the 1970s

LizzieDrip

^The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels^

I agree TulipTree.

That’s my main concern with any proposed plan. It’s not right that the tax payer makes rich care home owners even richer.

It’s just like housing benefit paying off landlords mortgages

The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels

I agree TulipTree.

That’s my main concern with any proposed plan. It’s not right that the tax payer makes rich care home owners even richer.

Who is proposing 98% tax?

98% tax!!!

Tuliptree

I just wondered if the changes came in it would remove the need to try and argue for CHC as the criteria could just be needing the care not whether it was health or social care. It’s a false dichotomy in many cases anyway and uses up staff resources making the decision and is stressful for relatives. The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels.

I wonder also if the distinction between health based needs and other will be maintained?

Any new system must abolish this false distinction. This has to be fundamental to any reform.

If someone needs care, they need care and the precise reason for this should not dictate whether they get it or how it is paid for. That is nonsensical.

Millions of pounds are expended on assessing whether someone's needs are primarily medical or social and dealing with appeals about this; countless people are misinformed about their entitlement; whole legal firms have been set up to advise on this and conduct appeals - more money wasted; families are put through the mill at a time when they just want to concentrate on making their loved one comfortable.

A unified system is the way forward and anything less will render the whole process pointless.

I am currently helping a friend whose mother did not get CHC funding because the district nurse would not even fill in the initial short assessment because "she is living at home and she does not have cancer." Such ignorance passed off as fact from someone whom one should be able to trust to relatives who are worn down.

"The state, under a Labour government managed the transition from private health care to implementing the NHS over 70 years ago following reform. This major reform shares some similarities though in a different era."

Im not expecting, any major changes in the structure of the welfares state on the scale of post WW2 changes, the cost was massive and Income Tax reached 98% to pay for it, Only a small proportion of the population owned their own property and renting was affordable. Since then personal investment has mushroomed much of it untaxed, Im sure that will be targeted

Im not sure that more care home places will be created, improving care at home will cost much less. Probably the greatest need is for respite care to free up hospital beds for recovering patients that cannot return home.

I would imagine such changes if implemented would remove the need to appeal decisions where eligibility for NHS CHC funding is denied- that is if both social and healthcare needs are both state funded all care needs will be eligible?

Private care homes I would imagine will make a decision to provide state funded care- at state funded block funding £ contract rates if they so wish. Or remain completely delivering care to self funders ( market volume down) or a mixture of the 2 as is currently the case for most homes.

The state may decide to provide its own care home/ care package services within its available £purse also?

The state, under a Labour government managed the transition from private health care to implementing the NHS over 70 years ago following reform. This major reform shares some similarities though in a different era.

I just wondered if the changes came in it would remove the need to try and argue for CHC as the criteria could just be needing the care not whether it was health or social care. It’s a false dichotomy in many cases anyway and uses up staff resources making the decision and is stressful for relatives. The big issues are going to be with the private equity companies as they’ll want the fees paid by the state to maintain their disgraceful profit levels.

Yes I agree the devil will be in the detail.

Healthcare is already free at the point of need and delivery. I don't think that will change if a National Social Care service comes into being.
Care delivery for the elderly should always ideally be holistic , treat them as an individual and join up health and social care needs- the only distinction is funding differentiation at the moment- health free- social care means tested.

All residents in care homes or in receipt of care packages at home- have a mix of social and health care needs to a larger or lesser degree. To meet the NHS Continuing healthcare eligibility for care funding currently the needs predominantly needs to be for health and be of a nature that is either complex, intense or complex ( or all 4 Key Characteristics).

The NHS CHC legislation and assessment framework designed to separate health from social care needs. The legislation would necessarily change if State funded social care is implemented. It's not a quick fix.

Care even

The devil is really going to be in the detail isn’t it Buf yes transition arrangements will be essential. The other big issue will be how the limit is set that the state would pay for different types of cars and maybe regionally. I wonder also if the distinction between health based needs and other will be maintained?

I would imagine a transition process to make fair arrangements for individuals who are currently paying for care home fees will be part of the cross party discussion. If not there would be an outcry.

Im not sure if it is "unfair" if someone has been covering the care costs and then also 10% on what is left after they die. The point is that society has to fund care somehow and 10%post death seems the fairest to me regardless of expenditure prior to death.

I can see there could be a need for a transition process to the 10%tax if it ever happens incorporating those who would be in the "old" system

Aveline

So does the state own all money? Thus those who have amassed more are either greedy or hard working and prudent?

Money is only a token replacing the barter system so that goods and services can be exchanged easily, bank notes still say" I promise to pay the Bearer" issued by the Bank of England, who is responsible for regulating its value. In recent years the value has fallen substantially.

We see in many other countries the national bank cannot maintain the unstable currency value and commercial transactions are done in another currency, often US dollars, a few have adopted or tied their own currency to the dollar as the national currency.

Governments including the UK and US have borrowed/created money heavily to win elections and interest paid are a drag on the economy because when loans mature they get replaced and the debt remains.

Oldnproud

It has crossed my mind that I wonder how a new system might pan out for those like my mum who have already been self -funding for a length of time - would they be hit by a double-whammy, where they have already paid out around £8,000 per month for their care from modest savings/sale of their home, but still have a chunk of their remaining funds taken in tax if this is introduced before they die?

But at the end of the day, it will still 'have been 'their' money, not their children's, and as long as the very rich are not seen to be able to dodge this, I would not be complaining too much.

I wondered about that, it does seem unfair, hopefully this will be considered.

I don’t know why the change in tax on cash held in stocks and shares ISAs is being referred to as Burnham’s tax, it was brought in by Rachel Reeves. The Chancellor hasn’t had a budget yet so any mention of the ‘Death Tax’ is pure speculation.

Other parties that attended the cross party talks haven't chosen to make any comments on what was discussed either.

AB is now on holiday and parliament in recess- so perhaps we wont hear more detail for a while...

Whitewavemark2

Anyone heard what - if anything- came out if the cross party talks?

Labour has a large majority and can do whatever the want
BUT
Government continues regardless of the party in power, taxes are increased or decreased according to policy at the time but major changes in taxation structure or new taxes need to be agreed if possible

If Wealth Tax or new IHT is introduced a great deal of effort and cost is going to be needed to set the structure up, if the opposition state they would abolish if they get power, other ways of raising revenue are considered

Anyone heard what - if anything- came out if the cross party talks?

*Had you specifically mentioned benefits I would have responded differently.
I do find it disconcerting, though, that ‘benefits’ is the first thing that springs to mind with regard to the state issuing money.*

Didn't mention benefits specifically as I had quoted your comment. I think my brain went to "benefits" because of earlier references in the thread to universal credit and pension credits ...I think in a response to a comment you made. My mistake though. I do fully understand re wider context of state issued money.