Labour 10% 'death tax' plans condemned

Author: IFAonline
IFAonline | 11 Mar 2010 | 09:40

Categories: Pensions - Retail| Better Business

Topics: | Labour

elderly

Proposals for a 10% ‘death tax’ on moderate-to-high earners to tackle the problem of an ageing population have been branded “totally unfair”.

Health Secretary Andy Burnham yesterday said he wanted to see those with bigger houses pay more toward social care for the elderly.

Early estimates suggest up to 17 million families would be forced to pay the tax.

"It is totally unfair to punish people for doing the right thing and saving up all their lives, when they are taxed on earning and saving the money in the first place." Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, told reporters.

A 10% tax raid was one of three proposals Burnham announced as a way for raising money to provide for the old.

The tax would leave the relatives of middle income earners with estates worth £500,000 with a £50,000 bill when their relatives die. This would be on top of an inheritance tax bill of £70,000.

But according to the Tories, the true tax bill could be even higher, because a 10% levy would raise £4.5bn - only a third of what is needed to pay for caring for the elderly.

Mr Burnham will set out proposals to tackle the problem of an ageing population in a highly-anticipated White Paper in three weeks.

 

More pensions - retail news

Recommended reading

Categories

Topics

Comments

What 'Taxpayers Alliance'?

They certainly do not speak for this taxpayer. When I read comments such as those by 'Taxpayers Alliance' spokesman Mark Wallace I am reminded of the line by Cassius to Brutus in my O-Level Julius Caesar; "The fault Dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves". Convert it from the Shakespeare to present day language and I guess you could say that we have crap politicians because we have a crap electorate obsessed with trivia and unwilling to make hard responsible choices. At the moment we have a situation where many inheritances are almost totally lost to nursing home fees. In many cases these are the smaller estates worth maybe £150k that pre-death was largely tied up in bricks and mortar, the estates of working class people who have not had the benefit of financial planning such as tenancies in common and property trusts. These also tend to be the estates that would bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people if they were substantially passed on, helping their chldren reduce debt and buy homes. If the scheme works properly, if such estates in future are all passed on less a 10% charge and if every elderly person can count on funded care then a great many people will be vastly better off. Wallace's tantrum seems to be predicated on the farcical notion that somewhere there is a pot of money to pay for care that does not come out of the pocket of taxpayers. There isn't. Politicians have no money of their own. Governments have no money of their own. It's all tyaxpayers money and what really matters is that it is raised and spent as honestly, efficiently and fairly as possible. I personally know many families that would have benefited from Labour's proposals had they been enacted years ago. Whoever wins the election, I hope they have the honesty and sense to push this through.

Posted by: Neil F Liversidge

11 Mar 2010 | 13:28
Complain about this comment

Related articles

Most Read

Audio / Visual

Coffee Lounge

View all the winners here

PPR Structured Product Awards 2011

View all the winners here

This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.

Events

event logo

fund5live

21 Feb 2012 - 29 Feb 2012

London, UK

event logo

COVER Breakfast Briefing: Cash Plans

27 Mar 2012 - 27 Mar 2012

London, UK

event logo

Buy to Let Market Forum

17 Apr 2012 - 18 Apr 2012

London, UK

Poll

Have you seen a decline in demand for SIPPs as a result of the proposed erosion on pension tax relief for those earning £150,000 or more?

In Focus

Viewpoints