Andy Burnham has hinted he is set to impose a 10% ‘death tax’ on all estates to fund his social care reforms. The Telegraph has more.
The Prime Minister will set out sweeping changes to social care later this week and has suggested the creation of a new National Care Service that would cost up to £18.7 billion a year.
When he was health secretary under Gordon Brown, Burnham proposed replacing inheritance tax with a 10% levy on all estates passed on after death.
On Monday, Downing Street hinted that such a tax was among the options the Prime Minister was considering to fund his plans.
Asked whether he was still committed to the idea, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “I’m just not going to get ahead of his update on this issue, which will come later in the week.
“And he has said in his interview today that creating a new system will take time. But he’s also been clear about the consequences of not doing it, which is that the NHS would collapse under the weight of having to care for people not really needed in the NHS system.
“So you’ve seen his determination to tackle this issue, and I think that gives you a sense of where his feelings lie.”
A flat levy could drag millions more into paying a fee on their loved ones’ estates.
Under the current tax rules, married couples can hand down £1 million of assets tax-free to their children, with death duties only paid on anything above that amount.
The Treasury raises close to £9 billion a year from inheritance tax. Government spending on social care is forecast to hit £39 billion by the end of the decade.
Burnham has suggested that he is still in favour of a social care levy on estates, despite having to drop the idea in 2009 after the Conservatives described it as a “death tax”.
In his first major interview since taking power, the Prime Minister told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the NHS would soon fall apart without urgent social care reform.
He promised to use “whatever political capital I have” to reform social care and said he would not want to leave office without a “substantial” change to the sector.
Burnham refused to set a timeline for social care reforms “right here, right now” but said there were “major changes” he could make in the next three years before the next General Election.
He added: “If we don’t do it, the NHS will collapse under the weight of trying to care for people who’ve really not needed to end up in the NHS system.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I see the four-eyed smarm merchant has been trying to rope in support from the Tories as part of his ludicrous ‘unite the country’ plan. To her credit, The Nigerian has only agreed if the funding comes from spending cuts.
On a change of topic but still on cuts, UKRI is so strapped for cash it can no longer fund Jodrell Bank. Perhaps the lovely Charlotte Gill could list what junk the UKRI funds that could cover the £2.8m cost. They are cutting research on particulate physics, astronomy and nuclear physics by 2.7%. Jodrell Bank hope they might find some philanthropist to fund them with what amounts to loose change but then they are dedicated to funding Far Left loonies as opposed to something useful.
Cruise ship companies will make a killing.
Encouraging people not to make provision for their old age… again.
The contract: you have your money taken away from you now to give to people now for their care: this contract binds the next generation (now only children or net yet born) to have their money taken away away from them to pay for your care when you get old.
Sign here – X vote Labour.
It’s going to create exactly the same problem as welfare-state pensions have caused. But of course it will all be in the future when Andy Capp is pushing up daisies so he won’t be bothered.
He doesn’t mean “all”. He could not enforce it. There are many in the community with innumerable cousins here and abroad who would be found to own most of the assets at death. He means he wants to strip the settled population.
Will Andy Crapp also change the rules so that any inheritance tax is not due immediately so that people are not forced to incur interest on the bill or take out loans to pay it. Very much doubt it…..
So the burden will fall on the families of those that have worked hard and saved whilst the idle and feckless get away with paying nothing. A truly socialist ideology.
Since this government got into power me and the wife are spending our savings to prevent these socialist parasites getting hold of it.
Great statesmanship that, passing a law allowing the government to steal even more of the public’s assets. Can’t these socialists be a teeny bit creative?
A clear incentive for some very careful Estate Planning, which will result in “owning nothing” when you meet the Grim Reaper.
Over my dead body 😡
Presumably this means a rebate for those fortunate enough to be able to fund their own care?
No? Thought not…
Do the right thing, work all your life and pay your taxes and you pay for everything. Spend your life on the dole and you get everything free.
To put a death tax on all estates Burnham is going to need a modern day Doomsday Book. If he achieves that he will earn a similar nickname to the last person who created one.