Deprivation of Assets - Hypothetical Question

I think if he's below the IHT threshold it's a moot point, above that there's rules about how much longer he to live, 7yrs IIRC, to avoid the tax but below I don't think it's an issue.
IAAABHNWIPFA

He will only be able to gift a smallish amount relative to the total each tax year, a few grand I think to each child. Gifting a property at that age ahead of possible care costs would probably be viewed as an attempt at deprivation. Get some proper advice.

As you say, I'm not sure how you know what his future care needs will be. A change in circumstances (bereavement) can have a massive impact.

7yrs IIRC, to avoid the tax but below I don’t think it’s an issue.

That's inheritance tax, which is a different matter.

The issue is avoiding paying for your care fees by giving away the family silver before you go into care.

By recently bereaved do you mean that they have lost THEIR partner and are now anticipating their own demise?
If so and if there is no imminent predictable (ie current condition or referral) indicating care will be needed then they can give away what they wish. However when doing care assessment the council will check back on statements and any recent gifts might be queried if its close to when care is eventually needed.

Yes it will (potentially) be treated as deprivation of assets and clawed back. If you are rich enough to pay for care, you pay for care. Sorry, I don't make the rules which are extremely capricious and arbitrary in their application. OTOH no-one "deserves" an inheritance (for what?) and if their descendants get a bit less of an unearned windfall, I have no problem with that. Average care home stay is under 2y so there will still probably be a bundle left over.

If they were married and own a house then the IHT threshold is £1 million BTW.

Thanks for the replies, very useful. For the benefit of thecaptain he is not "rich" or whatever that is on your world. He is willing to pay but he wants to gift his children / grandchildren on behalf of his wife of 57 years. None of the children / grandchildren are expecting or "deserving" an inheritance.

IHT threshold is £325K single, £650K married neither of which he is approaching. Thanks for the judgement.

If a persons assets are used to pay for care they don't take every penny - they leave the person with some.  Tens of thousands IIRC - it keeps changing.  Plenty to leave a gift to decendents

Your local council website or government website will be able to advise

Any attemptto hide or give it away now will be found and considerd deprivation of assets

He is willing to pay but he wants to gift his children / grandchildren on behalf of his wife of 57 years

When did she die?
Did she leave any money to him in her will?

It may be possible to do a deed of variation to punt some of the cash onto someone else. Ie if he never actually had the money then he ain't depriving the council of it.

Check with a soli.

Yes! Our neighbours are going through this with their elderly parents. Council is going back years to gifts made to their grandchildren and asking for justification.

It may be possible to do a deed of variation to punt some of the cash onto someone else. Ie if he never actually had the money then he ain’t depriving the council of it.

^ this

i think if it becomes 'unusual' - they never gave the kids anything but all of a sudden they're giving gifts just under the tax declarable amounts 2 years before needing care you're at some risk. get some proper advice.

i think it's a bit ripe to say 'no-one is entitled to an inheritance' when clearly the very wealthy think very differently about that.

I asked this to a legal pal who is a partner in wealth management, on behalf of my late mum.

He didn't spend much time on it but reckoned the IHT amounts and thresholds might be reasonable to stick to.

Funnily enough I was discussing this area with a lawyer last week. Not because it affects us but in relation to the a news story of law firm going bust who specialised in trusts to avoid care fees. She reckoned most of these wouldn't stand up.

As above, good, qualified advice needed.

no-one “deserves” an inheritance

I disagree. I worked hard for my money. Possibly too hard and missed some events I'm sure my children would have wanted me at, sports days, shows and parents evenings were missed on occasion. Now those were my choices at the time and it helped me climb a career ladder. The payback for them will be they should get money to hopefully allow them to not work so hard or long as they might otherwise need to (unless I need to spend it all on care before I drop).

Do they expect this money, no. Do they deserve this money, in my opinion yes.
Will I try an hide this money, no. Will I dispose of some of it before I need care, yes. In fact already started paying into ISA's etc for my grand children.

Rich or not, it will most likely need declaring, especially if care costs are a possibility. MIL's house had to go with a charge on it to help pay for her 3 years in a Nursing Home. We kept her out of one for as long as possible, but at the point she couldn't move out of a chair or bed without a hoist, she had to go in a home. Everything is gone through, so whittling away £5k (or so) to each family member has to be declared.

I disagree. I worked hard for my money.

I'm happy for you. But your children are the ones who will get the inheritance, and they did f all other than have the good fortune to be born into a lucky family. Maybe if you bring them up well they will also work hard and get on well like you? Or is it more down to luck than you like to admit?

Inheritances are a huge source of inequality in the UK, but that's only a problem for the poor, and they don't count.

The Cap for contributing to your care fees is £86k

If you start gifting amounts to other people it will been seen as Deprivation of Assets and the council is highly likely to investigate where all the money went if he starts to need care.

I’m happy for you. But your children are the ones who will get the inheritance, and they did f all other than have the good fortune to be born into a lucky family. Maybe if you bring them up well they will also work hard and get on well like you? Or is it more down to luck than you like to admit?

Inheritances are a huge source of inequality in the UK, but that’s only a problem for the poor, and they don’t count.

If they sound as bitter and binary thinking as you, I am not surprised they don't count. You make your own luck in life. Try it.

A recently bereaved member of the family is adamant that he is not going into sheltered accommodation. If said 84 year old relative needs help, it will be minimal and paid for privately. However none of us can see into the future. Said relative is below the £325,000 inheritance tax threshold. If said relative wanted to gift some money to descendants, could this be viewed as deprivation of assets?

I would say there is something back-to-front about how this is worded!  My limited experience is that when descendants are asking such questions they aren't asking them because the family member is particularly bothered about them but rather because they want to maximise their benefit!

Personally, if it were my relative I'd want them to have the best options for the best care if and when it is needed.  Gifting it away doesn't do that IMHO.  The recipients may be willing and able to "gift care back" if they had to, but one or more of them might have spent it, or might not agree that anything better than the basic "NHS/Council" care is needed or worth it.

Now if the relative need sheltered accom but is refusing to try and protect a legacy that may be different but I've dealt with a few older relatives who should have gone to sheltered accom and were resistant and I don't think any of them were about the £.  It was perceptions/stigma/independence etc.  Even highlighting the money question may give them a different excuse / angle to hide behind.

I know something in this area from another side of similar regulations (and I've skimmed these ones and it's the same principles). Deprivation has to be proven to be done for the purpose of getting state support. In this hypothetical scenario the person has no intention of going into care, or any need - the LA would have to prove they're depriving themselves of capital now for a need they don't have or want 🙂

You make your own luck in life. Try it.

Oh god, I "made my own luck" the day I was born, by having rich parents (who also cared about education, I did the "work hard and earn a good salary" thing too). The idea that I care about my inheritance or are jealous in some way, it's quite funny...I've already given away (deed of variation to charity) more than most will inherit in their lifetimes, and that's with a parent still living.

But those of you frothing about "deserving" your inheritances...all you are really doing by preventing any rational discussion of this topic is protecting the estates of people far richer than me, so I hope you're happy at least that there are others poorer than you.

Oh god, I “made my own luck” the day I was born, by having rich parents (who also cared about education, I did the “work hard and earn a good salary” thing too). The idea that I care about my inheritance or are jealous in some way, it’s quite funny…I’ve already given away (deed of variation to charity) more than most will inherit in their lifetimes, and that’s with a parent still living.

But those of you frothing about “deserving” your inheritances…all you are really doing by preventing any rational discussion of this topic is protecting the estates of people far richer than me, so I hope you’re happy at least that there are others poorer than you.

You're the one frothing and originally making assumptions about someone you don't know. This is not even the subject of the thread.

Fiscal policy is far far less simplistic than you realise. Unintended consequences is the obvious one to start with. A binary approach like yours is quite literally the opposite of a rational discussion, even before looking at the ethical dimension. Discouraging entrepreneurship makes everyone poorer in the long run, particularly the poorest.

The current threshold is about right although of course it has been going down with fiscal drag for a few years and that's accelerating with high inflation.

And it has nothing to do with god. Write to your MP instead.

Death & Taxes, the only certainties in life.

And if you want to fully decide what happens to your money, spend it while you're alive.

My limited experience is that when descendants are asking such questions they aren’t asking them because the family member is particularly bothered about them but rather because they want to maximise their benefit!

Again, thanks for the judgement poly. You and thecaptain sound like real nice guys, must get you both round for dinner.

FWIW, I don't need or want the money. I'd much rather my dad liquidised all his assets and lived however long he has left in the best way he can, he certainly deserves it. However, if you read all my posts you may notice the following line "...but he wants to gift his children / grandchildren on behalf of his wife of 57 years".

Some good advice up there. Thanks to those who contributed it's appreciated and I feel better equipped to advise him now.

I'm gonna duck out and leave thecaptain and poly to their self-righteous posturing.

Just be aware there will be a time where gifting has to be accounted for. If it's substantial, then should he need state care things will be looked into - although there is now a limit. You'll still have to account for any gifts at such a point he passes within time limits.

Your other option, if he so wishes, is to pass on the 'odd bit' of cash, but this is assuming they have cash. If it's tied up in the house value, your stuck.

We're going through all this at present, everything has been declared. There wasn't any 'gifting' as MIL didn't have significant assets. We had a 'charge' for her care on the house, and that needs to be paid as soon as the house is sold as it's accruing interest. It's taken about 8 months so far to get to a sale. No inheritance tax implications as they are well under the limits, and what's left will be divided by three daughters.

If your dad want's to gift significant sums, then you will have to declare it at some point.

Here is my / our family's recent (and ongoing) experience after 1 of our aging parents died in covid lockdown times (not covid related) , and a while later the remaining one had to go into a care home for their own good...

Fundamentally the rules are as tight as a duck's, all in favour of the council / Gov, so they can plunder nearly all of what the care costs.

BE VERY wary of any recent (last couple of years) Gov proclamations of not taking your home off you.  At best it's just delaying taking the home until after death (or into a care home). They'll still get the ££ eventually.   And the £86k limit mentioned has a lot of caveats on it about what counts in that cap and what doesn't (residential care does NOT count in that cap, its just care whilst still at home that is in it - eg day care people coming in to help feed and clean etc.

The gifting ££.  Its got to be 'justifiable' gifting (so birthday and Christmas if that's what was previously done).  But not random willy nilly cat's anniversary of a furball cough type stuff.  If they typically gifted say £50 at a Birthday you can't just up it to £500 or a £1000 as that's clearly a dodge to deny the council their ££. Basically it's on you to be able to justify it.

There is also a tax limit for gifts for the recipient. About £3k a year if I remember correctly. Beyond that it's unearned income and needs to be taxed and declared in self assessment etc.

The council can basically plunder all the ££ in the bank  and assets or the remaining parent  until the value is down to £23k.  Then ekow £23k there's a sliding pro-rata until they've emptied the coffers down to £8k.  They can't take money below £8k. (I can't remember the actual pro rata rate).

We are in the thoes of a load of shiiite as the council forced us to turn the heating down in the now empty parents house (they really wanted it off totally to preserve max ££ in the bank) - and bollox to house damage as a result from frozen pipes etc.  But then they'd try to say WE neglected the house upkeep and so have denied ££ value of the house from the council (see how it is stitched up ?)  In our case we told them to stop being so ****ing stupid as frozen pipes would damage the house.  But nonetheless the reduced (not off) heating has resulted in a lot of damp and mold, ruining everything in the house (I'm 100s of miles from the house so can't just pop around to give it an airing every day or two).

When we had to deal with this with my mum, the rules were pretty straight forward at a high level. Basically if you know or can reasonably foresee that you need care then gifting all your money will be deprivation of assets. That being said we could have spent my mums money on making adjustments to my parents house (e.g. putting in a wet room downstairs as she was in a wheelchair) which wouldn't have been deprivation of assets.

They seem to take a judgement call, if you gave away 300k the day before you found out that you need social care, then they're going to take a dim view. If you give away 300k when you're 80 and perfectly healthy and then five years later you go into care that's probably not deprivation of assets.

Basically if you are worried about it, give your money away when you're healthly (and ideally 7 years before you die).

On a less practical note, I'd rather see 100% inheritance tax rather than reward children for being lucky. Would sort out a lot of inequality. That being said, no one is going to do that unilaterally (least of all me!).

On a less practical note, I’d rather see 100% inheritance tax rather than reward children for being lucky. Would sort out a lot of inequality. That being said, no one is going to do that unilaterally (least of all me!).

If you take this to its logical end then people should be handicapped if they are born taller than average, smarter than average etc.
I find the suggestion ridiculously fantastical. and the least thought out suggestion I have ever heard. It is just the politics of envy.
1) As a parent imagine knowing that all you have worked for would be taken away at death. I am only 52 but I have been thinking about how to give my kids an easier ride than I had, since before they were born. It is hard wired in as a parent.
2) It really easy to get it all sorted out and handed over long before you die. How do you take the "born lucky" out of that.
3) My kids get all kinds of advantages because me and the wife are their parents over many other kids (and lots of kids better off than ours too). How do you take the "born lucky" out of that?
4) If you want a meritocracy (which I do) just fund schools, health, social, sports to a much higher degree. I'll pay more tax for that.

On a less practical note, I’d rather see 100% inheritance tax rather than reward children for being lucky. Would sort out a lot of inequality. That being said, no one is going to do that unilaterally (least of all me!).

People would just find a work around if it was 100%, for a start we just need to close a few of the loopholes that allow incredibly wealthy (king Charles would be first in line) to circumvent iht.

It's worth clarifying that the proposed £86K limit was meant to be a lifetime cap on care costs and has been delayed for another couple of years at least iirc. That limit was separate to the level of fees you may pay towards your social care. The current limit is just over £23K, if your assets are over that then you pay your care costs in full

With reference to the point above about residential care, it is proposed to be paid for under the new system but you would still be liable for what are called "hotel" costs to cover normal expenditure that you would reasonably also pay if you still lived at home (food, heating, toiletries etc). So if you pay £900 a week for residential care, £200 might be hotel costs and the remaining £700 would count towards the £86K care cap.

You make your own luck in life.

That just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever!

Your luck started when you born in good health in the Western world and didn't die of infant mortality....

Oh god, I “made my own luck” the day I was born, by having rich parents (who also cared about education, I did the “work hard and earn a good salary” thing too). The idea that I care about my inheritance or are jealous in some way, it’s quite funny…I’ve already given away (deed of variation to charity) more than most will inherit in their lifetimes, and that’s with a parent still living.

But those of you frothing about “deserving” your inheritances…all you are really doing by preventing any rational discussion of this topic is protecting the estates of people far richer than me, so I hope you’re happy at least that there are others poorer than you

Well said captain.

You make your own luck in life. Try it.

Complete and utter ****.

Excellent. Another thread thats about to swerve into right v left politics. The Entitled vs The Woke.

Off to put the kettle on.

That just doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever!

Your luck started when you born in good health in the Western world and didn’t die of infant mortality….

This, 100% this.

Excellent. Another thread thats about to swerve into right v left politics. The Entitled vs The Woke.

It's not politics, it realising that the society you are part of benefits you every day in many ways which most people seem to be totally ignorant of.

People often complain about the tax they pay, but cannot see all the enormous benefits that money brings them in health, education, infrastructure, rule of law etc all of which completely underpins their current lifestyle.

It’s not politics,

i think it is very much politics. Left = More tax and a the role of the state stepping in. Right = Less tax and everyone and their mates for themselves.

Again, thanks for the judgement poly. You and thecaptain sound like real nice guys, must get you both round for dinner.

Happy to help 😉  if your dad wants to give money to his kids/grandkids he should. It doesn't need his son to debate on a MTB forum.  .  If none of the motivation is to avoid care costs or no care costs are foreseeable then there is no problem.  Just by asking that question you acknowledge that there is a problem.  If your assets are worth £100K and you give £2k to each of your 4 grandkids with a letter saying its what granny would have wanted and you should do something with it she would be proud of and then 3 years later you need care its unlikely the council will be getting angsty.  If you are worth £300K, and give each of your 2 children and 4 grand kids £40K and then six weeks later are struggling to cope on your own then I think common sense says that the council should be questioning that.

I’m gonna duck out and leave thecaptain and poly to their self-righteous posturing.

We obviously touched a nerve.  For some reason IHT planning and cleverly avoiding Care Costs are the socially acceptable face of tax avoidance (technically care costs aren't a tax, but to all intents and purposes they are).

Finally, if it was my dad (and one day it will be), i'd be hesitant to encourage giving the money away as I suspect a little bit of private money might actually buy him a better quality of care than state funding.

Inheritance is probably the single biggest driver of inequality in the country. Maybe the second driver is the idea that because you have worked hard (says who?), you somehow deserve to be rich - as if the student nurse single parent working two jobs and going to food banks is somehow striving less ardently than you.

I'm sort of happier with people who just come out and say they don't want to help others. At least it's a consistent ethos.

Anyway Cougs I hope your Dad can stay out of care homes if that's what he wants to do. Without knowing a jot about your current situation, that may be easier said than done. Priorities may change - I've seen it first hand.

Happy to help 😉 if your dad wants to give money to his kids/grandkids he should. It doesn’t need his son to debate on a MTB forum.

Woah woah woah.

This is an MTB forum?

That just doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever!

Your luck started when you born in good health in the Western world and didn’t die of infant mortality….

It does stand up to a lot of scrutiny. Making your own luck is not incompatible with also getting some at birth. In a relatively level playing field in the Western world you can still make your own luck after birth.

Complete and utter ****.

Eloquence and dialectic not your forte either I see.

In a relatively level playing field in the Western world you can still make your own luck after birth.

Its nothing like an even playing field.  This is a good demonstration

Folk like me.  We get all the advantages.  Two well educated parents in middle class jobs.  No financial worries.  Parents interested in your education.  Parents able to help financially.  Good nutrition all my life. and yes - I stand to inherit.

I am fully aware of my privilege.  We all need to be

In relative terms it very much is. Compared to being born in a country with high infant mortality rates and very few opportunities.

East end of glasgow - life expectancy under 60.  Home counties.  Life expectancy over 80

The myth that those who do well in life its all down to their efforts is bogus.  Watch that video

100% inheritance tax? What, so the Tories can splaff it on their pals for spurious and unworkable (insert any recent government scheme) projects? How does that address inequality in our society?

I am leaving all my money to the cat home.

If there was 100% inheritance tax, you'd just end up with currently responsible people deciding to spaff it all away on Ferraris, Santa Cruzs, cocaine and hookers whilst they are able to.

(What we can't use to legally support our kids and grandkids, we may as well piiish away.  It's effectively  punishment for being financially responsible earlier in life.

The myth that those who do well in life its all down to their efforts is bogus.

I would agree. Fortunately no one here so far has said it's all down to their efforts, so I can't see any myth.

You make your own luck in life. Try it.

One thing.  They'd not even let my remaining parent buy themselves a pre-pay funeral from their own money. What Barstewards.

It does stand up to a lot of scrutiny. Making your own luck is not incompatible with also getting some at birth. In a relatively level playing field in the Western world you can still make your own luck after birth.

The advantage you are born with follows you all your life.  Decisions you make influence where you end up of course - and luck has very little to do with it unless you win a lottery

Eloquence and dialectic not your forte either I see.

Good point well made. Soz.

100% inheritance tax? What, so the Tories can splaff it on their pals for spurious and unworkable (insert any recent government scheme) projects? How does that address inequality in our society?

That's exactly what I was thinking! Who's to say the money left to kids won't go to making a better society? As an only child with parents who split and both remarried I may end up with an inheritance. I don't have children and plan on using that money to do good things and will leave all my assets to various charities when I die but I want to choose which ones.

The advantage you are born with follows you all your life. Decisions you make influence where you end up of course – and luck has very little to do with it unless you win a lottery

You make your own luck doesn't mean you rely on the lottery. It means that there are ways to improve your destiny through effort, persistence, vision, risk etc. It is often a way to offset for a lack of luck actually. But it is not mutually exclusive with have some sort of luck too.

”You make your own luck” does not mean that ”those who do well in life its all down to their efforts”. No myth to be debunked here. Still.

Not a binary proposition either.

100% IHT (which is what started this particular digression) is a ridiculous idea IMO. Do you support it?

yes

You miss the other quote as well

100% inheritance tax also hits the poorer (not the poorest, who weren’t getting anything anyway).
Splitting a bungalow that hasn’t been maintained since the 80s, a few grand from the bank and a princess di plate set with 4 siblings is what they stand to inherit (or not as the case may be) because the parents had little, and needed it for themselves while they were alive.

The upper middle class (for want of a better description) on the other hand have been pouring money on their kids since the day they were born.
Private schools, house deposits, all sorts of investments over the years, all completely safe.

It would almost be better with no iht or care home funding. Then most (yes, not all) would get something… and they might spend it in the economy.

You could have say £50 000 ( or whatever sum you think right) at zero tax to inherit and then 100% thereafter

Another  thing with inheritances is that with the longer lives we live now folk do not tend to inherit until their 50s or 60s.  Its not like you are setting your kids up in life - you are setting them up in retirement.

As regards care costs - are you prepared for a huge rise in taxation to cover free care for all just so middle class folk inherit to get a more comfortable retirement?  lets be clear - not using assets to pay for old age care benefits the children of middle class parents the most

why should the general taxpayer pay so middle class folk get to keep more money?  Thats a transfer of wealth from poor to rich

Its one of those issues that looks unfair from both sides

Japan has a lifetime tax free allowance *for beneficiaries* of about £100k IIRC and anything over gets taxed. I think this is a much better system in principle than the UK. Of course I’m sure there are limits and loopholes there too (agriculture being a likely example there as it is in the UK).

I don’t think a 100% tax rate is sensible but it could easily go up and the threshold go down. The first million pounds is tax free for most married couples (it’s technically £650k plus a house allowance of £350k, and almost everyone with £1m assets has a £350k house).

As tjagain says, the vast majority of inherited wealth passes *to* rich homeowners in their 50s and 60s. It’s not needy youngsters getting a leg up. It’s the already rich getting further riches heaped upon them.

Tj, of course one can use their inheretence they get in their 50/60s to set up their kids or grand kids for life.  The average 50 year old probably has kids at Uni who might quite like support with fees etc.  the average 60 year old probably has a child looking to get on the property ladder.  Some certainly do this, but that only reinforces the inequalities - the grand child with no inheritance or “selfish” parents gets nothing but others are showered in “luck”.

of course you could argue that the current system is actually set up to encourage this - if you inherit at 55 you can very likely distribute that wealth without worrying too much about IHT or Care Cost calculations.

100% taxation on anything is obviously pretty crazy.  Personally I’d treat it just the same as other income.  Easy enough to have special rules or exemptions for anything you particularly want to encourage (eg with property only needs paid on disposal).  Get rid of the seven year rule and all the IHT planning stuff - treat gifts the same way too.

I don’t think a 100% tax rate is sensible but it could easily go up and the threshold go down.

It IS going down. And at quite a rate through fiscal drag.

I agree with you that a 100% rate is not sensible. In fact it would be irresponsible and would make everyone poorer, and the poorest would suffer the most.

Fiscal policies are far far more complex than most realise. Small changes can prove catastrophic, as we have seen under Truss.

So big changes like a 100% IHT are the stuff of the clueless I'm afraid. It would create even more inflation, massively cut inward investment, generate a brain drain etc etc...

So big changes like a 100% IHT are the stuff of the clueless I’m afraid. It would create even more inflation, massively cut inward investment, generate a brain drain etc etc…

This is just such a bizarre string of non-sequiturs. You could call it "the stuff of the clueless".

Something like 100k lifetime exemption, 40% beyond that up to the first million and then 60% thereafter would raise a shit-ton of money and help to prevent the increased concentration of wealth in a small minority. While still giving a free pass to those who are desperately attached to Aunt Edna's tea service, and indeed the vast majority of people who never get close to 100k of bequests over their lifetime.

Of course the richer end of the middle classes would bleat about their "right" to inherit the house they grew up in and moved out of decades earlier (yes, there really are people who think like this) but society would be better off for it.

Maybe rich people would try to do something more useful with their money before they die, too.

and the poorest would suffer the most.

the poorest do not have inheritance to give or receive other than a few quid.  My grandparents entire estate was under £1000 and they were not poor.

Unless wealth is used to pay for old age care then how are you going to pay for this?  Its huge sums so needs to be raised somehow

Its huge sums so needs to be raised somehow

National insurance was the last suggestion.

the total cost of old age care in the UK is in the region of 50 billion per year in the UK.  Thats almost as much as education and more than defense and around 10% of total government spending if i have my back of fag packet sums right.

Now some of that is already paid for by the state.  Even so thats huge sums to raise.  20% rise in national insurance?  so a couple of pence on income tax effectively

Is it fair that taxpayers should pay this to ensure middle class folk get to inherit?

It’s not politics, it realising that the society you are part of benefits you every day in many ways which most people seem to be totally ignorant of.

It is standard tory politics: the rich (and their kids) deserve to be rich, and the poor deserve to be poor.

I am white, male, born in a rich country to parents with decent jobs, who were interested in my education. That I now have a very well paid job is due to a very large slice of luck.

Now some of that is already paid for by the state.  Even so thats huge sums to raise.  20% rise in national insurance?  so a couple of pence on income tax effectively

I have to say I've never understood why pensioners, who are very large recipient of benefits, huge part of NHS cost etc don't pay NI.  Seems that if pension income was NI'able you'd have a significant source of revenue without squeezing "hard working families"... and the very poorest (those with just state pension) would not cross the threshold so it would be "fair" too...