Relocating Abroad

Yes agreed, it's very unfair the system is geared towards wealthy people passing assets on , don't mean to make a political point but these are mostly Tory voters.

It would be far fairer if rUk used the Scottish Government system with free care at home and free University fees.

It's about looking after your citizens and frankly the rUK Government doesn't know the meaning of the word yet somehow people vote for them since they scared of the alternative.

I alway a think perhaps a bold move like a Will tax of 2.5% on all Wills to pay even some free care at home to save people having to sell their home when they have done the correct thing in life.

Obviously you wouldn't get taxed on it again when you die if you had spend it because you wouldn't have it. But you would have got taxed on it when you spent it: Say VAT @20%, air travel tax, holiday insurance tax.  You name it. Double taxation - taxed when you earn it and tax when you spend it - is embedded throughout our, and most others, tax systems (including of course tax on interest on savings from your taxed income which is then taxed when you spend it). The "but it means I get taxed twice" argument is not in and of itself an argument against inheritance tax: unless you also argue for the elimination of all other post income taxes. And if you had spent it -  say leaving this earth with 0.01p in your bank account - you will have also helped to contribute to GDP growth  i.e. increasing economic activity (if that is a good thing or not is a different topic altogether) by spending, and indirectly helping to boost employment etc. Whereas sticking it in a bank/investments to accrue until the point you can hand it on contributes pretty much zero to the real world economic activity. 

Can't see why not, top of my list is Gibraltar and next is Portugal both I will pay far less tax and get much better healthcare.

On a visit to Gibraltar I went to the Hospital to check out the procedures for transferring UK healthcare to Gibraltar (everything is handled in the same building), There was a sign in reception for A&E "You may have to wait upto 1 hour 25 minutes to seen as this is the longest wait time but we expect to see you much sooner, average wait time less than 20 minutes". Compare this to my local hospital, A&E wait times (from experience) 8 - 12 hours, I can fly to Gibraltar, be seen, fly home and get a light snack before getting seen at my local A&E. Will check this out in Portugal when I visit in a few months time.

If I go to a country with no tax i.e. Cayman Islands I can spend my saved tax on healthcare insurance and/or healthcare and I am certain I will get better care than in the UK, however in all cases you will need to be in good health when relocating.

Thanks for the info, I have been looking into the NHR scheme and looks good except may need to move on after 10 years, however I have been talking to a bank that specialise in tax for expats and I am told that they can structure my finances in such a way that I would not be paying too much tax after 10 years but will take a few years to set up but will obviously have 10 years to get this arranged.

My view with healthcare is that if I am not overburdened with tax I will happily use my own funds for either insurance (as I do in the UK) or just pay for it. In the UK I do not like to use my insurance for minor problems as the premiums will become too expensive so I leave it in case a serious condition occurs, that means I am stuck with the NHS and the wait times which has not worked that well for the last few years. Last December my back was so bad I could only walk about 30 feet, could not stand up properly and was being pushed around in a wheelchair for a time, it was a real fight to get the NHS to see me (GP would not see me for weeks) and ended up spending a night in A&E for 3 minutes with a doctor but it did get me into the system and treated after a time. Turned out to be a slipped disk and after doing the exercises given to me by the physiotherapist for 6 weeks got better. Also some blood tests taken as part of the back problem indicated I had colon cancer, was told I would need to be seen urgently and the guidelines are within 2 weeks, waited 2 weeks to get the appointment which was in 3 weeks times after my GP said this should be within 2 weeks due to the nature of the issue. I was told nothing they could do so 5 weeks was the earliest, if they told me this at the start I would probably have gone private. Fortunately I was clear and while all the NHS clinicians were great the system was appalling. Also waited for almost 2 years in pain to get wisdom tooth removed as it was too complex for my private dentist although he did try, only got in through luck and a contact I made while another issue was being treated.

I am sure that most people are experiencing the similar problems with some a lot worse.  I have seen many other experiences just as bad as my partner is a senior carer and has to deal with the NHS for people in care homes she managed, she had to get quite aggressive (in a polite way) with the people in NHS to ensure these people get treatment when required, because of her position (dealing on behalf of people who couldn't do it themselves) she seem to have a bit more success that other people have but it is hard frustrating work taking up a lot of her time fighting against the NHS when she should have been doing other necessary work.

I also come from a similar demographic. My parents both came from pretty lowly/poor backgrounds. My father qualified to go to grammar school but his father prevented him from going so that he could start earning at 14. He took risks through his life, built a moderate business, and then a small property portfolio from sale of the business. They did save into pensions, but perhaps luckily had to stop at some stage due to financial constraints: nearly all of that got wiped out with Equitable Life. But thankfully the property is what gave them income and then ultimately an investment pot on sale. Enough background on a public forum. And like you, I am and will see those savings now dwindling at quite a rate due to care needs. 

I don't disagree with your latter statement: which is an argument about limits to liability for care spending, and ways to do it*, rather than on the view that IHT is intrinsically wrong, or that one shouldn't pay for, or at least towards, care costs. 

But just working on the care and savings topic for the moment. In reality the care provision that one will get if entirely reliant on social services funding is likely to be of a lower quality (in 'quality of life' terms) than if you pay for it yourself: the latter gives you more options. It may not always be the case, but very likely to be. As I've recently been finding out, the quality of home care you can get if you go private and find your own is significantly improved vs agency care contracted by social services (and ironically, a bit cheaper). And if looking for care home placement, you will have more choice and control over where you (or the parent) goes rather than are 'placed' by social services. That may mean a better (or more appropriate) care home; it may mean better conditions/more choices in the same care home (single room vs an enforced double room for example). 
 
I mention this because it's relevant to the argument that means-testing care provision is itself a disincentive to save/be prudent. Personally I want to have as much control over my own destiny/ability to have better care, as possible, and I'm sure that is true of most of us. So for those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to make those choices, the fact that we will lose out on some "free" care is not going to stop us wanting to squirrel away funds to keep us in our dotage (however irked we may feel about that). 

*which may not be limits per se, but might for example be (meaningful) care credits/vouchers to which all are entitled, or indeed both. The credits/voucher approach would at least help to mitigate some of the 'pain' at feeling that one is getting "nothing back".  Of course, any additional public spending has to be funded. Which means higher levels of taxation. Which of course will fall on the wealthiest - or rather mostly on that middle bracket of people rich enough to be squeezed but not rich enough to benefit from much in the way of tax avoidance schemes. And of course in the case of care funding, that also means "today's" active earners paying for and subsidising those who "today" have care needs but could be paying for it. Which is not a reason to not do it but is a perspective that needs to be taken into account. 

2 of my kids have told me to spend what I have and enjoy it.

I do rather hope that when I go there will be some money left to leave them at least a small legacy, but if care fees take most of it that's how it will have to be.
Two are settled and have decent jobs and partners with decent jobs, the third has virtually never worked.

All 3 have access to a decent ( 7 figure ) trust fund from their maternal grandparents.

That sounds pretty good in Belgium. A relative raves about France (or at least the french healthcare system as was half a centuary ago). I've heard good things about German and Swiss care. Why can't we model our system on one of theirs ? Is it because we are too embarrassed to say there might just be something wrong with our own NHS ?

P.S. Even if you have money, private healthcare is nowhere near as good as in many other countries because it is set up like a conveyor belt to deal with easy/routine cases. They do tend to provide good quality complementary cappuccino though.