National Care Service

wymondham

jenner wrote: »

person b also gets taxed on their interest income though, so they will also pay surely?

i think what people object to and cant understand is that if we take people who dont work and never worked, they still get the same care as those who pay themselves

thats because the welfare state is based on need, not ability to pay. if i need it because of my health but i have no money, i still get the care
if i need it because of my health but i can pay for it, then i dont get free care because i dont 'need' it

so this is really about whether we want a welfare state based on need, or whether we want something more americanised which means that those who can pay, get the care

Excellent post, and a pivital decision. At present no party can make up their mind.

wymondham

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

The current balance is wrong.

You can currently inherit £325,000 tax free. You didn't work for it. It's just the luck of being born to rich parents.

You can currently earn £6,475 per year tax free.

You are assuming there is something there to inherit.....

Spartacus_Mills

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Are you going to bury yourself with the other 90% then?

Sounds about right.

You've blundered into this thread not quite understanding the discussion and utilising your usual sloppy approach to topics.

Just run along now.

Spartacus_Mills

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

They are not being penalised for their prudence.

Their offspring are being rewarded for their prudence. But benig rewarded a bit less, that's all.

You can't take it with you, you know.

First of all I do not intent to, I intend to spend, spend, spend once I retire.

Anyway yours is an argument that would have to be won and I do not think it could be won politically.

Your point is reasonable however I think it is an unwinnable stance as I am sure the family member leaving the legacy would sooner leave it to their relatives than to strangers.

Spartacus_Mills

jenner wrote: »

person b also gets taxed on their interest income though, so they will also pay surely?

i think what people object to and cant understand is that if we take people who dont work and never worked, they still get the same care as those who pay themselves

thats because the welfare state is based on need, not ability to pay. if i need it because of my health but i have no money, i still get the care
if i need it because of my health but i can pay for it, then i dont get free care because i dont 'need' it

so this is really about whether we want a welfare state based on need, or whether we want something more americanised which means that those who can pay, get the care

But the problem is we have a system that should be universal, for all, and not based on ability to pay but those who can pay do pay and there is a safety net for all who need it. We are, sort of, halfway towards the American system at the moment. Everyone, irrelevant of ability to pay, should be able to get from a universal system however it is corrupted.

We have people who spend a life on benefits because there is no incentive to work and I am sure many of these people would like to work. So how to make work more appealing, raise the minimum wage dramatically or cut benefits. I cannot see either happening.

We have been encouraged to save and provision for our old age. I have done so. This means if I lost my job I could claim JSA for 6 months, contribution based, but I would be expected to deplete my savings after that. Now I am sure some people thing "so you should" but then what is the point in me paying my NI for 30 years and saving for myself ?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

You've blundered into this thread not quite understanding the discussion and utilising your usual sloppy approach to topics.

Just run along now.

No Sparti!!!!.

You have just repeated your normal bullsh1te approach to discussions & not thought about what you are writing OR the consequences of it..

Very foolish indeed..

Spartacus_Mills

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

No Sparti!!!!.

You have just repeated your normal bullsh1te approach to discussions & not thought about what you are writing OR the consequences of it..

Very foolish indeed..

Oh dear. Copying the argument or point I have used against you also shows a lack of finesse and imagination.

Whereas I have had a constant point and defended it, accepting some very good points well made (none of which were from you), you have simply come into the thread, been slapped as usual and replied IKYABWAI.

wymondham

sounds like we need a virtual boxing ring on MSE !!

Spartacus_Mills

wymondham wrote: »

sounds like we need a virtual boxing ring on MSE !!

Ding ding,

seconds out,

round 848.

Nah, he/she follows me around and piggy backs my posts. I do not know why. Odd really. I find it quite amusing.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

wymondham wrote: »

sounds like we need a virtual boxing ring on MSE !!

Sparti!!!! is an internet stalker.

He PMs me & leaves nasty messages on MSE overnight.

I would stay well away if I was you.

He is getting a taste of his own medicine & doesn't like it.

I think he might start crying for mummy soon..