Talk of raising the cap on care home fees

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

... I sure as hell object to paying for myself, paying for many others, AND then having the government try and steal my house.

you don't seem to be getting it.

NI would be a poll-tax style fixed amount per worker if it were intended just to cover basic stuff for that worker like entitlement to a state pension. unless we had a system whereby mega-high earners [and hence mega-high NI payers] were able to draw mega-high state pensions in their retirement. but it's not - it's a % of income. so the rich pay much more in, despite getting the same out. go figure.

as for stuff about government "stealing" your house - : pukesmiley :. i personally own a considerably more costly house than you, and being a father i have a much stronger interest in who does or doesn't inherit it - so 'in theory' i'd have a much stronger interest in doing so - but, seriously, it just wouldn't ever occur to me to drivel out this kind of crap.

MacMickster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Our household will pay in excess of £400,000 for our national insurance over our working lifetime. I'm quite sure that will far exceed the cost of any care we are likely to take out of the system, and subsidise many others besides.

I know I could purchase a lifetime's worth of private insurance to cover medical, benefits, and aged care for a fraction of that price, so either the government is running one of the least efficient systems in the world (entirely possible) or my contributions are subsidising an awful lot of other people and/or other things (equally possible).

Well, despite austerity, the government has committed to raising the basic state pension to £140 per week (£7280 per year). Begin by working out how many years both you and your wife will claim that. Then work out the cost of a top of the range family BUPA policy that will cover you throughout your adult life. Add in the cost of an insurance policy to cover care home fees in their entirety for both you and your wife. You would also need an insurance policy to cover loss of earnings in case of illness or unemployment, including permanent benefits if you were unable to work again. You may get a bit of a surprise.

Also, if you and your wife are between you paying an average £8000 per annum in National Insurance contributions then this suggests a household income of at least £80K, on average, throughout your working lives. It is unlikely that you had this level of income early in your working life, so I would surmise that you are now earning significantly more. You don't, however, feel that you should be in any way subsidising the vast majority who have been rather less fortunate in life.

I refer George Howell, who considers self-interest to be the exclusive preserve of the lefty, to the above example. Pathetic!

GeorgeHowell

MacMickster wrote: »

Well, despite austerity, the government has committed to raising the basic state pension to £140 per week (£7280 per year). Begin by working out how many years both you and your wife will claim that. Then work out the cost of a top of the range family BUPA policy that will cover you throughout your adult life. Add in the cost of an insurance policy to cover care home fees in their entirety for both you and your wife. You would also need an insurance policy to cover loss of earnings in case of illness or unemployment, including permanent benefits if you were unable to work again. You may get a bit of a surprise.

Also, if you and your wife are between you paying an average £8000 per annum in National Insurance contributions then this suggests a household income of at least £80K, on average, throughout your working lives. It is unlikely that you had this level of income early in your working life, so I would surmise that you are now earning significantly more. You don't, however, feel that you should be in any way subsidising the vast majority who have been rather less fortunate in life.

I refer George Howell, who considers self-interest to be the exclusive preserve of the lefty, to the above example. Pathetic!

Well it's nice to know that I've got up your nose enough to merit special mention. But here's another example of a leftie twisting words to try to discredit the opposition.

Of course I don't believe that self-interest in the preserve of the left, who in their right mind could believe that. What I have said, that you have chosen to misinterpret, is that "the end justifies the means" is part of the leftist code. So for many of them considerations of honesty, truth, and integrity can justifiably be disregarded in the interests of a desirable political outcome. The right may also descend to such tactics, but they would not try to justify it to themselves as principled -- only congratulate themselves if they get away with it. I have also pointed out the hypocrisy of the champagne socialists, who are just as self-interested as any Tory -- you know the ones I mean : those Labour posh boys like Blair, Mandelson, and the Millibands.

By all means carry on twisting words, because after all the end justifies the means doesn't it.

PaulF81

We should all get a free ticket to dignitas if we so choose with our entitlement to the state pension.

grizzly1911

MacMickster wrote: »

Well, despite austerity, the government has committed to raising the basic state pension to £140 per week (£7280 per year). Begin by working out how many years both you and your wife will claim that. Then work out the cost of a top of the range family BUPA policy that will cover you throughout your adult life. Add in the cost of an insurance policy to cover care home fees in their entirety for both you and your wife. You would also need an insurance policy to cover loss of earnings in case of illness or unemployment, including permanent benefits if you were unable to work again. You may get a bit of a surprise.

Also, if you and your wife are between you paying an average £8000 per annum in National Insurance contributions then this suggests a household income of at least £80K, on average, throughout your working lives. It is unlikely that you had this level of income early in your working life, so I would surmise that you are now earning significantly more. You don't, however, feel that you should be in any way subsidising the vast majority who have been rather less fortunate in life.

I refer George Howell, who considers self-interest to be the exclusive preserve of the lefty, to the above example. Pathetic!

Of course self interest isn't the sole preserve of the leftist. I would suggest it is a cornerstone of right wing leaning.

The reasons why collective insurance and"efficient"state provision of the items you suggest "HMT" might like to fund is/should be cheaper for all:- not everyone claims, using a country wide insurance scheme balances out the risks. for the few that do become heavy users there will many many more that don't. Arguably if "HMT" doesn't need to rely on this system, because he chooses to look after himself personally, then he will be subsidizing others anyway.

Private provision will never be universal and will not cover per-existing situations at anything like affordable rates. Not everyone will insure so the risk can't be spread. Don't forget that for any inefficiency in the state system private institutions have to make an opposite profit for their shareholders.

If "HMT" does all these things right, pays his taxes, looks after himself, is provident and doesn't waste money along the way why should he potentially then have to lose all his (families) assets. Very few people spend protracted periods in homes, relative to the population.

The crux of the problem is that insufficient tax is being collected across the economy due to lack of foresight and poor planning by generations of politicians. We have record inactive jobless, and progressively poorer and less voluminous rates of pay for those in work. We have many individuals and corporations making ever more aggressive tax avoidance arrangements. We partake in pointless wars and accept in the basket cases of the world (as well as those we need). We flush our national income to the east.

It is not the fault of the provident that the country is in this position yet it is the provident that are always looked at as the easy pickings.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as the provident are slowly milked over the next few generations. When the assets have been finally stripped perhaps we could be called COMET.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Of course self interest isn't the sole preserve of the leftist. I would suggest it is a cornerstone of right wing leaning.

It's cornerstone of the human condition regardless of politics. Our evolved biology is hunter/gatherer, not herd animal (though you might question that when you look at how some behave). We collaborate and cooperate because that is the way to produce more for everyone, but we aim to maximise our share of what emerges. For the most part we try to look after the weakest because that's also in the biology and must have represented an evolutionary advantage over those groups who did not. Attempts to go further and make us like bees with every individual self sacrificing everything to to the common good are bound to fail because our biology and therefore our psyche just does not work like that.

Having said all that, I do find it a bit rich to see someone purporting to be left of centre continually arguing that taxes should be raised so that children (who might be f e c k less layabouts) can benefit fully from inheritance from their parents, without risk of it being dented by care home fees.

MacMickster

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Well it's nice to know that I've got up your nose enough to merit special mention. But here's another example of a leftie twisting words to try to discredit the opposition.

Of course I don't believe that self-interest in the preserve of the left, who in their right mind could believe that. What I have said, that you have chosen to misinterpret, is that "the end justifies the means" is part of the leftist code. So for many of them considerations of honesty, truth, and integrity can justifiably be disregarded in the interests of a desirable political outcome. The right may also descend to such tactics, but they would not try to justify it to themselves as principled -- only congratulate themselves if they get away with it. I have also pointed out the hypocrisy of the champagne socialists, who are just as self-interested as any Tory -- you know the ones I mean : those Labour posh boys like Blair, Mandelson, and the Millibands.

By all means carry on twisting words, because after all the end justifies the means doesn't it.

The mililtant hard left is motivated by self interest.

This quote of yours seems to imply that you consider self-interest to be the preserve of the hard left. I have previously pointed out that I consider, from the posts on this forum, self-interest to be far more prevalent amongst those with right wing philosophies.

Both right and left wing dogma is complete nonsense and following either will only drag this country further into the mire. Certainly those at both extremes get up my nose.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Of course I don't believe that self-interest in the preserve of the left, who in their right mind could believe that. What I have said, that you have chosen to misinterpret, is that "the end justifies the means" is part of the leftist code. So for many of them considerations of honesty, truth, and integrity can justifiably be disregarded in the interests of a desirable political outcome. The right may also descend to such tactics, but they would not try to justify it to themselves as principled -- only congratulate themselves if they get away with it.

As you say both sides are mired in self interest they just describe it in different ways and hope that they don't get caught out.

In any political system factions will always trample over others to become top dog. the communists have their ruling elite as do the right leaning parties. They may claim to be looking out for all but they plainly aren't, in either camp.

There is a distinction between fair effort/fair reward which diverges from the extremes of either leaning.

GeorgeHowell

MacMickster wrote: »

The mililtant hard left is motivated by self interest.

Not the sharpest pencil in the box are you.

"The mililtant hard left is motivated by self interest." simply says what is says. It is a comment on the fact that most of those who purport to believe in the "fair shares for all" philosophy are in fact motivated primarily by their own self interest, just like anybody else. It certainly does not state, imply, or infer that those with right of centre views are not also motivated by self interest. Only someone with the IQ of a saveloy could come to such a conclusion, let alone post it up in the form of a snipe at another poster.

MacMickster

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Not the sharpest pencil in the box are you.

"The mililtant hard left is motivated by self interest." simply says what is says. It is a comment on the fact that most of those who purport to believe in the "fair shares for all" philosophy are in fact motivated primarily by their own self interest, just like anybody else. It certainly does not state, imply, or infer that those with right of centre views are not also motivated by self interest. Only someone with the IQ of a saveloy could come to such a conclusion, let alone post it up in the form of a snipe at another poster.

Well I wasn't having a snipe at you, but am now inclined to do so. You are clearly one of the extremist idiots who, given enough time, would happily drag our once great nation down to the status of a third world country, all in the name of political dogma which you don't even take the time to try to understand nor question. How you consider yourself qualified to comment on the intellect of any other poster is a source of great amusement to me given most of your recent posts. Sadly, however, today's education system, where everyone must leave school considering themselves to be high achievers, leaves many an intellectual pygmy feeling that a few A*s are a sign of their supreme intelligence and superiority.

At least The White Horse displays a degree of humour in his posts, many of which are deliberate wind-ups. Unfortunately, you clearly believe all that you post, no matter how ludicrous the premise.

You feel that everyone is motivated by self-interest. If that was truly the case we would not have the country that we share. People continue to give their lives for this country - a supreme act that is clearly not a case of self-interest. Many more throughout the country freely give their time and money to help support others in the community, whether youth groups, the elderly, the homeless, ex-prisoners, drug addicts etc. Unfortunately, people who are motivated purely by self-interest can't begin to understand truly altruistic motivation in others.

There are many things wrong with our country and society, but thankfully the majority do try to make a difference, rather than always act out of self-interest. Maybe one day you will grow up and join us.