Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Please donate just 75p a day...
Comments
-
-
This would be the National Pensioners Convention's so-called Fair Care Campaign.
Net funding for an improved National Care Service would therefore cost an additional £7bn – requiring an increase in income tax of less than 1.5p in the £1. For someone earning £25,000 a year, this would cost them £277 extra a year, i.e. around 75p a day.
http://www.sochealth.co.uk/2012/07/09/the-politics-of-care/
The fly in the ointment is that the 75p a day is costed on the basis of providing "free domiciliary and residential care" to "all existing users". However, contrary to popular belief, some 95% of the elderly don't live in care homes. One therefore imagines that where there to be a National Care Service providing a completely free service that a lot of that 95% would start wondering why they were missing out on this freebie. It wouldn't be long before that 75p a day was £7.50 a day.
P.S. The National Pensioners Convention is the TUC for OAPs.0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Explain to me why I would need to be compulsory euthanized?
So that your place in society can be taken by someone more productive.0 -
like we need to complicate the taxation system further?
why shouldnt the well off pay for their care,or if they dont want to then why cant their families look after them?
The well-off already pay for their care as well as most of everyone elses. The top slice of earners pay by far the majority of income tax. This is basic stuff.0 -
So that your place in society can be taken by someone more productive.
Well at least I will last longer than you then (and probably him also).Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Well at least I will last longer than you then (and probably him also).
Bit sexist.0 -
Bit sexist.
Look you are obviously a fool and no intelligent debate is going to come out of this, is it?Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
Fundamentally there are three options
(a) everyone for themselves in the lottery that determines if you escape with a jackpot that your children etc share, or most of it is consumed paying for your care.
(b) You trust the financial servicesindustry to support you if you need it (with their reasonable products, fair clauses etc) in return for a regular premium
(c) You trust the state to support you if you need it in return for regular or one off tax payment.
Personally I cannot see the individual freedom you gain by allowing the lottery of your health to decide the outcome. I would like certainty.
The choice between (b) and (c) makes little difference in practice but on balance I would rather the state dealt with it.
All these age arguments are a red herring. All we need are options. If you are young you pay a monthly fee for 35 years or whatever. If you are retired you pay a small % of your assets on needing care or some such formula and if you are 40, something in between.
The only real issue is whether you pay your own way whatever the costs or everyone pays a little to ensure they do not have to meet such costs.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Look you are obviously a fool and no intelligent debate is going to come out of this, is it?
Well I put forward the proposition as a point of debate, yet your response to that is to come out with some pathetic 'I'm better than you' comment.
Not only that, but your indignation at such an ageist and offensive suggestion leads you to denigrate all women by suggesting that none are fit to take your place.
clearly though, i am the one who is a fool.0 -
The well-off already pay for their care as well as most of everyone elses. The top slice of earners pay by far the majority of income tax. This is basic stuff.
You make a good point.
Woodie does miss the point of who funds the care for those that aren't well off and don't have any assets to speak of."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.1K Spending & Discounts
- 238.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 613.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.5K Life & Family
- 251.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards