the snap general election thread

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

Social care is provided for people in their own homes, and can be needed for decades.

It has nothing to do with care homes.

Maybe you'd like to go and catch up on the election news for the last 3 or 4 weeks and come back when you're up to speed?

That is not what most people are talking about, home care is fairly cheap at £13 per hour on average. That is the sort of sum that could be covered by private + state pensions so the longer you live the longer you get your pension so there is no huge burden there.

That is also assuming you really need it and none of your family care enough or able to provide some of your care. As you know most people in the uk receive free care from primarily their spouses and also their children.

Mostly you’ll find you’ll pay for home care costs per hour. As above, home care costs per hour usually fall between £10 and £30. When you are looking at a provider, it is important that you look at their home care rates.

This means that if your home care costs per hour are £11 and you require five hours of care per week you can expect to pay around £220 per month. Usually you’ll pay for the home care cost on a monthly basis, with a summary of the hours provided. Some people like to set up Direct Debits if they are in receipt of a regular amount of care. The average home care costs per hour in the UK are around £13 – so it’s best to budget around that in the initial stages of your search.

kinger101

GreatApe wrote: »

You can go live elsewhere permanently you do not need to be UK domiciled. This could also potentially offer additional benefits like lower taxes for the years in your retirement something that would not interest me but if IHT went through the roof I would move and not only would you lose out on the IHT but also the income taxes and capital gains taxes I would have paid in the UK.

There are other ways people will skip it, eg gifting to their kids sooner avoiding it in their estates or setting up trusts or putting it into a pension (which is outside the estate).

Yes....there are many ways to avoid it. Hence the need for reform IMO.

I don't think you appreciate the complexity of the domicile law. It does not mean residence.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

Social care is provided for people in their own homes, and can be needed for decades.

It has nothing to do with care homes.

Maybe you'd like to go and catch up on the election news for the last 3 or 4 weeks and come back when you're up to speed?

Oops and wow!

You are right social care includes care provided while people are still at home. Tick!

You are 100% wrong that care homes are not included. Nul points.

It is nicely defined here
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/social-care-and-support-where-to-start/introduction/

Do your homework before you sling mud at others.

So while the average stay in a care home is way under 2 years - lower costing partial care may be needed at home before that or not.

Not everyone needs either and some need both.

economic

Arklight wrote: »

Exactly where are they going to go; because we charge some of the lowest rates of tax in the developed world.

We keep hearing this desperate argument from the wealthy that they will all leave if they are forced to suffer the indignity of a couple of percent on their taxed income, or god forbid their hidden away untaxed income, precisely because they have no intention of just leaving.

You have to tax someone, it may as well be the people with money.

except it wont be a few % will it? itll be a lot more.

yes they can tax people woth money. but it doesnt mean it will have no impact on incentives and productivity and wealth creation. just look at the laffer curve.

i always hear about taxing people, but i hardly hear about ways the government can cut spending that they so desprately need to.

i think they can do a number of things:

- only let immigrants in if they can add value to the economy. have a period of say 2 years in whic if they have done no work, they are chucked out of the country.
- provide minimum benefits for the poor enough so they can only spend it on THE MOST BASIC of shelter and food required and nothing else. make it criminal for them to spend the money on anything else in fact.
- sort out spending on public services like NHS where there is a lot of waste particularly in admin departments which can be automated and perhaps in future AI can replace even more jobs which would be great.
- get rid of housing benefits/incentives etc for politicans.
- state pension amounts given in proportion to how long they worked in this country - someone with 10 years employment gets less then someone with 40 years employment. Someone with less then 5 years get absolutely nothing (chances of them gaming the system very high).

economic

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK is already lagging other major economies. Needs to be more focus on improving productivity now. Before it really does have an impact.

increasing taxes is exactly the wrong thing to do.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK is already lagging other major economies. Needs to be more focus on improving productivity now. Before it really does have an impact.

Pay per hours worked is used for productivity I would say that is possibly a bad metric, It would be better to look at the workforce or even the total population.

For 2016
UK £29.6k Pounds per head
France 33.4k Euro per head
Germany 38k Euro per head

Of course it depends on the vale of the currency right now it is 1.14 euro per pound so per caipta we are actually 1% more productive than the french.

We are only 89% as productive as the Germans, or we could say the currency is a little undervalued by 10%-15%

Simpy it is not easy to compare productivity, if the pound was 20% higher as it was a couple of years ago we could conclude we were the most productive big economy in the EU. As it is today we are roughly equivalent to France.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Pay per hours worked is used for productivity I would say that is possibly a bad metric, It would be better to look at the workforce or even the total population.

For 2016
UK £29.6k Pounds per head
France 33.4k Euro per head
Germany 38k Euro per head

Of course it depends on the vale of the currency right now it is 1.14 euro per pound so per caipta we are actually 1% more productive than the french.

We are only 89% as productive as the Germans, or we could say the currency is a little undervalued by 10%-15%

Simpy it is not easy to compare productivity, if the pound was 20% higher as it was a couple of years ago we could conclude we were the most productive big economy in the EU. As it is today we are roughly equivalent to France.

having similar productivity as the french is actually quite scary.

kinger101

economic wrote: »

215k was a lot back then when london property on average was £100k. stock markets and savings amounts were also a lot lower compared to now.

in comparison now we have 500k london average price vs IHT threshold of 500k per person. yes it can be transffered now and not in 1997 however this can easily be managed by sspltting assets ahead of time and having both people on the property deeds.

in summary it was a lot better back in 1997 in relative terms and that too under a labour government.

Technically, it was the regime they were left with by a Tory government. Brown bought in some above inflation rises to compensate for increases in property prices.

Not sure what you're taking about with the splitting. Transfers between spouses are not taxable. The change effectively double the IHT allowance.

Increases in house prices are not irrelevant. Dead people don't need them. In fact, removing inherited wealth from the equation might have kept property prices in check somewhat.

Basically, the government has given away about £4B per year in easy money when they're supposed to be tackling the deficit.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

having similar productivity as the french is actually quite scary.

Why?

They have more fixed infrastructure than we do and they have much more land than we do.

Admittedly we have the north sea oil and gas, but they have a huge nuclear fleet they built a few decades ago which gives them the ability to export huge amounts of electricity.


Also the metric is poor, we should be looking at purchasing power parity. If both the French and UK are both about 33.4k Euro per capita which is the case right now with the current exchange rate, that same amount of money may buy more goods and services in the UK than in France which is I think true but I dont know that as a fact. Its hard to find such data.

Also bear in mind that needless goods and services also add to GDP and hence 'productivity'. If the French hire a million workers to dig holes and fill them back up it wont hurt their productivity on paper or at leas the GDP/Capita. However it will hurt the purchasing power in that the french worker will be paying higher taxes to buy this government hole digging service they dont want/need while the British will not have this hole digging service so will have more money in their pockets to buy things they want. Hence its quite hard to tell which country is more 'productive'. I know almost all the french people I meet in the UK say their purchasing power is better here than in France but that is probably confirmation bias in that the ones who are here will only stay here if that is true for them so who knows....

economic

kinger101 wrote: »

Technically, it was the regime they were left with by a Tory government. Brown bought in some above inflation rises to compensate for increases in property prices.

Not sure what you're taking about with the splitting. Transfers between spouses are not taxable. The change effectively double the IHT allowance.

Increases in house prices are not irrelevant. Dead people don't need them. In fact, removing inherited wealth from the equation might have kept property prices in check somewhat.

Basically, the government has given away about £4B per year in easy money when they're supposed to be tackling the deficit.

but in 1997 if one spouse dies then their assets is passed on to the children and anything above the threshold is taxed. same again when the 2nd spouse dies. the total IHT threshold is still 2 * the threshold. current rules are slightly better wrt to transferring thresholds obviously but the 1997 rules can easily be managed as to make no difference - by splitting assets 50-50 say - and then you have a situation where the 1997 rules are a lot better then now relatively speaking.

the 4bn wont be 4bn if they take away dead peoples houses. it will be a lot lower then 4bn tax take.

if you do this - take dead peoples property away instead of passing it down to children then parents will simply transfer the property in their childrens name in good time as to avoid it. if there is a law that says they cant do that, then why not sell before death and just live off the proceeds or pass it to the children who will then buy homes themselves? your arguments are silly and not thought out well.