the snap general election thread

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that that there currently exists a cap on care costs up to the last £23,250 of cash savings.

Not at all - I quite understand that:-
- I noted the relative difference if you care to read my post (between £23+k and £100k)
- it is not though a cap on care costs as you claim - but the current threshold point at which you stop wholly paying for yourself
- the conservatives have talked about a cap (so you never pay more than x even if you have more - Labour have not to my knowledge and there is none today)
- care is only free today when an individual’s total savings fall below a lower limit of £14,250 with a sliding scale of contributions towards care costs between the lower and higher limits.

Arklight wrote: »

If you move into a care home, something which is quite likely to happen

- Actually it is statistically unlikely you will go into a care home - 5% ish of all do so I believe?
- the average stay in care home before death is less than 2 years (some do live much longer and so many don't live nearly that long)
- this is not about personal choice to move in but need (that is all the council ever fund)

Arklight wrote: »

All the pensioners I have spoken to think it stinks too. Under Labour it wouldn't happen.

- I never said it was wholly right, but you were misrepresenting it.
- The fact is there is a growing social care bill to pay because you are lucky enough to be living longer than your parents' generation
- You would rather the young employed pay for you - because the young are already recognised as being more often in poverty than the retired, thanks in part to the triple lock which has now done its job.
- Your property wealth is mostly because property prices as much because went up not as you paid off the mortgage.

Whoever gets in the larger social care bill needs funding - shame you and your mates think that you should not help pay for it - when others who have posted plainly see that would be unfair.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that that there currently exists a cap on care costs up to the last £23,250 of cash savings. If you move into a care home, something which is quite likely to happen after some considerable period of home care has elapsed, then the value of your home can be taken into account in means testing.


Under this semi U-turned mess of a policy the Tories are proposing, the value of your home - less £100k will have a lien applied to it the moment you ask for social care you cannot pay for. You'll then pay the interest on this loan out of the remaining £100k on your death, which could well wipe out all the assets you wanted to leave behind. While there might be some supposed cap on fees, there will be no cap on the compound interest.


I think forcing old people who've worked their whole lives to clear their debts, and pay their taxes to take out a loan on their house and then have to watch it balloon as punishment the longer they live, stinks.


All the pensioners I have spoken to think it stinks too. Under Labour it wouldn't happen.


We'll find out tomorrow whether it's enough to stop them voting Tory.

This is just shameful tricks to try and con old people and it is sadly working!

Most people don't need care (or it is provided for free by family members) so for most old people the question should be do I want to pay zero death duties upto £1m or do I want to pay 50% death duties above £300k assets to korbin and McDoonalds Face?

For the minority that do need care its then a cutoff around d £450k. If you will have more than that its likely korbin will be worse for you and if you have less he will be better for you

If you assume 8/10 won't need paid for care and half those that do will have assets above £450k then you get a situation where only about 1/10 would be better off under labors ideas for social care and higher IHTs while 9/10 will be better or the same with the Tories lower IHT and self paid for care down to £100k limit.

lisyloo

You would rather the young employed pay for you

My MIL is receiving (excellent) care whilst living at home.
I would rather she paid for her own bills (currently she doesn't have enough assets) than expected younger members of the family who have no assets to pay for it for her.
My position impacts on my husband's inheritance so this is not self-interest.
Of course older people don't like it but not all of their wealth is hard-earned, much of it is house price appreciation that they expect the next generation to pay when they sell their home.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

lisyloo wrote: »

My MIL is receiving (excellent) care whilst living at home.
I would rather she paid for her own bills (currently she doesn't have enough assets) than expected younger members of the family who have no assets to pay for it for her.
My position impacts on my husband's inheritance so this is not self-interest.
Of course older people don't like it but not all of their wealth is hard-earned, much of it is house price appreciation that they expect the next generation to pay when they sell their home.

Indeed.
My point was less about member of the same family paying and more that if the wealth of the older people needing care is left untouched - then it would be left to those younger to fund the whole thing.
We agree wholeheartedly that much of the elderly's property wealth is appreciation.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

I don't think anyone is pretending that Jeremy has a great deal to choose from at the moment with regards to front bench positions.
I am pro-Corbyn and would like a Labour government but I can't pretend the Parliamentary Labour Party, for the most part, has given a good account of itself over the last two years.
Were there to be a Labour government some of the big hitters would return to form a cabinet fairly quickly.
Personally I am not especially keen on Diane Abbot but would still rather see her on a front bench than Theresa May, Liam Fox, Jeremy Hunt, or Boris Johnnson. None of whom are exactly sparkling with brilliance themselves.

And this is the thing - we are not picking a team for a five-a-sde kick about in the park. This is more than and eleven-a-side game.
We are looking at who can run the country through Brexit and the rest.
If Diane Abbot makes your team ahead of those you cite - good luck!

economic

whatever happens with taxes i will do whatever i can to minimise the effect on me. theres no way i want to pay taxes to help others. i am self interested just like everyone else is. and i really dont care if you think i am a bad person.

Herzlos

economic wrote: »

ive been on a 40% tax bracket for most my working life. i even find this way too high. when i think of my earnings i think of it on a post tax basis always and earning 50k post tax just seems pointless now given how much i have saved/built wealth.

There's certainly some sticker shock when you see your payslips, but to be honest I don't think it's as bad as people claim (though I've not been up there that long). For one, there's the upper NI threshold which means at ~45k you're going from paying 31% to 40%. Does that extra 9% really stop you from trying to earn more?

I find these days I'm more annoyed by waste and corruption than other people getting stuff for free. Sure a small minority of them are abusing the system but most need it. Sure the NHS (particularly in England) is on it's knees. But I don't think a "me first" approach is going to do anything other than make it worse.

Particularly when it comes to social care and public services, the old adage "a stitch in time saves nine" is still perfectly valid.

Of course, I don't like paying tax, and I'd much rather pay less of it, but I don't mind doing my bit for society. Maybe one day I'll be rich enough to dodge more of it :rotfl:

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

Have a butchers at this. Theresa and Philip May shouted at on another embarrassing walk around with her husband.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-butchers-general-election-boo-heckled-video-smithfields-market-london-a7776461.html

Really that is the most worthwhile thing you think we should watch - 23 seconds where someone who disagrees with a politician and shouts incomprehensibly in the background - my how convincing that is.
Watching the rather nice KitKat advert that pre-ceded it was far less of a waste of life OMHO

Herzlos

economic wrote: »

whatever happens with taxes i will do whatever i can to minimise the effect on me. theres no way i want to pay taxes to help others. i am self interested just like everyone else is. and i really dont care if you think i am a bad person.

You're not just a bad person, you're (amongst others with the same mindset) the reason the country is in the poor state it's in.

This whole "me first" thing works fine to a point - but what happens if some change of fate causes you to need help? Will you still be of the "every man for themselves" approach or will you want someone better off to help you out? It's really not as hard to go from being rich to being destitute, and to believe otherwise is total arrogance.


This reminds me of a thought exercise I'd been told about. The best way to create a fair society is to let people vote on it without having any awareness of where in society they will end up. Do you vote for stuff that benefits the rich and risk being screwed by not being rich? Do you vote for stuff that benefits the poor and risk feeling it was wasted because you're not poor?

economic

Herzlos wrote: »

You're not just a bad person, you're (amongst others with the same mindset) the reason the country is in the poor state it's in.

This whole "me first" thing works fine to a point - but what happens if some change of fate causes you to need help? Will you still be of the "every man for themselves" approach or will you want someone better off to help you out? It's really not as hard to go from being rich to being destitute, and to believe otherwise is total arrogance.


This reminds me of a thought exercise I'd been told about. The best way to create a fair society is to let people vote on it without having any awareness of where in society they will end up. Do you vote for stuff that benefits the rich and risk being screwed by not being rich? Do you vote for stuff that benefits the poor and risk feeling it was wasted because you're not poor?

you talk about the rich and poor. i dont fall into either of these categories. i am part of tjhe middle class. the class that gets taxed the most. if i get ill i expect the NHS to help me out given i have paid significant in taxes for this service (and continue to pay as well).

what do you want me to do exactly? give my money away? if i get taxe more, i will as will others almost certainly react to this if it effects them in a negative way.

you talk about the poor in society. i agree they should be provided with the most basic of shelter and food and utlities only. but nothing more. i believe this is already provided for and then some. if there is any problem it is government spending.