the snap general election thread

ThinkingOutLoud_2

londonlydia wrote: »

But not including the home. Average house value in the UK is £235k. That means that now you could be stripped of, on average, £135k + any savings. Under the current scheme, you will only be worse off if you have between £28-100k in savings but not in property. And even then if you have cars in the home, they only take money from your home for certain cases... Generate is when you go into care.

Not quite.

• Social care is care in your home and in a care home. Only 5% or so "have" to go into care.
• Yes, if you live in higher house value area - this is apparently worse for you and your descendant inheritance (assuming they live near by).
• But you will have to live long enough and need a fair amount of care to get down to that 100k level if you start with £135k available.
• Most who enter a care home (but not all die) within a few years - so most of the 135k for them will not be depleted - see http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33895/1/dp2769.pdf

.

Conrad

londonlydia wrote: »

when I commute to surrey for work it takes me an hour to do that stretch.

Given Labour are pro mass immigration, how will lets say 4 million (net) more people moving here in the next 10 years affect your journey?


You care about your kids, so how will lets say 15 million more people here in c 25 years help them afford a home, drive through congestion?

sevenhills

Conrad wrote: »

I look at like this; we can either all pay more tax so that some children can inherit their parents property in full, or we can each use our homes to fund our own personal care.

But is it personal care, or are people struck down by an illness - which should be covered by our free NHS.

Conrad

sevenhills wrote: »

But is it personal care, or are people struck down by an illness - which should be covered by our free NHS.

I'm not sure I go along with all this 'I'm entitled to the State providing for me'. What happened to 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country'?

QT audiences always imply they want to contribute more for the good of society but in reality everyone seems more interested in what they can take.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

Well you could keep fit and healthy and just finance your own health requirements rather than paying for every Tom, Richard and Harry who couldn't be bothered?

That is about the most naïve and stupid statement that I have heard this year. Do you really think that staying fit and healthy is going to stop you from developing a degenerative disease? Or inheriting a hereditary disease? Or protect you from a debilitating injury in an accident?

I would not wish it upon you but do you know for certain that you are not going to develop multiple sclerosis with the first symptoms appearing in 5 years time?

I assure you it happens to very fit and heathy people when they least expect it.

Thrugelmir

londonlydia wrote: »

They're also planning to close our local A&E, which would be a disaster, and Labour would stop that. .

How is Labour going to stop every local decision? Larger centralised specialist units are more efficient.

michaels

I think the problem with social care is apparently it is an uninsurable risk.

Suppose there is a 1 in 3 chance of needing 200k of social care and 2 in 3 of dying without needing any care. Those with the assets might want to pay 70k to insure against the risk that they had a 1 in 3 chance of having to pay out 200k but such cover is not available.

Not being able to insure against this risk might encourage them to make sure that they had fewer assets before they reach the age where it is likely to be a problem and take advantage of free state provision.

So there is a market failure which social insurance could in theory address.

Arklight

It's funny watching the right wingers on this thread volte-face and insist that pensioners now need to be thrown to the wolves of market forces, because that's what Tory HQ has just decided.


May's policies on social care, the NHS, and Brexit, are stunningly awful as well as lacking humanity. Also exacerbated by not being costed. If Labour had come up with this lumpen mess it would be being torn apart.

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How is Labour going to stop every local decision? Larger centralised specialist units are more efficient.

And not just more efficient but has better medical outcomes. Being treated by a specialist stroke/cardiology/whatever team is much more likely to achieve a positive outcome than being treated by a non-specialist or having to wait longer.

Imagine you had the choice of separate queues for each window at a bank or a single queue for all positions. Most understand that with the single queue everyone will get served quickly rather than there being random long and short waits. Combining small hospitals into one large one is exactly the same thing.

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

I've no idea what this means. At the moment 'they' 'asset strip' you above £28, which is much worse than 'asset stripping' you above £100. In addition, people won't have to sell their homes in order to pay for any care they need (and note that not everyone does need expensive care). If money is taken for this purpose from their estate after they have died (i.e. when they no longer need it), that seems a far more sensible solution.

Might also provide an incentive for families to look after their grandparents, like they used to (unless they have serious medical conditions that require ongoing medical care).

I tend to agree with you.

I think the problem with the proposal is that it could deter people from saving in much of the country but that is quite difficult to predict.

Personally I still favour taxing all estates by a small amount rather than taxing those with the misfortune to be affected. But the proposal is at least a solution.

But I do not see much difference between this and the "death tax" the Tories have previously ridiculed. However you dress this up it is a tax..