Protecting my house

wannabe_a_saver

Billy_B_North said:

coffeehound said:

While certain regions of Britain benefit from free care in old age while others don't, it seems unfair to berate the OP for wanting the same.  Welcome to the UK, folks.

Certain people can afford champagne while others can’t, that doesn’t make it acceptable to shop lift.

If you want to benefit from care that the state pays for then moving is an option. Trying to cheat isn’t.

Another option is to vote for parties that plan to fund social care properly. 

GDB2222

Will any parties meet the cost of really good care? At the moment, funded care is at the rock bottom end of the market. 

Salemicus

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

wannabe_a_saver

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

Billy_B_North

wannabe_a_saver said:

Billy_B_North said:

coffeehound said:

While certain regions of Britain benefit from free care in old age while others don't, it seems unfair to berate the OP for wanting the same.  Welcome to the UK, folks.

Certain people can afford champagne while others can’t, that doesn’t make it acceptable to shop lift.

If you want to benefit from care that the state pays for then moving is an option. Trying to cheat isn’t.

Another option is to vote for parties that plan to fund social care properly. 

No thanks, as they’ll fund it “properly” by taxing me more and others less.

My homes won’t be at risk as I’ve saved and invested enough from my post-tax income to make sure of it. If you want the same sort of care as I’ve provisioned for then you’ll need to do the same, it’s not reasonable to expect that I pay for mine, and yours, but that you get to keep a house to pass on to your children.

Billy_B_North

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.

wannabe_a_saver

Billy_B_North said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.

We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

A hike in inheritance tax would be a good start. 

lookstraightahead

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

House fire? How do you mean? Don't you take out insurance for that?

lookstraightahead

wannabe_a_saver said:

Billy_B_North said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

But we don’t all contribute. Over half of all households are net recipients even when looked at only in cash terms. More are when things like healthcare costs are included.

It’s only about 40% of households that are net contributors, and only about 20% who pay in a significant amount.
There’d be far more money to fund care if we didn’t have such a high threshold for income tax and such a low starting rate.

We all contribute what we can, or at least that's the idea. 

A hike in inheritance tax would be a good start. 

That's just picking and choosing.

i think luxury goods tax should be increased - beer, fags, clothes, holidays, cars etc 

easterbunni

lookstraightahead said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Salemicus said:

No political party will meet the cost of care. Some might force the taxpayer to meet that cost.

Well that's how a fair society works, we each contribute so that everybody can benefit. 

Its how we can get cancer or have babies or have a house fire without facing enormous individual bills for dealing with it.  

House fire? How do you mean? Don't you take out insurance for that?

I think they mean the potential bill for the big red lorry and several highly trained persons who put their lives at risk fighting said house fire.