snap general election?

1212224262769

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    And goodbye £350m to the NHS post Brexit.

    DAHL1h9UMAAf76d.jpg:large

    they have spent the £350m a few times over

    what is a "dormant asset" surely they would not loot some old ladies post office account because she had not accessed it in 6 months?
  • Pross wrote:
    I'm still confused why so many people say the 'rich' should pay more. The very nature of the system means that the more you earn (once over the tax free allowance) the more you pay and once you hit the higher threshold you start paying disproportionately more. What people are really saying is the rich (by which they usually mean someone who earns more than they expect to ever earn themselves) should pay an even more disproportionate rate.

    I think it's a good compromise for folk who acknowledge funding for public services is inadequate and that additional taxation is necessary but don't want to pay more tax themselves. No-one can accuse them of being uncaring as they are happy to pay more tax if they are "rich enough" to do so, but it doesn't actually hit them in the pocket.

    It is a problem in the UK that folk generally expect health and education to be free, want the best yet generally vote for the party offering them the prospect of the lowest rates of tax.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross wrote:
    I'm still confused why so many people say the 'rich' should pay more. The very nature of the system means that the more you earn (once over the tax free allowance) the more you pay and once you hit the higher threshold you start paying disproportionately more. What people are really saying is the rich (by which they usually mean someone who earns more than they expect to ever earn themselves) should pay an even more disproportionate rate.

    I think it's a good compromise for folk who acknowledge funding for public services is inadequate and that additional taxation is necessary but don't want to pay more tax themselves. No-one can accuse them of being uncaring as they are happy to pay more tax if they are "rich enough" to do so, but it doesn't actually hit them in the pocket.

    It is a problem in the UK that folk generally expect health and education to be free, want the best yet generally vote for the party offering them the prospect of the lowest rates of tax.

    But total taxation barely moves so in reality we have to grow the economy or switch spending from other areas (aka cuts)
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

    Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.
    To be fair they are raising the threshold at which you are entitled to get care paid for quite substantially, from around £23k to £100k. This is likely to fall more heavily on those down South with valuable properties, although personally I have just seen my future inheritance go up by an extra £77k due to TM's announcement. She already got my vote, but thank you Mrs. May :)

    You need to do your research.
    If your in a care home, them yes you ll get to keep 100k instead of 23k, however now your house will be included in the assessment should you require (or want) care at home, where as before, at home it only inc cash.

    another thing is that very often the care provided by the state will be limited, so unlike being in a nursing home, the family will be left having to top up with night care and additional private nursing, or have to give up job and become a full time carer.

    Gotta to love fallon, stating that now pensioners will be able to leave their house to the family.... FFS a 100k isnt the value of the avg house, again BBC dont challenge him on this.
    I have - my old dear went into a care home last month as she is not safe on her own, so no possibility of her returning home now my old man is not around. Her half of the house is included in the assessment (he passed his half to me in the will to avoid exactly this problem) and as she is now in care, the half a house would be included under the old rules - the only difference being she will now has to give away much less than before.

    Surely though, you ll (your mum) be dealt with under the existing system ie assets used to pay for care until 23k left? i d imagine folk once in the care system wont be able to move to any new scheme esp as it wont be set up on june 9th, previous promises on care have taken years to be implemented or not at all.

    with nursing care at 3k per week, doesnt take long for that 23k to be reached.

    also, if your dad didnt do this provision until he was ill or at least expecting to become ill, it could be deemed to be avoidance?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,941
    mamba80 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

    Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.
    To be fair they are raising the threshold at which you are entitled to get care paid for quite substantially, from around £23k to £100k. This is likely to fall more heavily on those down South with valuable properties, although personally I have just seen my future inheritance go up by an extra £77k due to TM's announcement. She already got my vote, but thank you Mrs. May :)

    You need to do your research.
    If your in a care home, them yes you ll get to keep 100k instead of 23k, however now your house will be included in the assessment should you require (or want) care at home, where as before, at home it only inc cash.

    another thing is that very often the care provided by the state will be limited, so unlike being in a nursing home, the family will be left having to top up with night care and additional private nursing, or have to give up job and become a full time carer.

    Gotta to love fallon, stating that now pensioners will be able to leave their house to the family.... FFS a 100k isnt the value of the avg house, again BBC dont challenge him on this.
    I have - my old dear went into a care home last month as she is not safe on her own, so no possibility of her returning home now my old man is not around. Her half of the house is included in the assessment (he passed his half to me in the will to avoid exactly this problem) and as she is now in care, the half a house would be included under the old rules - the only difference being she will now has to give away much less than before.

    Surely though, you ll (your mum) be dealt with under the existing system ie assets used to pay for care until 23k left? i d imagine folk once in the care system wont be able to move to any new scheme esp as it wont be set up on june 9th, previous promises on care have taken years to be implemented or not at all.

    with nursing care at 3k per week, doesnt take long for that 23k to be reached.

    also, if your dad didnt do this provision until he was ill or at least expecting to become ill, it could be deemed to be avoidance?
    We'll have to see what the law says but once a £100k limit kicks in it should apply to all. It's not nursing care its just a care home - £460 a week currently and she pays £520 a month - pretty much matching her pension income. I can hold off selling the house if needed to defer payments until the rules kick in.

    He made the will in 2004.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,283
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.

    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,582
    Tories want to set up a sovereign wealth fund to invest in British State assets, by selling British State assets...

    DAHI_sPVoAAJToK.jpg:large

    https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/865194112194097152
    Question.
    Is it wise to create a wealth fund while the national debt is increasing?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.

    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?

    What the Tories have failed to grasp is that for the majority of those currently in their 20s/30s/40s and 50s home ownership is just a pipe dream. These generations have seen real terms reduction in wages, but exponential growth in house prices and rent. They are therefore going to be living with mum & dad, grandma & grandpa for a very long time. Their possible only hope of owning a house is to inherit the property of their currently living parents or grandparents. The Tories are hell bent on ensuring that the average middle earners just EXIST.

    The easiest way to meet the cost of the social care in the UK is to ditch the £55+ bn HS2/3 project, which lets face it, is only set up to benefit the Tories mates at Balfour Beatty.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,889
    I'm not particularly exercised or interested in green issues as a general rule, but air pollution is quickly becoming one of the important factors for me.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... and-mexico

    That was quite a surprising figure...
    I'm surprised that you are surprised, given that you ride through the stuff on a regular basis. I am surprised that none of the opposition parties have made anything of the Government's p!ss-poor attempts to even comply with the existing law. In fact they are actively fighting against taking any action.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not particularly exercised or interested in green issues as a general rule, but air pollution is quickly becoming one of the important factors for me.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... and-mexico

    That was quite a surprising figure...
    I'm surprised that you are surprised, given that you ride through the stuff on a regular basis. I am surprised that none of the opposition parties have made anything of the Government's p!ss-poor attempts to even comply with the existing law. In fact they are actively fighting against taking any action.

    I know it's bad in London - didn't know it was so bad elsewhere.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,283
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not particularly exercised or interested in green issues as a general rule, but air pollution is quickly becoming one of the important factors for me.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... and-mexico

    That was quite a surprising figure...
    I'm surprised that you are surprised, given that you ride through the stuff on a regular basis. I am surprised that none of the opposition parties have made anything of the Government's p!ss-poor attempts to even comply with the existing law. In fact they are actively fighting against taking any action.

    LibDem manifesto is proposing a ban on diesel car sales by 2025, extending ultra low emission zones, ultra low emission taxis and buses by 2022.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,582
    I am surprised that Rick is not aware of that.
    Subtle manifesto push?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Didn't watch all of the debate last night, only the opening salvo's... Nuttall having to read from notes whilst the others recited their lines. Pretty much sums the man and the party up.

    Apparently he got one of the other leaders names wrong too haha.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    No.

    It's more my health check up on my heart, which was never a concern since i have no history of heart stuff in either side of the family and i'm fit, by all accounts, was showing up an (extremely minor) problem - and it seems that pollution is the single biggest cause of it.

    Not ideal.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.

    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?

    What the Tories have failed to grasp is that for the majority of those currently in their 20s/30s/40s and 50s home ownership is just a pipe dream. These generations have seen real terms reduction in wages, but exponential growth in house prices and rent. They are therefore going to be living with mum & dad, grandma & grandpa for a very long time. Their possible only hope of owning a house is to inherit the property of their currently living parents or grandparents. The Tories are hell bent on ensuring that the average middle earners just EXIST.

    The easiest way to meet the cost of the social care in the UK is to ditch the £55+ bn HS2/3 project, which lets face it, is only set up to benefit the Tories mates at Balfour Beatty.

    Is it realistic to expect to earn more than our parents? and so on for every generation? is this a notion based upon generations of the same family went into the same profession.

    Why the obsession with property ownership - should the state really be prioritising helping people onto the property ladder?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,889
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not particularly exercised or interested in green issues as a general rule, but air pollution is quickly becoming one of the important factors for me.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... and-mexico

    That was quite a surprising figure...
    I'm surprised that you are surprised, given that you ride through the stuff on a regular basis. I am surprised that none of the opposition parties have made anything of the Government's p!ss-poor attempts to even comply with the existing law. In fact they are actively fighting against taking any action.

    I know it's bad in London - didn't know it was so bad elsewhere.

    More worrying is a government actively ignoring legislation that it helped draft, and the idea that the Treasury saying "Oh, gosh that's rather expensive" is all it takes to overrule tackling such a serious public health issue. It's not as though people can just stop breathing.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,582
    It would save the NHS if the unhealthy did simply stop breathing though.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,889
    PBlakeney wrote:
    It would save the NHS if the unhealthy did simply stop breathing though.
    I know it's a flippant comment but you only have partial control over your health. You can tick all the lifestyle boxes, but still be struck down with any number of conditions.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.

    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?

    What the Tories have failed to grasp is that for the majority of those currently in their 20s/30s/40s and 50s home ownership is just a pipe dream. These generations have seen real terms reduction in wages, but exponential growth in house prices and rent. They are therefore going to be living with mum & dad, grandma & grandpa for a very long time. Their possible only hope of owning a house is to inherit the property of their currently living parents or grandparents. The Tories are hell bent on ensuring that the average middle earners just EXIST.

    The easiest way to meet the cost of the social care in the UK is to ditch the £55+ bn HS2/3 project, which lets face it, is only set up to benefit the Tories mates at Balfour Beatty.

    Is it realistic to expect to earn more than our parents? and so on for every generation? is this a notion based upon generations of the same family went into the same profession.

    Why the obsession with property ownership - should the state really be prioritising helping people onto the property ladder?

    I am pretty sure that you, like me as a parent would want to help our children and their children in any way possible by passing on down what we have earned and paid taxes for. To give them the best possible chance in life. Nobody expects to live in a castle or stately home. But to help assist in providing a modest roof over our childrens' head is the least I want to be able to provide for. IT IS ALWAYS THE 'MIDDLE CLASS' (AS WE ARE TERMED) THAT GET F****D RIGHT UP THE A-HOLE.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,283
    By the time most people get the care that is being talked about, the "children" will be likely in their 40s/50s. If you're still relying on mummy and daddy rather than standing on your own 2 feet by then, you need to take a look at yourself.

    There maybe should be a compulsory insurance scheme to spread the risk, but without that, everyone's children would pay anyway through taxes. When there's a bill, someone has to pay.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.



    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?

    What the Tories have failed to grasp is that for the majority of those currently in their 20s/30s/40s and 50s home ownership is just a pipe dream. These generations have seen real terms reduction in wages, but exponential growth in house prices and rent. They are therefore going to be living with mum & dad, grandma & grandpa for a very long time. Their possible only hope of owning a house is to inherit the property of their currently living parents or grandparents. The Tories are hell bent on ensuring that the average middle earners just EXIST.

    The easiest way to meet the cost of the social care in the UK is to ditch the £55+ bn HS2/3 project, which lets face it, is only set up to benefit the Tories mates at Balfour Beatty.

    Is it realistic to expect to earn more than our parents? and so on for every generation? is this a notion based upon generations of the same family went into the same profession.

    Why the obsession with property ownership - should the state really be prioritising helping people onto the property ladder?

    I am pretty sure that you, like me as a parent would want to help our children and their children in any way possible by passing on down what we have earned and paid taxes for. To give them the best possible chance in life. Nobody expects to live in a castle or stately home. But to help assist in providing a modest roof over our childrens' head is the least I want to be able to provide for. IT IS ALWAYS THE 'MIDDLE CLASS' (AS WE ARE TERMED) THAT GET F****D RIGHT UP THE A-HOLE.

    So what is the solution?

    My best solution would be to gives everybody a budget that they could spend where they wanted and top up if they wanted. This would help to drive up standards but I have no idea about affordability.

    I have nothing against the principle of inheritance but I am not sure that it is healthy for people to be basing their financial/lifestyle planning upon it.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,582
    By the time most people get the care that is being talked about, the "children" will be likely in their 40s/50s. If you're still relying on mummy and daddy rather than standing on your own 2 feet by then, you need to take a look at yourself.

    There maybe should be a compulsory insurance scheme to spread the risk, but without that, everyone's children would pay anyway through taxes. When there's a bill, someone has to pay.
    Good idea!
    What should we call it? National Insurance?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    edited May 2017
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.



    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?

    What the Tories have failed to grasp is that for the majority of those currently in their 20s/30s/40s and 50s home ownership is just a pipe dream. These generations have seen real terms reduction in wages, but exponential growth in house prices and rent. They are therefore going to be living with mum & dad, grandma & grandpa for a very long time. Their possible only hope of owning a house is to inherit the property of their currently living parents or grandparents. The Tories are hell bent on ensuring that the average middle earners just EXIST.

    The easiest way to meet the cost of the social care in the UK is to ditch the £55+ bn HS2/3 project, which lets face it, is only set up to benefit the Tories mates at Balfour Beatty.

    Is it realistic to expect to earn more than our parents? and so on for every generation? is this a notion based upon generations of the same family went into the same profession.

    Why the obsession with property ownership - should the state really be prioritising helping people onto the property ladder?

    I am pretty sure that you, like me as a parent would want to help our children and their children in any way possible by passing on down what we have earned and paid taxes for. To give them the best possible chance in life. Nobody expects to live in a castle or stately home. But to help assist in providing a modest roof over our childrens' head is the least I want to be able to provide for. IT IS ALWAYS THE 'MIDDLE CLASS' (AS WE ARE TERMED) THAT GET F****D RIGHT UP THE A-HOLE.

    So what is the solution?

    My best solution would be to gives everybody a budget that they could spend where they wanted and top up if they wanted. This would help to drive up standards but I have no idea about affordability.

    I have nothing against the principle of inheritance but I am not sure that it is healthy for people to be basing their financial/lifestyle planning upon it.

    Scrap HS2. That'll pay for it for quite some time.
    Re inheritance. The way cost of living and property prices are escalating, inhertitance is for many the only possible chance to get a permanent roof over ones head.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,283
    PBlakeney wrote:
    By the time most people get the care that is being talked about, the "children" will be likely in their 40s/50s. If you're still relying on mummy and daddy rather than standing on your own 2 feet by then, you need to take a look at yourself.

    There maybe should be a compulsory insurance scheme to spread the risk, but without that, everyone's children would pay anyway through taxes. When there's a bill, someone has to pay.
    Good idea!
    What should we call it? National Insurance?

    Not a great idea, people might confuse it with a tax.

    Why not Affordable Care? What could go wrong?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Scrap HS2. That'll pay for it for quite some time.
    Re inheritance. The way cist of living and property prices are escalating. Inheritance is for many the only possible chance to get a permanent roof over ones head.

    This is addressing the symptom, not the cause.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    So let me get this straight. Under the Tories social care costs will be met from the sale of the assets of the deceased's estate (house, savings etc, etc). Leaving only £100k to be divied up. Could someone tell me what happens to the spouse left behind that is still living in the house? Are they turfed out onto the streets or put up in a guest house at the local councils behest?
    What a completely appalling policy. It is Conservatives at their very best/worst. Making sure that the average working man and women cannot improve the lot of the next generation of their families. Thus ensuring a nest or hive of workers to be forever slaves to the system and the wealthy........ Come the revolution.

    The answer is no, the spouse isn't kicked out.

    And the next generation will probably be in their 50s at least, so have their own life already.

    Given house prices, these 50 yo's will still be renting, this like the previous policy is nothing more than a tax on sickness, Andrew Dilmont wrote a well received report on care for the elderly, May has completely ignored it.

    There is something very wrong when the feckless will get exactly the same care as someone who has worked hard and been sensible, its also very unfair that only the frail and demented are expected to pay for their care but say someone with an on going heart condition in their 50s gets treated for free.
    Interesting that May wants people to give up work to look after mum or dad, the only way this can be done is (in our case and i suspect many others) through inheritance, we d have drawn up a deed of variance to compensate my sister for her loss of earnings, as the Will is split 3 ways, this just isnt an option and when the time comes, one or both of our parents will have to go into a care home, we cant afford to pay her on going wages, this policy just punishes the less well off but thats always been a tory policy.

    Given they ll no doubt also introduce higher probate fees (once they ve a bigger majority) then one new tax come june 9th will be on death.





    Care costs now wont be coming out of savings if below 100k, so surely there is going to be a cash flow problem here?

    What the Tories have failed to grasp is that for the majority of those currently in their 20s/30s/40s and 50s home ownership is just a pipe dream. These generations have seen real terms reduction in wages, but exponential growth in house prices and rent. They are therefore going to be living with mum & dad, grandma & grandpa for a very long time. Their possible only hope of owning a house is to inherit the property of their currently living parents or grandparents. The Tories are hell bent on ensuring that the average middle earners just EXIST.

    The easiest way to meet the cost of the social care in the UK is to ditch the £55+ bn HS2/3 project, which lets face it, is only set up to benefit the Tories mates at Balfour Beatty.

    Is it realistic to expect to earn more than our parents? and so on for every generation? is this a notion based upon generations of the same family went into the same profession.

    Why the obsession with property ownership - should the state really be prioritising helping people onto the property ladder?

    I am pretty sure that you, like me as a parent would want to help our children and their children in any way possible by passing on down what we have earned and paid taxes for. To give them the best possible chance in life. Nobody expects to live in a castle or stately home. But to help assist in providing a modest roof over our childrens' head is the least I want to be able to provide for. IT IS ALWAYS THE 'MIDDLE CLASS' (AS WE ARE TERMED) THAT GET F****D RIGHT UP THE A-HOLE.

    So what is the solution?

    My best solution would be to gives everybody a budget that they could spend where they wanted and top up if they wanted. This would help to drive up standards but I have no idea about affordability.

    I have nothing against the principle of inheritance but I am not sure that it is healthy for people to be basing their financial/lifestyle planning upon it.

    Scrap HS2. That'll pay for it for quite some time.
    Re inheritance. The way cist of living and property prices are escalating. Inheritance is for many the only possible chance to get a permanent roof over ones head.

    so you want the govt to subsidise feckless middle class, people in the South East, to buy property?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Scrap HS2. That'll pay for it for quite some time.
    Re inheritance. The way cist of living and property prices are escalating. Inheritance is for many the only possible chance to get a permanent roof over ones head.

    This is addressing the symptom, not the cause.

    so we could;
    reduce house prices by two thirds
    reduce people's obsession with home ownership
    reduce people's obsession with living in the south east of England
    run workshops to help educate "young" people how to prioritise and manage their money :wink:
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Scrap HS2. That'll pay for it for quite some time.
    Re inheritance. The way cist of living and property prices are escalating. Inheritance is for many the only possible chance to get a permanent roof over ones head.

    This is addressing the symptom, not the cause.

    so we could;
    reduce house prices by two thirds
    reduce people's obsession with home ownership
    reduce people's obsession with living in the south east of England
    run workshops to help educate "young" people how to prioritise and manage their money :wink:

    It's not about educating young people about money management. Most are honest hard workers with their heads screwed on. For youngsters down here in the Poole/Bmth/Xch conurbation and surrounding districts, they're stuffed either for buying or renting property. For gods sake! Bl88dy beach huts sell for £250k down here.
    Do you suggest that all under 40s move to Middlesbrough, Newcastle or Glasgow?
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.