snap general election?

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

Mr Goo raises a good point, in Bransgore, the council will be receiving far far more into the coffers, your resident will be getting more nurses and better care, than the patient in halifax as the council just wont have the resources to spend.

But as i ve said before, with out staff, no one gets care and TM isnt proposing where this will come from.

Cuts to staff can only go so far under austerity and vote Tory and your voting for another 5 years of it!!! before it effects what we get, a former met counter terrorism on R4 this morning saying Police numbers are too low esp in the community and they also havent the numbers of AR officers.

i dont know if he is right or not but before this bombing, figures for new AR officers were struggling to get anywhere nr numbers promised by May - cuts to community officers have widely been said (by chief constables )will reduce Police effectiveness in gather info within communities.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

That is not the case. Only if they decided to cash in the house and live in a tent.
I put it to you that if people working for the same wages but in different areas of the country. Some of them will have more expendable income, whilst others have most of it used to put the roof over their head.

The sitting Tory MP at the hustings admitted to a 60+ yr old woman who lives with her 90 yr old mother who receives care that under the new proposals she will be forced to sell the house she lives in, rendering her homeless. But at least she'll have £100k.

milton50

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

Wealth is more unequally distributed than income, so if you believe in higher marginal tax rates for income then this should also be seen as a reasonably 'fair' way of doing it.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

That is not the case. Only if they decided to cash in the house and live in a tent.
I put it to you that if people working for the same wages but in different areas of the country. Some of them will have more expendable income, whilst others have most of it used to put the roof over their head.

The sitting Tory MP at the hustings admitted to a 60+ yr old woman who lives with her 90 yr old mother who receives care that under the new proposals she will be forced to sell the house she lives in, rendering her homeless. But at least she'll have £100k.

You are normally very vocal in your calls for redistribution when it comes to income. At a guess you own a house worth circa £500k and are appalled at the idea of paying more for the good of society as you do not consider yourself rich.

You have to admit that is funny.

mr_goo

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

Mr Goo raises a good point, in Bransgore, the council will be receiving far far more into the coffers, your resident will be getting more nurses and better care, than the patient in halifax as the council just wont have the resources to spend.

But as i ve said before, with out staff, no one gets care and TM isnt proposing where this will come from.

Cuts to staff can only go so far under austerity and vote Tory and your voting for another 5 years of it!!! before it effects what we get, a former met counter terrorism on R4 this morning saying Police numbers are too low esp in the community and they also havent the numbers of AR officers.

i dont know if he is right or not but before this bombing, figures for new AR officers were struggling to get anywhere nr numbers promised by May - cuts to community officers have widely been said (by chief constables )will reduce Police effectiveness in gather info within communities.

You may think that care is better. But that's not necessarily the case. To take this further there are no standardised care practices or a complaints system in the UK for social care. Why? Because successive governments (Lab, Coalition, Con) have tried to tackle the issue, but it is too big a problem to handle.
The only answer for this crisis in care is to have a National Care Service. We have a National Health Service after all.
Yes I am sure we'll all have to pay more tax, but we could certainly kick it off in the short term by using the £56bn earmarked for a train track connecting London, Birmingham and Manchester.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

That is not the case. Only if they decided to cash in the house and live in a tent.
I put it to you that if people working for the same wages but in different areas of the country. Some of them will have more expendable income, whilst others have most of it used to put the roof over their head.

The sitting Tory MP at the hustings admitted to a 60+ yr old woman who lives with her 90 yr old mother who receives care that under the new proposals she will be forced to sell the house she lives in, rendering her homeless. But at least she'll have £100k.

You are normally very vocal in your calls for redistribution when it comes to income. At a guess you own a house worth circa £500k and are appalled at the idea of paying more for the good of society as you do not consider yourself rich.

You have to admit that is funny.

Wish my house was worth that. We don't all live in thatched cottages with ponies at the garden gate in the New Forest. FYI the district has some of the worst areas for childhood poverty in Hampshire.

rick_chasey

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... these.html

Simon Wren-Lewis on deficit vs interest rates (and how, when you're at the lower bound, fiscal policy needs to step up).

Pross

So you are saying those in £500k houses even in your part of the world are relatively wealthy then?

There are legal methods to ensure someone can stay in a house when people are in care that has been discussed in detail on here by others before. To be honest, if I had a loved one needing medical care and I shared an expensive house with them I'd like to think I'd be prepared to downsize to something more modest to pay for the care they needed in any case.

mr_goo

Pross wrote:

So you are saying those in £500k houses even in your part of the world are relatively wealthy then?

There are legal methods to ensure someone can stay in a house when people are in care that has been discussed in detail on here by others before. To be honest, if I had a loved one needing medical care and I shared an expensive house with them I'd like to think I'd be prepared to downsize to something more modest to pay for the care they needed in any case.

With the rediculous rise in property in the south, downsizing for those in modest properties is a tent or sleeping bag in a doorway.
This policy is going to force 10s of thousands out of their family home and increase homelessness and incur greater burdens on local authorities and social services.
My local MP said that if you are a home owner then that is your savings for later in life. I'd say that is correct but only if you cash it in.

Pross

But you've said yourself that your house is not worth anything like £500k so do you live in a tent? You can't have it both ways.

type:epyt

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

And both should use whatever wealth they have available to pay for their care, not ask the tax payer to subsidise what someone's family feels is their 'due' ...

kingstongraham

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

So fairness suggests the person in Halifax should pay £81,000 so that they can pass on the same proportion of the value of their house.

Or the person in Halifax should pay £102,000 because that's how much they have.

Or both should pay £2,000 because that's the same amount, and their kids pay the rest through taxes.

All of these options could be seen as more "fair". But then so could each of them using their own money to pay for their own care, with no floor or cap.

Just now, it's a mess.

mamba80

type:epyt wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

And both should use whatever wealth they have available to pay for their care, not ask the tax payer to subsidise what someone's family feels is their 'due' ...

ok then, your wife/loved one is diagnosed with MND you of course will have no problem selling the house for the next xx years of ever increasingly expensive care she ll need, when they die, you and the kids can live in BnB waiting for a council house. i also hope that should you break your leg out cycling, you dont expect me (the tax payer) to subsidise your stupidity, with thw 1000's in hospital care you ll need...... the elderly have paid tax all their lives.

big problem with the new cap being proposed is that a v wealthy family will get exactly the same cap(and therefore keep a far greater proportion of their wealth) than a family on avg means, thats grossly unfair and another subsidy for the rich.

also, what exactly is the difference between developing dementia as a 65yo or getting MS or MND etc at 50? one is totally free, the other will cost the family house.

kingstongraham

And also, why is the person paying £400,000 only getting the same thing as the person paying £2,000? That really doesn't encourage saving for your old age.

kingstongraham

Mr Goo wrote:

My local MP said that if you are a home owner then that is your savings for later in life. I'd say that is correct but only if you cash it in.

Obviously. Through downsizing, moving into rented accommodation or an equity release scheme.

rick_chasey

I read somewhere that equality in tax rules needs to be taken at the broadest perspective rather than in each specific instance.

The latter only leads to more inequality.

type:epyt

mamba80 wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Went to a hustings this evening.
Interesting point on the 'Dementia Tax' from the Lib Dems candidate, who hadn't got a car in helps chance of beating Sir Desmond (Con)
Average house price in Halifax £102,000. Average house price in Bransgore (where hustings held) £500, 000.
Ergo the person in Halifax will pay £2,000 for their care costs and the person in Bransgore £400,000 for exactly the same. How is that fair?

One is richer than the other.

And both should use whatever wealth they have available to pay for their care, not ask the tax payer to subsidise what someone's family feels is their 'due' ...

ok then, your wife/loved one is diagnosed with MND you of course will have no problem selling the house for the next xx years of ever increasingly expensive care she ll need, when they die, you and the kids can live in BnB waiting for a council house. i also hope that should you break your leg out cycling, you dont expect me (the tax payer) to subsidise your stupidity, with thw 1000's in hospital care you ll need...... the elderly have paid tax all their lives.

big problem with the new cap being proposed is that a v wealthy family will get exactly the same cap(and therefore keep a far greater proportion of their wealth) than a family on avg means, thats grossly unfair and another subsidy for the rich.

also, what exactly is the difference between developing dementia as a 65yo or getting MS or MND etc at 50? one is totally free, the other will cost the family house.

It's unfortunate, and very much the luck of the draw, but being able to pass on an inheritance whilst the tax payer picks up the bill isn't a fair (or sustainable) model ... And someone's spouse/dependant living in a £1m home whilst the tax payer coughs up for their care isn't fair either ... move to a smaller/cheaper home so the person in care's wealth goes towards that care ...

mamba80

type:epyt wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

ok then, your wife/loved one is diagnosed with MND you of course will have no problem selling the house for the next xx years of ever increasingly expensive care she ll need, when they die, you and the kids can live in BnB waiting for a council house. i also hope that should you break your leg out cycling, you dont expect me (the tax payer) to subsidise your stupidity, with thw 1000's in hospital care you ll need...... the elderly have paid tax all their lives.

big problem with the new cap being proposed is that a v wealthy family will get exactly the same cap(and therefore keep a far greater proportion of their wealth) than a family on avg means, thats grossly unfair and another subsidy for the rich.

also, what exactly is the difference between developing dementia as a 65yo or getting MS or MND etc at 50? one is totally free, the other will cost the family house.

It's unfortunate, and very much the luck of the draw, but being able to pass on an inheritance whilst the tax payer picks up the bill isn't a fair (or sustainable) model ... And someone's spouse/dependant living in a £1m home whilst the tax payer coughs up for their care isn't fair either ... move to a smaller/cheaper home so the person in care's wealth goes towards that care ...

Care should nt be based on the luck of the draw.

the problem with your solution is that it leads to avoidance, easily done, legally.

As i said the elderly have paid taxes all their lives, the feckless have not and certainly havent saved for their future and their childrens future, yet you want to punish them?

If the Gov takes on the Delnot proposals, then there is a cap and costs can be met via some form of either private or state insurance, if you choose not to buy into this, then of course take assets and tighten the law on avoidance.

remember most people do not need years of very expensive and long term care, also need to look at pay of care staff and numbers.

kingstongraham

I'm sure my parents had to sell my grandparents' house to pay the council back for residential care 15 years ago. They were in their late 50s by then, so I struggle to see it as preventing parents giving a leg up to their "kids".

Is it only new because people are living longer with more care needs?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/still-not-getting-it-after-all-these.html

Simon Wren-Lewis on deficit vs interest rates (and how, when you're at the lower bound, fiscal policy needs to step up).

but pre-referendum growth was at (or near) long-term trend rates so why waste money on stimulus. Also I am not sure the problem is a lack of demand and if anything the consumer spending boom is storing up problems. There are no votes in raising the long term trend rate of growth.

Ending the deficit has been pushed out to the never never and in all likelihood will keep growing until something awful happens and the tap gets switched off.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/still-not-getting-it-after-all-these.html

Simon Wren-Lewis on deficit vs interest rates (and how, when you're at the lower bound, fiscal policy needs to step up).

but pre-referendum growth was at (or near) long-term trend rates so why waste money on stimulus. Also I am not sure the problem is a lack of demand and if anything the consumer spending boom is storing up problems. There are no votes in raising the long term trend rate of growth.

Ending the deficit has been pushed out to the never never and in all likelihood will keep growing until something awful happens and the tap gets switched off.

Isn't his point less about growth, and more about freeing up the interest rate weapons again?

i.e. if things are hovering around zero bound, things ain't gonna be good, regardless of other indicators?

(you know more than me so...)

Then once you have that weapon free, you can start worrying about the fiscal side...

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/still-not-getting-it-after-all-these.html

Simon Wren-Lewis on deficit vs interest rates (and how, when you're at the lower bound, fiscal policy needs to step up).

but pre-referendum growth was at (or near) long-term trend rates so why waste money on stimulus. Also I am not sure the problem is a lack of demand and if anything the consumer spending boom is storing up problems. There are no votes in raising the long term trend rate of growth.

Ending the deficit has been pushed out to the never never and in all likelihood will keep growing until something awful happens and the tap gets switched off.

Isn't his point less about growth, and more about freeing up the interest rate weapons again?

i.e. if things are hovering around zero bound, things ain't gonna be good, regardless of other indicators?

(you know more than me so...)

Then once you have that weapon free, you can start worrying about the fiscal side...

not the easiest thing to read but I was interpreting that as easing up fiscal policy to promote growth so you can increase interest rates so that you can cut them again if you need to.

It seems like academic madness to me but I had never heard of "zero bound" so no sure I know more than you.

I am also somebody who suspects that PPI is a big scheme to punish the banks and "helicopter cash" into the economy which equates to a massive fiscal loosening.

bendertherobot

James O'Brien claims No 10 phoning LBC and asking them to stop with the dementia tax stuff.

rick_chasey

bendertherobot wrote:

James O'Brien claims No 10 phoning LBC and asking them to stop with the dementia tax stuff.

Ha.

rick_chasey

Just wait for some Corbyn related dead-cat to appear on the table today or tomorrow...

Something around sympathy for terrorists or something of that ilk, given the news.

dinyull

Something like this:

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/22/sky ... rse-video/

Although it's from a few days ago.

dinyull

This is worth a watch also:

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/22/wat ... all-speed/

rick_chasey

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

I thought the Great British Public hated subsidising regions? if this gets out they will be up in arms and demand they stop receiving this undeserved wonga

bendertherobot

Dinyull wrote:

Something like this:

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/22/sky ... rse-video/

Although it's from a few days ago.

Well, this is actually today's, though, to balance, I am sure that it went to print before last night's atrocities: