Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
“Supporters of Labour and other left wing parties are convinced they have the moral high ground and that any disagreement is inhumane, as a result any confession of Tory support is shouted down and abused.”
A significant portion of right wing policy has the ultimate aim of making the rich richer. Unless there's a magic money tree somewhere, that means they aim to do so at the expense of others, which is pretty morally reprehensible.
If that's not cause for quite correctly claiming some form of moral high ground, then I don't know what is.
Given the number of studies highlighting that those of a right wing disposition are on average educated to a lower level, I might also accept ignorance rather than a lack of empathy for defending Tories.
A significant portion of right wing policy has the ultimate aim of making the rich richer. Unless there's a magic money tree somewhere, that means they aim to do so at the expense of others, which is pretty morally reprehensible.
Well, there actually _is_ a magic money tree. Now that no-one is on the gold standard anymore, the Bank of England (and all other central banks) are essentially magic money trees, backed up impressive looking buildings, the paraphernalia of a modern nation state, and trust. Deserved or otherwise.
Amazingly, it seems to have worked tolerably well.
i.e. it's perfectly OK to be right wing.
i.e. it's perfectly OK to be right wing
Yes, because printing money has never caused any problems for anyone before 🙄
Just because someone shares some beliefs with UKIP or the Tories doesn't make them inherently evil,
Not evil, just prejudiced and lacking in any empathy.
UKIP believe in both leaving the EU and nationalising British Rail - I suppose that makes Corbyn a **** as well?
UKIP believe in both leaving the EU and nationalising British Rail - I suppose that makes Corbyn a **** as well?
Nope. It just further demonstrates your inability to comprehend all the facts associated with a discussion point. Sadly not surprising.
Just had a chat with my neighbour about the election. He said they were all clowns. I suggested it better to vote for a clown who at least wants to do good things...
Well, there actually _is_ a magic money tree.
True, but in the fairytale tradition, magic comes with a price 🙂
A significant portion of right wing policy has the ultimate aim of making the rich richer. Unless there's a magic money tree somewhere, that means they aim to do so at the expense of others, which is pretty morally reprehensible.
If that's not cause for quite correctly claiming some form of moral high ground, then I don't know what is.
Given the number of studies highlighting that those of a right wing disposition are on average educated to a lower level, I might also accept ignorance rather than a lack of empathy for defending Tories.
Chapeau zokes 😀 with your self righteous arrogance, you single handedly demonstrate why so many people don't want to engage with more left wing politics or those who peddle it.
Oooh it's like tennis as taxi returns the compliment using right wing self righteous generalisation and arrogance!!!
I'm impressed.
Oooh it's like tennis as taxi returns the compliment using right wing self righteous generalisation and arrogance!!!
A little bit perhaps. But the point I'm trying to make is when someone says.
"Torys mostly make money at others expense.
Because they supposedly do the left has moral high ground.
People vote Conservative out of ignorance."
The reaction of many people who aren't already committed to the left is, WTF where's this guy coming from and switch of, the message however good it might be gets lost.
A significant portion of right wing policy has the ultimate aim of making the rich richer.
That's not exactly it. The right wing thinks that people should make money according to their own ability to do so. And if you are bad at making money, then that's your problem - try harder. They hold this principle dear. Now MOST on the right appreciate that some people have trouble with this but they place a higher priority on allowing people to keep their cash than the left do; and they are more likely to let the poor deal with it themselves rather than bail them out and get them dependent on the state.
The upshot of that though is that it does indeed make it easier for the rich to get richer, and the poor do get poorer.
The reaction of many people who aren't already committed to the left is, WTF where's this guy coming from and switch of, the message however good it might be gets lost.
They have switched off long a go. Selfish, prejudiced people with zero empathy don't tend to suddenly change just because they see a good argument against how they have been living.
For example, even in these threads, when direct questions are asked on why right wingers think it is right to punish less fortunate people they don't have much to say.
but they place a higher priority on allowing people to keep their cash than the left do
Well, almost - they certainly place a high priority on the rich keeping their cash and also the cash of poorer people. A recent illustration of this principle in operation was the London garden bridge project - perfectly designed to funnel tax payers' money into private pockets.
Taxi - I understand your point and to be fair have some sympathy. I guess I'm just suggesting it's a two way street. Every time a right wingers uses "lefty" as an insult it tends to make me categorise them and prejudice me against their views. This is one of the reasons there a few people on here could try and suggest the sun rises in the morning and I'd want a secind opinion. (For similar reactions see also use of remoaner, remaniac etc) I just discount their views because they started so badly.
And yes I refer to Brexies.
For what it's worth I probably am a lefty, but you're only allowed to call me that if you're one too.
Why am I a lefty? Because I'm ok under any UK government (within reason) - white, male, well-educated, healthy and reasonable affluent - so I see my contribution being to make sure no one is left behind.
Paternalistic, condescending? Possibly - but better than the more "I'm alright Jack" selfish posture that would lead me to the right.
Do I think right wingers are bad people? No
Do I believe in enlarging the pie as well as dividing it more fairly? Yes
Was Tony Blair a huge disappointment? Well if only he hadn't taken us into an unnecessary war, no, but on balance, yes
Agreed re Tony Blair, probably the best Prime Minister to date if you discount war, PFI , bedroom tax, WCA , Sanctions and the embryonic form of the welfare reforms we see today, and an artificial housing bubble propping up the economy
He did a lot for poverty and particularly child poverty though - just on the stats, it might have happened anyway.
The current bunch have rolled that back.
The right wing thinks that people should make money according to their own ability to do so.
And also groups of people who are just lucky through birth and conditions. That's where it grates for me.
An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries - so although the rich don't want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier.
[quote=ninfan ]You only need to look how so many of them get upset about being disparagingly referred to as 'lefties' to see the hypocrisy in action.
I knew you had trouble with this empathy thing, but didn't realise it was that bad. You appear to be confusing "upset" with "amused" and it's only "disparaging" in your own mind. We established long ago that everybody to the left of you (ie 99% of the population) is a "leftie" - you presumably think I'm one, and I'm still way to the right of centre.
Though there is something to this criticism of supporters of left leaning parties - not all of them, though there are significant numbers on here. They also fail in empathy, because apparently they can't understand how it us possible to be bothered about other people, reasonably intelligent and still vote Tory. Sure the ultimate aims of many in control of policies of the Tory party, and certainly the vast majority of its donors are enrichment of the rich, but that certainly doesn't go for plenty of people who vote for them.
An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries - so although the rich don't want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier
They be happier because they're less likely to be turned over at the cash machine or be a victim of a household burg or sheding, getting thier 5 grand whip nicked..
They also fail in empathy, because apparently they can't understand how it us possible to be bothered about other people, reasonably intelligent and still vote Tory.
No, frankly I can't. Even a cursory analytical appraisal of current Tory policy means that either there is a lack of comprehension of the implications of those policies, or they're comprehended perfectly well by people who at best just shrug and carry on not caring.
And fwiw taxi, all you did was try to turn the argument round on me. I note you didn't actually refute a single word of my argument.
Well, almost - they certainly place a high priority on the rich keeping their cash and also the cash of poorer people.
Still disagree. The plan isn't actually to take moeny from be poor. It's to let people do what they want. Well of course, a lot of rich business people want to exploit the poor, but the Tories think this is just how it has to be. If you're being exploited then you need to stop being so useless and fight back. They think this is fair, everyone can fail or succeed on merit.
Yup, that's what I was aiming at by calling Tory voters murderers and enablers on the Corbyn thread, Zokes.
Hyperbole, absolutely.
But ignorance couldn't be used as an excuse as despite the hyperbole, links to deaths and death statistics were provided which were linked to Tory welfare reform, so the only conclusion I could come to is as you state above.
A heartless analysis, Mol, but probably nail on the head.
Well of course, a lot of rich business people want to exploit the poor, but the Tories think this is just how it has to be. If you're being exploited then you need to stop being so useless and fight back. They think this is fair, everyone can fail or succeed on merit*.
*Merit - or place of birth, postcode, parents wealth, luck etc.
The lasting trick is the same as the "American Dream" You can all be successful, please ignore the minor issues around the fact you will never be able to afford to consider expanding your chances but you could.
We could also judge people on their actions, plan A create a problem then you are able to propose an unpleasant solution to the problem you just created.
The current government has demonized immigrants, the poor, the judiciary and others so far.
They also fail in empathy, because apparently they can't understand how it us possible to be bothered about other people, reasonably intelligent and still vote Tory.
Correct - given the harm they have done I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of empathy could vote Tory.
They think this is fair, everyone can fail or succeed on merit.
If they believed that then there'd be a 100% inheritance tax, a ban on any private selective funding for education, and a ban on private healthcare for anyone using money that they hadn't earned themselves to pay for it. All these things favour families that already have lots of money and can pass it on to their children so that they may be advantaged. This leaves those without rich parents at a disadvantage for no reason other than that their parents were poor.
Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?
I know I don't, I find it laughable that someone would consider the term mortally wounding to my psyche or ego!
ulysse - Member
Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?
It's normally about the point where rational discussion has failed and it's a pre flounce moment from the poster to divert attention from their deeply flawed argument again. Genuinely raises a smile these days as I'm mostly a very centrist politically.
As pointed out above, I'm not even particularly left leaning and find it quite amusing. It's even more amusing now it's been clarified that it's an attempt to be disparaging.
and back on some sort of topic....
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I think that is called a swing.... with 2 1/2 weeks to go can they make more slip ups?
The other thing with votes like this is momentum (not that one) there are people in the middle who will vote with the tide as it were, not bothering to step up as the result is already decided. If it tightens then things may change on that. Add in what might increased voting among young people it isn't settled yet.
Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?
Not really. It's like an attempt to insult someone by accusing them of being caring and compassionate of others.
Pretty similar to calling someone a Tory when you really mean "odious cretin", which of course Tory is synonymous with 😆
oh and a wonderful who said it quote on the BBC
"The biggest threat to every generation in this country is getting Brexit wrong.
"Get Brexit wrong and we get everything wrong - from looking after our elderly to paying for our children's education."
[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39988638 ]Answer in here[/url]
In light of that MWS, my revised definition of Tory is "incompetent hypocritical odious cretin singularly lacking in self awareness"
[quote=mikewsmith ]I think that is called a swing....
It is, an entirely unsurprising one too. My flabber is still gasted that the Tories either didn't realise what an electoral landmine that was, or were so arrogant that they didn't care.
Add in what might increased voting among young people it isn't settled yet.
That is indeed an interesting one. I'm yet to see any evidence there is a real effect there, but given continual reminders on social media (I have several under 30 FB friends, so doing my bit) there might be this time around. Not only that, but I suspect the dementia tax thing might result in some older people still being Tory voters according to the polls, but not bothering to vote on the day.
<spoiler alert for those who want to guess mike's quote>
The truly bizarre thing there is that even if I didn't trust Corbyn to run a bath he would still be preferable over a "bloody difficult woman" regarding a negotiation where the other side holds most of the cards. Of course such comments are playing to the diehard Brexiteers who still think we can dictate the terms of the negotiation with the EU. Even assuming we still leave under a Labour government (which still seems most likely) I'd bet my house on us securing a better deal under them.
The Mail in a nutshell "Voters even prefer May to Maggie"- amazing, how could anyone be more popular than Maggie?
I wonder how many Labour people are looking at themselves just now and thinking "Wonder what would have happened if we'd actually worked with Corbyn?" Maybe the Tories would have been running a tighter ship if they felt more challenged, of course... But after all that's happened, to be where they are now must come as a shock. Or maybe they'll be thinking "Phew, if we hadn't worked so hard, we'd be winning"
Brexit. Lets take our country back, was tossed about freely in conversation.
What could be more "taking the country back" than Corbyns vision of taking the railways back from the Dutch Germans and French, taking Royal mail back from George Osborne's best man, taking Electricity back from EDF....
All these ideas up there, what it also highlights is how much Corbyn etc. are not smart political operators, unless he has a list of devastating questions for May at their interview thingy.The list of open goals is increasing...
How do you propose to reduce immigration when you have failed completely at it before? Why that hasn't been on billboards yet I don't know.
What Macron did well with against the fascist was to have smart, good answers to the insults and accusations. I don't think JC can manage that.
If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.
[quote=mikewsmith ]If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.
You should be Labour party strategist - I honestly think that might win it for them.
You know what - I agree with using peoples assets to pay for care. I believe its the right thing to do. Otherwise we are subsidising middle class children's inheritances. I also believe the triple lock on pensions is wrong.
However I am astonished it was put in the tory manifesto. An obvious vote loser and an easy target for Labour. Usually the tories are very clever in managing their policies to make electoral capital out of them and I can see no reason why this was put in bar they thought it the right thing to do and believed they had such a lead they would be able to shrug it off
Hmmm, brexit negotiations.
Kier Starmer, or Boris Johnson?
Yep people should pay their own way through care when they can. However it's so easy to fiddle the system to make sure you don't have the assets that it's a joke, the ones that will avoid the most are those who can afford it. The ones who can't will as usual bear the brunt of it.
If it happens then a large amount of cash in the housing market gets very liquid...
If your house is valued at a mere 500k then you have 400k to go onto your care, sounds simple, but once it kicks in and your debt/tab is up at near your house value it means whoever fronted you the cash needs their money. It then creates another sub prime style security issue where the funding is reliant on house prices staying stable at a minimum or rising. Factor in much reduced inheritance and hand outs to kids/grandkids (one of the common ways to get a deposit these days) and the housing market has another wobble.
Highlight version - it's a very complicated issue 🙂 Changing one thing will change a lot more, the knock on effect could be huge and then who picks up the care tab for all these people?
#FullyCostedMyArse
An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries - so although the rich don't want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier
That is the essence of the book 'The Spirit Level', that we ALL do better if the lower earners are lifted up.
I think it makes complete sense.
If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.
Not so sure about this. People would be confused. I would say a lot of folk are just getting used to him. To whip him away would open the flood gates for lots of bad publicity.
It is, an entirely unsurprising one too. My flabber is still gasted that the Tories either didn't realise what an electoral landmine that was, or were so arrogant that they didn't care.
One other possibility is that they thought it needed doing and have gambled that their lead is sufficient to push through unpopular (but necessary in their opinion) reforms. That being the case, I think it's quite commendable they've decided to be honest with the electorate rather than magicking it out in the next parliament, likewise the free school meals. The conventional wisdom is of course that the voters don't want the truth....
Not so sure about this. People would be confused. I would say a lot of folk are just getting used to him. To whip him away would open the flood gates for lots of bad publicity.
Agree, would be a bad thing to do. Who would be the next leader, would they have a mandate as they weren't elected, yet another election etc,. etc,. The more people see him (and more importantly the more people see May) and don't judge based on the BS in the media the better chance he has.
Relies on open minds unfortunately and also not enough time left.
Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?
Doesn't bother me at all, nor does calling me a Marxist. Not sure why I would be insulted
Would be like calling a Tory a righty, which would be as silly as it sounds.
'Lefty' is exactly how I describe myself. It also helps to explain why I have voted for four different left-of-centre political candidates/parties over the years rather than being wedded to one party irrespective of its policies and manifesto.
What ninfan seems to be pretending to not realise is that when he uses the term, it is attributing personal qualities or failings to the term, like 'whiney, smug, superior, condescending'. Of course these 'qualities' are present in the posting styles of many people on this forum past and present not least ninfan in the case of the last three but not the first one.
But hey, we are a massively self-selecting sample of people. The vast majority of politically thoughtful people do not post on here or other special interest forums and are probably very different (to me included obvs) in their debating, errr, 'style'!
I'm not convinced they won't yet backtrack on it "after careful review"; put it down to "listening to the public" and gather back all those lost votes and more.
I'm actually in favour of this policy. When it comes to inheritance my personal view is that any money or assets you have left when you die should go to a random memeber of the public in a lottery system but going to the state is the second best option.
What I'm hoping is that this policy was specifically designed to appeal to voters like me. They probably assumed they had the old vote completely sewn up and wanted a significant percentage of the under 40s to really give them a mandate to have and do whatever the **** they want.
I have absolutely no desire to vote for them so hopefully this will bite them hard.
I'm actually in favour of this policy. When it comes to inheritance my personal view is that any money or assets you have left when you die should go to a random memeber of the public in a lottery system but going to the state is the second best option.
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. What about families who lose their main bread-winner? You do realise "the State" will just absorb it and it will go into painting the House of Commons toilets? What about people spending their entire lives paying taxes to "the State", only for "the State" to take even more when they die? What about "the State's" responsibility to it's citizens? You are suggesting that everything is ultimately owned by "the State", which is dangerous, to say the least. In your scenario, "the State" can't wait for people to die, so they can take their assets, so why assist pensioners with heating, bills etc? Hell, they may as well bring in forced euthanasia "for the good of "the State"".
The whole "going to a random member of the public by lottery" is just as daft" Why the hell should families give up everything their spouse, or other relative, has worked hard to build? For example: My Gran died last December: My Mum and her brothers, spent a lot of time looking in on her, caring for her, taking her places. She owned her own home, she refused to go into a care home. She died at home, where she wanted to be. Why the hell should the State come in and take all that away?
I'm actually laughing to myself how absurd what you said is. Get a grip.
It's a difficult situation -
Person 1 - does **** all all their lives, sits on arse, creates no jobs/Wealth- gets 100% social care
Person 2 - starts off life as person 1, works hard, makes sacrifices, creates jobs/wealth gets 0% social care
My small business that employees 8 people creates over £150k tax (excluding vat which is £60k +)
So over 25 years that's £3.5m - (excluding vat) my enterprise has paid in, to be frank the gov owes me my arse wiped once a day.
Person 1 - does **** all all their lives, sits on arse, creates no jobs/Wealth- gets 100% social care
does that include those who work in social care, working long hours being paid a pittance to wipe your mum and dads arses ?
Mikey - try reading what I wrote.
If the state pays for all care its only the children of middle class parents that get any benefit - effectively the state is subsidising their inheritances and thus perpetuating wealth inequality. I am a lefty. I work in the care of the older adult. I have been politically active for a long time.
For the state to pay all care would cost several pence on income tax.
Why should we all pay more tax so that the children of middle class parents get big inheritances?
I agree it looks unfair - it looks unfair which ever way you look at this issue.
My own parents have assets of around 1/2 - 3/4 million. this will be used to pay for their care should they need it because I believe it to be right and because that money will give me and them greater flexibility in organising their care.
I understand that the Tory-voting demographic relies heavily on older people. Recent proposals on pension, winter fuel and such, the senility tax and the selling-off of the NHS all affect them profoundly,
The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much.
@ tjagain
I wasn't referring to your post.
Tj great post, pretty much my thoughts. Can't imagine there's a completely fair solution.
If the state pays for all care its only the children of middle class parents that get any benefit - effectively the state is subsidising their inheritances and thus perpetuating wealth inequality. I am a lefty. I work in the care of the older adult. I have been politically active for a long time.
Great points, come up with a system that also works, I think my criticism is not of the policy but the implementation and the huge risks associated with it.
The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much
Option 2 - she can afford to loose some of the oldies, in many places it wont matter but if she wants to catch some of the younger voters who are suffering then she needs to show the pain is shared.
The biggest threat to labour isn't JC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39949130
It's the fact that generationally things have moved on, to have any serious concept of who the monster was in the 80's you have to be in your late 30's or 40's at least. Otherwise it's just something your parents went on about.
On one hand that is a very good thing, political parties are the party of who they represent today not everything they have ever done (good and bad), on the other hand some of the this or that for life, never vote for's are now coming into play.
Back of fag packet calculatiuons
half a million plus people receive care in residential settings - total cost around 20 billion a year. 1,2 million folk receive care at home. cost another 30 billion. thats 50 billion a year for elderly care for the very minimal standard of care they receive. Add 25%% to that if you want to pay the staff properly. Add another 25% to that if you want a decent standard of care not just the minimal standard we get.
so to give all elderly folk in the UK care to a decent standard would cost the country 100 billion a year Total UK budget is around 700 billion. Now of that hundred billion spend only some folk would have that ability to pay - say half. So to give all elderly folk care to a good standard on the state would be 7% extra on the taxation systems. income tax up from 40% ish to 43%
Are you willing to pay 3% extra on taxes so that middle class children can get their inheritances intact?
mikey74 - Member@ tjagain
I wasn't referring to your post.
Fair enough
Not my point at all, who picks up the tab when house prices crash due to a combination of factors (including the removal of inheritance as a major contribution to deposits) and the assets of the care homes is suddenly not worth what they are owed? Do the residents pick up the shortfall (from what?) does the government?
What stops people with enough wealth and skill from making sure their assets never reach the test?
What stops people with enough wealth and skill from making sure their assets never reach the test?
Not a lot - which is why this is irrelevant to the rich
The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much.
Maybe she sees what kind of a disaster Brexit and it's negotiations are going to be and wants an excuse to have nothing to do with it?
and the other points TJ? Letting people borrow against a variable asset is madness at that stage of life - it leaves the government as the backer open to a huge bill while pretending to shift the risk away. If a care home knows the government pays a shortfall whats to stop them selling off property cheap?
It's a positive idea that actually needs some serious implementation. The only good thing is it's showing May up for being quite out of touch.
I suspect this was actually an honest policy from May. Good economics, telling the truth, ruddy awful politics
Personally I would prefer complete state funded care from taxation and much harsher death duties ( to reduce wealth inequality) and higher general taxation. But no one would vote for that
tjagain - Member
I suspect this was actually an honest policy from May. Good economics
Except as said it's a hedged bet on the housing market with no clear idea who is underwriting this.
and more importantly for people
[img] 
[/img]
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
Klunk we should all get the same regardless, I accept the tax I generate supports the UK as a whole, i don't think it's fair to be taxed twice for the same service. I would happily pay 3% more and I don't support the reduction in corp tax - it needs to go the other way.
I don't have an issue with the policy per se, but the policy is not even handed.
It penalises people on the lottery of what disease they get. And if you want to go further; penalises those that stay healthier for longer (which is dictated, not solely but in no small part to lifestyle and choices)
So get cancer, or diabetes or liver disease and your care will be covered and your house passes on to your estate.
Don't get those, live longer, increase your likelihood of dementia or senility needing home or residential care - and use your estate to fund it.
How many votes would that lose?
But like much this government seems to be doing; it's what can we get away with without it totally backfiring rather than doing what's right and fair.
We need a proper social care tax levied across all individuals and businesses, reducing corp tax while targeting the middle class for their houses and pension funds is not helping any one.
The reality is that with even a small amount of tax planning you can escape it all anyway so it's a moot point and Theresa knows this it's simply a Tory tactic to get piss poor people to vote for them while The middle class sort their inheritance plan.
1. Give your house to the kids
2. Pay them the market rent
3. Don't die for 7 years
4. Keep £100k in bank
5. Buy gold with spare cash
6. Make sure your business is Ltd
That's will be £1,000 consultancy fee please -
Theotherjonv
Its not that simple. many folk end up in care homes for other reasons and certainly in my area those with severe dementia end up in NHS care.
I didn't say it was simple, I said it wasn't fair.
You know far more - what proportion of people in care homes / receiving residential care for prolonged periods are getting that for other reasons than dementia? I'm prepared to understand more
Personally I would prefer complete state funded care from taxation and much harsher death duties ( to reduce wealth inequality) and higher general taxation. But no one would vote for that
Well no tory would.
theotherjonv
Hard to quantify and I know of no stats. From my experience I would say most folk in care homes have a degree of dementia but for perhaps 3/4 its not the main diagnosis. Diabetes complications, arthritis / poor mobility, are big issues.
Most folk end up in care homes because of multiple issues of which a degree of dementia is one
I work in an NHS unit for people whos needs are too complex to manage incare homes ( nowadays - also working in care homes in the past)
Our unit costs several times what care home costs are but the care is better and the people living there are those with complex needs
Give your house to the kids
2. Pay them the market rent
3. Don't die for 7 years
That would be a very bad idea for many potential reasons if its your home. See 3.3 in particular.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/making-gifts-of-assets/
Most folk end up in care homes because of multiple issues of which a degree of dementia is one
So how are they funded / will they be funded in future? A person who needs (home) care because of say arthritis vs someone with arthritis AND a degree of dementia. Is one funded and the other not, one part funded for the arthritis care but not for the dementia....
As you say, not simple. I think the issue for many is that you can't insure against dementia. The Insurance Cos know their chip in making money is that if they pay out for an 'illness' then they dementia becomes less likely (not impossible though) whereas if they 'win' on not paying out for an illness then almost inevitably eventually they'll pay out for dementia in the end