[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

Person 1 - does **** all all their lives, sits on arse, creates no jobs/Wealth- gets 100% social care

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.

The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much

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

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

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

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

Exactly. If the tories think it is fair to leave people £100k to pass on then make that the inheritance tax policy, everyone gets left with £100k max after they die. Much fairer than just those with specific illnesses requiring specific care.
Would have to seriously cut down avoidance/put in place very tight controls but be interesting to see how society would change without money carrying on throughout generations.

Clearly not a vote winner though, even for those who will be dodging it.

theotherjonv

The funding you get is solely down to the assets you have and your degree of need not the illness . So no matter what illness you have if you end up in a care home or requiring care then you will pay for it if you have assets but you won't pay if you can't

One has to wonder, with her recent attacks on freedom, if her husband has recently invested in shares in VPN companies.

TJ, while I can see your view have you considered that the tories will try and sell off social care for the elderly to their cronies in the private sector. All that results in is a drop in service quality as the private companies put profit over quality.

Plus if the government isn't footing the bill then the private companies can crank the costs up for their own benefit with no one to stop them

I see Boris is making £350m into NHS claims again.

Apparently says Boris it's in the manifesto and May announced it.

Excellent.

Except no one so far has found it in the manifesto or May's speeches.

#OneMoreLie

BoardinBob - Member

TJ, while I can see your view have you considered that the tories will try and sell off social care for the elderly to their cronies in the private sector. All that results in is a drop in service quality as the private companies put profit over quality.

already done. Social care is only organised by councils. The actual care is done by for profit providers.

I see Boris is making £350m into NHS claims again.

Apparently says Boris it's in the manifesto and May announced it.

I can't see any official documents to back that up, do you care to elaborate?

I can't see any official documents to back that up, do you care to elaborate?

There aren't any. But Bozo claimed otherwise on Peston this morning.

As you say, not simple. I think the issue for many is that you can't insure against dementia

This. The Tories may make noises about encouraging people to plan for old age, but the fact is that this makes it impossible. Unless by "planning" you mean spunk the lot on coke and hookers, since you can't leave it to your kids.

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.

You're really laughing? Maybe you should put some smileys in or something because it sounds like you're spluttering bits of sandwich all over your keyboard as you mash the keys in a fit of frustration.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that life is somehow fair and people who have assets have acquired those assets because they are virtuous and deserving while those who don't are in that situation because they are somehow inferior in intellect and morals. It might surprise you to learn that often the opposite is true.

My parents are going to die some day. They own their house and it will come to me. I don't need it and wouldn't have a problem with it going to someone else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to give it away out of principle. However, if inheritance became a thing of the past I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Well giving away estates to random people is obviously a bit silly, but a large increase in IHT makes sense for all sorts of reasons. Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who's main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/20/why-my-grown-up-son-wants-to-live-at-home-for-ever

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to give it away out of principle

Eh? But that's exactly what you were suggesting.

No smileys, no frustration, just dismay and your naivety.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that life is somehow fair and people who have assets have acquired those assets because they are virtuous and deserving while those who don't are in that situation because they are somehow inferior in intellect and morals. It might surprise you to learn that often the opposite is true.

And you seem to be labouring under the miscomprehension that everyone who has a house, or a couple of pounds in the bank is a cheating, lying crook. Quite the opposite is true.

Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances?

Wot DrJ said.

They let BoJo out without his carer again. Apparently he was also rifling though the interviewer's notes back stage trying to find out what questions he was going to be asked.

I keep expecting to see Malcom Tucker in the background whenever Boris appears.

My parents enjoyed a rise in house prices of around 70-100 fold. Not percent, fold.
Now ok that was over 40 years, but while they are certainly not crooked, they are clear they didn't work for that. They worked to pay the mortgage, but that accounted for very little in terms of their rise in assets.

They are somewhat embarrassed by the wealth they've accumulated.

a large increase in IHT makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps, but that is not what is being proposed.

Are we really becoming a nation of spongers who's main ambition in life is to inherit something off our parents?

Not at all - the notion of inheritance is not new and is not particularly British If Chairman May wants to abolish it, go ahead, but at least be honest about it.

Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances?

That's the way general taxes work. The healthy subsidise the sick. I'm surprised an NHS employee needs this explaining to them.

tjagain - Member
Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances

Why stop at elderly care?

Can we force the middle class to use their assets to pay for their medical care before old age?

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that the Daily Heil is outraged at the idea that the wealthy should be hindered in entrenching inequality from generation to generation through inherited wealth?

So far Kim Yong May has a 100% record on caving in and doing whatever Paul Dacre tells her to do

DrJ - Member

Mikey - why should the general taxpayer subsidies middle class children's inheritances?

That's the way general taxes work. The healthy subsidise the sick. I'm surprised an NHS employee needs this explaining to them.

This is not the same at all. Its not the person requiring care that it makes any difference to - its their children.

You prepared for a 3-5% increase in taxation then? Thats at current demand and demand is set to rise.

I want to see properly funded care of the elderly. You ( the general population) won't accept a rise in taxation so where is the money coming from? Also this already exists for care in a residential setting anyway.

Edit -= how about 100% inheritance tax over £100 000 then?