[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

dazh - Member

I think he means only the poor should receive care for the elderly through taxation.

Ah right, so it's a universalism vs means-testing argument. In which case I refer to my earlier post. I see no real distinction between medical care and social care TBH. Each is required by a person for no other reason than bad luck. If we see fit to provide health care free at the point of need, then i see no reason why we shouldn't provide social care too.

Yup - I agree. the problem is no one want to pay the huge amounts of extra tax

I would prefer much higher taxation to pay for decent services provided free of chrge from the state and use inheritance taxes to deal with wealth inequality. Shame no one will pay the extra tax.

I've not read up on any of this, but let's say my house was worth £200,000. Could I borrow £100,000 using the house as collateral, spend it in my dotage, then my daughter inherits the house, pays off the £100,000 and inherits the rest? My "assets" would be under the limit so I'd get free care?

In theory yes. However there are clauses in the law that deem that if you have given away assets to avoid paying then you are considered to still have the assets - so yo would lose the £100 000 anyway. This does happen

But I wouldn't have given them away. I'd have spent them.

Do you guys realise that at the moment if you go into a care home your assetts are used to pay for the care. But if you receive homecare only your income is considered to assist with the costs. tories already changed the amount that is disregarded from (IIRC) £7000 to £100 000

The tory proposal is that this is changed so that home care is treated in the same way as residential care but the house is not sold - just a charge put on the property so when you die the state gets its chunk

scotroutes - Member

But I wouldn't have given them away. I'd have spent them.

Think you would get away with that you profligate wretch 😉

Do you guys realise that at the moment if you go into a care home your assetts are used to pay for the care

Yes, but then those in my family in care are already private. Which I'm guessing is the Tories real intent.

There is no state ( or almost none) residential care nowadays. Long term social care was privatised 25 years ago. MOney or no money - you go into private care homes. State pays £500 per week to put people in there. Private payers pay £1000 a week to subsidise the state paid people. as costs are around £600 - 700 a week

Its getting harder and harder to find care homes willing to take people being state funded because of the shortfall in funding and care homes are finding it harder and harder to recruit staff because they can't pay them enough. Pay rates are around 30% less than NHS

tjagain - Member
scotroutes - Member

But I wouldn't have given them away. I'd have spent them.

Think you would get away with that you profligate wretch

Hey, I've given this than 5 minutes thought and apparently come up with a wheeze already. What chance it would survive some accountants scrutiny?

the tory proposal is no different to what we have now for residential care simply extended to cover home care. Not many folk are able to avoid it as you would have to do this before you needed care and get all the money spent.

If you spoend it on "things" you could be deemed to be attempting to avoid care cost thus still forced to pay it. I know of one family where the parents mortgaged thier house and paid off the daughters mortgage in an attempt to avoid paying for care. the daughter was forced to remortgage and pay it back to pay for care.

You all do realise that this system of paying for care using asserts has been used for those requiring care in care homes for 25 years? apart from in Scotland where its a bit more complicated 'cos the scottish government pays a part of the costs for all. They pay for the "nursing" component of nursing home care but not the "social" part

Tjagain I am sure there will be a whole new industry around this.

Ninfan actually makes a pretty good point: if you're certain you want to leave the house etc to your next of kin, then self-fund some form of insurance to pay for your care. Sure, it'll be expensive, but you'd keep the house.

On the more public line of funding though, there are many things that government chooses to spend our taxes on. Some of these are more sensible than others. Perhaps if a question was asked of whether we need four new nuclear missile submarines or to adequately pay for the care of our elderly loved ones we might get somewhere, especially if it was made clear that the only way to do both was that those who have houses to sell do so when the time times to pay for care.

oldmanmtb
In what way? this is the system that has been running for 25 years. Just extended to home care as well as residential care. Even in home care you pay part of the costs - its merely income that is taken into account not assets for homecare at the moment

I really think some of you are under a huge misapprehension about how the care system works and the costs associated with it

The system is close to collapse because of the lack of finance. In my area we cannot get the staff to provide the homecare.

zokes - the costs dwarf most other things

500 000 people in residential care costing at least 30 000 pa and often 60 000 and thats for care that frankly is poor in general

1.2 million receiving home care. Average cost probably ( I am guessingish) averaging out at £20 000+ pa per person - and that care is frankly grossly inadequate

My NHS unit that provides good care for people with multiple complex needs ie cannot be managed in care homes costs probably at least £100 000 pa per person

Numbers of people requiring care is due to increase massively

Where is the money to come from to pay for good care for all?

Where is the money to come from to pay for good care for all?

This was presumably a question posed when both universal healthcare and universal education were mooted. Needless to say, the money was found and those services came into existence.

There are a hundred and one ways of finding the money that include cracking down on tax evasion, increase in taxes and / or NI, not spending money on silly things like Trident, and not pissing tens of billions up the wall over Brexit and resultant economic impacts. I'm quite happy for inheritance tax to be ramped up in some way to pay for this also, but I think taking the family home is just a step too far for an awful lot of people.

Where is the money to come from to pay for good care for all?

Im so far assuming the poor will receive inadequate care and everyone else will go private. I'm not seeing this as a means to ensure quality care for all.

What safeguards can you put in place to protect those that need care but don't seek it? Are there estimates for any increased economic losses accrued due to people dropping out of work to care for family members? (Genuine questions)

Are there estimates for any increased economic losses accrued due to people dropping out of work to care for family members? (Genuine questions)

Remember how Northwind pointed out that Student loans were probably going to be mostly written off hence the government picks up the tab.

The police intent may be good but I really don't think the implimentation will be anything close.

What should be of concearn to May is the fact this is still running today, it's overshadowed her Manifesto on everything else
[img] [/img]
Politically it's a significant mistake.

Remember how Northwind pointed out that Student loans were probably going to be mostly written off hence the government picks up the tab.

That's because they're designed as a graduate tax in all but name.

That's because they're designed as a graduate tax in all but name.

Where as this is an inheritance tax based on the value of an asset 10-20 years in the future.

A quick skim of the literature suggests (admittedly in Auckland, but I can't imagine the UK is dissimilar) that the median survival on admission to long-term care is 2y

Yebbut part of the point of the changes is that the charges start on home care which presumably is usually further ahead of death.

That's because they're designed as a graduate tax in all but name

Its not a tax its a loan. It may have similarities to a tax [ but my auntie is very similar to my uncle] but when i pay the loan off i stop paying the "graduate tax" - what tax operates like this ?

Its not a tax its a loan. It may have similarities to a tax [ but my auntie is very similar to my uncle] but when i pay the loan off i stop paying the "graduate tax" - what tax operates like this ?

also contrasting with the Labour policy of scrapping tuition fee's today
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39994886
Which could help a lot of people longer term, especially if things like the cash set aside for repaying fee's was used for house deposits or increased pension contributions. Being able to divert a little more cash into a pension in your 20's would seriously help a lot of people in their 80's

Its not a tax its a loan. It may have similarities to a tax [ but my auntie is very similar to my uncle] but when i pay the loan off i stop paying the "graduate tax" - what tax operates like this ?

What MWS said - it's designed so the overwhelming majority never pay it off.

I'd call that a tax for some people.

I accept they designed it to be as much like a graduate tax as possible and in may respects it is very similar in operation but it is still not one as its a loan and you can be told how much to repay to never have to pay "tax" ever again.

You can call it a graduate tax if you like and I can call my my aunt my uncle but neither of these are accurate descriptions.
Not doing this again its just not a graduate tax.

Dementia tax u-turn!

This is un bee lieevable!

[img] [/img]

Dementia tax u-turn!

Strong and stable 😆

[img] [/img]

thatcher would be turning in her grave.

[quote=molgrips ]Dementia tax u-turn!
This is un bee lieevable!

"A promise to consult" apparently

And then ignore what anyone says and do whatever she wants

Dementia tax u-turn!

What she has said, is that no one will lose their family home and that the conservatives will make sure savings of less than 100k get passed on.

What she probably means is that you won't lose the family home whilst one parent is still alive.

I love how that she is using "fake news" at every possible moment, as though she has decided to take a leaf from Donald Trumps playbook.

May says nothing has changed. She says she has offered a sustainable solution to the problem of social care.

😆

She's trying to be Vladislav Serkov now , war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength etc etc

Strong and stable.....

Do political campains experience a kind of momentum (with a small M)? How likely is it that the Tories can reverse Labour's poll increase?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/voting-intention-conservatives-44-labour-35-18-19-/

Only 9 points now.

Buowhahahah.

Do political campains experience a kind of momentum (with a small M)? How likely is it that the Tories can reverse Labour's poll increase?

What can the conservatives say now, that hasn't already been said? He's taken so much abuse through the campaign, that I think people have been numbed to it (the same as what happened with Trump). It's the conservatives that are going to get hit with scandals now, hopefully Dianne Abbot et al now STFU and don't let themselves get cornered on TV.

I know it's not particularly likely still and even 9 points is a lot, but I would just love to experience a political bombshell of that magnitude if he won!

What can the conservatives say now, that hasn't already been said?

I saw a political add on my Facebook sidebar that said (not in so many words) Corbyn was going to raise taxes for everyday families. That's US levels of political advertising disingenuousness, that is.

How likely is it that the Tories can reverse Labour's poll increase?

Still predict they'll win, but may find the majority isn't any bigger than they already have, which will be something of a wasted exercise.

It would be ****ing epic wouldn't it.

Especially if the Russians helped him get in.

Oh how I would bathe in the tears of Tories.

[quote=Junkyard ]you are aracer and i decline to have this conversation

😆

But then you did anyway 😉

It may not be a graduate tax, but as pointed out, it's very much like one for all but those who earn the most - just as your auntie is much like your uncle. It's certainly not a normal debt - the banks don't treat it like one when assessing for mortgages etc. If you are below the repayment threshold then it's pretty much indistinguishable from a tax (sure there are things you can do to make it not like one, but most people don't do those things).

Especially if the Russians helped him get in.

The Russians would be favouring May I would think. They want leaders who are going to **** their own country up so they can take more opportunities more easily.

Still predict they'll win, but may find the majority isn't any bigger than they already have, which will be something of a wasted exercise.

not to mention £170 wasted

the tories just love to spend, spend spend, now wonder theyve doubled the national debt

The Russians would be favouring May I would think. They want leaders who are going to **** their own country up so they can take more opportunities more easily.

I reckon they'd like to see Trident scrapped. 😀

The horse has bolted from the strong and stable.

If only the media would just go hard on May for this U- Turn (for sport) it would be bloody excellent!