Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Viral_Jim]

I agree STEMO, but with our population aging as it is, the distinction between the NHS and social care is both arbitrary and outdated.

Take again the example of 2 twin brothers, this time they both get dementia. But, because one of them needs a daily administration of drugs intravenously but the other does not. Under NHS guidelines one is streamed to a Nursing home (NHS budget) and the other a Care home (social care budget).

One brother pays a (potentially) unlimited sum for his care, the other pays nothing.

I am not a socialist by any stretch, but to arbitrarily give or take away benefits agrivates me.

For example, if I wanted to launch a state benefit that would pay unemployed millionaires in their 20's a bit of extra cash to heat their mansions when the weather goes cold, people would rightly call me mad. But if that millionaire turns 70 odd, suddenly it's a necessity which must be protected and we call it the "winter fuel allowance". 

[Doctor Gollum]

Aka having your cake and eating it...

[STEMO]

I agree STEMO, but with our population aging as it is, the distinction between the NHS and social care is both arbitrary and outdated.

Take again the example of 2 twin brothers, this time they both get dementia. But, because one of them needs a daily administration of drugs intravenously but the other does not. Under NHS guidelines one is streamed to a Nursing home (NHS budget) and the other a Care home (social care budget).

One brother pays a (potentially) unlimited sum for his care, the other pays nothing.

I am not a socialist by any stretch, but to arbitrarily give or take away benefits agrivates me.

For example, if I wanted to launch a state benefit that would pay unemployed millionaires in their 20's a bit of extra cash to heat their mansions when the weather goes cold, people would rightly call me mad. But if that millionaire turns 70 odd, suddenly it's a necessity which must be protected and we call it the "winter fuel allowance". 

Once again I agree, but it smacks of double standards. We lost our child benefit because the wife earns more than £60,000, fair enough you might say. But a couple where both were earning £45,000 did not lose theirs. Why? Because, it was said, it would cost more to find out who was earning what than would be saved.
So...we are going to means test every pensioner to save £100-300 a year, but couldn't means test people on child benefit, who were getting at least £960 a year for one child (much more for two or three) because it would cost too much?  It smacks of a tax grab at any cost to me.

[STEMO]

And don't forget, as always, these policies are being mooted by people who will never be affected by them. The selfishness of politicians knows no bounds, as was proved last year when they got a c.10% pay rise while public sector workers got 1%.

[Varche]

I agree with you STEMO.

This election isnt about costed manifesto pledges but about leaders. All a bit wrong as you will be stuck with the Tories for five years as they widen the gap betwen haves and have nots.

[Viral_Jim]

So...we are going to means test every pensioner to save £100-300 a year, but couldn't means test people on child benefit, who were getting at least £960 a year for one child (much more for two or three) because it would cost too much?  It smacks of a tax grab at any cost to me.

I agree entirely. My view is that we should not means test any benefits. Either you qualify, based on age, disability, number of children, whatever, or you don't. I don't understand the obsession of breaking money up into little pots, some of which you qualify for or don't on an arbitrary basis (like the child benefit example you gave). Then you make every benefit taxable and adjust your tax bands to suit.

So then, yes your millionaire gets his pension and his winter fuel allowance, but you just take it back in tax. No means testing or arbitrary criteria, no jobs for the boys form filling. Up until this election I have always voted Tory, but this current lot just have too many policies I can't stomach. It's started with finding a tax break for higher earners (which my wife and I benefitted from) In the the same breath as cutting disability benefits. It hasn't got any better.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

So...we are going to means test every pensioner to save £100-300 a year, but couldn't means test people on child benefit, who were getting at least £960 a year for one child (much more for two or three) because it would cost too much?  It smacks of a tax grab at any cost to me.

I agree entirely. My view is that we should not means test any benefits. Either you qualify, based on age, disability, number of children, whatever, or you don't. I don't understand the obsession of breaking money up into little pots, some of which you qualify for or don't on an arbitrary basis (like the child benefit example you gave). Then you make every benefit taxable and adjust your tax bands to suit.

So then, yes your millionaire gets his pension and his winter fuel allowance, but you just take it back in tax. No means testing or arbitrary criteria, no jobs for the boys form filling. Up until this election I have always voted Tory, but this current lot just have too many policies I can't stomach. It's started with finding a tax break for higher earners (which my wife and I benefitted from) In the the same breath as cutting disability benefits. It hasn't got any better.

I say keep it simple. Access to benefits should be based on 'need' alone.

If you need financial help age should not come into it. Throwing money at often extremely wealthy pensioners in the form of WFA, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free TV licence could be put to better use helping young families working for poverty wages.

Ah, sorry, such people don't tend to vote  so the government can ignore them.

[Sir Tigger KC]

I agree Jimmy that one person's care is funded and another isn't  can seem unfair, but there is a difference between needing medical care and treatment due to cancer or any other terminal illness and someone needing help because they can't cope anymore due to old age.  As you say though the line is arbitrary.

At the end of the day there will be winners and losers whatever system is adopted.  If we have universal free care for the elderly then taxes and borrowing will have to go up and your children and grandchildren will pay. I don't have kids, so by yours and STEMO's reasoning I should piss my money away and let your kids pay!   

As to means testing, it should be simple! If the Department of Work and Pensions and HMRC got their act together, then they should know who needs help and who doesn't and then they could abolish all universal benefits, and direct taxpayers money to those that really need it.   

[Rods2]

No it dosn't.  The state pension isn't a state benefit and neither is the NHS. 

So, just to be clear then, if I and my identical twin brother arrive at age 70 and retire. With £500k in the bank each, then I get a brain tumour and he gets dementia.

My treatment (chemo, numerous surgeries, nursing care etc) costs the state £100k. His care, in a home costs also £100k. Then we both die. In your world view, the £100k spent on my care is fine. But my twin brother needs to pay £100k for his care.

Thank goodness it's not an arbitrary distinction based wholly on chance.

Also, why isn't the state pension a benefit? I suspect mostly because it gets the olds' backs up.

Okay, say unfortunately, you and your brother both get cancer. The new wonder drug treatment and cure for your brother has been approved by NICE for the NHS to give to him FOC, your different wonder drug treatment and cure is not considered value for money by NICE, not approved and is not available on the NHS. The only hope you've got is raising the £1m treatment cost and going to the US for treatment. This is the luck of the draw and the lottery of life.

Read any decent book on economics and invariably the first sentence is along the lines that "Resouces are scarce and always limited". They are and lines have to be drawn on affordability. The problem with socialism is that everybody wants to benefit at no cost in time and money to themselves, which means it is at the cost of somebody else's time and money! In the end the people that can don't due to penal tax rates. Successful people get there through a combination of taking risks, hard work, vision to create well marketed desirable products and services, but as they only get 24 hours a day like everybody else, it is normally at the expense of working long hours. Take away the reward and they will be down the pub instead like everybody else who only wants to work 9 till 5 or less.

When I was hatched born, I didn't get a certificate telling me life was going to be fair and I don't know anybody else that did, but maybe you're the exception?

When I had a flu jab on the 4th October 2015 there was a 1 in 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 chance of it containing a mutated life changing virus. Unfortunately, that was me and the end result is that I'm partially sighted. Now I could mope around all day, be all bitter and complain about how unfair life is or accept that sh!t happens and get on with life. I personally accept what has happened and get on with life.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

So...we are going to means test every pensioner to save £100-300 a year, but couldn't means test people on child benefit, who were getting at least £960 a year for one child (much more for two or three) because it would cost too much?  It smacks of a tax grab at any cost to me.

I agree entirely. My view is that we should not means test any benefits. Either you qualify, based on age, disability, number of children, whatever, or you don't. I don't understand the obsession of breaking money up into little pots, some of which you qualify for or don't on an arbitrary basis (like the child benefit example you gave). Then you make every benefit taxable and adjust your tax bands to suit.

So then, yes your millionaire gets his pension and his winter fuel allowance, but you just take it back in tax. No means testing or arbitrary criteria, no jobs for the boys form filling. Up until this election I have always voted Tory, but this current lot just have too many policies I can't stomach. It's started with finding a tax break for higher earners (which my wife and I benefitted from) In the the same breath as cutting disability benefits. It hasn't got any better.

I say keep it simple. Access to benefits should be based on 'need' alone.

If you need financial help age should not come into it. Throwing money at often extremely wealthy pensioners in the form of WFA, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free TV licence could be put to better use helping young families working for poverty wages.

Ah, sorry, such people don't tend to vote  so the government can ignore them.

I agree with that. The welfare state has mutated away from helping people in genuine need, to buying peoples votes with other peoples money.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

That's very noble of you, Albs. If only ordinary people thought that way

Tbh, until relatively recently, I was naïve enough to believe that most people thought like that. 

[Viral_Jim]

Rods, you are trying to make this about socialism or implying that I have some self centred idea of "fairness".  Neither of which is either accurate or close to the point at hand. Play the argument. Not the man.

Yes there will always be things that we as a nation can and cannot fund.  In fact your example about cancer drugs is an exceptionally poor one. NICE makes decisions about which drugs to fund and which not based on their efficacy as balanced against their cost - so an objective choice.

To determine that we will fund treatment for a condition that requires Nursing care and not one that requires social care is anything but objective. It's no more sensible than saying the NHS will fund treatment for diseases whose names begin with the letters A-L. But if it's letters M-Z, you're on your own.

For me, if you want those that can afford it to shoulder more of the burden, introduce an inheritance tax that applies equally to all, don't arbitrarily target one group based on a factor they cannot control.

There is a crucial distinction between saying "life isn't fair" (which is of course true) and "let's deliberately choose to make it more unfair than it needs to be" (which is an ideological choice).

[Rods2]

I agree STEMO, but with our population aging as it is, the distinction between the NHS and social care is both arbitrary and outdated.

Take again the example of 2 twin brothers, this time they both get dementia. But, because one of them needs a daily administration of drugs intravenously but the other does not. Under NHS guidelines one is streamed to a Nursing home (NHS budget) and the other a Care home (social care budget).

One brother pays a (potentially) unlimited sum for his care, the other pays nothing.

I am not a socialist by any stretch, but to arbitrarily give or take away benefits agrivates me.

For example, if I wanted to launch a state benefit that would pay unemployed millionaires in their 20's a bit of extra cash to heat their mansions when the weather goes cold, people would rightly call me mad. But if that millionaire turns 70 odd, suddenly it's a necessity which must be protected and we call it the "winter fuel allowance". 

Once again I agree, but it smacks of double standards. We lost our child benefit because the wife earns more than £60,000, fair enough you might say. But a couple where both were earning £45,000 did not lose theirs. Why? Because, it was said, it would cost more to find out who was earning what than would be saved.
So...we are going to means test every pensioner to save £100-300 a year, but couldn't means test people on child benefit, who were getting at least £960 a year for one child (much more for two or three) because it would cost too much?  It smacks of a tax grab at any cost to me.

The more you earn, the higher the rate of tax you pay and the more they take away to make your effective tax rate even higher. For those above 1.5 times average earnings the pips squeaked under Gordon McRuin and under Osborne and Hammond, it has continued where he left off. If you run a business then once you are above 1.5 times average wages the combination of employer NI, income tax and spending it on a 20% VAT rated item means over 50% is taken in tax. If you pay it as a dividend, figures are slightly better but still over 50%. .

[STEMO]

The Times has the results of a poll which shows that Labour are now only five points behind the conservatives:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-lead-cut-to-five-points-as-corbyn-closes-in-on-may-rgmckfnpp

So..how is Jeremy going to capitalise on this? He's going to say our foreign policy is to blame for the Manchester terrorist attack. Sheesh...he really doesn't fancy the Prime Ministers job, does he?

[aaronjb]

Sheesh...he really doesn't fancy the Prime Ministers job, does he?

People said that about Trump, too, with all his blabberings pre election.. look how that turned out! Still, he looks very pleased with himself here: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/867794060525928448