Print

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

[STEMO]

Oh, and whether it's the right policy or not depends on your personal circumstances.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Surely it depends on what you believe to be right or wrong. 
I have never voted for a candidate or party who I believed would make me personally better off. If I did I would vote Labour and claim benefits - until they fly the economy into a cliff face again.
I vote for the party which I think will do the best job overall for the country.
As for the social care policy, I see it like this. In days gone by, families used to take care of their elderly family members. That is largely not the case nowadays.
If family cant or wont take care of them, should they really expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for it, and then those same family members sell the home and assets of the elderly person, when they pop their clogs, and stick the money in their back pocket ?
Doesn't seem right to me. 
I suppose it could have been left out of the manifesto and then put into the budget, but then it would be very easy for the Lords to defeat the government, so it would be a waste of time.
Speaking of which, I'm very surprised the Tories haven't put reform of the Lords in their manifesto.

[STEMO]

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

[Rods2]

CoMoron knowing that extra London runways would be a contentious issue at 2015 election, set up a committee to investigate this 'difficult' problem to report early in the next parliament. The Tories should have seen this banana skin and done the same to report in the 2nd year of the new parliament. It would then allow a 3-year cooling-off period before the 2022 election.

I agree that those relatives who won't look after their parents should expect the state to use their assets to do so.

Ex-SIL's husband has had dementia for the last 15 years which has got progressively worse and with her daughter and husband have looked after him at home, with more home help as it has progressed, about 2 months ago things got so bad they have now had to concede defeat and he has had to go into a nursing home.

Dementia affects people in very different ways which can make looking after them at home 24/7 very, very difficult.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Surely it depends on what you believe to be right or wrong. 
I have never voted for a candidate or party who I believed would make me personally better off. If I did I would vote Labour and claim benefits - until they fly the economy into a cliff face again.
I vote for the party which I think will do the best job overall for the country.
As for the social care policy, I see it like this. In days gone by, families used to take care of their elderly family members. That is largely not the case nowadays.
If family cant or wont take care of them, should they really expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for it, and then those same family members sell the home and assets of the elderly person, when they pop their clogs, and stick the money in their back pocket ?
Doesn't seem right to me. 
I suppose it could have been left out of the manifesto and then put into the budget, but then it would be very easy for the Lords to defeat the government, so it would be a waste of time.
Speaking of which, I'm very surprised the Tories haven't put reform of the Lords in their manifesto.

Agree with all that

As I often state, today's society expect something for nothing and every to be the best for them but cost them the very minimum, if anything at all. The Welfare state encouraged that line of thought, and although we have all benefited from those socialist policies we have got to the time of reckoning. There is only so much money in the kitty and if we want the best for all we all will have to pay for it.

 Labour sold off the family gold last time round, and Corbyn wants to go even further.  However Mrs May being sensible and listening to people's concerns on a particularly sensitive issue should be applauded not derided. That shows she is not a dogmatic politician and is prepared to listen and act. Corbyn however is just going on a journey of promising everything that people would like no matter how much it is going to cost. But that is and always has been the Labour Party.

[STEMO]

Here's Mother Theresa getting a bit tetchy at those pesky journalists 

May faces press over social care 'U-turn'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40006242

[Viral_Jim]

However Mrs May being sensible and listening to people's concerns on a particularly sensitive issue should be applauded not derided.

That feels a bit disingenuous TBH, imagine if Corbyn had turned up with a totally uncosted manifesto, then performed a dithering U-turn on a key policy. Would he be described as "listening to concerns". I don't bloody think so   

For me, if you want to limit inheritance, then raise an inheritance tax. Whether someone needs long term care is totally luck of the draw. I see no justification for taking (say) a family inheritance down from £500k to 100k while leaving a £900k inheritance untouched solely on the luck of the draw as to whether you become ill or not.

That is the yardstick the yanks use for healthcare. Luck of the draw, unless you're very wealthy. Id prefer not to live in a society like that.

[STEMO]

BTW, don't get me wrong here. I'm not advocating Labour by any means. But I do love it when a smarmy, over-confident ......erm......person.....gets brought down a peg or two.

[Sir Tigger KC]

For me, if you want to limit inheritance, then raise an inheritance tax. Whether someone needs long term care is totally luck of the draw. I see no justification for taking (say) a family inheritance down from £500k to 100k while leaving a £900k inheritance untouched solely on the luck of the draw as to whether you become ill or not.

That is the yardstick the yanks use for healthcare. Luck of the draw, unless you're very wealthy. Id prefer not to live in a society like that.

It's not about limiting inheritances, it's about ensuring that the people who can afford to pay for their care in old age if this become necessary don't become a burden on the state.  If you can afford to pay, why should the taxpayer pick up the bill? 

 

[Viral_Jim]

why should the taxpayer pick up the bill? 

 

So why not make the state pension and the NHS means tested? The same logic applies.

[Sir Tigger KC]

why should the taxpayer pick up the bill? 

 

So why not make the state pension and the NHS means tested? The same logic applies.

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

The socialists are always banging on about the wealthy paying their fair share, yet seem to think that it's shameful that the wealthy should have to pay for their own care in old age.    If you have the money or assets to pay for your care why should the taxpayer?   

Because if we do nothing and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for everybody, then taxes will have to go up to stupid levels to pay for it all, or either that the government of the day will borrow even more money and your children and grandchildren will pay for that in increased taxation anyway.... 

[Viral_Jim]

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.

[STEMO]

why should the taxpayer pick up the bill? 

 

So why not make the state pension and the NHS means tested? The same logic applies.

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

The socialists are always banging on about the wealthy paying their fair share, yet seem to think that it's shameful that the wealthy should have to pay for their own care in old age.    If you have the money or assets to pay for your care why should the taxpayer?   

Because if we do nothing and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for everybody, then taxes will have to go up to stupid levels to pay for it all, or either that the government of the day will borrow even more money and your children and grandchildren will pay for that in increased taxation anyway.... 

On the subject of social care in old age, I understand what you're saying, Tigger. But...young people have a hell of a time getting their feet on the housing ladder these days and I think that somebody's home should be sacrosanct. This figure of £100,000 means that almost everyone's home would have to be sold after their death, there are not that many houses worth less than that.
I would be willing to pay every penny that I had towards my care, but kicking my children out and selling the house after my death....no. No.

[STEMO]

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.

We have to be careful here, Jimmy. If you deprive people of any sort of financial support in old age because they have worked and saved, then they will stop working and saving. Apart from some outdated form of 'social responsibility', what would be the point?

[STEMO]

I actually know a chap in his fifties who is two years off finishing his mortgage. He intends to live in the house till he's sixty then sell it and rent. This is the kind of behaviour you will encourage if you go too far.