Diego_Sideburns Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Let's have a heated debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 14 hours ago, Magister said: So the private sector is a better fairer employer? Impossible to say, in my view. Everyone's perspective, motivation and needs are differ, and at various stages of your working life. they may change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Decent article on the proposed changes to funding social care costs... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html It's all very confusing but what is clear is that working class Northerner's (like me) can now still inherit their parents sub £100k house (like my Mum's) in the highly unlikely event they're required to pay for residential care or care at home... Labour aren't happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Labour aren't happy. ....and yet will quite happily accept the improved performance in the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Christ, U-turns already? That isn't a good image. Brings the 'coalition of chaos' into sharper focus, but which side?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, blueatheart said: ....and yet will quite happily accept the improved performance in the polls. It's not rocket science. This is simply a matter of repeating the words 'death tax' at 100% rates. Fuck fuck fuck-just seen the U turn. Strong and stable my arse! This is supposedly the woman who will sort out the EU-she cannot even sort out her own party. She has panicked over the uproar from right wing Tories as she starts to lose the pensioner vote. Was it better to panic and illustrate weak leadership or to stick by an unpopular (but needed?) policy. Time will tell. Edited May 22, 2017 by ChaddySmoker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View Of Golden Gate Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, blueatheart said: Christ, U-turns already? That isn't a good image. Brings the 'coalition of chaos' into sharper focus, but which side?? They are panicking, they have U-turned on policies while in government already, they have failed at every target they set. They are a weak government losing it's lead and in serious trouble of losing power, people want change and only Labour offer that. May hates human and animal rights, her party hates the NHS, Hunt hates nurses and doctors, they are not for the people, they are for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said: They are a weak government losing it's lead and in serious trouble of losing power, people want change and only Labour offer that. Really? A ten point lead in the polls even after this policy disagrees with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, blueatheart said: Really? A ten point lead in the polls even after this policy disagrees with you. It is lessening by the day. This is the beginning of the end for Mrs May. The Tories might hang on but she is finished realistically now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Aaaaand......... Corbyn has just described the IRA as "brave" GAME OVER. Please insert more credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View Of Golden Gate Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Aaaaand......... Corbyn has just described the IRA as "brave" GAME OVER. Please insert more credit. May has hired an ex IRA member, her Dementia Tax is already being attacked by members of her party. There are elderly people will go without care, or worse because of this. How can anyone support a policy that encourages an early death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, View Of Golden Gate said: May has hired an ex IRA member, her Dementia Tax is already being attacked by members of her party. There are elderly people will go without care, or worse because of this. How can anyone support a policy that encourages an early death? Let's say you're right - which you're not - this new policy encourages an early death less so than the current policy does it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Let's say you're right - which you're not - this new policy encourages an early death less so than the current policy does it not? We dont know what the new policy entails-Mrs Mightnot could change it in another 4 days. Weak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View Of Golden Gate Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, HarryBosch said: Let's say you're right - which you're not - this new policy encourages an early death less so than the current policy does it not? Person A owns a £200,000 home and that is their single asset, they require care in their home but not residential. Their need of care increases, they want to leave their children and family the home, but know that years of care will see their home worth less and less to their family. They realise that an early death would mean more will left to their family than going on for years needing care, it will be cheaper for 65 year old to drop dead instantly then to die years later. Not out of the realms of possibility, and even it if it is only 5% that have this train of thought, surely that is too many? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 1 minute ago, View Of Golden Gate said: Person A owns a £200,000 home and that is their single asset, they require care in their home but not residential. Their need of care increases, they want to leave their children and family the home, but know that years of care will see their home worth less and less to their family. They realise that an early death would mean more will left to their family than going on for years needing care, it will be cheaper for 65 year old to drop dead instantly then to die years later. Not out of the realms of possibility, and even it if it is only 5% that have this train of thought, surely that is too many? And it is capped at £100k? Much better than the current policies, believe me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said: Person A owns a £200,000 home and that is their single asset, they require care in their home but not residential. Their need of care increases, they want to leave their children and family the home, but know that years of care will see their home worth less and less to their family. They realise that an early death would mean more will left to their family than going on for years needing care, it will be cheaper for 65 year old to drop dead instantly then to die years later. Not out of the realms of possibility, and even it if it is only 5% that have this train of thought, surely that is too many? Just for clarity - are you asking me if 5% of people owning £200,000 houses topping themselves, as dreamt up in your head, is "too many"? You also seem to be working on the basis that life, work & asset/home ownership is all done solely for the purpose of children inheriting... Edited May 22, 2017 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 If you're not on the electoral register, then today is the last day to register to vote. Deadline 11:59pm! https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, blueatheart said: And it is capped at £100k? Much better than the current policies, believe me. The £100k is a floor. £72k was/is the cap (but only for certain parts of the care) which, I think, no reference to keeping or removing was made in the manifesto.. May is now saying there will be a cap, and that there was always going to be ("nothing has changed") but not what it will be and not whether the £72k was going to go or not go.... Either way, this still looks advantageous for the families of working class pensioners but - provided you believe this was a "U-turn" - maybe not so advantageous for people actually needing social care as far less money will be raised. If you do believe there wasn't going to be a cap Labour and the media have given the familes of wealthy/wealthier pensioners a bonus and reduced the amount that will be raised (via this method) to actually be spent on social care.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, blueatheart said: And it is capped at £100k? Much better than the current policies, believe me. I know that you are quoting figures from an example but at what figure will the actual cap be? We dont know because as with every figure with Mrs May it is not yet set. She is weak and indecisive I didnt think that the Tories could cock it up anymore but thats now 2 own goals in 4 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View Of Golden Gate Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, blueatheart said: And it is capped at £100k? Much better than the current policies, believe me. No doubt that those in need residential care could be better off, but those who need care at home? Those who have family live there and help to look after them but require extra support, could be told they have to sell the home after their parent dies. 7 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Just for clarity - are you asking me if 5% of people owning £200,000 houses topping themselves, as dreamt up in your head, is "too many"? The question is if only 5% of those who own a house more than £100,000 (average UK home is worth £165,000) contemplate an early death as to avoid extra costs to their family is too many, yes. The point is whether a house is worth £100,001 or £500,000 the point is to punish those who need support is wrong. While I disagree with the current system this hurts more people, this is not the answer. We should be making social care as free as possible not taxing the dead, and the U Turn only proves she has no opinion or clue she does with the tide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) What's been missed as part of all this is that legislation will be brought for people to be given time off work to care for family members... Edited May 22, 2017 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View Of Golden Gate Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: What's been missed as part of all this is that legislation will be brought for people to be given time off work to care for family members... Unpaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: The £100k is a floor. £72k was/is the cap (but only for certain parts of the care) which, I think, no reference to keeping or removing was made in the manifesto.. May is now saying there will be a cap, and that there was always going to be ("nothing has changed") but not what it will be and not whether the £72k was going to go or not go.... Either way, this still looks advantageous for the families of working class pensioners but - provided you believe this was a "U-turn" - maybe not so advantageous for people actually needing social care as far less money will be raised. If you do believe there wasn't going to be a cap Labour and the media have given the familes of wealthy/wealthier pensioners a bonus and reduced the amount that will be raised (via this method) to actually be spent on social care.... £72k cap was proposed as part of the Social Care act and was due to be enacted in 2016, delayed until 2020. It was also part of their 2015 manifesto. No mention of this or any cap within current manifesto, though the £100k floor was. They are now saying that there was going to be a cap, not sure what it is. George Osborne has called it a U-Turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 I'm not trawling back through all 15 pages of this but has anyone mentioned the Tory pledge to relocate a lot of government jobs outside of London..? That'd be alright eh? "Take a seat Mr Tulsehill, take a seat - due to the outstanding work you've done of late we're transferring you to our new state of the art centre in Bradford" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: What's been missed as part of all this is that legislation will be brought for people to be given time off work to care for family members... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.