observer Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 Seems Jeremy has now resorted to desperation, by calling for the resignation of the PM over cuts in Police numbers - a cynical exploitation of recent tragic events, but a good sign he's losing the arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Meanwhile, the potential Home Secretary (Dianne Abbot) has had another turn for the worse, failing to turn up for interviews and getting confused on the ones she did attend. Just the kind of Home Secretary we need at this moment in time - I don't think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 6, 2017 Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 On the one I saw with Dermot Murnaghan she sounded drunk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2017 Possibly, but I'm guessing she could have early onset dementia; which might explain why Labour made a song and dance over the so-called "dementia tax" ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 Labour made a so-called song and dance over the dementia tax because it was unfair and lacked detail around figures, it's what I'd expect him to do. Do you think it was a good idea? Oh, and be careful what you say about Abbot: https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/04/may-reported-to-police-for-abbott-comment-electoral-breach-ge17-bbcqt/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 Labour was probably miffed that they didn't think of it first, grabbing money off home owners - but as it probably affects most of their MPs perhaps not. I don't think the tax-payer funding the inheritance of relatives is a particularly socialist notion - do you ? From each according to their means - and all that ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 The trouble with any system that penalises people financially for care in later life is actually counter productive in terms of Tory values & the striving society that is needed to fuel economic growth. Unfortunately,this will hit earners across the political spectrum & only benefits the long term benefit dependent sections of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 Perhaps you know of a system that doesn't penalise people financially for care in later life ? Either it's paid for from taxation or NI, with non-dependent individuals claiming they're paying for someone else OR adopt this "ability to pay" approach, where a dependent individual gets the care they require, and the cost billed against their estate. NB. not against them personally, as they will be deceased. The only losers in this case, are those gathered around the death bed, wondering how well off they're going to be. I realise this goes against the Tory grain, as passing on one's wealth has been part of their DNA since 1066; part the reason for a continued disparity in wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 You can't take it with you, there's no pockets in a shroud (copyright Tom O'Connor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 The old ones are the best ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 You can't take it with you and the gov want to make sure of that. An incentive to mortgage the house to the hilt and max out the credit cards blowing the lot. Or as my mother and father did. Sign the house over to the kids with the stipulation that they can live in it for the rest of their natural lives at a peppercorn rent. When she died last year she owed money to the gas people and did not have any savings put aside for a funeral having blown the lot on bingo and the like. Still that was mum for you, thoroughly enjoyed her latter days and always worried about money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 12 hours ago, observer said: Perhaps you know of a system that doesn't penalise people financially for care in later life ? Either it's paid for from taxation or NI, with non-dependent individuals claiming they're paying for someone else OR adopt this "ability to pay" approach, where a dependent individual gets the care they require, and the cost billed against their estate. NB. not against them personally, as they will be deceased. The only losers in this case, are those gathered around the death bed, wondering how well off they're going to be. I realise this goes against the Tory grain, as passing on one's wealth has been part of their DNA since 1066; part the reason for a continued disparity in wealth. We already have a system in the UK that provides free care in later life provided your assets are below a certain amount.I believe the limit has now been raised but so has the value of property which is usually the the biggest part of anyone's estate.The only people really exempt from these charges are people who have very few assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 Think Sid's Mum and Dad had the right idea; the problem with "assets" is you can't spend them, unless you re-mortgage or sell equity to the sharks. Many older folk are now asset rich and cash poor, so by all means get it spent asap. But with a £100k base limit and a cap, it doesn't seem unreasonable to save tax-payers from funding the inheritance of relatives. Elderly care is the elephant in the room when it comes to the future, with more folk living longer, but not necessarily in good health. So, demands on the NHS are increased in terms of drug provision, and bed blocking; and costs will continue to rise. So in Jeremy's new world of throwing money at everything, we can expect more taxation in order to pay for it. So taxation or death duties, we'll all have to pay in the end. If it all gets too much, there is always the "E" word ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 Elastic? Elephant? Exfoliation? Endorsement? Exeter? Exhortation? I don't know, I give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 The word that may not speak its name - Euthanasia !! 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.