Jump to content

Desperation ?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.      :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 !    :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't take it with you, there's no pockets in a shroud (copyright Tom O'Connor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   :ph34r:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 !      :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elastic? Elephant? Exfoliation? Endorsement? Exeter? Exhortation? I don't know, I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...