Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
Railway subsidies have quadrupled since British Rail days.
If you own a 250k house outright that you only paid 40k for then you're not poor and you've managed to accumulate 210k without working for it and without incurring CGT as it is your primary residence
yet you think it is justifiable for the working population to subsidise care that could be paid for from that asset even though that working population contains many people who can't even afford a deposit...
that is nonsense tbh.. especially given all your previous bleating about how unfair it is that you can't buy a house
The phrase 'family home' is trotted out about as often as 'hard working families' when it comes to discussions like this.
I wonder what the statistics are for those children who genuinely inhabit the 'family home' once the parents are deceased, as opposed to those who just sell it and do something else with the money. I'd imagine that the number of families who occupy the same 'family home' generation after generation are dwindling and relatively small.
The reason I raise it is that 'family home' is a deliberately emotive phrase, designed to provoke an emotional reaction. The reality is that it is just another asset, albeit one with a value likely to be relatively high compared to other available assets.
I wonder what the statistics are for those children who genuinely inhabit the 'family home' once the parents are deceased, as opposed to those who just sell it and do something else with the money. I'd imagine that the number of families who occupy the same 'family home' generation after generation are dwindling and relatively small.
The reason I raise it is that 'family home' is a deliberately emotive phrase, designed to provoke an emotional reaction. The reality is that it is just another asset, albeit one with a value likely to be relatively high compared to other available assets.
I worry when I start agreeing with Dowie. Although I disagree that this is similar to a "death tax", this proposal if only a levy if you receive a service. If you die before needing care then these changes have no impact, the "death tax" would have hit all estates (based on my vague memories of what that was).
You do realise that we already massively subsidise the national rail network and that money goes to the share holders of the private companies that run the trains? No franchise in the country would be making a 'profit' if it weren't for the massive government hand-outs. We currently have a hideous private/public hybrid that benefits nobody we should either properly privatise including selling the tracks to the companies that run the services or we should nationalise the continuing use of tax payers money to prop up train companies that turn a 'profit' for shareholders every year is a nonsense.
The whole subsidising travel for the south thing is a stupidity anyway the south generates so much of our tax income that they are subsidising the rest of the country anyway!
As long everyone is clear what the Tory vision of privatised railways is
Put better than I managed!
PS I won't be voting labour!
You don't understand the consistency of my argument because to you housing is an asset that should be judged on its monetary value.
For the genuinely poor - myself and my parents are 100% working class - a family house isn't an asset, it's a home, a basic necessity. Not having to pay a landlord 50% of my take home pay just to "live" does not make me wealthy. Although I am very glad not to be enslaved to some BTL landlord, that's for sure.
Having a house which is "worth" 250k does not make my family wealthy. House prices are insane, and we all know it.
In my world we should be able to pass down the family house from one generation to the next, because it's a fundamental necessity of life. Looking at it as a financial asset is meaningless. Because even if it's worth £500k, with another house also costing £500k to purchase, all we really have is a house, not a large sum of money. Without a house, we'd soon lose that money purely in rental costs.
Housing is stupid expensive atm, and many of the issues we are discussing here are only problems *because* of the runaway housing crisis.
What are they going to do if you spent it? Refuse you care?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Regardless of if this idea is right or wrong is it actually going to benefit the country?
nope... doesn't make your suggestion that spending 350k to save 50k is any less stupid though
If you say so. Does sound like you're trying to convince yourself your plan for retirement is OK though.
yes, social care costs are only going to increase with a growing elderly population
A house is still an asset whether you want to believe that it is or not, I'm sorry that reality conflicts with your own imagination.
Wanting to be able to freely pass on a substantial asset and have others fork out for your care isn't really very fair.
Advocating for dynastic wealth isn't going to help re: housing affordability in general - though from a purely selfish POV it seemingly might benefit you. Perhaps that is why you're happy to be inconsistent here.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Persuade your parents to die quicker, problem solved.
I have no plans for retirement. I have a few private pensions but no doubt I will be dead by then.
BBC Radio 4's MoneyBox presenter Paul Lewis wrote an article on this in the financial trade press at the end of last year. In it, as well as addressing the cost of care issue, he acknowledges the extraordinary rise in value of homes and how that should be put to use to pay for care needs at the end of retirement.
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/is...wis-use-housing-gold-mine-pay-long-term-care/
Worth a read, even if it is just an opinion piece.
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/is...wis-use-housing-gold-mine-pay-long-term-care/
Worth a read, even if it is just an opinion piece.
I think FoxEye's issues stems from his emotional view of his current home. For me (and I assume you dowie), my home is different from my parents' home. It was the family home when I was younger, but now it isn't, and it makes things a lot easier to separate.
In a way I see FoxEye's point, his parents' home is his home. Having to sell the family home to pay for care costs would make him homeless. Which then creates the moral question whether at least partly that asset belongs to him.
It is still an asset that hasn't been paid for by him, whether he lives there or not isn't particularly relevant in that context other than some subjective emotional attachment to it. If the 'family home' happened to be in central London and worth a few million should that be passed on freely too?
(This is one area of Tory policy I'm at odds with re: IHT tbh...)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
I see this as a little short sighted again. a lot of the young rely on decent inheritance to get on the property ladder themselves. Without that.... Many wont be able to afford homes themselves.
What happens when the next generation have not assets for the tories to take away / deduct from. Blame it on labour?
What happens when the next generation have not assets for the tories to take away / deduct from. Blame it on labour?
- Status