A house with a value of > £100k is not 'wealthy'.
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
A house with a value of > £100k is not 'wealthy'.
Well it's not based on smoking weed (lib dems) or smoking crack (labour) lol
You're right, no-one can accuse you of being inconsistent......having a lack of a sense of humour, that's a different matter
Anyway, I'm with you on taxing wealth, not just income should be looked at, but can't say I like this idea. I would have preferred a flat rate levy on your estate - and not just because Labour proposed it as i'm not a Labour supporter
compared to people in their 20s and 30s who don't even have a deposit then by having a house mortgage free (average house price is over 200k these days) these retired people who may have to contribute towards their care are wealthy! Why should others pay for them when they've got the assets there to cover it themselves?
as pointed out before if your house is only say £110k then you're probably only going to be contributing towards a small portion of your care... the other 40k or so being paid for by the taxpayer still
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
Would probably be better for the extreme wealthy to move abroad and get social care... Would stop from loosing their family home.... That or place a barrel in the mouth.
The daily mail headline is hilarious. That is pure spin. And it really should be pointed out to everyone in the UK what that paper said about labors death tax... And compare it to the current headline "tough love".
For once though there are some comments from tory voters that are not falling for the propaganda
The daily mail headline is hilarious. That is pure spin. And it really should be pointed out to everyone in the UK what that paper said about labors death tax... And compare it to the current headline "tough love".
For once though there are some comments from tory voters that are not falling for the propaganda
Labour's manifesto amounts to an increase of £48 billion in spending (matched by £53 billion increase in tax revenue).
The OBR expects a hard Brexit to cost £100 billion. This is completely unfunded in the Conservative manifesto.
You don't lose your home under this policy anyway... costs are deducted when you die! If people want to pay to move overseas and pay for care there then that is up to them...
supposedly... with some rather dubious assumptions - oh and some re-nationalisation fantasy thrown in for good measure - so lots of debt added too...
No doubt Labour are being optimistic but at least they've shown their workings. There's absolutely no costing of the proposed hard Brexit in the Conservative manifesto.
Debt added?
Last time we re-nationalised a rail service it turned in a nice profit to the treasury. This isn't conjecture or prediction, it's what actually happened.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html
yes renationalising everything labour has proposed will incur debt
no taking over a failed train operator and running it at a profit doesn't contradict that statement
FWIW I'm not particularly averse to a state owned operator competing there
Do you think we should nationalize the railways and have profits from their operation returned to British taxpayers, or do you think we should leave them privatised where profits are returned to foreign taxpayers elsewhere in Europe?
No, forcing the entire UK to subsidise a national rail network just so Londoners/southerners can get cheaper tickets is stupid. British Rail sucked, things are better since it's demise.
You think the current situation where Welsh commuters are subsidizing my trains here in Germany is better?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
You'd think many brexiters would be furious at this. Just shows they are told what to think.
The wealthy are completely unaffected by this. They wealthy have private care arrangements, and don't/won't use state provided social care anyhow.
The wealthy will continue to be able to pass on their assets with no problem whatsoever. As with most Tory policies, the people genuinely hurt by this are on the lower end of the pay scale.
see the line you've not quoted in the post you quoted - this isn't an either or scenario...
they're retired and need care, they're not on any 'pay scale'
they've also got at least 100k in assets so hardly poor!
in other threads you're miffed about not being able to afford a house yet in this case you're seemingly happy to pay taxes to subsidise the care of home owners who could afford to pay for that care themselves
Ok so tell me what the other scenario is. Is it in the Tory manifesto?
Nonsense, dowie.
Plenty of working class and "poor" families have a family home, worth £150k or more. Because house prices were OK back in the 70s and 80s, remember? So that family house your (grand)parents bought for £40k is now worth £250k.
That doesn't mean they or their decendants are not poor. They might well be. In fact that family home might be the one perk allowing them to live a reasonable quality of life, without working 100h weeks just to pay the landlord.
- Status