Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Pudney]

Tell me, do you have less of an issue with a russian billionaire buying up the property? Perhaps he inherited his business/his wealth/his connections from his parents?

This is too funny. It's *not* OK to inherit your family home. That's communism.

But it's OK to sell off your housing stock to foreign (and London) investors, who may have inherited their wealth/power from their parents.

Because when you're rich you always earned it; when you're poor you deserve nothing, pleb!

But you won't get "nothing". At worst you'll get £50k, which is far more than I had to start me on my way with my first house 3 years ago. At some point in life it's up to you to do something about it, not your parents or the government or society in general.

 

[Tefal]

Tell me, do you have less of an issue with a russian billionaire buying up the property? Perhaps he inherited his business/his wealth/his connections from his parents?

This is too funny. It's *not* OK to inherit your family home. That's communism.

But it's OK to sell off your housing stock to foreign (and London) investors, who may have inherited their wealth/power from their parents.

Because when you're rich you always earned it; when you're poor you deserve nothing, pleb!

whats that got to do with anything?

no one is saying you cant inherit your family home.

what they're saying is your mum may sell it ot fund several 100k worth of end of life care.

if she doesnt have that care then you and your brother get the house in full

 

[dowie]

Tell me, do you have less of an issue with a russian billionaire buying up the property? Perhaps he inherited his business/his wealth/his connections from his parents?

I doubt that Russian billionaires inherited anything - they've grown up in a communist state and most likely got rich through plundering state assets thanks to widespread corruption in their country.

I'm not sure that many Russian billionaires like to buy 250k 3 bed homes in Cornwall but I don't have an issue with one buying such a property.

This is too funny. It's *not* OK to inherit your family home. That's communism.

But it's OK to sell off your housing stock to foreign (and London) investors, who may have inherited their wealth/power from their parents.

Because when you're rich you always earned it; when you're poor you deserve nothing, pleb!

curbing dynastic wealth isn't communism, trying to curb it helps society become more meritocratic (you're well within the IHT threshold anyway!)

on the other hand wanting to live somewhere mortgage free because you see it as your birthright while expecting others to subsidise care etc.. is pretty dubious. And frankly in a more meritocratic society doing ad hoc seasonal work for minimum wage doesn't pay for a 3 bedroom house!

Though as pointed out before - you'll probably inherit at least 200k between yourselves anyway! If you really want to keep the house then pay for the cost of her care and don't expect others to do so on your behalf!

 

[GiraffePencils]

If you live with your mother, and you and your brother take care of her till the end, you inherit the house.......

And, like mentioned, at worse you've got 50k, if you can't turn that into a new home somewhere......

Sometimes I get a bit miffed when people talk like this, both my parents probably won't be with me in ~10years, and they'll leave me with nothing but funeral costs me and my sister will bare..... life's hard

 

[FoxEye]

You said at the start that BR has been dead for 20 years, so history does bear it out. Services are much better now than they have ever been, stations that were closed during nationalisation have re-opened, passengers numbers are well up on nationalisation figures, quality of services improved. Yes prices have gone up but that would have happened under BR too, the difference is now the whole country isn't paying for London to get cheaper tickets.

There has been technological progress since 1997 which would have benefited a state-run railways also.

The fact that other countries can run successful rail networks negates any argument that it would not be possible here, imho.

 

[dalehitchy1]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ation-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

So I just read this. I can imagine I'm going to be having huge issues in the near future.

My story, married my indian partner 6 years ago. He was here studying. Shortly after his studies we moved to Spain and lived there for a year.

When returning to the UK... We had two choices... Apply for a spouse visa in which I had to be earning £18600... (which I wasn't as I hadn't been living in the Uk... Although I was working in Spain.. It had to be a uk income.. or just return under Eu law as my partner had a Spanish EU residency card.

We did the latter.... Have been back for about two years... Got a mortgage... And he now has a 'spouse of an eu family member' card. Obviously that may not apply anymore.

I earn 20kbbut now there is a potential to remove my partners current rights and apply new requirements. If the up the minimum threshold past 20k I wont meet it... And my partner will have to return to India where it is illegal to be gay.

All this and we have always worked, paid taxes and put into the UK economy. I feel shumned from my own country. I have never taken benefits in my life.

 

[Efour]

I don't understand your level of entitlement.
You need to move to a real part of England and live in reality for a while.
Stop blaming others for your own faults.
I was like you for a couple of years. Looking back I wish someone just told me to get over myself and adapt to the reality.
I've ended up in a weirder place than I expected but I have a decent lifestyle and I'm much happier.

At foxeye.

But yeah I'm all up for the UK rail network being nationalised again. Solid state run infrastructure should be a priority.

 

[FoxEye]

on the other hand wanting to live somewhere mortgage free because you see it as your birthright while expecting others to subsidise care etc.. is pretty dubious. And frankly in a more meritocratic society doing ad hoc seasonal work for minimum wage doesn't pay for a 3 bedroom house!

Though as pointed out before - you'll probably inherit at least 200k between yourselves anyway! If you really want to keep the house then pay for the cost of her care and don't expect others to do so on your behalf!

At the end of the day, I'm fine with expecting the very well off to subsidise the poor/working class. I guess that's why I won't be voting Tory

I don't believe that the well-off earned their money 100% due to their own efforts, and that the state (or "others") didn't have any contribution to their success. So I'm fine with taking back some of their money to subsidise those who have, for reasons of either bad choices, or poor education, or whatever, not reached the same heights.

I believe in taxation, and I believe in wealth redistribution. Sorry!

 

[dowie]

At the end of the day, I'm fine with expecting the very well off to subsidise the poor/working class. I guess that's why I won't be voting Tory

I don't believe that the well-off earned their money 100% due to their own efforts, and that the state (or "others") didn't have any contribution to their success. So I'm fine with taking back some of their money to subsidise those who have, for reasons of either bad choices, or poor education, or whatever, not reached the same heights.

I believe in taxation, and I believe in wealth redistribution. Sorry!

Unless of course that wealth is used directly to cover care costs rather than burden the tax payer. That is the irony here...

 

[FoxEye]

Unless of course that wealth is used directly to cover care costs rather than burden the tax payer. That is the irony here...

No the principle of wealth redistribution is the "Robin Hood" principle. You take from the rich and give to the poor.

Not "take from everyone" and give to everyone. Or take from everyone and give to the rich As the BTL landlords will be rubbing their hands with glee right about now...

 

[Things change I've changed]

Bang out of order they expect homeowners to pay for the social care crisis, people have worked all their lives to buy their homes, these days it's so hard to get on the housing ladder, the percentage of parents having to help their children onto the property ladder is now up 30% this year, and many parents want to leave as much as possible to their children to help them out, these people aren't wealthy, May says this is fairness for everyone, how is it fair then that I might not see the value in owning my own home now and I might as well just take free social care, everyone will require support in their old age, that being the case everyone should be chipping in.

I'm on minimum wage, I would without question be happy to pay a dedicated NHS/Social care tax of £8 a month, this is what we need.

 

[Tefal]

At the end of the day, I'm fine with expecting the very well off to subsidise the poor/working class. I guess that's why I won't be voting Tory

I don't believe that the well-off earned their money 100% due to their own efforts, and that the state (or "others") didn't have any contribution to their success. So I'm fine with taking back some of their money to subsidise those who have, for reasons of either bad choices, or poor education, or whatever, not reached the same heights.

I believe in taxation, and I believe in wealth redistribution. Sorry!

of course you do because you are a recipient of that redistribution.

you want others to subsidies your life because you're unwilling to do what they have done and move and improve.

 

[dowie]

No the principle of wealth redistribution is the "Robin Hood" principle. You take from the rich and give to the poor.

indeed - thus poor people with no assets will still have their care subsidised by the state whereas richer people with six figures worth of assets will pay for care themselves - though it won't need to lose them their home as it only gets deducted from their estate when they die.

you're arguing against that thus the irony...

you seem to want to both inherit wealth and benefit from others subsidising the costs of future care for your mother...

 

[Tefal]

No the principle of wealth redistribution is the "Robin Hood" principle. You take from the rich and give to the poor.

but with over quater of a million in assets your mother is "rich"

 

[The_Abyss]

Bang out of order they expect homeowners to pay for the social care crisis, people have worked all their lives to buy their homes, these days it's so hard to get on the housing ladder, the percentage of parents having to help their children onto the property ladder is now up 30% this year, and many parents want to leave as much as possible to their children to help them out, these people aren't wealthy, May says this is fairness for everyone, how is it fair then that I might not see the value in owning my own home now and I might as well just take free social care, everyone will require support in their old age, that being the case everyone should be chipping in.

I'm on minimum wage, I would without question be happy to pay a dedicated NHS/Social care tax of £8 a month, this is what we need.

In what world do you think £8 per month is going to solve the funding for social care?!

 

[Things change I've changed]

In what world do you think £8 per month is going to solve the funding for social care?!

I was just using that as an example for minimum wage workers, the main thing is I believe there needs to be a dedicated NHS/Social care tax that even everyone has to pay, we just need to face up to the fact that we have to pay more to support our future care and healthcare in this country.

 

[chroniclard]

Would rather taxes were increased, for all, to fund these things. Rather than a stealth tax at at end of it all.

 

[Things change I've changed]

Would rather taxes were increased, for all, to fund these things. Rather than a stealth tax at at end of it all.

Agreed.

 

[Tefal]

In what world do you think £8 per month is going to solve the funding for social care?!

8 pound a month * 31 million working population = £248,000,000 a month or £2,976,000,000 a year.

3 billion a year is not an insignificant amount of money.

 

[drs101]

Would rather taxes were increased, for all, to fund these things. Rather than a stealth tax at at end of it all.

dont worry tax's will rise at some point seeing as May refused to rule out a rise

8 pound a month * 31 million working population = £248,000,000 a month or £2,976,000,000 a year.

3 billion a year is not an insignificant amount of money.

this could be a solution