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

[GiraffePencils]

It sure does buy a lot of sweets, I'll grant you that.

But having £250k and no house means you need to buy a house ASAP. Which will cost you about... you guessed it £250k.

It is one house, and that's all it is. Having £250k and no house would be problematic. Nobody wants to live in their car.

Again, you are coming at this purely from a "that's a 6-figure sum!" angle, whereas I'm saying "it's one house, which everybody needs to live".

Well, it's almost 5 flats in Dundee......

 

[dowie]

Again, you are coming at this purely from a "that's a 6-figure sum!" angle, whereas I'm saying "it's one house, which everybody needs to live".

and that is why they're not going to kick people out of their houses but instead will collect the amount owed for care from their estates after they die

obviously people can also downsize if they want to and pay for care regardless

 

[FoxEye]

I'm charitable whereas you're still at the teet.

Sticks and stones. In reality I help enable Mum to keep living in her home, and this will become increasingly more important in the coming years.

Go have a look see how common this is becoming, esp down here. On my street alone there are 3 children in their 30s-50s still living at home.

 

[xyphic]

what level of assets do you think somone needs to have before they should pay for their own care?

Basic care? Assets shouldn't matter a bit. If someone is elderly and needs care, they should get it regardless of what they own, without having the extra worry that Theresa May's going to send her goons around to repossess the house.

Those with wealth would still have the option of paying for private care.

 

[GiraffePencils]

Basic care? Assets shouldn't matter a bit. If someone is elderly and needs care, they should get it regardless of what they own, without having the extra worry that Theresa May's going to send her goons around to repossess the house.

Those with wealth would still have the option of paying for private care.

Well there would be no need to worry, as there'd be no 'repossession' while the person was alive

 

[xyphic]

Well there would be no need to worry, as there'd be no 'repossession' while the person was alive

I'll admit that I'm making a few biased assumptions about what the Conservatives would *actually* do once they got the kind of power they're after vs. what they said they'd do in order to get it. Isn't that the etiquette around these parts?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Basic care? Assets shouldn't matter a bit. If someone is elderly and needs care, they should get it regardless of what they own, without having the extra worry that Theresa May's going to send her goons around to repossess the house.

Those with wealth would still have the option of paying for private care.

That's great, but you need to pay for the basic care, somehow, and at the moment no one has any particularly good ideas on how to do that.

 

[GiraffePencils]

I'll admit that I'm making a few biased assumptions about what the Conservatives would *actually* do once they got the kind of power they're after vs. what they said they'd do in order to get it. Isn't that the etiquette around these parts?

I'd be more worried about them taking the house, having an 'approved seller' that gives you 120k for a 400 k house, pockets the 20 as tax and the tory owned 'approved seller' rents it out for 3k a month.....

 

[Things change I've changed]

they won't specifically, they'll only foot their own bill if they have assets worth > 100k

So pretty much most/all home owners then?

with that logic why not re-introduce the poll tax to fund local authorities while we're at it... and a flat tax for income too

this is getting hilarious - people essentially using right wing objections to a Tory policy

Come on now, we're talking about a basic level of care here, you have to draw the line somewhere, I don't think an extra dedicated tax for essential care and the NHS suddenly means that we open the floodgates.

Everyone rich or poor should have easy access to essential basic care when they are older.

 

[Uther]

Daily Mail commentards have gone into complete meltdown over the social care plans, despite Dacre's spin. I think May-bot has misjudged how willing people are to swallow her 'tough but fair' nonsense.

I think she'll still win but has seriously misjudged this one, and they will spend the next few weeks desperately trying to defend it.

edit.Also I notice that the Cons have dipped below 38% here, not that it means much but still...

 

[dowie]

So pretty much most/all home owners then?

yup - though they get to stay in their homes so hardly much of an issue

Come on now, we're talking about a basic level of care here, you have to draw the line somewhere, I don't think an extra dedicated tax for essential care and the NHS suddenly means that we open the floodgates.

Everyone rich or poor should have easy access to essential basic care when they are older.

yup and people who can afford to fund it themselves, because they've got substantial assets, ought to pay for it

but you'd rather there was some regressive tax that placed an additional burden on the poorest in society to cover it?

 

[FoxEye]

I think she'll still win but has seriously misjudged this one, and they will spend the next few weeks desperately trying to defend it.

It seems the mask is slipping a bit, as they have become massively over-confident. They are assuming the election is already won.

Which Tory minister was it that said under-25s didn't deserve NMW, as they were lazy and work-shy?

 

[Ayahuasca]

The mask could slip completely off and they'll still win it comfortably, as another poster mentioned earlier in the thread we'll have a Tory government till the baby boomer generation die off.

 

[FoxEye]

yup - though they get to stay in their homes so hardly much of an issue



yup and people who can afford to fund it themselves, because they've got substantial assets, ought to pay for it

but you'd rather there was some regressive tax that placed an additional burden on the poorest in society to cover it?

Seems preferable to the Tory dream of forcing all the poor into slavery. Aka, uncapped rental of houses which are in many cases unfit for human habitation.

A few more houses added to a Tory-voter's portfolio is a great thing as far as they're concerned. The poor don't matter, that much is more obvious every day.

 

[drs101]

yup - though they get to stay in their homes so hardly much of an issue



yup and people who can afford to fund it themselves, because they've got substantial assets, ought to pay for it

but you'd rather there was some regressive tax that placed an additional burden on the poorest in society to cover it?

Might be an issue for the children of home owners, also people are happy not to pay more tax but i dont think they expect to have to sell their house to pay hundreds of thousands in care costs while people with no asstets get it for free,

I hope this puts a spanner in the works for a tory easy win

 

[dowie]

Might be an issue for the children of home owners, also people are happy not to pay more tax but i dont think they expect to have to sell their house to pay hundreds of thousands in care costs while people with no asstets get it for free,

they don't have to sell their house to do that - their house remains theirs until they die

people who've barely paid any NI contributions or taxes in their life still get a pension from the state

what next - people who don't work get benefits etc.. I mean that is part of how our society works - of course someone who is not able to afford to pay for care is going to get care provided just as someone who can't afford housing will be provided housing benefit and/or social housing

the point is that people who can afford to pay really ought to do so - thus if you've got over 16k in savings then you don't get to claim JSA and housing benefit when you lose your job

likewise now if you need residential care and you've got over 100k then it will come from your estate... I really don't see how this is particularly unfair - people who have plenty of wealth having some of that put towards a service that they're directly benefiting from

 

[Rilot]

I think this will cause quite a few pensioners to refuse care so as to not leave their children with a big bill out of their estate.
One thing I've never understood with this country is why we don't seem to want to look after our parents when they need us. In other countries such as Poland (where my mrs is from) people care for their elderly and see it as their duty to look after the ones who gave them life in the first place. It seems that in the UK we don't want to know.
Maybe this policy will change that.

 

[Things change I've changed]

yup - though they get to stay in their homes so hardly much of an issue



yup and people who can afford to fund it themselves, because they've got substantial assets, ought to pay for it

Substantial? Are you serious?

Why don't we just stop calling it 'owning your own home' and have houses sold on 100 year leases, the sense of true home ownership imo has come under fire with this policy.

but you'd rather there was some regressive tax that placed an additional burden on the poorest in society to cover it?

I would rather we just all fairly contributed towards it rather than targeting a specific group of people that was lead to believe buying their own home was in their interests, including the ability to redistribute their assets to their family, yet again this will not really effect the super rich, but the working and middle class families.

 

[dowie]

Substantial? Are you serious?

yes... a house is a substantial asset

Why don't we just stop calling it 'owning your own home' and have houses sold on 100 year leases, the sense of true home ownership imo has come under fire with this policy.

no it hasn't

I would rather we just all fairly contributed towards it rather than targeting a specific group of people that was lead to believe buying their own home was in their interests, including the ability to redistribute their assets to their family, yet again this will not really effect the super rich, but the working and middle class families.

they still can redistribute their assets to their family - the typical two kids can still get inherit the house which they'll then sell and get a lump sum from each... only there will be a deduction to cover the cost of care

 

[stewski]

Why is this the go to response?
You believe a career politician, who will do anything to be elected, can meet his wild promises. Delusional or what?

Sorry I was with you until you said HIS, she's ugly I'll grant, but not a he?