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

[Things change I've changed]

yes... a house is a substantial asset



no it hasn't



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

Let's just cut to the chase here, do you think it's fair that people who own their own home have to pay for non-homeowners care?, think about this, you've decided to make sacrifices in your life, worked extra hard to get that home you wanted, I on the other hand, on minimum pay, can just rent, get housing benefit if I need it, never chooses to own my own home, spends most my money down the pub having a laugh, you pay for my care? Fair right?

 

[Azza]

£4bn extra in school spending equates to real-terms cut in spend per pupil of just under 3% btwn 17-18 & 21-22

From the IFS - https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/865239846163537921

 

[dowie]

Let's just cut to the chase here, do you think it's fair that people who own their own home have to pay for non-homeowners care?, think about this, you've decided to make sacrifices in your life, worked extra hard to get that home you wanted, I on the other hand, on minimum pay, can just rent, get housing benefit if I need it, never chooses to own my own home, spends most my money down the pub having a laugh, you pay for my care? Fair right?

in this case they're just paying for their own care(eventually), those that can't afford it get it paid for from general taxation... which is not coming from retired homeowners but current workers whether home owners or not

yes I do think that we should provide care for people who can't afford it - are you suggesting we just leave elderly people with no assets to fend for themselves? Do you suppose that all poor people are just deadbeats/wasters then?

 

[Things change I've changed]

in this case they're paying for their own care, those that can't afford it get it paid for form general taxation... which is not coming from retired homeowners but current workers whether home owners or not

yes I do think that we should provide care for people who can't afford it - are you suggesting we just leave elderly people with no assets to fend for themselves? Do you suppose that all poor people are just deadbeats/wasters then?

No, I am a poor person, and no they are not 'just paying for they're own care' because they also have paid taxes all their life, so they are paying more, it's like a double tax for home ownership, pay while you work and pay when you die.

I just believe healthcare should be available to anyone rich or poor regardless of assets, this should be a basic human right and it should not come down to what to own, it should be paid for by everyone, for everyone, you should not be penalised for owning your own home.

At the very least if you have to go down this route draw the line at second home owners.

 

[drs101]

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

I was making the point that people will want to leave their asset to their kids not the state to fund their care, especially when they see people with no money getting it for free, people are already phoning LBC to say as much

 

[DampCat]

I have a question, and it probably seems stupid but i very, very rarely talk politics with the people in my life because it's so divisive.

If you find yourself strongly aligned with a smaller party, will you vote for that party knowing it's unikely to a) enter power or b) prevent a party you dont want from entering power; or will you vote for a larger party that's somewhat aligned to your politics but doesn't necessarily represent you (or you dont particularly like them) as it has a higher chance of a) entering power or b) preventing a party you dont want from entering power.

 

[dowie]

No, I am a poor person, and no they are not 'just paying for they're own care' because they also have paid taxes all their life, so they are paying more, it's like a double tax for home ownership, pay while you work and pay when you die.

I just believe healthcare should be available to anyone rich or poor regardless of assets, this should be a basic human right and it should not come down to what to own, it should be paid for by everyone, for everyone, you should not be penalised to owning your own home.

This isn't about healthcare it is about social care, the cost of providing it for people who've not got sufficient assets will be met by current taxpayers not other retired people - the deductions for their estates will cover their care only!

I was making the point that people will want to leave their asset to their kids not the state to fund their care, especially when they see people with no money getting it for free, people are already phoning LBC to say as much

well they still can leave assets to their kids... as for the envy argument - might as well apply that to anyone who received help from the state. Housing benefit claimants vs people who have to pay for rent or mortgages etc..etc..

 

[RDM]

The Tories propose a wealth tax and suddenly the left are all up in arms...

 

[Things change I've changed]

This isn't about healthcare it is about social care, the cost of providing it for people who've not got sufficient assets will be met by current taxpayers not other retired people - the deductions for their estates will cover their care only!

So basically what your saying is general taxation pay's for non home owners social care, and home owners pay both?

 

[Mr Jack]

Let's just cut to the chase here, do you think it's fair that people who own their own home have to pay for non-homeowners care?, think about this, you've decided to make sacrifices in your life, worked extra hard to get that home you wanted, I on the other hand, on minimum pay, can just rent, get housing benefit if I need it, never chooses to own my own home, spends most my money down the pub having a laugh, you pay for my care? Fair right?

You seem confused: owning is financially beneficial. Also, you don't get to keep it when you die anyway.

 

[dowie]

So basically what your saying is general taxation pay's for non home owners social care, and home owners pay both?

I'm saying that retired homeowners (or rather people with substantial assets) will essentially pay for their own care

people who don't have substantial assets (<100k) will be provided for by the state... i..e funded by the current working population

I don't see why it would be fair for the current working population to also fund care for elderly people who've got substantial assets that could be used to pay for it - especially as plenty of that current working population don't even have a deposit to buy a home themselves

 

[antijoke]

I'm saying that retired homeowners (or rather people with substantial assets) will essentially pay for their own care

people who don't have substantial assets (<100k) will be provided for by the state... i..e funded by the current working population

I don't see why it would be fair for the current working population to also fund care for elderly people who've got substantial assets that could be used to pay for it - especially as plenty of that current working population don't even have a deposit to buy a home themselves

But won't the majority of the currrnt elderly population have assets over £100k because they actually own their houses.

This will cause issues in the future when the old generation who got a bum end of the deal and aren't home owners come up for care, god knows how the system works then.

 

[drs101]

well they still can leave assets to their kids... as for the envy argument - might as well apply that to anyone who received help from the state. Housing benefit claimants vs people who have to pay for rent or mortgages etc..etc..

Im not saying I disagree with you, i just see why some are and will be upset by this

 

[FoxEye]

But won't the majority of the currrnt elderly population have assets over £100k because they actually own their houses.

This will cause issues in the future when the old generation who got a bum end of the deal and aren't home owners come up for care, god knows how the system works then.

In their next manifesto the Tories will simply be insisting that poor people jump off a tall building once they retire. Should help balance the books.

 

[Efour]

Pay minimum wage to some eastern European carer for a few years and get a free house at the end of it. Time to open some old folks homes!

 

[Things change I've changed]

You seem confused: owning is financially beneficial.

Not always, it can cost a fortune to support and maintain a property, it's cost my mum 20 grand recently to have her house refurbed and she still has a lot to do, she has been told if it not done now it will cost even more in the future, renting and owning both have pluses and negatives.

Also, you don't get to keep it when you die anyway.

I don't think that matters, you owned it by deed and should legally be able to redistribute the entirety of that house to your loved ones when you pass.

 

[MikeB]

Lifelong Tory, currently working 60 plus hours a week to try to get my family ahead, not just in this generation a,why bother, may as well get signed off for a fake ailment and watch TV, the end result in inheritance terms will probably be the same

 

[RoboCod]

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

So you honestly belive Corbyn when he says he's going to raise all that money from taxing rich people and pay for all that stuff he promised? You believe him, on his election campaign, over say... the IFS? Wowsers. I knew Corbyn fanboys followed in blind faith but I'm quite taken aback.

 

[dalehitchy1]

But won't the majority of the currrnt elderly population have assets over £100k because they actually own their houses.

This will cause issues in the future when the old generation who got a bum end of the deal and aren't home owners come up for care, god knows how the system works then.

Exactly what I said earlier. There will come a point where the majority of low and middle income earners will not have any property because it was simply unaffordable. What happens then?

 

[dowie]

lol - people won't have assets in the future?

having people pay for their care when they've got substantial assets isn't going to wipe out wealth - the average for residential care was 50-90k I'd suspect the average for carer visits in your own home will be much lower... people will still inherit wealth - they'll just have a few grand knocked off the six figure inheritance... boo hoo.