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

[The_Abyss]

Not just wealthy, the quote was "disproportionately wealthy".

A term that I strongly object to people having only a single house and a state pension.

Disproportionately wealthy referred to the fact that many baby boomers were able to buy their house for 2 or 3 x their income, and have then seen the value of that house increase disproportionately compared to any other asset classes.

If that specific generation now has specific needs, then why not consider using that wealth to pay for them?

You talk about the children losing out, but this isn't about the children. It is about the needs of the owner of the asset.

 

[FoxEye]

Disproportionately wealthy referred to the fact that many baby boomers were able to buy their house for 2 or 3 x their income, and have then seen the value of that house increase disproportionately compared to any other asset classes.

If that specific generation now has specific needs, then why not consider using that wealth to pay for them?

You talk about the children losing out, but this isn't about the children. It is about the needs of the owner of the asset.

I don't think you can say "it's not about the children".

Policies need to be seen in terms of the effect they have on society as a whole. This policy will affect those children, as well you know. But it will hurt the children of the poorest home owners the hardest. Precisely the opposite of what a fair policy would do.

Meanwhile the genuinely wealthy can afford to pay for their care and ensure their children inherit their privilege.

How can you say this isn't an attack on the working-class home owners? It blatantly is.

 

[V F]

Where's the hate? The discussion is centred around asking them to use some of that wealth to pay for their own specific needs that impact their specific generation.

Listening to some people, on the radio, out and about places, some young, some older and old.

 

[FoxEye]

Also I want to say that this isn't about "asking the wealthy to pay for their own social care costs".

Social care, like most state spending, is financed by general taxation. Home owners and non home owners alike pay tax during their lives, and NI.

Let's not forget that the Tories have given tax breaks to the wealthy recently, and will cut corporation tax if elected.

So on the one hand they are asking pensioners to foot the bill for their social care (secured against their homes), and on the other hand, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations, thus reducing their tax bill (which would have helped pay for social care).

Doesn't add up, does it.

 

[Fubsy]

I don't think you can say "it's not about the children".
But it will hurt the children of the poorest home owners the hardest.

How is leaving up to £100k to your children hurting them?

I'd be more than happy if anywhere near that was left after my folks pass. If they can afford it, why shouldn't they pay for it if it helps free up resources for someone who cannot.

 

[The_Abyss]

I don't think you can say "it's not about the children".

Policies need to be seen in terms of the effect they have on society as a whole. This policy will affect those children, as well you know. But it will hurt the children of the poorest home owners the hardest. Precisely the opposite of what a fair policy would do.

Meanwhile the genuinely wealthy can afford to pay for their care and ensure their children inherit their privilege.

How can you say this isn't an attack on the working-class home owners? It blatantly is.

I didn't say that this is an attack on the working class home owners. Those are your words.

You talk about fair policies. But this policy would also mean that the care needs of non-homeowners and those without other means are met without further cost to them.

You're against some people enabling their children to inherit their wealth, but not others, and are basically seeking a policy to suit your own very specific circumstances and needs. That's fine - we all need to pick a policy, cause or belief on which to base our votes, but just be honest about what yours is.

 

[FoxEye]

How is leaving up to £100k to your children hurting them?

I'd be more than happy if anywhere near that was left after my folks pass. If they can afford it, why shouldn't they pay for it if it helps free up resources for someone who cannot.

£100k is not nearly enough to buy a house, and the current reality is that banks will not give a mortgage to low earners. Recently, as you know, banks are very, very risk averse.

Someone on NMW with £100k (actually £50k if you had two kids), will not be able to get on the housing ladder. A house is worth so much more to them.

Again, if "the wealthy can afford it", why are the Tories giving the wealthy tax breaks? They just have late 2016 increased the threshold for paying the top rate of tax.

I didn't say that this is an attack on the working class home owners. Those are your words.

You talk about fair policies. But this policy would also mean that the care needs of non-homeowners and those without other means are met without further cost to them.

You're against some people enabling their children to inherit their wealth, but not others, and are basically seeking a policy to suit your own very specific circumstances and needs. That's fine - we all need to pick a policy, cause or belief on which to base our votes, but just be honest about what yours is.

I'm a working class person from a working class family... so I guess you could say it's selfish for me to advocate policies which help the working class. But in reality helping the low earners is what a fair society does. You don't expect the rich and the poor to contribute equally. Yet that's exactly what this policy does. The rich and the poor would pay the same rate for their social care.

The Tories want to place an unfair burden on the working class. Unfair because the genuinely wealthy can laugh it off, yet they are getting tax breaks from this govt.

So who is selfish?

 

[dowie]

The rich and the poor would pay the same rate for their social care.

The Tories want to place an unfair burden on the working class. Unfair because the genuinely wealthy can laugh it off, yet they are getting tax breaks from this govt.

well firstly it isn't a burden and doesn't apply until you die

secondly it doesn't affect the poor - poor people will be provided with care funded by the state

people with >100k in assets aren't poor

 

[FoxEye]

well firstly it isn't a burden and doesn't apply until you die

secondly it doesn't affect the poor - poor people will be provided with care funded by the state

people with >100k in assets aren't poor

They aren't wealthy either.

1 house + state pension does not make you wealthy.

The fact that, according to you, having a house at all makes you "wealthy" is a sign of how broken the housing market is atm.

And we won't fix this by forcing the poorest home owners (or their kids) to sell up. That will just ensure that the poorest home owner's children are forced out of the housing market.

Meanwhile, the genuinely wealthy (or their children) will be able to buy those houses and add them to their portfolios.

 

[Fubsy]

£100k is not nearly enough to buy a house, and the current reality is that banks will not give a mortgage to low earners. Recently, as you know, banks are very, very risk averse.

Someone on NMW with £100k (actually £50k if you had two kids), will not be able to get on the housing ladder. A house is worth so much more to them.

Again, if "the wealthy can afford it", why are the Tories giving the wealthy tax breaks? They just have late 2016 increased the threshold for paying the top rate of tax.

I'm also working class, from a working class family. Currently renting in the south..... I would snap your hand off for £100k - it is more than enough to get on the ladder. What you are advocating is not sustainable for generations going forward, house for life for the masses will only end up with the housing prices rising even further.

 

[The_Abyss]

Also I want to say that this isn't about "asking the wealthy to pay for their own social care costs".

Social care, like most state spending, is financed by general taxation. Home owners and non home owners alike pay tax during their lives, and NI.

Let's not forget that the Tories have given tax breaks to the wealthy recently, and will cut corporation tax if elected.

So on the one hand they are asking pensioners to foot the bill for their social care (secured against their homes), and on the other hand, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations, thus reducing their tax bill (which would have helped pay for social care).

Doesn't add up, does it.

You seem incapable of understanding that giving tax incentives can create more wealth and therefore support greater income and support. What do you think would happen if we granted huge benefits to the current retired population, while increasing the tax burden on the younger generation and businesses to pay for it?

You're right about general taxation though, and this is one of my own personal bugbears. I detest the stupidly complex taxation system we have in place today. It is too intricate and deliberately divisive. Why do we need NI and income tax applied separately? Why are new taxes, such as a social care tax, proposed? The system is completely broken, and deliberately so. Having multiple sources of income, combined with multiple means of benefit delivery, means that business of government will always be highly divisive, and it is currently at a very unhealthy and unproductive level. It encourages political debate to pitch different demographics against each other, from high earners to pensioners to benefit recipients. The end outcome - a sustainable nation and economy and a happy population - are lost and divided across political lines. As a result, we have a choice in the current election of a choice between different shades of s***.

 

[dowie]

They aren't wealthy either.

1 house + state pension does not make you wealthy.

The fact that, according to you, having a house at all makes you "wealthy" is a sign of how broken the housing market is atm.

And we won't fix this by forcing the poorest home owners (or their kids) to sell up. That will just ensure that the poorest home owner's children are forced out of the housing market.

we're not forcing the poorest home owners (or indeed any home owners) to sell up - the poorest home owners aren't even targeted by this - if you live in some poor areas in a house worth less than 100k you don't have to pay. No one is forced out to sell up either.

sure you sell up when that person dies - that is pretty standard when siblings inherit a property whether this charge for care is in place or not... and at a minimum there is 100k left - though in most cases much more than that will be left... plenty to afford a deposit

 

[Em3bbs]

Foxeye seems to love the idea of socialism up until the point it affects the assets *he* might get for free one day.

 

[The_Abyss]

I'm a working class person from a working class family... so I guess you could say it's selfish for me to advocate policies which help the working class. But in reality helping the low earners is what a fair society does. You don't expect the rich and the poor to contribute equally. Yet that's exactly what this policy does. The rich and the poor would pay the same rate for their social care.

The Tories want to place an unfair burden on the working class. Unfair because the genuinely wealthy can laugh it off, yet they are getting tax breaks from this govt.

So who is selfish?

This proposed policy looks to meet the specific costs of a specific need. If your care costs £100 a day then it will cost £100 a day whether or not you have a £250,000 house or assets or a £1,000,000 house and assets. I'm not sure how that's unfair. If you don't have any assets and your care costs are £100 a day then they'll be paid for.

You're defining rich as having more than one property and poor as having one property. Again, you're just looking at your own personal situation. And struggling to look outside it.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm also working class, from a working class family. Currently renting in the south..... I would snap your hand off for £100k - it is more than enough to get on the ladder. What you are advocating is not sustainable for generations going forward, house for life for the masses will only end up with the housing prices rising even further.

Personally I don't think the govt has the stomach to actually fix the housing market. Prices are going to keep rising. It's the main reason I can't see myself living here long term.

The situation we're rushing head first towards is a peasant class, comprised of people who work 40+ (60+) hours to pay for food and lodging. None of them will be home owners. The rental market will bleed them dry, as the govt will reject calls for tighter rental controls. Then you'll have the middle and upper classes who keep the Tory govt in power, and who control all the housing stock between them.

What makes it worse is this govt's fixation on insisting that all council housing must be available to buy. Which then finds its way into BTL portfolios. No council is allowed to build - and keep - housing stock. Crazy.

This proposed policy looks to meet the specific costs of a specific need. If your care costs £100 a day then it will cost £100 a day whether or not you have a £250,000 house or assets or a £1,000,000 house and assets. I'm not sure how that's unfair. If you don't have any assets and your care costs are £100 a day then they'll be paid for.

You're defining rich as having more than one property and poor as having one property. Again, you're just looking at your own personal situation. And struggling to look outside it.

Why do we tax income as a % then? By your argument, it could be argued that the rich and the poor should pay the same flat amount, not a %.

After all, the rich and the poor get the same use of the same roads, the same use of street lighting, the same use of police, etc, etc.

If the cost of providing services to the rich is the same as providing services to the poor - and actually that's not true, the poor actually cost far more as the rich will use private services a lot of the time - then by your own argument we should tax the rich and the poor the same amount. Not a %, the same flat amount.

But we don't. We tax based on your ability to afford it. If you can afford more, you pay more.

e: Someone else in this thread said it far better than me. With this policy, home ownership as an aspiration for the working class now dies completely. What point is there for a working class person to bust his nut, saving every penny he has to afford a house. He can't pass it on. Home ownership for a working class person is now completely pointless, given that it takes your entire working life to pay off the mortgage.

You can't argue with that point.

e2: The *only* reason for a working class person now to own their own home is if the mortgage repayments are less than the cost of renting.

 

[Fubsy]

e2: The *only* reason for a working class person now to own their own home is if the mortgage repayments are less than the cost of renting.

Or to fund/partially fund the rental cost of a property near where they find employment

 

[FoxEye]

Foxeye seems to love the idea of socialism up until the point it affects the assets *he* might get for free one day.

It might make more sense to you given that I consider security of dwelling to be a fundamental human right.

In this country only home owners can be considered to have anything near security of dwelling.

I don't care about having lots of money, a yacht, or "stuff for free".

But I absolutely refuse to be a slave to a private landlord. Watch this space, because in future if nothing is done, inequality will cause the next real public uprising and revolt.

 

[Em3bbs]

Yeah, just like you were going to get off your arse and start earning 50k pa in 5 years time some time ago.

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah, just like you were going to get off your arse and start earning 50k pa in 5 years time some time ago.

Funnily enough, that figure (and goal) was derived from the amount I'd need to earn to own my own house as a single person. Without derailing, there is no way of achieving that goal at the present time. Just can't be done.

Like I said earlier, not everybody can earn average or above average wage. It is not about "working harder" or "getting off your arse", although you frequently hear that sentiment expressed by people who just can't relate to working class people and their struggles

 

[The_Abyss]

Why do we tax income as a % then? By your argument, it could be argued that the rich and the poor should pay the same flat amount, not a %.

After all, the rich and the poor get the same use of the same roads, the same use of street lighting, the same use of police, etc, etc.

If the cost of providing services to the rich is the same as providing services to the poor - and actually that's not true, the poor actually cost far more as the rich will use private services a lot of the time - then by your own argument we should tax the rich and the poor the same amount. Not a %, the same flat amount.

But we don't. We tax based on your ability to afford it. If you can afford more, you pay more.

e: Someone else in this thread said it far better than me. With this policy, home ownership as an aspiration for the working class now dies completely. What point is there for a working class person to bust his nut, saving every penny he has to afford a house. He can't pass it on. Home ownership for a working class person is now completely pointless, given that it takes your entire working life to pay off the mortgage.

You can't argue with that point.

e2: The *only* reason for a working class person now to own their own home is if the mortgage repayments are less than the cost of renting.

On the first point, I don't disagree at all. Taxation is levied on affordability and means rather than need - until retirement is reached. Let's not forget that 'social care' is highly polarised. Your health needs are pretty much fully met by the NHS until retirement age, and thereafter it becomes something a little different (this is a generalisation, as such specific care is not normally required pre-retirement, and covered separately elsewhere by disability benefits).

The last point, on home ownership aspiration, is completely false.

Mortgage payments are now commonly lower than rents. The property can be passed on (assume you're referring to the proposed social care policy - properties can still be passed on and will have a minimum value of £100,000).

I can argue with that point, as I'm sure many others can too.

It doesn't need to take your entire working life to pay off a mortgage. I'm not a perfect example, but I'm 44 (yes, I'm working class) and have paid off my mortgage.

There are many reasons to own their own home rather than rent. Own the house they want? Change the house they own? Flex how they pay for their house? Not pay rent in their retirement? Pass the home on to their children? Use it as security to raise other finance? Let it out to others for income? Paint the walls purple if they want? Have pets? Add an extension? Not be at risk of the landlord kicking me out?

It might make more sense to you given that I consider security of dwelling to be a fundamental human right.

In this country only home owners can be considered to have anything near security of dwelling.

I don't care about having lots of money, a yacht, or "stuff for free".

But I absolutely refuse to be a slave to a private landlord. Watch this space, because in future if nothing is done, inequality will cause the next real public uprising and revolt.

Yet effectively you're a slave to your mother as your landlord.