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

Who will you vote for?

  • Conservatives

  • Labour

  • Lib Dem

  • UKIP

  • Other (please state)

  • I won't be voting

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uther said:
We're not talking about MP's expenses just now though... ;)

Tim Farron is saying "dementia tax... will become her version of the poll tax".
http://news.sky.com/story/tory-social-care-plans-theresa-mays-poll-tax-warns-tim-farron-10886756
I absolutely think they have seriously miscalculated here.
Click to expand...

No, we are talking about demanding that others make a more substantial contribution than you to things you want.

The left seem to have a great ability to misuse the word tax. We have had the bedroom tax (which was actually a benefit reduction, not a tax), now a dementia tax, which isn't a tax but a deferred charge (similar to student loans, which they refuse to refer to as a graduate tax because it's capped).

It's almost like the emotive language is far more important than the truth.
 
Kenai said:
Strong and stable

Coalition of chaos

It is almost like that :p
Click to expand...

Catchphrases aren't quite the same though. You can argue about them being inaccurate, but they aren't a deliberate misuse of language in the way describing a benefit cut as a tax is.
 
Dolph said:
Catchphrases aren't quite the same though. You can argue about them being inaccurate, but they aren't a deliberate misuse of language in the way describing a benefit cut as a tax is.
Click to expand...
It's still playing on emotive language above anything based in fact.

Just pointing out it's not only 'the left' who use emotive language, everyone on the political spectrum is at it, even to the point the Conservatives campaign is anchored on little more than a couple of emotive catchphrases.
 
Freakbro said:
Rubbish.

Nothing says society like all chipping in together to look after each other.
Click to expand...

I would have no problem with a flat percentage applied to all, that is chipping in to look after each other.

That's not what people want though,they want others to pay more than they do.
 
Would you think it was a great policy if it was in the Labour manifesto Dolph? All hell broke loose when Labour proposed a 15% death tax.
 
Uther said:
Would you think it was a great policy if it was in the Labour manifesto Dolph? All hell broke loose when Labour proposed a 15% death tax.
Click to expand...

The labour proposal applied a charge on death regardless of services used, which is different to a deferred charge as is proposed by the conservatives. It was the worst of all worlds.

If it should be funded through taxation, then it should be funded through general taxation at a standard rate.
 
Freakbro said:
The issue with the "Dementia Tax" as it has been dubbed, is that it breaks the social contract.

The basis of all our health care provision is that we all pay something into the system, via taxation, and then if you are unfortunate enough to require the help it is provided free at use.

Labour were vilified before with their "Death Tax" which was a 15% levy against your assets on death by all of us to pay for social care, which I think is a much better way of doing it, rather than now making the people unfortunate enough to lose the health lottery and develop some of these long term degenerative diseases potentially lose all their assets above 100,000.
Click to expand...

You're conflating healthcare and social care - healthcare is still free at the point of use, social care when a care home is involved has already cost people directly with only very modest savings/assets (over 23k) - their assets are now better protected under this plan with the threshold raised to 100k. People have also already had to pay for care in their homes if their savings (not including their homes) exceed 23k.

This isn't breaking any 'social contract' - social care has already been paid for by people with the assets to cover it, changing that to a system where people's homes can still be lived in but those assets will count is fairer. Now whether you end up in residential care or stay in your own home, whether you allocated more of your asserts to your property or you saved more through your life (or perhaps even decided to downsize/rent and have substantial savings) you'll have all your assets assessed. Social care needs to be paid for and frankly when the group who need it are often sitting on substantial assets then having them pay (as they already do) isn't particularly unfair.

I mean currently some widow living in a large 4 bed property she can't look after any more who decided to downsize to a bungalow or even to rent in some retirement community and thus become cash rich would have been on the hook for care costs down to her last 23k - the incentive was there to keep that 4 bed property and limit cash/liquid assets. Now people are treated a bit more fairly and assessed the same regardless of choices re: allocation of assets as they're not going to be forced to dispose of their home.

The only people it affects are the beneficiaries of their will and frankly they've got the option to look after their elderly relatives themselves if they like - which some families will of course chose to do.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
You're conflating healthcare and social care - healthcare is still free at the point of use, social care when a care home is involved has already cost people directly with only very modest savings/assets (over 23k) - their assets are now better protected under this plan with the threshold raised to 100k. People have also already had to pay for care in their homes if their savings (not including their homes) exceed 23k.

This isn't breaking any 'social contract' - social care has already been paid for by people with the assets to cover it, changing that to a system where people's homes can still be lived in but those assets will count is fairer. Now whether you end up in residential care or stay in your own home, whether you allocated more of your asserts to your property or you saved more through your life (or perhaps even decided to downsize/rent and have substantial savings) you'll have all your assets assessed. Social care needs to be paid for and frankly when the group who need it are often sitting on substantial assets then having them pay (as they already do) isn't particularly unfair.

The only people it affects are the beneficiaries of their will and frankly they've got the option to look after their elderly relatives themselves if they like - which some families will of course chose to do.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it seems that most of the arguments against this are coming from a position of comparing the proposal against an ideal, rather than against what actually happens now.

Furthermore, it seems that for some, the purpose is to make people pay regardless of need, as if the state is the only actor in the market and there is no alternative. They don't want to support their relatives themselves, and they don't want their inheritance at risk to cover it, instead they want unspecified others to pay for the state to look after their family.
 
Well it seems it hasnt gone down too well with the Tory voters, the gap now is only 9% and what was going to be a 150 seat majority is now only going to be a 46 seat one of the latest polls. All she had to do was release a manifesto with hardly anything in it and she would have won a landslide.
 
indeed - as I said before it is easily a policy labour could have released thus some of the criticism seems to be partly motivated by it being a tory policy, on the other hand it is a risky policy for her re: her voters as it is basically a 'wealth tax'

regardless social care needs to be funded and is going to be required even more by a growing elderly population, this probably has cost some votes but unlike stupid **** they've done recently re: fox hunting and ivory it is an issue that needs to be tackled and I guess being up front about it and putting it in a manifesto is the more honest way to go about it not to mention it won't then be interfered with by the House of Lords
 
Greebo said:
Well it seems it hasnt gone down too well with the Tory voters, the gap now is only 9% and what was going to be a 150 seat majority is now only going to be a 46 seat one of the latest polls. All she had to do was release a manifesto with hardly anything in it and she would have won a landslide.
Click to expand...
Yes, May is in a bit of trouble:
'Mary Creagh, who is defending Wakefield for Labour, said on Twitter: “Lots of Tory voters switching to Labour in Wakefield today because of arrogant, complacent Tory attack on pensioners.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-with-best-polls-showing-so-far-a7747111.html
 
Freakbro said:
Yes, intentionally, as the two aren't exactly indistinct from each other
Click to expand...

Well, apart from that they are, clearly different things already in the UK.

Absolutely, we could set the rate at say, 15% and apply it to peoples estate once they die
Click to expand...

No, if it comes out of general taxation, it would be income tax, vat or national insurance.

That way you prevent duplicate taxation and ensure that it isn't avoidable by disposing of wealth.

Uther said:
Oh I don't take much notice of MP's, the polls might be a different matter though. There'll be some knashing of teeth in Tory HQ come Monday morning.
Click to expand...

Current polls only put the Tories 9 or 10 points ahead. While thats not the 22 points it's been, it's not that bad, and still puts Labour on less seats than they have now.
 
Dolph said:
Current polls only put the Tories 9 or 10 points ahead. While thats not the 22 points it's been, it's not that bad, and still puts Labour on less seats than they have now.
Click to expand...
I have very little doubt May will win, but hopefully with the same or less of a majority than she has now.
Otherwise I'd be quite happy with a coalition, the Con/ Lib Dem government was one of the best we've had in recent years IMO.
 
Uther said:
I have very little doubt May will win, but hopefully with the same or less of a majority than she has now.
Otherwise I'd be quite happy with a coalition, the Con/ Lib Dem government was one of the best we've had in recent years IMO.
Click to expand...

I would like to see an increased majority so she is less dependent on the harder right parts of the party, but not a full landslide at that tends to lead to bad laws.

Sadly a con/lib dem coalition isn't likely, but that would be the best option in my view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom