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

[dowie]

Currently you get to keep £23K and your house don't you (Unless I've misunderstood)? And the average house price is a bit more than 77K.

no you don't for residential care - all your assets are counted.

it is for care at home where your house is excluded from the assets counted - thus the relative unfairness towards people who might downsize etc.. or who have simply chosen to allocate their assets differently and save/invest more - if you're not forced out of your home then I don't see why it shouldn't also be counted - it is also an asset... Why should someone who say sells their 300k house and moves to say a 100k flat then be charged more for non-residential care than someone who opts to stay in a 300k house.

charging you for care already applies to residential care and you get to keep more under this proposal

 

[krooton]

I think somewhere above £100k salary is where the increased tax should start.

4 times the national average / twice the national household income average.

 

[StriderX]

Debatable. Those people who didnt put their money into a home now get to keep £100k instead of £23k which for most people without a house probably means they now pay nothing for care (The Tories budgeted this will cost £1billion). Those people who bought a house, chances are with house values, will have all their care to pay for whether its in a care home or not (which the Tories have budgeted that this will bring in £3 billion - net gain £2 billion).

So in the long run, its better to just rent and make sure you have less than £100k savings whereas anybody buying a house can now lose all of it apart from £100k.

LOL, how hilarious that the Tories enjoy people renting more... but then again a strange amount of Tories own rental property, so it's probably to line their noses in more coke.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The part that's gross is that children shouldn't be dependent on their parents for an inheritance. Parents shouldn't feel they have to leave loads of money. They should be free to spend all the money they've earned in their retirement if they so desire. However, the system is now so stacked against young people in terms of housing costs, cost of living, cost of education, cost of childcare, etc, that it's the only foreseeable source of income for a lot of people.

Meanwhile, care costs are spiralling as people live longer and the NHS is facing real terms spending cuts. Where is the money going to come from?

All this faffing about worrying about asset stripping the middle classes is worrying about a symptom of far bigger problems.

 

[dowie]

Debatable. Those people who didnt put their money into a home now get to keep £100k instead of £23k which for most people without a house probably means they now pay nothing for care (The Tories budgeted this will cost £1billion).

so what? They're still less wealthy than the average home owner

Those people who bought a house, chances are with house values, will have all their care to pay for whether its in a care home or not (which the Tories have budgeted that this will bring in £3 billion - net gain £2 billion).

So in the long run, its better to just rent and make sure you have less than £100k savings whereas anybody buying a house can now lose all of it apart from £100k.

I really don't see this argument at all - you were coming up with all sorts of nonsense the other day about how it would be worth blowing 300k to avoid paying the government 50k etc.. it seems to be some sort of irrational position born out of frustration at having to pay for something

if people want to chose to rent then that is up to them - but if all assets whether investments or savings or property are treated the same then there isn't any advantage in doing so

 

[Vonhelmet]

I think somewhere above £100k salary is where the increased tax should start.

4 times the national average / twice the national household income average.

People always think the tax increase should start at an income greater than their own. Those on £100k would say why not £120k.

 

[Hagar]

So in the long run, its better to just rent and make sure you have less than £100k savings whereas anybody buying a house can now lose all of it apart from £100k.

Only if you are living only to make sure you don't pay for any potential care costs.

Most people just live to enjoy life particularly as you get older.

 

[dowie]

People always think the tax increase should start at an income greater than their own. Those on £100k would say why not £120k.

indeed - not to mention that it is around that level that people already get hit with the tax free amount disappearing

 

[Greebo]

so what? They're still less wealthy than the average home owner



I really don't see this argument at all - you were coming up with all sorts of nonsense the other day about how it would be worth blowing 300k to avoid paying the government 50k etc.. it seems to be some sort of irrational position born out of frustration at having to pay for something

if people want to chose to rent then that is up to them - but if all assets whether investments or savings or property are treated the same then there isn't any advantage in doing so

Of course its worth spending £300k on myself than paying the government £50k or £100k perhaps. Which normal sane person wouldnt think that? I cant spend it after I am dead can I?

 

[dowie]

Of course its worth spending £300k on myself than paying the government £50k or £100k perhaps. Which normal sane person wouldnt think that? I cant spend it after I am dead can I?

What normal sane person would want to waste 300k to save 50k? You're talking about things like long term renting instead of buying etc..

 

[Greebo]

What normal sane person would want to waste 300k to save 50k? You're talking about things like long term renting instead of buying etc..

I wouldn't call it wasting it. I am spending it on hookers and coke on me . You may see it as a waste and perhaps have plans for who you leave your legacy too, but doesnt bother me as I will be dead.

 

[jimjamuk]

If this was in place when my retirement comes around then it'll be world cruises / holidays until I've got £100k left.

Is this £100k per person or per married couple??? Might have to split with the wife aswell then!

 

[dowie]

I wouldn't call it wasting it. I am spending it on hookers and coke on me. You may see it as a waste and perhaps have planes for who you leave your legacy too, but doesnt bother me as I will be dead.

fair enough - but that is just you - it isn't necessarily normal behaviour as lots of people do want to leave something behind for their descendants and wouldn't see blowing 300k to save having to contribute say 50k for your care as a good idea. Not to mention that you can't really predict when you're going to need this care and so selling your home then blowing all your assets could easily end up with you being forced to rent somewhere on your pension income alone rather than live in a nice house! Basically you're advocating cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[Hagar]

Anyway, I've not seen much discussion on Labours U-turn / clarification on tuition fees bringing forward to this year if elected. That was not in the manifesto?

 

[Arazi]

Why? Do you work harder than say, a Nurse on less than 20K per year?

If you earn £100,000 a year you will pay £20 extra a week.

Is that going to affect your quality of life? Do you not think something like the NHS is a great institution that's worth protecting?

I'd love to earn that sort of money, and would happily pay extra back in to the country.

Well said, i would happily pay more if i was earning 100K or more, someone who has earned less than 20K a year for most of their lives appreciate the value of money more imo, and if they suddenly found themselves earning a 100K they would happily give more money to help others.

 

[dowie]

If this was in place when my retirement comes around then it'll be world cruises / holidays until I've got £100k left.

Is this £100k per person or per married couple??? Might have to split with the wife aswell then!

Where would you live after that then? Can you afford to rent a similar house on your pension alone?

 

[Trusty]

The point I'm making is that a job paying £150,000 a year in 2017 probably only paid £62,500 (adjusted for inflation) in 1980.

So, those in high-paying jobs are still better off today - even after an extra 5-10% tax - than they've been historically.

If you want to add the disclaimer that this is true for most industrial nations, go ahead.

I still don't get it, if you create more wealth within an economy, you'll get more money.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Well said, i would happily pay more if i was earning 100K or more, someone who has earned less than 20K a year for most of their lives appreciate the value of money more imo, and if they suddenly found themselves earning a 100K they would happily give more money to help others.

I've seen it said that paying taxes is great - you get to buy civilisation.

Assuming the spending is efficient and effective, but that's a whole debate right there.

 

[Arazi]

Is that a 'nobody knows because details havnt been given yet?'

I've just bought a house worth 94k (once I get it up to scratch will be worth about 115k. My job isn't highly paid so it was a struggle to save but I managed it.

If the changes in the death tax meant they removed the floor (where i can keep 100k) but I can get charged a maximum cap of 50k.... Then I (well my family) have practically lost half my house when I die.

Sell it to one of your kids for a £100 and rent it back for 5p a week

 

[Vonhelmet]

Sell it to one of your kids for a £100 and rent it back for 5p a week

That's called a gift with reservation of benefit (GROB) in IHT terms, I'm sure they'd see that coming on the social care front as well