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

[Greebo]

Yet you cannot even put a tack on the wall.

In the eu with 20 year rental agreements? Why can't you put a tack into the wall? It's stupid rules like that in the uk which cripples the reanalysed market.

 

[Uther]

Are you saying slogans are more important that facts, isn't one of the major complaints about the leave campaign from Labour and the lib dems the dishonesty they saw in it, and yet they will happily push nonsense like the 'dementia tax'

The Torys seemed to thinks so. Of course that's before it all went **** up.

 

[vincent1989]

Let's be honest, someone needed to tackle this, it was never going to be an election winner but wow, she didn't think it would be this bad.

I do think that old people need to stop being thought of as piggy banks by their progeny. I mean, if you actually took the time to care for them instead of the state then you wouldn't need to wave goodbye to your inheritance. The state can't feesably fund every iota of care required by a person in that situation. If I got seriously ill I would love to know that I was in a position to offset my house against the cost of my care. I am not a piggy bank for my children, sure, I'd love to pass something on so they can have a slightly more comfortable life than I've had but why should someone else have to pay for my care when I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for it using my assets just so my children can have an easy ride?! It's bonkers. It's amazing how all tory voters hate socialism until their pockets are the ones in the noose.

 

[Energize]

So vote lib dem then. Anyone who doesn't vote or spoils their ballot is basically voting Tory.

What utter nonsense. To endorse a political party you don't agree with by giving them your vote is worse than not voting at all.

 

[mid_gen]

You can do whatever you want here as long as you leave in good condition. No bloody 'inspections' either. Or getting kicked out of your home because the landlord wants to flip the property.

Renting in the UK is an awful proposition. Needs to be sorted out.

 

[dowie]

It's as good as. I think they got the level of it wrong if taking into account someone's home it should have been set to safeguard at least 500k rather than 100k.

they've increased the level from 23k to 100k and included property (which wasn't previously included for non-residential care) - and as far as residential cases with dementia you'll have more protected under this policy - someone has to pay for this care and the size of the elderly population is only going to increase

 

[V F]

You've been listening to too much media propaganda then.

Listened, yes. Just not taken to heart.

You can do whatever you want here as long as you leave in good condition. No bloody 'inspections' either. Or getting kicked out of your home because the landlord wants to flip the property.

Renting in the UK is an awful proposition. Needs to be sorted out.

It wont be sorted.

 

[thenewoc]

The current solution guards the first 23k only...

But the new policy will include people being cared for in their own homes, and is i'll thought out as there is no word on a cap. If you wanted it to ensure the richest had to pay then you'd cap it to around 500k rather than 100k as people ought to still be able to pass on a reasonable amount, eg a reasonable amount, representative of a family home. After all these people have paid income tax and NI on the income that bought their home already. I think she should have scraped the idea as it isn't explained fully enough.

 

[thenewoc]

delete

 

[Uther]

As it's their flagship policy I doubt they want to scrap it!

 

[Dolph]

Let's be honest, someone needed to tackle this, it was never going to be an election winner but wow, she didn't think it would be this bad.

I do think that old people need to stop being thought of as piggy banks by their progeny. I mean, if you actually took the time to care for them instead of the state then you wouldn't need to wave goodbye to your inheritance. The state can't feesably fund every iota of care required by a person in that situation. If I got seriously ill I would love to know that I was in a position to offset my house against the cost of my care. I am not a piggy bank for my children, sure, I'd love to pass something on so they can have a slightly more comfortable life than I've had but why should someone else have to pay for my care when I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for it using my assets just so my children can have an easy ride?! It's bonkers. It's amazing how all tory voters hate socialism until their pockets are the ones in the noose.

Most of the howls in the press haven't come from the Tory side though, but from the same people who have been demanding wealth taxes and the like for a while.

Suprisingly, one of the colonists in the daily mail did a good piece on it today (not as good as the one in the ft, but that's behind a paywall)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4528738/DOMINIC-LAWSON.html

There was a time when, if parents became senile in old age, one or more of their children — usually a daughter — would step in to help care for them.

It was the completion of a generational virtuous circle: those who had been nurtured by their parents when children were now reciprocating that gift out of love and duty.

This form of inter-generational caring is less common today, for understandable reasons.

Not only do families often live further apart, but middle-aged couples are now much likelier to include two breadwinners — and if the wife is in full-time employment, it would involve dramatic loss of income and prospects if she were to give that up to become a full-time home-carer for a frail parent.

But if others are then paid to do that caring, should the entire value of that elderly person's property be preserved for those children, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the costs?

 

[dowie]

But the new policy will include people being cared for in their own homes, and is i'll thought out as there is no word on a cap. If you wanted it to ensure the richest had to pay then you'd cap it to around 500k rather than 100k as people ought to still be able to pass on a reasonable amount, eg a reasonable amount, representative of a family home. After all these people have paid income tax and NI on the income that bought their home already. I think she should have scraped the idea as it isn't explained fully enough.

100k is a floor not a cap - the figure for the cap hasn't been proposed yet, it isn't just about only the richest having to pay - you seem to be missing that the current level is only 23k... someone who downsized their house and currently has a load of cash/investments would have those assets used... yet if they'd stayed in a bigger house they'd be protected - the current system makes no sense by excluding your house as an asset and this proposal is based on your total assets but not paid for until you die.

 

[Dolph]

You can do whatever you want here as long as you leave in good condition. No bloody 'inspections' either. Or getting kicked out of your home because the landlord wants to flip the property.

Renting in the UK is an awful proposition. Needs to be sorted out.

The biggest problem with the rental market is there are insufficient protections against both bad landlords and bad tenants. This leads to both sides treating the whole thing as very risky, and hence taking everything they can when the opportunity arises.

We need both stronger rights for good tenants and stronger rights for landlords to deal with bad tenants.

But the new policy will include people being cared for in their own homes, and is i'll thought out as there is no word on a cap. If you wanted it to ensure the richest had to pay then you'd cap it to around 500k rather than 100k as people ought to still be able to pass on a reasonable amount, eg a reasonable amount, representative of a family home. After all these people have paid income tax and NI on the income that bought their home already. I think she should have scraped the idea as it isn't explained fully enough.

The current policy includes care in their own homes, if your non residential propery,ty assets amount to more than 23k. So for example, if you have downsized, you can get stitched up now.

The aim is not to make the richest pay, this isn't a class warfare idea.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

next u-turn to come ? ...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/22/energy-companies-theresa-price-cap-electricity-gas

 

[dowie]

capping energy prices is a ****ing stupid idea tbh... pretty disappointed in the Conservatives on that one

 

[Fubsy]

The current policy includes care in their own homes, if your non residential propery,ty assets amount to more than 23k. So for example, if you have downsized, you can get stitched up now.

The aim is not to make the richest pay, this isn't a class warfare idea.

You're wasting your time now, the whole country has gone into a hysterical meltdown over it.

 

[thenewoc]

100k is a floor not a cap - the figure for the cap hasn't been proposed yet, it isn't just about only the richest having to pay - you seem to be missing that the current level is only 23k... someone who downsized their house and currently has a load of cash/investments would have those assets used... yet if they'd stayed in a bigger house they'd be protected - the current system makes no sense by excluding your house as an asset and this proposal is based on your total assets but not paid for until you die.

Yeah I know, still a cap though in laymens terms. If someone's house is not to be excluded I think it should have protected at least 500k of someone's assets. Doesn't matter now as I'll be voting UKIP now.

 

[Fubsy]

The energy cap, means testing of winter fuel and the social care debacle are just stupid. They are not standard Tory policies - Conservative voters don't like them and everyone else just doesn't believe they have the populations interest at heart.

They've walked into a trap with their eyes closed.

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

Well, can tell you this for nothing.

They already expect full time carers to pay for respite care out of their own pocket. My Dad had a heart attack, went into surgery. The care firm / social services said he would have to pay £30 an hour to look after my Ma while he was in hospital.

You think carers can afford that? No home ownership, assets or much in savings. That went when my Dad gave up work to look after my mother.

He came out of hospital the following morning. Heart attack... flatline.... surgery.... out of hospital in under two days to clothe, feed and change my terminally ill mother.

I honestly wouldn't bat an eyelid if this entire government cabinet was eradicated over night. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

All under a Conservative elected council.

Bring on Commie Corbyn, i'm all in.

 

[Dolph]

You're wasting your time now, the whole country has gone into a hysterical meltdown over it.

Indeed, it's student loans all over again where nonsense overtakes reality and is continually pushed by liars onto the gullible.

Well, can tell you this for nothing.

They already expect full time carers to pay for respite care out of their own pocket. My Dad had a heart attack, went into surgery. The care firm / social services said he would have to pay £30 an hour to look after my Ma while he was in hospital.

You think carers can afford that? No home ownership, assets or much in savings. That went when my Dad gave up work to look after my mother.

He came out of hospital the following morning. Heart attack... flatline.... surgery.... out of hospital in under two days to clothe, feed and change my terminally ill mother.

I honestly wouldn't bat an eyelid if this entire government cabinet was eradicated over night. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

All under a Conservative elected council.

Bring on Commie Corbyn, i'm all in.

What did you do to help out? You haven't mentioned family support at all.