General Election June 8th

[1.618034]

Here's the problem, mate:

a) The goal posts have suddenly shifted, giving people little or no opportunity to plan.
b) It means a death tax lottery: anything from zero to 100% depending which condition you suffer/don't suffer.
c) To compound that, mainstream inheritance tax relief has just been boosted by £100k. How much did that cost and where's the joined-up thinking?
d) It discriminates between mental and physical illness in a year when the spotlight is finally falling on the former.
e) It penalises those who have been prudent and ring fences those who haven't. Message?
f) It's one step from this to means testing other stuff. How's about charging anyone with a £100k house for their cancer drugs, anyone?
g) Unintended consequences like "spend, spend, spend" or a mysterious increase in "assisted suicides".
h) It breaks the implicit contract that people paid tax and NIC over their lifetimes to provide safeguards in illness and old age.

And that's just off the top of my head.

I fully agree that mind-sets need to change on funding future liabilities. Maybe that means more of the burden being borne by high net worth individuals through income tax/wealth tax/council tax, or a bit more by everyone across the board through income tax or VAT, or the creation of properly regulated new insurance products, or a reduction in foreign aid, or some combination. Certainly some long term, strategic thinking is in order What it doesn't need is knee-jerk shite that penalises people retrospectively for circumstances beyond their control.

Unless, as I say, we want to charge everyone for ALL services according to their means.....

Yep.

Although I'd say that the goalposts haven't shifted... She's getting rid off the goals completely.

 

[1.618034]

 

[Chippy_boy]

Here's the problem, mate:

a) The goal posts have suddenly shifted, giving people little or no opportunity to plan.
b) It means a death tax lottery: anything from zero to 100% depending which condition you suffer/don't suffer.
c) To compound that, mainstream inheritance tax relief has just been boosted by £100k. How much did that cost and where's the joined-up thinking?
d) It discriminates between mental and physical illness in a year when the spotlight is finally falling on the former.
e) It penalises those who have been prudent and ring fences those who haven't. Message?
f) It's one step from this to means testing other stuff. How's about charging anyone with a £100k house for their cancer drugs, anyone?
g) Unintended consequences like "spend, spend, spend" or a mysterious increase in "assisted suicides".
h) It breaks the implicit contract that people paid tax and NIC over their lifetimes to provide safeguards in illness and old age.

And that's just off the top of my head.

I fully agree that mind-sets need to change on funding future liabilities. Maybe that means more of the burden being borne by high net worth individuals through income tax/wealth tax/council tax, or a bit more by everyone across the board through income tax or VAT, or the creation of properly regulated new insurance products, or a reduction in foreign aid, or some combination. Certainly some long term, strategic thinking is in order What it doesn't need is knee-jerk shite that penalises people retrospectively for circumstances beyond their control.

Unless, as I say, we want to charge everyone for ALL services according to their means.....

Spot on again.

I was saying to the Mrs this morning, even IF I agreed with these proposals - which I most certainly do not - then at the very minimum, people need time to plan for such potentially huge changes to their personal circumstances. We are talking about a change that could potentially wipe out the inheritence of people nearing retirement, giving them no chance to re-adjust. It is shockingly knee-jerk.

It will also encourage people to not save, or perhaps just to spend frivolously. I might suggest to my Mum that she uses equity release to buy herself a new Porsche Turbo, that I can er "borrow" on permanent loan. Why not, since any capital she has left, the government will snaffle. Best get shut of her wealth while she can eh.

 

[sir baconface]

Spot on again.

I was saying to the Mrs this morning, even IF I agreed with these proposals - which I most certainly do not - then at the very minimum, people need time to plan for such potentially huge changes to their personal circumstances. We are talking about a change that could potentially wipe out the inheritence of people nearing retirement, giving them no chance to re-adjust. It is shockingly knee-jerk.

It will also encourage people to not save, or perhaps just to spend frivolously. I might suggest to my Mum that she uses equity release to buy herself a new Porsche Turbo, that I can er "borrow" on permanent loan. Why not, since any capital she has left, the government will snaffle. Best get shut of her wealth while she can eh.

Was never a fan of George Best but - to paraphrase him - I'm going to invest some of my estate in whisky and women and just blow the rest.

Don't know if this would work, but someone on the radio did suggest re-mortgaging the property to the hilt, then pissing away the proceeds. Similar to your proposal, actually.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Was never a fan of George Best but - to paraphrase him - I'm going to invest some of my estate in whisky and women and just blow the rest.

Don't know if this would work, but someone on the radio suggested re-mortgaging the property to the hilt, then pissing away the proceeds.

Yes it would work. But of course in reality most people at the end of their lives are not interested in retaining as much capital as possible so that they can blow it. They're wanting to leave it to their children.

I can now see a lot of lawyers rubbing their hands and the next iterations of discretionary will trusts, or other similar vehicles aimed at transferring the aged person's assets over to their offspring. To make sure the aged person has nothing left to give to the state.

What a total shambles.

 

[sir baconface]

Yes it would work. But of course in reality most people at the end of their lives are not interested in retaining as much capital as possible so that they can blow it. They're wanting to leave it to their children.

I can now see a lot of lawyers rubbing their hands and the next iterations of discretionary will trusts, or other similar vehicles aimed at transferring the aged person's assets over to their offspring. My family has never bothered before with this kind of thing, but we'll sure as hell be looking at it now.

Yup, when there are shite rules, people step up the search for ways to circumvent them. Some of the professional leeches will make money out of it, as always. Ordinary decent people will just get shafted.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Spot on again.

I was saying to the Mrs this morning, even IF I agreed with these proposals - which I most certainly do not - then at the very minimum, people need time to plan for such potentially huge changes to their personal circumstances. We are talking about a change that could potentially wipe out the inheritence of people nearing retirement, giving them no chance to re-adjust. It is shockingly knee-jerk.

It will also encourage people to not save, or perhaps just to spend frivolously. I might suggest to my Mum that she uses equity release to buy herself a new Porsche Turbo, that I can er "borrow" on permanent loan. Why not, since any capital she has left, the government will snaffle. Best get shut of her wealth while she can eh.

It's an utter shambles. It's double jeopardy. You are unlucky enough to get dementia then the government takes all your money off you. Yet those who are lucky not to have such a dreadful illness have a healthy life and keep their house. Yeah that sounds fair.

What next is she going to announce - want to save money, worried we will take all your money, come to May's suicide clinic for a quick and affordable end to your life.

Don't worry your kids will thank you for it.

May you are making a right fucking mess of this.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's an utter shambles. It's double jeopardy. You are unlucky enough to get dementia then the government takes all your money off you. Yet those who are lucky not to have such a dreadful illness have a healthy life and keep their house. Yeah that sounds fair.

What next is she going to announce - want to save money, worried we will take all your money, come to May's suicide clinic for a quick and affordable end to your life.

Don't worry your kids will thank you for it.

May you are making a right fucking mess of this.

She most certainly is. I just read that they're keeping the winter fuel allowance in Scotland. So my pensioner Mum will now be subsidising the Scots. Jesus wept.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Yup, when there are shite rules, people step up the search for ways to circumvent them. Some of the professional leeches will make money out of it, as always. Ordinary decent people will just get shafted.

Those that will win will be the insurance, solicitors and super rich that can just pass down the house with no financial worries.
Those super rich include the press barons who will hammer anything Labour do. Just scratching each others backs.

 

[sir baconface]

She most certainly is. I just read that they're keeping the winter fuel allowance in Scotland. So my pensioner Mum will now be subsidising the Scots. Jesus wept.

It seems like every time they introduce an unpopular change, it only applies in England.

How does Scotland afford to have no tuition fees, no prescription charges and avoid this latest affront?

On second thoughts, I'd probably rather not know.

 

[Mancityus]

People ask how Trump got elected - the alternative, Clinton was universally disliked to such an extent that many democrats did not turn up to vote and many more voted against their own interests. I see a similar situation on June 8th in UK and pain of this choice for years to come.

One silver lining in US is Trump is not a skilled politician and this is preventing too much damaging legislation being passed but it may not turn out to be similar in UK.

 

[Why Always Ste]

Which party is best for criminal prosecution?
As in they'll be the toughest, fuck Political correctness.

I've had enough now after watching that Three Girls shit.
I've known its gone on for years but I cant live around here allowing this shit and the police do fuck all.

It's time for Vigilance.

Which party would deport these Twats, and any white scumbag would have his dick chopped off as well.

For fucking soft over here.
We need guns

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Which party is best for criminal prosecution?
As in they'll be the toughest, fuck Political correctness.

I've had enough now after watching that Three Girls shit.
I've known its gone on for years but I cant live around here allowing this shit and the police do fuck all.

It's time for Vigilance.

Which party would deport these Twats, and any white scumbag would have his dick chopped off as well.

For fucking soft over here.
We need guns

you still auditioning?

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

One million a day registering to vote, Corbyn surging in polls, tick-tock.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I was 13 - 23 and I remember the strength of the unions - and I also remember being called out on strike for utterly pathetic reasons - I would not want any return to those days.

I am not saying it was all good but I am saying it was a 50/50 split of Labour and Tory Govts that those extremes happened under - also I doubt that electing a Labour Govt in 2017 would reintroduce 70's industrial relations

 

[bluethrunthru]

Yep. i also lived through the seventies and experienced them first hand. It had it's good & it's bad points.
But funny that you try to pull me up on my selective memory, but then only select to address a few of the points i've made.

So you not gonna dispute the damage that Labour did to engineering in Manchester?

Also so whilst throwing the odd bone to a few of the low paid, i take it you have no problem then of Labour targeting the rest of the people in the temp worker/contractor/agency/self-employed sector, just to appease their ideology and their mates in the unions?

The Thatcher years and policies did more to destroy UK manufacturing industry than Labour ever did - more closures and more jobs gone never to return under her time than any body elses. BAE Chadderton was functioning in about 2011 still wasn't it? That was when my Dad left I am sure...... was that under a Labour Govt?

 

[Juan King]

One million a day registering to vote, Corbyn surging in polls, tick-tock.

Let hope so!

 

[Len Rum]

Spot on again.

I was saying to the Mrs this morning, even IF I agreed with these proposals - which I most certainly do not - then at the very minimum, people need time to plan for such potentially huge changes to their personal circumstances. We are talking about a change that could potentially wipe out the inheritence of people nearing retirement, giving them no chance to re-adjust. It is shockingly knee-jerk.

It will also encourage people to not save, or perhaps just to spend frivolously. I might suggest to my Mum that she uses equity release to buy herself a new Porsche Turbo, that I can er "borrow" on permanent loan. Why not, since any capital she has left, the government will snaffle. Best get shut of her wealth while she can eh.

I'm surprised you're surprised mate.
The Tories have no conscience or principles when it comes to gaining power.
Here they are ditching a core section of their voters that they have wooed for years because they can.
Next it will be white van man ( NICS).
Then it will be the turn of the new UKIP recruits who having voted Tory will feel betrayed when the "aspiration" target on net migration is not met.
They will do whatever it takes and stab in the back whoever they need to in order to win power.
A lot of older people and pensioners have just realized this to their cost.
And from your perspective as a Remainer , the Tories will inflict on the country the cost of a hard Brexit which they brought about simply to maintain the unity of their party.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm surprised you're surprised mate.
The Tories have no conscience or principles when it comes to gaining power.
Here they are ditching a core section of their voters that they have wooed for years because they can.
Next it will be white van man ( NICS).
Then it will be the turn of the new UKIP recruits who having voted Tory will feel betrayed when the "aspiration" target on net migration is not met.
They will do whatever it takes and stab in the back whoever they need to in order to win power.
A lot of older people and pensioners have just realized this to their cost.
And from your perspective as a Remainer , the Tories will inflict on the country the cost of a hard Brexit which they brought about simply to maintain the unity of their party.

The problem though Len is what to do about it? (If I accept what you say, which to be honest I probably don't).

Labour if elected WILL ruin the economy and make everyone worse off for years. So that's your choice: Tories as per your description, or ruin the economy and make everyone worse off. Take your pick.

 

[Blue Smarties]

Have to admit, May's doing her hardest to make sure she doesn't get my vote. She's had a suicidal campaign so far, the silly fucking woman. Should have been a walk in the park.