General Election June 8th

[Chippy_boy]

The current threshold is under £40k.

It's £23k. But it doesn't apply if you stay in your own home, since the value of your home didn't count previously. So you could have a £500k home and £20k in savings and still get free care at home. And then when you died, you'd get to leave all of the value of your home to your kids. (If you were a surviving spouse and benefitted from the full £650,000 inheritance tax allowance.)

Under May's proposals, the value of your home is used to pay for your care, even if you stay at home. If you end up with dementia and last 10 years (say) you could blow several hundred thousand on care costs, that previously you would not have been liable for. Effectively you could be subject to 100% inheritance tax.

Honestly, I think it's a really diabolical proposal. Her "solution" to the cost of care problem is "the state won't pay any more". What sort of solution is that???

It's flawed for three reasons:

1. What is the point of having a state welfare system AT ALL, if the state simply says "over to you"? We might as well disband the NHS and everything that goes with it and just have everyone rely on insurance-based schemes.

2. It effectively puts everyone in a lottery as to how much money they can leave their kids. Get "lucky" and die quickly and you are largely unaffected by these changes. But if you're unfortunate enough to contract a denegerative disease, you could see your life's saving eroded away, leaving your kids with nothing. This is clearly harsh at best, and arguably unfair. The point of a social welfare system is so that these pains and burdens are SHARED.

3. I've been paying 45% tax or more and maximum NI for for years. For whose benefit? Is it for my mother's care needs? Is that where my money is going? Or is it for my future care needs? If the former, then why should my mother have to pay for her care? I am paying for it. If it's the latter, why should I have to sell my home to pay for my care when the time comes? The government can't have it both ways. Either I am paying for me, or for someone else. They can't "bill" both of us for care costs after all the tax they've taken.

 

[mcfc1632]

I can't and won't vote Tory. I see no point in the lib dems and ukip are hateful.

I was of the opinion that I should "vote Tory this time to guarantee Brexit and go back to labour next time after we have left" but I don't think I can do it. I look at them and other than a few of them I see privileged selfish oafs who care not one jot about me and mine.

On a side note did you see QT last night? I now have a fairly enormous crush on Angela Rayner. And that Patel woman is a waste of a gorgeous face in a hateful mind.

I'm conflicted.

I think a lot of people will be conflicted and I can really see this election being the only 'one-off' that has ever happened (that may not be true - just my top of the head reckoning)

By one-off I mean that I can see people voting in a manner that they would not normally dream of.

You say:

"I was of the opinion that I should "vote Tory this time to guarantee Brexit and go back to labour next time after we have left"

and:

"but I don't think I can do it"

I can see a lot of people in traditional Labour stronghold seats finding that they can 'hold their nose' and do exactly that. The Electorate has moved increasingly towards wanting Brexit done and the Tories would clearly seem the only party that will definitely to that. Achieving Brexit is far too important to be left to chance and I think that we will see people will set aside principles as a 'one-off'.

There may also be some diehard Tory voters that voted Remain that now are willing to vote Labour or LibDem votes in Tory seats - but all the evidence is that this is a small issue compared to the Leave vote in Labour seats

I will watch QT on Iplayer to check out your assessment of the politician's credentials

 

[Len Rum]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

 

[CityStu]

I've understood it as if your assets and savings exceed £100k, you will be asked to pay. But then, once you've started to pay and your savings and asset values reduce to £100k or below, your care will start to be provided for by the state?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

and if Labour had been re-elected?

 

[SWP's back]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

Deficit still falling Len?

Would be rising with the jokers you want in.

 

[SWP's back]

and if Labour had been re-elected?

There'd be another note in the Treasury saying "all the money has gone again"

 

[SWP's back]

It's £23k. But it doesn't apply if you stay in your own home, since the value of your home didn't count previously. So you could have a £500k home and £20k in savings and still get free care at home. And then when you died, you'd get to leave all of the value of your home to your kids. (If you were a surviving spouse and benefitted from the full £650,000 inheritance tax allowance.)

Under May's proposals, the value of your home is used to pay for your care, even if you stay at home. If you end up with dementia and last 10 years (say) you could blow several hundred thousand on care costs, that previously you would not have been liable for. Effectively you could be subject to 100% inheritance tax.

Honestly, I think it's a really diabolical proposal. Her "solution" to the cost of care problem is "the state won't pay any more". What sort of solution is that???

It's flawed for three reasons:

1. What is the point of having a state welfare system AT ALL, if the state simply says "over to you"? We might as well disband the NHS and everything that goes with it and just have everyone rely on insurance-based schemes.

2. It effectively puts everyone in a lottery as to how much money they can leave their kids. Get "lucky" and die quickly and you are largely unaffected by these changes. But if you're unfortunate enough to contract a denegerative disease, you could see your life's saving eroded away, leaving your kids with nothing. This is clearly harsh at best, and arguably unfair. The point of a social welfare system is so that these pains and burdens are SHARED.

3. I've been paying 45% tax or more and maximum NI for for years. For whose benefit? Is it for my mother's care needs? Is that where my money is going? Or is it for my future care needs? If the former, then why should my mother have to pay for her care? I am paying for it. If it's the latter, why should I have to sell my home to pay for my care when the time comes? The government can't have it both ways. Either I am paying for me, or for someone else. They can't "bill" both of us for care costs after all the tax they've taken.

I know what you're saying. It certainly is a very Red Tory proposal.

 

[Len Rum]

and if Labour had been re-elected?

Yes.
Alistair Darling had a good plan in 2010, more modest cuts than Osborne meaning no crash in 2012 and then deficit eliminated by 2017. Would have worked.
It was the crash and burn in 2012 Tories and then having to pump the patient full of steroids that ultimately led to today's problems.

 

[mcfc1632]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

All very factual points those IMO

People could debate about the size of the debt inherited - the manner in which so much was hidden and repayment is constrained through Brown's obsession with PFI etc. - but the fact is the Tories made predictions and have gotten them badly wrong - their reputation must as a consequence take a battering.

So if we agree on that - can you help me out with something that I am struggling to work out please

Given all this Tory incompetence etc. - just what does it say about the Labour party that they are still, seemingly by a very large majority, deemed to be far worse that the Tories with regard economic competence.

Oh and pretty please do so without doing some cut and paste of the Sun, Express or Mail - the board can only take so much of that crap