Does May want to win?

[Cobby]

What I don't understand is how it is the psyche of the British public that the children have no obligation to look after their parents. They wiped your bum when you were incapable - it is now your turn to reciprocate.

That's the times we live in I'm afraid. When I was young each town had an "old people's home" now there seems to be one at the end of each street.

It's always fascinating to stumble across this very baby-boomer-esque attitude and it always smacks of the same lack of awareness regarding the privileges afforded them in the past.

Jobs that one could have for an entire working lifetime, and which paid enough to move into one's own home in their 20's if not earlier, and then actually buy a house in a reasonable time frame while still able to afford to raise a family. Life expectancy was 20 years lower and medicine less advanced. The young had the means to pay for the social care of the lower number of elderly who required it.

Now the younger generation struggle, they work longer, get paid less, have higher costs, are saddled with debt if they dare to stray into higher education and usually have little hope of owning a home; they have comparatively little available with which to contribute to the social care of a larger number of people.

It's not that they have 'no interest' in supporting the older generation in their pensions and social care, it's that they don't have the resources to do it effectively anymore.

 

[Cobby]

OK, who do you suggest should care for me? I have no children, I have no nephews or nieces (although my husband does have 2 nieces and 2 nephews, one of whom needs care himself because of autism).

Should I just leave the world when I cannot care for myself?

According to some MP's, yes. "There is no easy answer."

https://twitter.com/supermathskid/status/866409163949322240

 

[Ian J]

It's always fascinating to stumble across this very baby-boomer-esque attitude and it always smacks of the same lack of awareness regarding the privileges afforded them in the past.

As you are well aware I don't respond to your gibbering and I don't intend to start now

 

[Cobby]

As you are well aware I don't respond to your gibbering and I don't intend to start now

I'm well aware of how quickly you back out of discussion when clearly uncomfortable, yes.

 

[Mr D]

It was a dreadful campaign. Lots of lies, smears and points completely unrelated to the effectiveness of the system itself.

But your last sentence touches on another issue:



A lot of people voted based on how the system would impact their personal political preferences. Those who saw their party of choice in a safer position with the current system voted No, whereas those who felt their party struggled with the current system voted Yes.

It was about how the systems could impact the policies and influences of the future. It had little to do with the fairness and democratic values of either system.

Another problem was the choice of AV. It's certainly not perfect either. I'd much prefer a traditional two-round system. If no MP candidate receives more than a certain percentage of votes, the top two go into a second round run-off where the majority vote wins.

I think that would be too much voting for us Brits, though. We seem to get fatigued by it quite easily.

You may have voted based on party of choice in safer position etc - there are others of us who looked at the facts and made our own decisions.
If those wanting the change cannot convince the majority of those who vote then there is no change.
That's pretty much the point of a voting system.

 

[Mr D]

If all the left-leaning parties combined together, they would be far more effective.

Then they'd split to form the Judean Popular Front, the People's Front of Judea, the Judean People's Front etc.
They don't agree on much. Heck, the leader of the Labour Party is known to have disagreed with his own party more than anyone else so how can different parties who do not share the same common ground agree with the party?

Perhaps all parties should put their differences aside and just have one party. Seems to work in some places - and it is effectively what you are suggesting.

 

[Ian J]

I'm well aware of how quickly you back out of discussion when clearly uncomfortable, yes.

I am happy to debate most issues with most people. It's just you who I don't wish to interact with as I dislike you intently and feel that you are just an internet troll and wind up merchant who stands for nothing in particular and argues with people for the sake of it

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Then they'd split to form the Judean Popular Front, the People's Front of Judea, the Judean People's Front etc.
They don't agree on much. Heck, the leader of the Labour Party is known to have disagreed with his own party more than anyone else so how can different parties who do not share the same common ground agree with the party?

Perhaps all parties should put their differences aside and just have one party. Seems to work in some places - and it is effectively what you are suggesting.

It's effectively not what I'm suggesting at all. Not even close.

The left and the right have VERY different ideas regarding how a country should be run. It's small government and minimum intervention versus larger government and more intervention.

Some policies and particulars will of course be different, but it's easier to compromise with the purpose of governing a country in a way which is more in-tune with the broader way of thinking. All parties from the centre-left onwards share a lot of common ground.

The question is how pragmatic politicians want to be. Smaller left-leaning parties can continue to stick to their guns, but they are highly unlikely to ever achieve anything of note.

If they could come together, and compromise on left-wing policies to broadly agree, it would considerably increase the chances of the UK being governed from the left in future - which is, on a fundamental level, what these parties want.

Would there be some policies certain politicians don't like? Of course. But they would have to weigh up whether it's ultimately better than what the right would implement (which in 95% of cases, it would be).

Would certain parties have to accept that some of their major policies would never see the light of day? Of course. But if they continue down this path, they'll never happen anyway.

That would leave the parties with two choices: either govern with Parliament implementing most of what they want, or never govern with Parliament implementing the polar opposite of what they want (presuming the Conservatives stay in power for some time to come). It's really that simple.

But unfortunately, that's not human nature. In many cases, people would prefer to remain stubborn and stick to their "principles" even if they achieve nothing, and even if doing so gives far more power to the complete opposite of everything they stand for.

I'm still baffled as to the reaction of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. Everyone ignores that the Lib Dem pact pulled the Government further away from the right. Instead, everyone called Clegg a traitor and his popularity dropped like a stone.

It didn't really matter that the Lib Dems gave the centre-left a voice in Government when they otherwise would have had zilch.

It didn't really matter that their influence resulted in the increase of the personal tax allowance for the poorest.

It didn't really matter that the abandonment of the Lib Dems handed more power to the right.

He had to be punished. And he was.

It's tribal politics. But humans are inherently tribal in nature, so perhaps it's to be expected.

 

[Mr D]

As I said, its effectively what you are suggesting. One party. One choice.

Currently people have a choice - quite a lot of choices in total, last I looked there were around 400 political parties. Not all standing in all areas, maybe most not even standing in any one election at all.
They can of course join together and make a bigger party - have you suggested that to the party you belong to?

 

[Cobby]

You may have voted based on party of choice in safer position etc - there are others of us who looked at the facts and made our own decisions.
If those wanting the change cannot convince the majority of those who vote then there is no change.
That's pretty much the point of a voting system.

I'm curious, where do you stand on elected officials wilfully misleading the public, and using lies and deceit to convince the public to vote a particular way?

I am happy to debate most issues with most people. It's just you who I don't wish to interact with as I dislike you intently and feel that you are just an internet troll and wind up merchant who stands for nothing in particular and argues with people for the sake of it

I won't deny being a little confrontational sometimes but it's only where confrontation is needed. If you think I'm trolling, please feel free to point out where you feel my post lacked content.

You won't, because you can't, but maybe you can fall back on calling me names or uncharismatic again?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

As I said, its effectively what you are suggesting. One party. One choice.

1). Two parties, two choices, but both choices have a strong chance of winning.

2). 5 parties, 5 choices, but 4 or the 5 choices are extremely unlikely to win power, with some of them having no chance whatsoever.

Which situation is the real "one party, one choice" situation?

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. All I'm saying is that, if they want to be pragmatic, they could combine, compromise on policies, and give the left a far greater chance of governing for longer periods of time in the coming decades.

They'll have far more opportunities to reduce austerity, reduce wealth inequality and nationalise whatever they like. They'll also have far more opportunities to stop whatever the right-wing wants to do.

Alternatively, they can continue as they are. Nothing will change, none of their policies will ever see the light of day, and the right (their polar opposite) will govern for longer.

It's as simple as that. Principle vs action.

It won't happen, of course. Principles will always win, even if they ultimately get you nowhere.

But without doing that, the left will always be severely disadvantaged by the political landscape. With UKIP dying out, the Tories have consolidated almost all of the ring-wing votes. The left, meanwhile, will always see its votes split between 4 or 5 left-leaning parties.

This choice ultimately cripples any chance of the UK being governed with left-wing policies, which is what all of these parties actually want to do (albeit in slightly different ways).

I'm a big advocate of more choice. But we must also realise that more choice can actually give people less choice in reality.

 

[Mr D]

Scott - but if the parties on left side of a political divide combine there is just one left party. People who will not vote for Conservatives at all will be presented with how many parties to choose from? One.

Extremely unlikely to win power? You mean like Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP, Green etc? All have gained in elections.
1895 general election the Labour Party had just 44,325 votes. 1906 the party won 29 seats, 1910 it had 42 seats.
1929 - 287 seats.

Now you are not going to convince me that a political party cannot ever come to power.

Just have to convince the voters. Currently they appear to prefer the Conservatives.
In 30 years time the Greens could be in power and the Conservatives be a thing of the past. Or some unknown currently party could be in power and both Labour and Conservatives having few MPs.

Choice of one party or choice of several parties, I know I prefer the choice of several. There are countries who have used the one party system. Look at what they have achieved.
Then look at countries with multiple choice of parties to vote for and see what they have achieved.

Your vision of what you want just appears currently to be in the minority. Currently.
The minority view in one year may be the majority view in later years. That's partly how we get change.

 

[Mr D]

I'm curious, where do you stand on elected officials wilfully misleading the public, and using lies and deceit to convince the public to vote a particular way?


QUOTE]

Deal with those officials under whatever laws we have regarding that crime. If crime it is. Perhaps the party they belong to will deal with them also under the existing party rules.

Or else deal with them by not voting for them. If Boris has misled you about something but he is not a candidate in your area however you do not vote for him anyway. Those in his area may vote for him or not as they choose. If your MP misleads you about something then yes you can vote for someone else at next election.

 

[Cobby]

So if there is no legal wrongdoing (i.e. crime) then you're okay with elected officials being wilfully and demonstrably deceitful to swing a vote?

 

[Mr D]

I may choose not to vote for that person again. But cannot stop other people voting for them.

Remember Tony Blair and the Iraq War vote? He still won an election afterwards.
At least the Americans were more honest, what with the typo.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Scott - but if the parties on left side of a political divide combine there is just one left party. People who will not vote for Conservatives at all will be presented with how many parties to choose from? One.

But that party will have a much, much stronger chance of winning, and give more people the opportunity to see what they want (i.e. a UK governed with left-wing policies).

There's a difference between theoretical choice and practical choice.

There's theoretically hundreds of choices, but if most of them have absolutely no chance of winning whatsoever, are they really a choice? Yes, it's a choice which might make you feel good. But in reality, it achieves nothing else.

Extremely unlikely to win power? You mean like Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP, Green etc? All have gained in elections.
1895 general election the Labour Party had just 44,325 votes. 1906 the party won 29 seats, 1910 it had 42 seats.
1929 - 287 seats.

Now you are not going to convince me that a political party cannot ever come to power.

I'm talking about the near future. Parties other than the Conservatives are indeed unlikely to win for some time to come.

And if they do, it's realistically going to only ever be Labour, if they can peel away enough votes from the other left-leaning parties they are competing with.

Your vision of what you want just appears currently to be in the minority. Currently.
The minority view in one year may be the majority view in later years. That's partly how we get change.

I don't want it. I never said I did. All I'm saying is that the left-leaning parties could make it a LOT easier for themselves to turn the UK into the country they broadly want - if they wish to do so.

If they don't, fine. But we'll forever see the left being hindered by the political landscape, where the Tories find it far easier to win due to the left-wing vote being repeatedly diluted (unless some of the parties either die off or merge together - which is what I suggested anyway).

Remember, one vote gained by party is a vote lost by another. But one thing which will never change is this left/right line in the sand. It may shift sometimes, but the ideas of how the country should be run are polar opposites.

And we are already seeing this happening as parties attempt to form pacts. The Greens are not standing MPs in certain local elections just so other left-wing parties have a better chance of winning to stop the Conservatives. Is that healthy democracy?

Imagine if the UK had the Conservative Party vs 20 mainstream left parties. The UK would be blue forever. The right could also do whatever they like with little fear of ever being ousted.

A lot of theoretical choice is not necessarily a good thing for politics, democracy or accountability of government. In that situation, even 80% of the electorate could all share very similar views of how the country should be run and still lose.

It gives far too much power to those who are able to better consolidate their votes on each side of the political spectrum. It's a tool that can be used to subvert democracy, not improve it.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The question is how pragmatic politicians want to be. Smaller left-leaning parties can continue to stick to their guns, but they are highly unlikely to ever achieve anything of note.

It works with local council elections. Our candidate of choice in the local elections is a member of Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalist party. It just happens that she is a very able and hard working council member, actively helps her constituents and is very knowledgeable about environmental issues. Luckily the Libdems and independents have combined to keep the Tory group in a minority.

 

[Mr D]

Scott - yes that party will be much stronger. It is however going to be the only choice.
Yes currently lots of choices that based on historical votes appear to have no chance. As each of the current parties with MPs were like at one point.
Get sufficient voter support and away you go... government beckons.

One party systems may seem stronger but based on the actual benefits to people it appears they have had their share of problems.
We've had nationalist governments made up of multiple parties more than once - cannot get much stronger than that?

Parties can do as they wish, if Greens choose not to put a candidate forward its up to them. Can hardly force them to put a candidate up in an area. I'd be entirely happy if they shut down as a party or changed their name to 'Bad raving loony party' or something.
Be more honest anyway.

Seriously, there may be a half dozen parties fielding a candidate at the GE - I haven't looked yet to see who is standing. Historically you can say xxx party has the advantage in that area. However history does not have to repeat itself, an area that voted Labour last time may choose Lib Dem this time.
All it needs is one party getting 1 more vote than the next highest party and each of the others to win.

Was under the impression the UK had had Conservative versus a hundred plus left parties for over 40 years. In that time we've had what? 20 years of Conservatives in power plus 5 years of coalition?

 

[STDFR33]

I'm well aware of how quickly you back out of discussion when clearly uncomfortable, yes.

In all fairness, he's not the only member that refuses to engage with you.

I put it down to your condescending, dismissive and holier than thou attitude.

Try and engage in debate properly, and people might engage with you.

 

[DontAsk]

It was clear yesterday that if someone needed care that cost £50,000 per year for 10 years, and they had assets worth £600,000, they would end up leaving only £100,000 to their heirs.

That's very unlikely. The average stay in a care home is less than three years. Under the current system someone in a care home must fund themselves fully or partially until they have less than £14,250 left in capital.

How the hell is increasing that limit more than 4x to £100,000 a bad thing?

Half of Britain's wealth is owned by 10% of the population, roughly speaking. It's clear that the new scheme is re-distributive, making the well off pay more, whilst massively increasing the protection for the less well off.

 

[Mr D]

That's very unlikely. The average stay in a care home is less than three years. Under the current system someone in a care home must fund themselves fully or partially until they have less than £14,250 left in capital.

How the hell is increasing that limit more than 4x to £100,000 a bad thing?

Half of Britain's wealth is owned by 10% of the population, roughly speaking. It's clear that the new scheme is re-distributive, making the well off pay more, whilst massively increasing the protection for the less well off.

And also trying, in at least one way, to cope with rising social care costs.
It may not be the best way, it may be there are far better ways. Certainly at least one cheaper way.

Could be that whatever scheme gets implemented looks only vaguely like what is proposed. With MPs meddling it would not surprise me.

Is not changing the system an option? We know demand for help will rise.

 

[Newchodge]

That's very unlikely. The average stay in a care home is less than three years. Under the current system someone in a care home must fund themselves fully or partially until they have less than £14,250 left in capital.

How the hell is increasing that limit more than 4x to £100,000 a bad thing?

Half of Britain's wealth is owned by 10% of the population, roughly speaking. It's clear that the new scheme is re-distributive, making the well off pay more, whilst massively increasing the protection for the less well off.

The difference is that it has been extended to those who need care in their own home. Very few survive old age without needing some kind of support.

 

[Newchodge]

And also trying, in at least one way, to cope with rising social care costs.
It may not be the best way, it may be there are far better ways. Certainly at least one cheaper way.

Could be that whatever scheme gets implemented looks only vaguely like what is proposed. With MPs meddling it would not surprise me.

Is not changing the system an option? We know demand for help will rise.

I don't object that strongly to anything that helps with the re-distribution of wealth from the 1% to the 99%, however this is unlikely to do that, and will just hit the middle class hardest. However this thread is about whether Theresa May wants to win, and the policy was not designed to increase her support among the middle class.

 

[DontAsk]

The difference is that it has been extended to those who need care in their own home. Very few survive old age without needing some kind of support.

Why shouldn't they have to contribute? Why does in-home v. care home make a difference to who pays? It's just levelling the playing field.

I strongly suspect that the cost of in-home care will be a lot less than the £50k/yr you quoted in your example, for the majority of claimants.

Contrary to another comment up-thread, no one will have to sell their home during their lifetime.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That's very unlikely. The average stay in a care home is less than three years. Under the current system someone in a care home must fund themselves fully or partially until they have less than £14,250 left in capital.

How the hell is increasing that limit more than 4x to £100,000 a bad thing?

Half of Britain's wealth is owned by 10% of the population, roughly speaking. It's clear that the new scheme is re-distributive, making the well off pay more, whilst massively increasing the protection for the less well off.

The key difference is that, previously, homes were not part of the equation in means-testing. Now they would be.

Yes, the limit has been increased, but so have the assets involved.

And £100,000 is not a lot of money when property is taken into account. Even some of the poorest homeowners have properties exceeding that value. The average house in England costs about £230,000.

It's also grossly unfair towards homeowners. People who rent all their lives will not have property assets and therefore pay considerably less.

The Conservatives have promised that reclaiming the cost could be deferred until after the person's death.

But what happens if someone has a £120,000 house, no other assets, and £20,000 of care costs?

Yes, £100,000 can be kept, but that £20,000 has to come from somewhere. In many cases, that would result in the family home being sold instead of being passed on as many would hope to do.

All of this means that, while many people with long-term conditions will be treated by the NHS free of charge, those unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with dementia who live at home will see their assets stripped.

It won't just hit the wealthiest. Far from it. Well over 60% of homes in the UK are owned, and the vast majority of those will be worth over £100,000.

Previously, if you had under £14,250 of savings, you would pay nothing towards your care. Now you will if you happen to own a house worth more than £100,000 regardless of your savings. Where's this massive increase in protection? That will draw a lot more working/middle class people into the mix.

Wealth re-distribution is important. But we must also be careful not to penalise those who get diagnosed with dementia or choose to own a property.

Plus, we may find the tragic situation where an elderly person hopes to die sooner so they can pass more of their assets on to their loved ones. I really hope not.

 

[Ian J]

The key difference is that, previously, homes were not part of the equation in means-testing. Now they would be.

Yes, the limit has been increased, but so have the assets involved.

And £100,000 is not a lot of money when property is taken into account. Even some of the poorest homeowners have properties exceeding that value. The average house in England costs about £230,000.

Many of the home owning elderly who will be hit by the new legislation will have bought their houses decades ago at prices that bear no relation to current prices.

My 90 year old mother lives in leafy Surrey in a house that they bought 45 years ago for £8,500. It's now worth something like £600,00 or maybe more. They paid their £8,000 mortgage off over 25 years whereas renters will be paying £18,000 per annum to live in a similar standard house

 

[Mr D]

I don't object that strongly to anything that helps with the re-distribution of wealth from the 1% to the 99%, however this is unlikely to do that, and will just hit the middle class hardest. However this thread is about whether Theresa May wants to win, and the policy was not designed to increase her support among the middle class.

The 1% will typically own their own home?
Sounds like pretty big distribution from the 1%.

 

[DontAsk]

The key difference is that, previously, homes were not part of the equation in means-testing. Now they would be.

Yes, the limit has been increased, but so have the assets involved.

Houses were always included when assessing for care home costs. The playing field has been levelled.

And £100,000 is not a lot of money when property is taken into account.

It is in many parts of the country. Take off the London/SE tinted glasses.

Even some of the poorest homeowners have properties exceeding that value. The average house in England costs about £230,000.

If you have assets of more than £100K you are not particularly poor. Look up the average net worth for UK citizens.

Both averages are skewed by the small number of VERY wealthy individuals.

Previously, if you had under £14,250 of savings, you would pay nothing towards your care. Now you will if you happen to own a house worth more than £100,000 regardless of your savings. Where's this massive increase in protection?

Your descendents get to keep £100K instead of only £14,250 or less.

 

[DontAsk]

Many of the home owning elderly who will be hit by the new legislation will have bought their houses decades ago at prices that bear no relation to current prices.

My 90 year old mother lives in leafy Surrey in a house that they bought 45 years ago for £8,500. It's now worth something like £600,00 or maybe more. They paid their £8,000 mortgage off over 25 years whereas renters will be paying £18,000 per annum to live in a similar standard house

My parents paid £400 65 years ago. When my father moved out 15 years ago it sold for £75k. Most of that went in care home fees as he outlived the average stay. I wouldn't count him as middle class. I am not particularly bitter, as I am already well established and far better off than they ever were and did not need the money. His eldest grandchilld from another branch of the family, however, could really have done with a share of that rater than the paltry sum they got.

Under the new proposals we would have been much better off.

 

[Mr D]

£230k may be average house price. Have to look quite a distance to find a house with that value.
Some relatives have recently put houses up for sale. Well below that figure for a 3 bed house in good nick.
The house I'm in now is just over £100k last time we had it valued (this year).
Quick look at local properties on rightmove and while there are a number in the £300k plus range there are rather a lot more in the under £150k range.

Perhaps this change in ideas will not generate much towards paying for home care.

 

[Cobby]

In all fairness, he's not the only member that refuses to engage with you.

I put it down to your condescending, dismissive and holier than thou attitude.

Try and engage in debate properly, and people might engage with you.

See, you say that, but that's what I did. As I said to the other guy, feel free to point out where my post was anything other than genuine and offering a rational observation. Or just skip to the part where I get called names regardless, and you keep accusing me of not offering serious discussion. :shrug:

 

[Cobby]

Plus, we may find the tragic situation where an elderly person hopes to die sooner so they can pass more of their assets on to their loved ones. I really hope not.

I saw an exchange with a Tory MP the other day where people were upset about their parents discussing how they would commit suicide so as to ensure the house could be left. The MP's response was a rather dismissing shrug of "there's no easy answer!".

 

[Mr D]

I saw an exchange with a Tory MP the other day where people were upset about their parents discussing how they would commit suicide so as to ensure the house could be left. The MP's response was a rather dismissing shrug of "there's no easy answer!".

Indeed there isn't.
Over the years have heard old people say this many times, not wanting to run up big bills for family, be a burden on others, lose their home etc.
As they have been able to do for quite some time already when going into care.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Houses were always included when assessing for care home costs. The playing field has been levelled.

The playing field was level previously. Private care homes cost considerably more than home care. Up to now, there has been the incentive to stay in your home (and ultimately cost the taxpayer less money), but now that is being eroded as well.

The future care cost cap is also being removed (well, until May did a U-turn and said that a cap might be included, but won't say what it is).

In short, many millions of pensioners, in care homes or using home care, will pay more. Not just the richest, but many working class people too.

You may think that's "fair", but in my view, if someone works from 18-65 paying income tax, national insurance, VAT and hundreds of other taxes in virtually every aspect of their life, perhaps they deserve the state to take care of their needs in old age instead of forcing generational family homes to be sold as well (after they die, that is).

I'm a centrist. I fully understand the merits of fiscal conservatism. But I have a heart as well. The state would be nothing without the older generation who have built it up to what it is today. They deserve a lot back during their last years on earth.

Are we really that cruel to give them so much stress and worry during their final years? Are we that cruel to take away the only thing the older generation can leave behind for their loved ones to give them that bit of extra comfort?

And what's particularly annoying is that these changes are being made while May is committed to reducing the corporation tax rate lower than 19%. I agree with the merits of a competitive tax rate, but it's low enough. We already have the lowest rate in the G20.

It is in many parts of the country. Take off the London/SE tinted glasses.

I live in the North East, actually. The region with the lowest house prices in England, where the average price is £130,000.

Prices can be under £100,000, but they are in the minority. Usually council flats or one bedroom apartments. Given that many pensioners have raised families, it's therefore unlikely that they live in such a small home.

If you have assets of more than £100K you are not particularly poor. Look up the average net worth for UK citizens.

If you're a homeowner with assets of £100k, you are in one of the lowest percentiles for homeowner net worth.

Of course those who rent will have far less in many cases, but as they don't own homes, they are far less affected by this policy proposal. Where's the "level playing field" for that?

Your descendents get to keep £100K instead of only £14,250 or less.

That's not how it works. If someone has under £14,250 in assets excluding property, they pay nothing. The state pays all their healthcare. Now, many people (including working class people) with all their net worth tied up in their relatively low-cost home will be paying more - with the threat of their home being sold after they die.

And currently, those with savings and capital between £14,250-£23,250 (excluding property) receive some financial help from the council. But if they have a family home worth over £100,000, they will receive far less help.

And with those in poverty likely to not own a home, this won't make any difference to many of them at all.

 

[DontAsk]

That's not how it works. If someone has under £14,250 in assets excluding property, they pay nothing. The state pays all their healthcare. Now, many people (including working class people) with all their net worth tied up in their relatively low-cost home will be paying more - with the threat of their home being sold after they die.

And currently, those with savings and capital between £14,250-£23,250 (excluding property) receive some financial help from the council. But if they have a family home worth over £100,000, they will receive far less help.

Currently if you have assets you must contribute until you have only £14,250 (INCLUDING PROPERTY) left unless a surving spouse occupies the property.

In the proposed system you pay until you have £100,000 left.

That IS how it works. I know this because we had to sell my father house as it was counted as an asset.

What's better for those who inherit the remaining assets from a sole survivor?

 

[Cobby]

Indeed there isn't.
Over the years have heard old people say this many times, not wanting to run up big bills for family, be a burden on others, lose their home etc.
As they have been able to do for quite some time already when going into care.

The point was an elected representative of the government flippantly glossed over (and if you wanted to argue the extremes did, by inference, endorse) suicide for members of the older generation.
One would expect at least some horror in his response rather than a ho-hum shrug of indifference unless, you know, that's the general attitude of the government he represents...

 

[Clinton]

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread.

But I get that the discussion is about some £100K limit involving family home etc.

Putting aside issues like fairness etc., I think this policy would be difficult to implement. All I can think at this point is that we can expect some new trusts and other financial products to take the family home out of pensioners' estates. If you don't own the property, and it is held in a trust instead, the problem goes away.

I can see the ads from the financial industry already:

"Do this as early as possible to maximise your chances of surviving the 7 years necessary.. blah blah"

and

"By selling your home to a trust you've set up, you crystallise the profit you've made in your family home, benefit from your full primary residence CGT allowance, and still retain control of the property. "

and

"You worked hard to pay off the mortgage. Prevent the government from getting their dirty socialist paws on your family home"

 

[DontAsk]

All I can think at this point is that we can expect some new trusts and other financial products to take the family home out of pensioners' estates. If you don't own the property, and it is held in a trust instead, the problem goes away.

People are already doing this in the current system and coming unstuck. There was a recent R4 Money Box about exactly this.

 

[Clinton]

I don't know about people getting "unstuck". HMRC made a big song and dance about EFRBS but what happened in the end? They announced a sort of limited time amnesty and then made other concessions and offers to settleetc.

Make the rules complicated enough and clever people will find a way around them.

 

[Newchodge]

Make the rules complicated enough and clever people will find a way around them.

Probably true, and probably what the Nasty party wants to happen. The little people will pay their bills by selling their homes, those with money will not. Sounds like a good policy for the country as a whole. Not.