30 years ago only 55% of over 65s owned their own home outright. Now it's over 75%.
That's a big decrease in the number of OAPs needing to find one of the biggest monthly expenses.
A lot of the rest (3m households although a quarter of those don't claim it) eligible for pension credit so can be protected mostly by that instead of state pension.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
I really could not care less what label you think I am, but I can tell you that none of my children expect the state to pay for our care if we need it and your attitude will be distasteful to many
You are still a Liberal not a Tory.
Preserving inheritance is one of the core values of Toryism
To hell with your vision of Toryism.
I believe in people being able to work for a living, and work for their own home. That was the vision of Lawson and Thatcher, not having taxpayers pay for your inheritance.
@HYUFD is there self interest here? We know you probably came from a wealthy family (Grandad's job, privately educated, etc) and you live in the South of England and probably don't earn a huge salary. But why should you get a boost over someone else like you, who doesn't have a well off family to fall back on. We should be encouraging self reliance to boost the economy (as long as we look after those that can't).
Another point of interest - not specifically relating to HYUFD, though it may be relevant for all I know - is that inheritances are not reliable. Mum and Dad might leave all their wealth to Peckham Pussies' Home, or indeed the Conservative Party or SNP. Or to some unknown cousin because they CBA to update their wills. Or they bought into bitcoin at the peak. Or were swindled by someone exploiting the fiscal "freedom" and "choice" and "deregulation".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
I had such a thing arise. I have never inherited anything, but I nearly did. My grandfather owned a grocer's shop in Wandsworth. He bought a house which he rented out. When he died it was left to his 4 children and had to be sold. Sadly this was in the days before Wandsworth was desirable so it wasn't a lot of money. One of my Uncles lived in the house and was now homeless and couldn't afford to buy a house anywhere on his quarter, so the rest chipped in some of their inheritance to buy him a flat outside of London. That was on the understanding that when he and his wife died it was left to his nephews and nieces. I was an executor. He died, then his wife died sometime later. I contacted the solicitor only to have one of those embarrassing calls. She had changed the will. She apparently had no living relatives, but lo and behold some had appeared in the meantime and she left it to them.
Still that's life (and death).
Indeed. Just as a passing comment, the Scottish situation woiuldn't have helped - only applies to spouses etc and children if the deceased is testate. (And the house would be excluded.) But I've been in a roughly similar situation where some relatives gave up their inheritance and added money to pay for a house for another relative. Though in this case they bought the house themselves and let the beneficiary live in it rent free. The more prudent solution in one sense, albeit vulnerable to CGT (but they wouldn't be complaining as if they have to pay tax at all they have some benefit from it).
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The triple lock is a relatively recent thing, and most people who paid NI had no expectation that the value of pensions would be on a permanent upward trajectory relative to wages.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
It's a variant of the annual increase that has been promised/implemented for decades.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The triple lock is a relatively recent thing, and most people who paid NI had no expectation that the value of pensions would be on a permanent upward trajectory relative to wages.
Thougch not necessarily downwards, either, surely?
The contractual aspect of NI is a real political thorn.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The triple lock is a relatively recent thing, and most people who paid NI had no expectation that the value of pensions would be on a permanent upward trajectory relative to wages.
No, that's fair enough, and the 2.5% element is pure bribery. Proper, non-fudged inflation should be the only thing it is locked to.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The triple lock is a relatively recent thing, and most people who paid NI had no expectation that the value of pensions would be on a permanent upward trajectory relative to wages.
Thougch not necessarily downwards, either, surely?
The contractual aspect of NI is a real political thorn.
Which is why there needs to be a political consensus to axe it completely and merge it with income tax and the state pension just becomes a benefit like every other benefit, paid to people without means and not to people with them.
Suggested solution for the IR35/Employers NI hole that the Governments have got themselves into. - Have a separate corporation tax rate for PSCs. Set this to 35% (or 10% above the standard corporation tax rate for big businesses)
That's it. No more fiddling about. Government gets 35% on payments (no threshold) plus dividend tax, which leaves contractors in the same ballpark as employees (a little better off, but we're talking a couple of percent at most - and the uncertainty/holiday pay/flexibility accounts for much of that).
@eek - how close would that be to closing the financial gap for HMRC?
First problem is what is your definition of a PSC as no definition exists? Also when does a PSC stopping being a PSC.
The issue is really the one @MaxPB points out that many banks and other firms used IR35 as a means of recruiting technical staff on the cheap relative to employing them directly (one reason for that is it allowed you to get workers into London via a Monday to Friday commute who otherwise refuse to work in London).
So what you want to look at is to collect a tax where the relationship looks anything like an employer employee relationship and HMRC already collect that data at a feepayer level via the agency reporting regulations. Applying Employer NI at that point would make a lot more sense as it would solve a large number of similar issues.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
In the short term, probably a good trade - the value of the material destroyed by the drone would probably exceed $200k. In the medium term, this is obviously unsustainable - Ukraine needs a cheaper per target air defense system to take down these drones.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The triple lock is a relatively recent thing, and most people who paid NI had no expectation that the value of pensions would be on a permanent upward trajectory relative to wages.
Thougch not necessarily downwards, either, surely?
The contractual aspect of NI is a real political thorn.
As someone born in the 70s I pay NI with a definite expectation that by the time I am collecting a state pension (likely to be later than promised and certainly later than promised when I started off) it will be very much on a downward trajectory to wages. I think it is fairly plausible it will be means tested so I will get zero or close to it.
I assume those born in the 80s or 90s would have even less faith in the sustainability of state pensions.
Put the numbers in a spreadsheet, they are just not sustainable over the long run.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Which they do with the cap, up to £86k.
Anything over that level should be funded by National Insurance, especially for higher earners, so that those who need social care don't see all their assets taken to fund it. As Sunak understood for example
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Yes it is a very odd concept of theft. Bit like going to Sainsbury's, filling up your trolley and accusing them of theft when they take your money for the goods in the trolley.
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Which they do with the cap, up to £86k.
Anything over that level should be funded by National Insurance, especially for higher earners, so that those who need social care don't see all their assets taken to fund it. As Sunak understood for example
Why should it be funded out of taxation? On what basis?
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
In the short term, probably a good trade - the value of the material destroyed by the drone would probably exceed $200k. In the medium term, this is obviously unsustainable - Ukraine needs a cheaper per target air defense system to take down these drones.
In the short term, probably a good trade - the value of the material destroyed by the drone would probably exceed $200k. In the medium term, this is obviously unsustainable - Ukraine needs a cheaper per target air defense system to take down these drones.
Is it possible to target the Iranian manufacturing sites?
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
But the Tory party died 100 years ago and was replaced with the Conservative party. Tory values are dead, I mean no one would vote for a party that had those values.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
But the Tory party died 100 years ago and was replaced with the Conservative party. Tory values are dead, I mean no one would vote for a party that had those values.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Which they do with the cap, up to £86k.
Anything over that level should be funded by National Insurance, especially for higher earners, so that those who need social care don't see all their assets taken to fund it. As Sunak understood for example
Why should it be funded out of taxation? On what basis?
The same basis the rest of healthcare is mainly funded via taxation.
National Insurance was created in part to fund healthcare
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
Drones and Nukes.
Yes perhaps
Drone them as much as he can, then drop a tactical nuke and demand a favourable ceasefire?
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
But the Tory party died 100 years ago and was replaced with the Conservative party. Tory values are dead, I mean no one would vote for a party that had those values.
The Tories accepted Estate Duty in 1894, which is a mere 128 years ago.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
No, most people would lose most of their estate if the £86k care costs cap was removed.
The very poorest however don't pay National insurance and Sunak's National insurance rise to pay for social care was focused on higher earners
I didn't say poorest or even the poor. Try reading what I said. I said poorer (than the rich). Who the hell do you think is paying for your parents care so you can inherit their estate?
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
But the Tory party died 100 years ago and was replaced with the Conservative party. Tory values are dead, I mean no one would vote for a party that had those values.
No it didn't, we Tories are as much a part of today's Conservative Party as you classical Liberals, tough.
Millions of people want to preserve their family home and inheritance
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Which they do with the cap, up to £86k.
Anything over that level should be funded by National Insurance, especially for higher earners, so that those who need social care don't see all their assets taken to fund it. As Sunak understood for example
Why should it be funded out of taxation? On what basis?
The same basis the rest of healthcare is mainly funded via taxation.
National Insurance was created in part to fund healthcare
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Suggested solution for the IR35/Employers NI hole that the Governments have got themselves into. - Have a separate corporation tax rate for PSCs. Set this to 35% (or 10% above the standard corporation tax rate for big businesses)
That's it. No more fiddling about. Government gets 35% on payments (no threshold) plus dividend tax, which leaves contractors in the same ballpark as employees (a little better off, but we're talking a couple of percent at most - and the uncertainty/holiday pay/flexibility accounts for much of that).
@eek - how close would that be to closing the financial gap for HMRC?
What about modifying/getting rid of employer's NI?
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
I agree with most of this, but actually I do want to pay tax - I want to pay towards a decent society. I don't begrudge the money that I never see (PAYE) - I've used a lot of the NHS over the years, and if all goes to plan, will have a child using state education for the next 18 years too. I use roads, am protected by the military etc etc etc. People should pay tax, and if it is fairly levied, should do so willingly.
I don't think it is particularly fairly levied in the UK right now.
Do we need an outright ban on hydraulic fracking? Can't it just be safely regulated? And if there is no commercial interest in doing so on those terms, who cares?
Fracking should be legal and encouraged by central government. However, should commercial reserves be found (and to date, it is important to realise they have not), then given the inevitable disruption, it is unsustainable not to have local buy-in.
Suggested solution for the IR35/Employers NI hole that the Governments have got themselves into. - Have a separate corporation tax rate for PSCs. Set this to 35% (or 10% above the standard corporation tax rate for big businesses)
That's it. No more fiddling about. Government gets 35% on payments (no threshold) plus dividend tax, which leaves contractors in the same ballpark as employees (a little better off, but we're talking a couple of percent at most - and the uncertainty/holiday pay/flexibility accounts for much of that).
@eek - how close would that be to closing the financial gap for HMRC?
What about modifying/getting rid of employer's NI?
Employer NI is £70bn of tax revenue hidden from the general public. It really isn't going anywhere.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
The tories can preserve the principle of inherited wealth, as long as they also tackle the cause of the need for it, which is structural economic inequality in society.
The latter is what they have now lost sight of. We heard today at PMQ's the usual pandering to NIMBY arguments over housebuilding in the south east. By doing so, and by consequentially denying access to housing, they are creating an educated underclass that has no access to wealth, and which, in turn, has no respect for wealth.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The triple lock is a relatively recent thing, and most people who paid NI had no expectation that the value of pensions would be on a permanent upward trajectory relative to wages.
Thougch not necessarily downwards, either, surely?
The contractual aspect of NI is a real political thorn.
As someone born in the 70s I pay NI with a definite expectation that by the time I am collecting a state pension (likely to be later than promised and certainly later than promised when I started off) it will be very much on a downward trajectory to wages. I think it is fairly plausible it will be means tested so I will get zero or close to it.
I assume those born in the 80s or 90s would have even less faith in the sustainability of state pensions.
Put the numbers in a spreadsheet, they are just not sustainable over the long run.
Yes, but you are intelligent and well-informed, like the rest of us on PB, as any fule kno. And yet the message being put out - indeed, reinforced only this afternoon - by HMG is that the state pension is a cast iron guarantee in return for NI. The name, after all, says 'national' and 'ionsurance'.
It's not coincidental that HYUFD maintains the claim that NI is indeed a contractual payment, a transactional relationship - pay to support the health service and get benefits.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
Have you not considered it might be something of a disincentive to remunerative industry?
Knowing an inheritance was coming might, for example, allow someone to post over 100,000 times on a political website!
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
No, the established church also has land to be protected, again a traditional Tory principle. Inherited wealth and its protection is as much a key Tory value as it was 200 years ago
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
But it's not theft, it's selling property to fund an expensive service. The state isn't taking your property, it's saying people are liable for the cost of care. Those with assets they can sell (such as houses) can do so to realise the cash value and pay the bill for the services rendered.
Which they do with the cap, up to £86k.
Anything over that level should be funded by National Insurance, especially for higher earners, so that those who need social care don't see all their assets taken to fund it. As Sunak understood for example
Why should it be funded out of taxation? On what basis?
Perhaps you should pay the £86k up front as a one off insurance premium, though at what point that should be payable is tricky.
One thing that does particularly annoy me is the way that care costs are significantly higher (often nearly double) for those self funding as opposed to those who are council funded.
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
I have no objection to some level of inheritance. I have no objection to paying for my care. I have no objection to paying tax on the inheritance that leave. I do have an objection to becoming an unnecessary drain and expense on my fellow countrymen. I do have an objection to leaving a legacy of myself as a mean self centred grasping miser. I do have an objection to immovable objects fixated in one interpretation that is failing to evolve to 21st century circumstances and values. None of which is incompatible with conservatism.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
The tories can preserve the principle of inherited wealth, as long as they also tackle the cause of the need for it, which is structural economic inequality in society.
The latter is what they have now lost sight of. We heard today at PMQ's the usual pandering to NIMBY arguments over housebuilding in the south east. By doing so, and by consequentially denying access to housing, they are creating an educated underclass that has no access to wealth, and which, in turn, has no respect for wealth.
Utterly fucking ridiculous that scientists are still doing this
“JUST IN - US researchers at Boston University have developed a new lethal Covid mutant strain in a laboratory – echoing the type of experiments many fear started the pandemic.”
Utterly fucking ridiculous that scientists are still doing this
“JUST IN - US researchers at Boston University have developed a new lethal Covid mutant strain in a laboratory – echoing the type of experiments many fear started the pandemic.”
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
I agree with most of this, but actually I do want to pay tax - I want to pay towards a decent society. I don't begrudge the money that I never see (PAYE) - I've used a lot of the NHS over the years, and if all goes to plan, will have a child using state education for the next 18 years too. I use roads, am protected by the military etc etc etc. People should pay tax, and if it is fairly levied, should do so willingly.
I don't think it is particularly fairly levied in the UK right now.
My bad phraseology.
Where I said nobody wants to pat tax etc. the continuation should be that reasonable people recognise they have to for the reasons you espouse.
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
He's at the Truss phase of the war, hoping something will turn up.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
I have no objection to some level of inheritance. I have no objection to paying for my care. I have no objection to paying tax on the inheritance that leave. I do have an objection to becoming an unnecessary drain and expense on my fellow countrymen. I do have an objection to leaving a legacy of myself as a mean self centred grasping miser. I do have an objection to immovable objects fixated in one interpretation that is failing to evolve to 21st century circumstances and values. None of which is incompatible with conservatism.
Conservativism does not need to evolve to become pure classical liberalism to suit the ideology of the likes of you. Tough!!!!
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
In the book Red Storm Rising, war with NATO kicks off because -
- KGB assessment of NATO strength vs Warsaw Pact has three versions, Best, Middle Worst case. - the Politburo have decided on war. - the Deputy KGB chairman fears for his position and presents them with the case that matches what they want to hear.
Perhaps life imitates art?
Imagine you are briefing Putin.
He asks - “Are *you* ready to strike”.
You look behind you to check for windows, then answer…..
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The National Insurance threshold has been aligned with Income Tax now hasn't it? So someone only getting State Pension is exempt from it?
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
Keeping the triple lock on the state pension but taxing well-off pensioners who have big additional incomes would also be fair in the sense that it would represent intragenerational burden sharing.
Pensioners with incomes get taxed the same as non pensioners, another thick idiot spouts crap.
taxed yes, but they don’t pay NI on pension income - which is why I pay less overall living in the U.K. than I did in the so-called “tax haven” of Guernsey.
I hope Hunt uses this crisis to roll NI into income tax - I’ll be worse off, but it will be fairer, especially if poor pensioners who rely on the state pension are going to get a 10% increase (which many private pension recipients won’t see anything like, being capped at 5%).
After the major disruption of COVID and now the war in Ukraine, time for radical measures.
Exactly , but NI was never ever classed as an income tax , whether they should change NI is a different topic and not the same as that donkey Bart Simpson rabbits on about. He is an idiot and it would be better discussing it with a brick wall than him.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
I have no objection to some level of inheritance. I have no objection to paying for my care. I have no objection to paying tax on the inheritance that leave. I do have an objection to becoming an unnecessary drain and expense on my fellow countrymen. I do have an objection to leaving a legacy of myself as a mean self centred grasping miser. I do have an objection to immovable objects fixated in one interpretation that is failing to evolve to 21st century circumstances and values. None of which is incompatible with conservatism.
Conservativism does not need to evolve to become pure classical liberalism to suit the ideology of the likes of you. Tough!!!!
https://twitter.com/MNehzati/status/1582157392875163649 I'm finally out of Iran and feel safe enough to talk about the situation publicly with an account bearing my name. The crackdown in Iran is way worse than you think, even if you've been following the news. Institutions like Amnesty International and news outlets try to stick... with what they can verify. The issue is they can verify next to nothing! The reason is, on one hand, almost none of them have a reporter on the ground in Iran, and on the other hand, people are afraid of talking to the foreign press... To demonstrate this: at least 3 people have been killed during the protests in my extended network. Families of none of these have spoken publicly and their deaths are not counted in any of the reported casualty numbers. Also, keep in mind that my network mainly lives in Tehran... where the crackdown is not at its worst and people have the means of speaking up.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The National Insurance threshold has been aligned with Income Tax now hasn't it? So someone only getting State Pension is exempt from it?
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
Keeping the triple lock on the state pension but taxing well-off pensioners who have big additional incomes would also be fair in the sense that it would represent intragenerational burden sharing.
Pensioners with incomes get taxed the same as non pensioners, another thick idiot spouts crap.
taxed yes, but they don’t pay NI on pension income - which is why I pay less overall living in the U.K. than I did in the so-called “tax haven” of Guernsey.
I hope Hunt uses this crisis to roll NI into income tax - I’ll be worse off, but it will be fairer, especially if poor pensioners who rely on the state pension are going to get a 10% increase (which many private pension recipients won’t see anything like, being capped at 5%).
After the major disruption of COVID and now the war in Ukraine, time for radical measures.
Exactly , but NI was never ever classed as an income tax , whether they should change NI is a different topic and not the same as that donkey Bart Simpson rabbits on about. He is an idiot and it would be better discussing it with a brick wall than him.
A small point.
When I was doing a US tax return, several years ago, my accountant told me that under the taxation treaty, NI was considered as a tax.
That is, I could use NI payments as part of the U.K. tax that I would show to the US IRS, to avoid being double taxed via Federal Income tax.
This is because, while the US government levies federal income tax on citizens living abroad, it allows you to claim an allowance for income tax paid in the country you live in - if they have a tax treaty with the US. In general, this means that a US citizen paying U.K. tax pays no US federal income tax.
So both the U.K. and US governments agreed, in a treaty, that NI is a tax.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles. Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so. The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have. It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
No, that is classical liberalism which is built on supposedly meritocratic capitalism above all.
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
I have no objection to some level of inheritance. I have no objection to paying for my care. I have no objection to paying tax on the inheritance that leave. I do have an objection to becoming an unnecessary drain and expense on my fellow countrymen. I do have an objection to leaving a legacy of myself as a mean self centred grasping miser. I do have an objection to immovable objects fixated in one interpretation that is failing to evolve to 21st century circumstances and values. None of which is incompatible with conservatism.
Conservativism does not need to evolve to become pure classical liberalism to suit the ideology of the likes of you. Tough!!!!
Extinction follows all evolutionary dead ends.
Extinction certainly follows ignoring your core vote by taking all their assets
Comments
The contractual aspect of NI is a real political thorn.
https://twitter.com/JeremyHunt_MP/status/1582726716480376832
The issue is really the one @MaxPB points out that many banks and other firms used IR35 as a means of recruiting technical staff on the cheap relative to employing them directly (one reason for that is it allowed you to get workers into London via a Monday to Friday commute who otherwise refuse to work in London).
So what you want to look at is to collect a tax where the relationship looks anything like an employer employee relationship and HMRC already collect that data at a feepayer level via the agency reporting regulations. Applying Employer NI at that point would make a lot more sense as it would solve a large number of similar issues.
Condemnation of theft of property is also one of the Ten Commandments
My two kids will shortly inherit a large sum from their Mum (my ex). They will get mortgage free living in the SE. She passed away earlier in the year in her mid 60s. The kids would rather have Mum than the inheritance.
I'm glad to say I completely fail to grasp the logic, morality or intellectual coherence of HYUFD and his tory principles.
Inheritance is a privilege, and that is undesirable in a socialist world, however in a human world it is inevitable. If I am old, sick and needing care I see no reason why I shouldn't pay for it if I have the funds or assets to enable me to do so.
The objective of Conservativism is surely to provide the platform where every individual can achieve their best, live up to and achieve their potential. To contribute to society by generating personal wealth, employment and a society in which others can reach the potential that they have.
It is not about ME Me Me! There is nothing in core conservativism that says I am self reliant until it costs me money.
Nobody wants to pay tax when they are dead or alive, and nobody wants to pay for care. However a degree of personal responsibility, community spirit and moral empathy make all but the terminally self centred see that there is only one option, now, in the past or in the future, and that is to do what a Conservative always does, accept responsibility for themselves, even at the expense of reducing the inheritance going to the next generation.
I assume those born in the 80s or 90s would have even less faith in the sustainability of state pensions.
Put the numbers in a spreadsheet, they are just not sustainable over the long run.
Guessing that Russia has told the US it will be using tactical nuke demonstration over the Black Sea in its forthcoming drills or something like that?
All 5 Russian cruise missiles fired towards Kyiv were shot down.
https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1582721409574645761
Are oldies on the side of Putin or are they patriots?
Anything over that level should be funded by National Insurance, especially for higher earners, so that those who need social care don't see all their assets taken to fund it. As Sunak understood for example
Preservation of inheritance is a key Tory value
An optimistic assessment from the ISW
4/ The Russian Armed Forces are almost certainly too degraded to reopen a northern front against Ukraine from Belarusian territory in the coming months.
https://twitter.com/thestudyofwar/status/1582733382965899264?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew
If this is true it raises the question: how the hell does Putin hope to win his war? Is he just going to sit back and accept slow defeat? Because he is being slowly but surely defeated
“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee" Exodus 20:12
Clearly that's a reference to being entitled to inherit the family house, as long as you carry out the first part of the commandment of course.
National Insurance was created in part to fund healthcare
Drone them as much as he can, then drop a tactical nuke and demand a favourable ceasefire?
Millions of people want to preserve their family home and inheritance
I don't think it is particularly fairly levied in the UK right now.
The latter is what they have now lost sight of. We heard today at PMQ's the usual pandering to NIMBY arguments over housebuilding in the south east. By doing so, and by consequentially denying access to housing, they are creating an educated underclass that has no access to wealth, and which, in turn, has no respect for wealth.
It's not coincidental that HYUFD maintains the claim that NI is indeed a contractual payment, a transactional relationship - pay to support the health service and get benefits.
Knowing an inheritance was coming might, for example, allow someone to post over 100,000 times on a political website!
One thing that does particularly annoy me is the way that care costs are significantly higher (often nearly double) for those self funding as opposed to those who are council funded.
That is definitely unfair.
I have no objection to paying for my care.
I have no objection to paying tax on the inheritance that leave.
I do have an objection to becoming an unnecessary drain and expense on my fellow countrymen.
I do have an objection to leaving a legacy of myself as a mean self centred grasping miser.
I do have an objection to immovable objects fixated in one interpretation that is failing to evolve to 21st century circumstances and values.
None of which is incompatible with conservatism.
“JUST IN - US researchers at Boston University have developed a new lethal Covid mutant strain in a laboratory – echoing the type of experiments many fear started the pandemic.”
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1582034277524332544?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew
Where I said nobody wants to pat tax etc. the continuation should be that reasonable people recognise they have to for the reasons you espouse.
- KGB assessment of NATO strength vs Warsaw Pact has three versions, Best, Middle Worst case.
- the Politburo have decided on war.
- the Deputy KGB chairman fears for his position and presents them with the case that matches what they want to hear.
Perhaps life imitates art?
Imagine you are briefing Putin.
He asks - “Are *you* ready to strike”.
You look behind you to check for windows, then answer…..
https://twitter.com/MNehzati/status/1582157392875163649
I'm finally out of Iran and feel safe enough to talk about the situation publicly with an account bearing my name.
The crackdown in Iran is way worse than you think, even if you've been following the news.
Institutions like Amnesty International and news outlets try to stick...
with what they can verify.
The issue is they can verify next to nothing!
The reason is, on one hand, almost none of them have a reporter on the ground in Iran, and on the other hand, people are afraid of talking to the foreign press...
To demonstrate this: at least 3 people have been killed during the protests in my extended network. Families of none of these have spoken publicly and their deaths are not counted in any of the reported casualty numbers.
Also, keep in mind that my network mainly lives in Tehran...
where the crackdown is not at its worst and people have the means of speaking up.
When I was doing a US tax return, several years ago, my accountant told me that under the taxation treaty, NI was considered as a tax.
That is, I could use NI payments as part of the U.K. tax that I would show to the US IRS, to avoid being double taxed via Federal Income tax.
This is because, while the US government levies federal income tax on citizens living abroad, it allows you to claim an allowance for income tax paid in the country you live in - if they have a tax treaty with the US. In general, this means that a US citizen paying U.K. tax pays no US federal income tax.
So both the U.K. and US governments agreed, in a treaty, that NI is a tax.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1582716934096756743