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?
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
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.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Yes, I think if they're going to uprate benefits by earnings then the state pension has to follow. It's also time to look at the taper for high earning pensioners. Hunt has got free reign to do it and voters will forgive almost anything right now given the previous market reaction to running an unbalanced budget. I'd present it as "this or £20bn cut from the NHS and schools, a 4p rise on the basic rate or 5% on VAT". Cutting the state pension for pensioners with £50k+ private income isn't going to be controversial.
You and I are very closely aligned on this but I hate tapers, they're perverse as they mean those above the taper ending pay less tax than those in the taper.
Just merge Employees NI and Income Tax and wealthy pensioners will have effectively lost the state pension in their taxation on their private income, but there'll be no taper on that so the higher income rate will apply to all income.
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.
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
There are not the votes to remove the triple lock so it does not matter what either Hunt or Truss prefer, it is staying.
I predict that Hunt will say he can't confirm it will stay for the next parliament at this stage, although by the election time both parties will commit to it for another parliament.
If the young wont vote then how is this ever going to change?
The young do vote, but are just outnumbered by the unemployed benefits scroungers that make up the majority of the Tory vote.
One upside of a big Labour majority is that they have the incentives to help the aforementioned layabouts pull themselves up by their bootstraps and start funding their own lifestyle.
One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.
I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.
Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
Totnes is an interesting seat. LibDems did better than Labour last time, because of Dr. Sarah Wollaston being their candidate. But the latest detailed "result" for an election now shows the Tory holding by a couple of points with Labour nicking enough votes off the LibDems to come second - but not win.
Yet, I sense any tactical voting would be of the 'Labour can't win' variety because they've never been close and people would have a feel for that - also from campaign priorities.
LDs were close and Labour nowhere near between 1997-2005.
That would indeed be a fair point, if it weren't bollocks. In 2017, Labour got 26.8% of the vote and the LibDems 12.9%. Labour will still consider themselves the favourite to take the seat on current polling - if the LibDems use tactical voting for them.
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.
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
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.
Keep it and roll NI into IT, and protect lowest earning pensioners with targetted PA
No, ring-fence NI for the state pension and contributory unemployment benefit and healthcare as it was set up for. Add social care costs to what it help funds too as Sunak was rightly starting to do
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Why is "social care" different from healthcare?
Social care is living expenses - housing, food, utility bills etc that all has to be paid for privately even by the sick.
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.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Yes, I think if they're going to uprate benefits by earnings then the state pension has to follow. It's also time to look at the taper for high earning pensioners. Hunt has got free reign to do it and voters will forgive almost anything right now given the previous market reaction to running an unbalanced budget. I'd present it as "this or £20bn cut from the NHS and schools, a 4p rise on the basic rate or 5% on VAT". Cutting the state pension for pensioners with £50k+ private income isn't going to be controversial.
You and I are very closely aligned on this but I hate tapers, they're perverse as they mean those above the taper ending pay less tax than those in the taper.
Just merge Employees NI and Income Tax and wealthy pensioners will have effectively lost the state pension in their taxation on their private income, but there'll be no taper on that so the higher income rate will apply to all income.
Tapers are bad for working people because they discourage work, for people who don't work it doesn't make a difference.
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Why is "social care" different from healthcare?
Shouldnt be, my mate Mr Burnham would introduce a National Care Service
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Get out of my party before I personally throw you over to the LDs myself!!! We will throw in Truss too given she is still clearly a libertarian ideologue not a Tory.
If you live in London or the Home Counties on an average income you need that inheritance to help get a deposit for a property and even in the North it helps too.
National insurance was set up to fund healthcare and care costs etc, Sunak was right on that and on capping care costs at £86k
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
I do have to wonder how big a house HYUFD is expecting to inherit from his parents.
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.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Yes, I think if they're going to uprate benefits by earnings then the state pension has to follow. It's also time to look at the taper for high earning pensioners. Hunt has got free reign to do it and voters will forgive almost anything right now given the previous market reaction to running an unbalanced budget. I'd present it as "this or £20bn cut from the NHS and schools, a 4p rise on the basic rate or 5% on VAT". Cutting the state pension for pensioners with £50k+ private income isn't going to be controversial.
You and I are very closely aligned on this but I hate tapers, they're perverse as they mean those above the taper ending pay less tax than those in the taper.
Just merge Employees NI and Income Tax and wealthy pensioners will have effectively lost the state pension in their taxation on their private income, but there'll be no taper on that so the higher income rate will apply to all income.
Tapers are bad for working people because they discourage work, for people who don't work it doesn't make a difference.
Well it kind of does, because why should anyone benefit by their taper reaching zero? If you think that eg 60% is an appropriate marginal tax rate for well off pensioners, and there's certainly a case to argue that, then why should it drop to 45% for even better off pensioners?
Seems to be the triple lock announcement is very important. If Hunt has signed off on it, he has really closed off much of his wriggle room in the upcoming Budget. With much more in cuts.
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
Is Truss really going to remove the whip from those who vote against / abstain in the fracking vote?
That seems like.. stupid politics
Before the vote, perhaps it’s good politics. After the vote she might be able to put her newly won reputation for deft flexibility to do something different?
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
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.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Yes, I think if they're going to uprate benefits by earnings then the state pension has to follow. It's also time to look at the taper for high earning pensioners. Hunt has got free reign to do it and voters will forgive almost anything right now given the previous market reaction to running an unbalanced budget. I'd present it as "this or £20bn cut from the NHS and schools, a 4p rise on the basic rate or 5% on VAT". Cutting the state pension for pensioners with £50k+ private income isn't going to be controversial.
You and I are very closely aligned on this but I hate tapers, they're perverse as they mean those above the taper ending pay less tax than those in the taper.
Just merge Employees NI and Income Tax and wealthy pensioners will have effectively lost the state pension in their taxation on their private income, but there'll be no taper on that so the higher income rate will apply to all income.
Tapers are bad for working people because they discourage work, for people who don't work it doesn't make a difference.
Even people who are retired might still potentially want to work a bit if possible, whether for mental health reasons or just to earn extra money. It's never a good idea to set up the tax system in a way that discourages this.
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
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
The IHT threshold was raised to over a million years ago
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Smarkets confidence vote market all over the place this morning (on Brady chatter?). I bought a bit more no at 10.5 this morning and just sold it at 1.56 (less sure than I was of there not being a vote called, so I've covered to be green both ways now).
The 10 seemed crazy though (hence my buy). Cock up? Smarkets automated trading?
that's a great buy. does sound like a cock up by the counterparty.
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.
Truss said in PMQs that her govt is committed to helping the most vulnerable in the country. Given the most vulnerable person in the country is Liz Truss, I guess that's true!
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Why is "social care" different from healthcare?
This whole area does need sorting out.
Why is Alzheimer's not treated as an illness for the purposes of care?
Why are lots of small strokes (ie Vascular dementia) not treated as an illness for the purposes of care but a big stroke is?
National Insurance has been a total failure, both in the misleading title and what it pays for.
Some kind of optional government-backed insurance scheme would seem sane to me.
Seems to be the triple lock announcement is very important. If Hunt has signed off on it, he has really closed off much of his wriggle room in the upcoming Budget. With much more in cuts.
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
Steve Baker says he was told about the triple lock prior PMQs, so it's clear Truss didn't make it up on the fly.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
The problem with pension credit is that a lot of very poor pensioners don't claim it, either out of ignorance, or pride, or because it's just too difficult to navigate.
The basic state pension really isn't that generous. People who criticise the triple lock on the grounds that it's feather-bedding well-off pensioners are aiming at the wrong target.
That isn't to say that it's a good policy, it's not, or at least not any more, because of its long-term ratchet effect. But increasing the state pension by inflation, along with working-age benefits, is necessary in present circumstances, given that inflation is currently so skewed towards food and fuel, both of which make up a very large proportion of the daily unavoidable expenditure of the the recipients.
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
Seems to be the triple lock announcement is very important. If Hunt has signed off on it, he has really closed off much of his wriggle room in the upcoming Budget. With much more in cuts.
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
No need
his budget is on the 31st
1. The triple lock is in it. He found the cash 2. The triple lock is not in it. He is in charge, not Truss 3. She has already resigned so it doesn't matter either way
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
It's down to 2 now.
So the threshold of a third of her supporters losing confidence has been met? At least on PB
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
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.
To hell with your Liberalism.
Away to the Orange Book LDs with you and your property theft ideas and don't come back. Even Thatcher did not push up inheritance tax despite the fact she too was sometimes more Gladstone Liberal than Tory she knew not to abandon core Tory values
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 huge additional incomes are already paying 40% or 45% on those. By how much should they rise?
The genuinely rich pensioners are a relatively small number, and will be an even smaller number in future as DB schemes work their way out of the system.
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
You've read Eminent Victorians ? Not exactly political biography, but definitely out of copyright. And about right for a flight.
Seems to be the triple lock announcement is very important. If Hunt has signed off on it, he has really closed off much of his wriggle room in the upcoming Budget. With much more in cuts.
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
The strategy is clear, Truss gets to announce all the rabbits/good news whilst Hunt err "balances" the books..
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
Just watched the Baker & Nandy discussion on Politics Live. What is clear is that Labour supported most of the spending commitments in the mini budget. They also support more spending. They also say that they will treat the markets with respect and everything will be costed. All those things cannot be true. When Labour become the government they are going to tear themselves apart trying to find a way through.
The best approach for the Tories in the long term is to replace Truss with someone with some charisma (not Boris), give a little time to bed in and be economically competent and boring. Call the General Election, lose (but hopefully from their perspective not too badly) and let Labour own the pain that is coming everyone's way.
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.
To hell with your Liberalism.
Away to the Orange Book LDs with you and your property theft ideas and don't come back. Even Thatcher did not push up inheritance tax despite the fact she too was sometimes more Glsdstone Liberal than Tory she knew not to abandon core Tory values
We aren't talking about inheritance tax, we're talking about taxing people to pay for other people's inheritances, not taxing inheritances.
Taxing workers to pay for other people's inheritances is not something has been done before.
Your "core Tory" values belong in the 19th century when the Tory Party died. If the Conservatives want to abandon Conservative values, and return to 19th century values, then the Conservatives deserve to die as a party.
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
So you don't know then.
Its total bollocks by him and shows how out of touch he is.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
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
Here is the measure of the chaos in Downing St. Ex chancellor @sajidjavid was incandescent about briefing that he’s incompetent to Sunday Times. He blamed Truss’s adviser Jason Stein and was planning to humiliate the PM by asking a question about Stein at #PMQs. After talking…
to cabinet secretary Simon Case, Javid said his condition for not hijacking #PMQs is Stein would be suspended and there should be investigation by Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics committee. Stein has duly been suspended and probe is happening. But it won’t…
end there, because Stein is confident he cannot be sanctioned for what happened, which carries the implication others in Downing St are to blame. No wonder so many Tory MPs say Truss simply cannot continue in office.
New: Vladimir Putin has announced and signed a decree on the introduction of martial law in the four Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia – that he claims to have annexed last month. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1582701647863549952
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
The Years of Lyndon Johnson, The Path to Power? The whole series is a classic.
Scots couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
Eilish McColgan’s European 10km record from this month’s Great Scottish Run has been wiped out after red-faced organisers admitted they had measured the course wrongly.
An investigation found that the Glasgow route on October 2 was 150 metres short. It means McColgan’s winning time of 30min 18sec — which knocked a second off her existing mark — will not stand, with Great Run boss Paul Foster issuing an apology to the 31-year-old Scot.
“The shortfall in the distance was wholly due to human error,” he said. “An area of the course was not laid out in line with the previously agreed plans. This error had a marginal knock on to the half marathon, but it was within tolerance and the course on the day was valid.
“We’re extremely disappointed that this happened at the 10k, on what was an incredibly positive return to the city for the Great Scottish Run following the pandemic.
“This error invalidates Eilish McColgan’s European and British 10km records that were believed to have been set that day. We have been in touch with Eilish directly to apologise.”
Trump just blew up his defense against E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case by calling her claims a "hoax" on Truth Social. Trump's lawyers agued he was protected against defamation as POTUS - but Carroll can now amend her complaint since Trump is a private citizen. https://twitter.com/BrianKarem/status/1582474218973048832
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1m Hard to overstate the chaos that PMQs session has caused. Massive spending commitments scattered like confetti. Confusion over fracking. Questions over where the proposed spending cuts are coming from. Mayhem.
Here is the measure of the chaos in Downing St. Ex chancellor @sajidjavid was incandescent about briefing that he’s incompetent to Sunday Times. He blamed Truss’s adviser Jason Stein and was planning to humiliate the PM by asking a question about Stein at #PMQs. After talking…
to cabinet secretary Simon Case, Javid said his condition for not hijacking #PMQs is Stein would be suspended and there should be investigation by Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics committee. Stein has duly been suspended and probe is happening. But it won’t…
end there, because Stein is confident he cannot be sanctioned for what happened, which carries the implication others in Downing St are to blame. No wonder so many Tory MPs say Truss simply cannot continue in office.
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
The Years of Lyndon Johnson, The Path to Power? The whole series is a classic.
My dad's leaving me that. Meant to be the best ever polbio. You'd need a long flight though.
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
Then you will always lose.
No we won't, the dementia tax Bart wants cost the Tories their majority in 2017. Boris won a majority in 2019 after it had been scrapped
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Get out of my party before I personally throw you over to the LDs myself!!! We will throw in Truss too given she is still clearly a libertarian ideologue not a Tory.
If you live in London or the Home Counties on an average income you need that inheritance to help get a deposit for a property and even in the North it helps too.
National insurance was set up to fund healthcare and care costs etc, Sunak was right on that and on capping care costs at £86k
The conservative party is not your party as you are part of the ERG supporting problem and I would suggest there are many conservatives or former conservatives on here would suggest the best thing for the conservative party is for you and your right wing ERG lot to leave and join Farage while the rest of us pursue a one nation party
Not sure what the SNP chap was doing questioning Truss's commitment to Ukraine. For all her faults, that really is not in question. Very unhelpful intervention.
The clown probably thinks his constituency si Ukraine. They have feck all to say about Scotland so need to justify their 200K expenses somehow.
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
So you don't know then.
Its total bollocks by him and shows how out of touch he is.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
No shows how out of touch you are if you think someone on a £30k average income in London or the South East can afford to buy a house on average worth over £400k in the Home counties and over £600k in London without assistance
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
The Years of Lyndon Johnson, The Path to Power? The whole series is a classic.
My dad's leaving me that. Meant to be the best ever polbio. You'd need a long flight though.
I read them over the last year, first political biography I ever read. My view is that they're amazing. Can see Dura Ace either quite liking them or thinking them utter shite.
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.
Your version of Toryism is people dying so what, fracking in your local park and green spaces next to the concrete being laid for endless houses, and bankruptcies.
You aren't in a position to lecture others on political morality.
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
Then you will always lose.
No we won't, the dementia tax Bart wants cost the Tories their majority in 2017. Boris won a majority in 2019 after it had been scrapped
Boris won a majority appealing to right wing Liberals like myself and pledging not to increase National Insurance in his manifesto.
Violating that pledge and increasing tax to fund other people's so-called inheritances (which are now proposed to be inheriting taxpayers money, not their parents) marked the end of Boris being successful in the polls.
If you want Boris back as a pure 19th century Tory, good luck to you. Your party would deserve about 4% in the polls if it becomes the party of inherited estates and not the party of people who work hard, just as the last Tory party died a death and got replaced by a new party on the right instead.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
The problem with pension credit is that a lot of very poor pensioners don't claim it, either out of ignorance, or pride, or because it's just too difficult to navigate.
The basic state pension really isn't that generous. People who criticise the triple lock on the grounds that it's feather-bedding well-off pensioners are aiming at the wrong target.
That isn't to say that it's a good policy, it's not, or at least not any more, because of its long-term ratchet effect. But increasing the state pension by inflation, along with working-age benefits, is necessary in present circumstances, given that inflation is currently so skewed towards food and fuel, both of which make up a very large proportion of the daily unavoidable expenditure of the the recipients.
And public sector workers on median pay or below?
Well, yes, there's a world of trouble there.
I would suggest something like:
Universal credit, disability benefits, pension credit = 10% inflation based rises State pension, below median pay public sector workers = 8% Above median pay public sector workers = 6% Higher tax rate public sector workers = 4%
Even that is going to be very expensive but think it is relatively about right, and avoids strikes which end up costing the country more in other ways.
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).
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.
To hell with your Liberalism.
Away to the Orange Book LDs with you and your property theft ideas and don't come back. Even Thatcher did not push up inheritance tax despite the fact she too was sometimes more Glsdstone Liberal than Tory she knew not to abandon core Tory values
We aren't talking about inheritance tax, we're talking about taxing people to pay for other people's inheritances, not taxing inheritances.
Taxing workers to pay for other people's inheritances is not something has been done before.
Your "core Tory" values belong in the 19th century when the Tory Party died. If the Conservatives want to abandon Conservative values, and return to 19th century values, then the Conservatives deserve to die as a party.
National Insurance was set up by Lloyd George specifically to fund healthcare as well as the stare pension and contributory unemployment benefits. Funding social care is exactly what it should be doing and Sunak was right on that.
Taking care costs from the family home and assets beyond the proposed £86k cap to an unlimited level is totally against Tory principles.
Sunak and Boris never polled as low as Truss had after she pushed your Liberal libertarian agenda, cutting NI but now it seems proposing reversing the care costs cap. Traditional Tory values are still far more popular than your libertarian ones
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
So you don't know then.
Its total bollocks by him and shows how out of touch he is.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
No shows how out of touch you are if you think someone on a £30k average income in London or the South East can afford to buy a house on average worth over £400k in the Home counties and over £600k in London without assistance
What first time buyer is getting a £600k house? And what first time buyer earns £30k in London?
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll go with Eminent Victorians the LBJ book. Decent chance of a lengthy stay in a Taif hospital so I'll have to time to read there.
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
So you don't know then.
Its total bollocks by him and shows how out of touch he is.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
No shows how out of touch you are if you think someone on a £30k average income in London or the South East can afford to buy a house on average worth over £400k in the Home counties and over £600k in London without assistance
What first time buyer is getting a £600k house? And what first time buyer earns £30k in London?
Even first time buyer properties average £440k in London and the median salary in London is only £39,700
Scots couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
Eilish McColgan’s European 10km record from this month’s Great Scottish Run has been wiped out after red-faced organisers admitted they had measured the course wrongly.
An investigation found that the Glasgow route on October 2 was 150 metres short. It means McColgan’s winning time of 30min 18sec — which knocked a second off her existing mark — will not stand, with Great Run boss Paul Foster issuing an apology to the 31-year-old Scot.
“The shortfall in the distance was wholly due to human error,” he said. “An area of the course was not laid out in line with the previously agreed plans. This error had a marginal knock on to the half marathon, but it was within tolerance and the course on the day was valid.
“We’re extremely disappointed that this happened at the 10k, on what was an incredibly positive return to the city for the Great Scottish Run following the pandemic.
“This error invalidates Eilish McColgan’s European and British 10km records that were believed to have been set that day. We have been in touch with Eilish directly to apologise.”
That happens quite frequently. Manchester Marathon was short a few years ago. The problem is that the people laying it out aren't the same people as went round with a measuring wheel. One half marathon was found to have been short two years in a row IIRC
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Get out of my party before I personally throw you over to the LDs myself!!! We will throw in Truss too given she is still clearly a libertarian ideologue not a Tory.
If you live in London or the Home Counties on an average income you need that inheritance to help get a deposit for a property and even in the North it helps too.
National insurance was set up to fund healthcare and care costs etc, Sunak was right on that and on capping care costs at £86k
The conservative party is not your party as you are part of the ERG supporting problem and I would suggest there are many conservatives or former conservatives on here would suggest the best thing for the conservative party is for you and your right wing ERG lot to leave and join Farage while the rest of us pursue a one nation party
Pursuing a dementia tax is not One Nation, it is unTory electoral suicide, see 2017
Robert Peston @Peston · 56m Amazingly @trussliz unable to confirm she would increase carers’ allowance by 10.1% following question from LibDem leader @EdwardJDavey . Plainly she did not get permission from @Jeremy_Hunt #PMQs
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
So you don't know then.
Its total bollocks by him and shows how out of touch he is.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
No shows how out of touch you are if you think someone on a £30k average income in London or the South East can afford to buy a house on average worth over £400k in the Home counties and over £600k in London without assistance
What first time buyer is getting a £600k house? And what first time buyer earns £30k in London?
Median income is £39k in London, so £78k combined for a couple on median income. The idea of £30k salary as a lone income buying a home in London is laughable, with or without an inheritance for a deposit. 🤦♂️
Average FTB house price in London is £440k, so 5.6x multiple of a median income couple. Far too high, not £30k to £600k preposterous.
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).
If I believed in taxing wealth and inheritance more and cutting National insurance I would join you in the Liberal Democrats
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.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
It's also not true because the average age of inheritance is ca. 50, even in this environment most people ahve already purchased their first home by then. Inheritance is now largely paid out to already well off middle aged, middle class people. My dad inherited aged 64.
Much of it also goes to help grandchildren with deposits
Can you put a number on that, how many? Because some undefined number is useless.
Try virtually anyone on an average income in London and the Home counties who buys a property before 40
So you don't know then.
Its total bollocks by him and shows how out of touch he is.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
No shows how out of touch you are if you think someone on a £30k average income in London or the South East can afford to buy a house on average worth over £400k in the Home counties and over £600k in London without assistance
What first time buyer is getting a £600k house? And what first time buyer earns £30k in London?
Even first time buyer properties average £440k in London and the median salary in London is only £39,700
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
The Years of Lyndon Johnson, The Path to Power? The whole series is a classic.
My dad's leaving me that. Meant to be the best ever polbio. You'd need a long flight though.
I read them over the last year, first political biography I ever read. My view is that they're amazing. Can see Dura Ace either quite liking them or thinking them utter shite.
Oh he'll like, I think. LBJ's an icon of the left if you ignore one or two things. And those books are apparently so good you feel you're right there.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1m Hard to overstate the chaos that PMQs session has caused. Massive spending commitments scattered like confetti. Confusion over fracking. Questions over where the proposed spending cuts are coming from. Mayhem.
Time for Maggie's favourite saint, St Francis of Assisi to come to the rescue.
Universal credit, disability benefits, pension credit = 10% inflation based rises State pension, below median pay public sector workers = 8% Above median pay public sector workers = 6% Higher tax rate public sector workers = 4%
Even that is going to be very expensive but think it is relatively about right, and avoids strikes which end up costing the country more in other ways.
I don't know how the figures would work out, but that makes a lot of sense. Probably wouldn't avoid strikes, though.
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.
What you are missing is that this is not something good you can plan for. If you get a neurodegenerative disease it is shitty back luck. We don’t know lifestyle factors we don’t know the cause.
So why should the state treat two taxpayers differently in this scenario?
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).
If I believed in taxing wealth and inheritance more and cutting National insurance I would join you in the Liberal Democrats
Didn't answer the question.
Don't know where you got the rest from. I have not suggested taxing wealth and inheritance more and I don't believe in cutting NI. On the contrary I would merge it with income tax so it would apply to non earners and simplify the tax system.
Just watched the Baker & Nandy discussion on Politics Live. What is clear is that Labour supported most of the spending commitments in the mini budget. They also support more spending. They also say that they will treat the markets with respect and everything will be costed. All those things cannot be true. When Labour become the government they are going to tear themselves apart trying to find a way through.
The best approach for the Tories in the long term is to replace Truss with someone with some charisma (not Boris), give a little time to bed in and be economically competent and boring. Call the General Election, lose (but hopefully from their perspective not too badly) and let Labour own the pain that is coming everyone's way.
Yeah it has caught labour off guard badly. The economic incompetence is universal, but the tories have a year to demonstrate competence; in which case they will do ok in the next general election, and they are on this path with Hunt as CX. Over the longer term, it is of course possible that we have a labour led coalition of chaos for one Parliament and then the tories returning to office with a majority, a repeat of the 70s.
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
Then you will always lose.
No we won't, the dementia tax Bart wants cost the Tories their majority in 2017. Boris won a majority in 2019 after it had been scrapped
Boris won a majority appealing to right wing Liberals like myself and pledging not to increase National Insurance in his manifesto.
Violating that pledge and increasing tax to fund other people's so-called inheritances (which are now proposed to be inheriting taxpayers money, not their parents) marked the end of Boris being successful in the polls.
If you want Boris back as a pure 19th century Tory, good luck to you. Your party would deserve about 4% in the polls if it becomes the party of inherited estates and not the party of people who work hard, just as the last Tory party died a death and got replaced by a new party on the right instead.
If Boris had returned to the dementia tax you want and which lost May her majority he would not have won either.
The 2019 winning Tory manifesto was absolutely clear a Tory government would put a cap on Social Care costs so nobody would have to sell the family home to pay for it.
Making everyone with a property over £200k sell it so most of its value goes in care costs as you want affects the majority of homeowners and their heirs in the UK, way more than just 4%
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
Better would be to fix tax on rich pensioners, and keep the triple lock.
Hopefully that is what might be coming and I say that as someone who would be adversely affected.
The problem with simply doing away with the Triple Lock is that there are lots of poor pensioners who really do need it uplifting in line with inflation. They have to find a away of taxing the better off pensioners whilst still protecting the poorest. Not rocket-science I wouldn't have thought.
The really irritating thing is that whatever you do the 1% will dodge making any contribution by a variety of methods. Greed at the very top is a real cancer in most societies and none more so than in the UK.
Seems to be the triple lock announcement is very important. If Hunt has signed off on it, he has really closed off much of his wriggle room in the upcoming Budget. With much more in cuts.
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
The strategy is clear, Truss gets to announce all the rabbits/good news whilst Hunt err "balances" the books..
We might be missing something more important about the triple lock announcement. The Prime Minister said it was in the manifesto. It was previously a criticism of her that she had torn up Boris's 2019 manifesto. The 2-year to six-month energy cap freeze was obviously not in the manifesto, so (by this logic) was fair game. Keep the manifesto to hand when betting on 31 October, imo.
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.
What you are missing is that this is not something good you can plan for. If you get a neurodegenerative disease it is shitty back luck. We don’t know lifestyle factors we don’t know the cause.
So why should the state treat two taxpayers differently in this scenario?
If so you are disincentivising saving / prudence.
Its not doing that. Welfare should be a safety net, not a way of life.
If you get shitty bad luck, but have assets to provide for your own way of life, however unfortunate it may be, then you should use them. Getting welfare, not because you need it but because HYUFD wants an extra 0 on his inheritance, isn't what taxes should be for.
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
The Years of Lyndon Johnson, The Path to Power? The whole series is a classic.
My dad's leaving me that. Meant to be the best ever polbio. You'd need a long flight though.
It's a great read - and possibly destined to be unfinished, unless someone is asked to pick it up after Caro is gone.
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).
If I believed in taxing wealth and inheritance more and cutting National insurance I would join you in the Liberal Democrats
Didn't answer the question.
Don't know where you got the rest from. I have not suggested taxing wealth and inheritance more and I don't believe in cutting NI. On the contrary I would merge it with income tax so it would apply to non earners and simplify the tax system.
Yes it did, I am an ideological Tory and ideological Tories do not believe in sky high inheritance taxes unlike ideological Liberal like you.
NI needs to return to original principles to fund the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and health and social care, not be merged into Income Tax
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.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll go with Eminent Victorians the LBJ book. Decent chance of a lengthy stay in a Taif hospital so I'll have to time to read there.
There are four volumes, and none are small. I sincerely hope your expected accident isn't quite so serious as that.
One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.
I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.
Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
Totnes is an interesting seat. LibDems did better than Labour last time, because of Dr. Sarah Wollaston being their candidate. But the latest detailed "result" for an election now shows the Tory holding by a couple of points with Labour nicking enough votes off the LibDems to come second - but not win.
Yet, I sense any tactical voting would be of the 'Labour can't win' variety because they've never been close and people would have a feel for that - also from campaign priorities.
LDs were close and Labour nowhere near between 1997-2005.
That would indeed be a fair point, if it weren't bollocks. In 2017, Labour got 26.8% of the vote and the LibDems 12.9%. Labour will still consider themselves the favourite to take the seat on current polling - if the LibDems use tactical voting for them.
Says the Tory hoping to hold the seat!
I hope the current MP gets re-elected. He is very capable.
But you still are ignoring my explanation that with the current massive Labour lead, the LibDems won't win it.
Seems to be the triple lock announcement is very important. If Hunt has signed off on it, he has really closed off much of his wriggle room in the upcoming Budget. With much more in cuts.
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
The strategy is clear, Truss gets to announce all the rabbits/good news whilst Hunt err "balances" the books..
We might be missing something more important about the triple lock announcement. The Prime Minister said it was in the manifesto. It was previously a criticism of her that she had torn up Boris's 2019 manifesto. The 2-year to six-month energy cap freeze was obviously not in the manifesto, so (by this logic) was fair game. Keep the manifesto to hand when betting on 31 October, imo.
Fracking is explicitly ruled out in the manifesto. Yet this afternoon Tory MPs need to vote in favour of Fracking on threat of being kicked out of the party.
Comments
Please wear a blue rosette.
Just merge Employees NI and Income Tax and wealthy pensioners will have effectively lost the state pension in their taxation on their private income, but there'll be no taper on that so the higher income rate will apply to all income.
One upside of a big Labour majority is that they have the incentives to help the aforementioned layabouts pull themselves up by their bootstraps and start funding their own lifestyle.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1582699104601509888
YES
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
Phils NI would go up to pay for it.
SKS will do F**k all about it though methinks
If you live in London or the Home Counties on an average income you need that inheritance to help get a deposit for a property and even in the North it helps too.
National insurance was set up to fund healthcare and care costs etc, Sunak was right on that and on capping care costs at £86k
If Hunt hasn't signed off on this, then he would be within his rights to resign.
Preserving inheritance is one of the core values 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.
Why is Alzheimer's not treated as an illness for the purposes of care?
Why are lots of small strokes (ie Vascular dementia) not treated as an illness for the purposes of care but a big stroke is?
National Insurance has been a total failure, both in the misleading title and what it pays for.
Some kind of optional government-backed insurance scheme would seem sane to me.
https://youtu.be/Y6oajPBSnO8
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
his budget is on the 31st
1. The triple lock is in it. He found the cash
2. The triple lock is not in it. He is in charge, not Truss
3. She has already resigned so it doesn't matter either way
'I thought that went well all things considered'
These will have had no NICs paid on employer contributions.
Whilst a individual personal pension contribution is paid after NICs.
Away to the Orange Book LDs with you and your property theft ideas and don't come back. Even Thatcher did not push up inheritance tax despite the fact she too was sometimes more Gladstone Liberal than Tory she knew not to abandon core Tory values
The genuinely rich pensioners are a relatively small number, and will be an even smaller number in future as DB schemes work their way out of the system.
Not exactly political biography, but definitely out of copyright.
And about right for a flight.
The best approach for the Tories in the long term is to replace Truss with someone with some charisma (not Boris), give a little time to bed in and be economically competent and boring. Call the General Election, lose (but hopefully from their perspective not too badly) and let Labour own the pain that is coming everyone's way.
Taxing workers to pay for other people's inheritances is not something has been done before.
Your "core Tory" values belong in the 19th century when the Tory Party died. If the Conservatives want to abandon Conservative values, and return to 19th century values, then the Conservatives deserve to die as a party.
My pension contribution is salary sacrifice so avoids NIC's, AIUI.
The population in London and the Home Counties has increased by millions in recent years. Its difficult for under 40s to buy a property but lots of those who have typically have incredibly worked for their deposit.
to cabinet secretary Simon Case, Javid said his condition for not hijacking #PMQs is Stein would be suspended and there should be investigation by Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics committee. Stein has duly been suspended and probe is happening. But it won’t…
end there, because Stein is confident he cannot be sanctioned for what happened, which carries the implication others in Downing St are to blame. No wonder so many Tory MPs say Truss simply cannot continue in office.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582702488506859520
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1582701647863549952
Presumably to make it easier to shoot civilians.
Eilish McColgan’s European 10km record from this month’s Great Scottish Run has been wiped out after red-faced organisers admitted they had measured the course wrongly.
An investigation found that the Glasgow route on October 2 was 150 metres short. It means McColgan’s winning time of 30min 18sec — which knocked a second off her existing mark — will not stand, with Great Run boss Paul Foster issuing an apology to the 31-year-old Scot.
“The shortfall in the distance was wholly due to human error,” he said. “An area of the course was not laid out in line with the previously agreed plans. This error had a marginal knock on to the half marathon, but it was within tolerance and the course on the day was valid.
“We’re extremely disappointed that this happened at the 10k, on what was an incredibly positive return to the city for the Great Scottish Run following the pandemic.
“This error invalidates Eilish McColgan’s European and British 10km records that were believed to have been set that day. We have been in touch with Eilish directly to apologise.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eilish-mccolgans-10km-records-invalid-because-great-scottish-run-course-was-150m-short-pjhv6k766
https://twitter.com/BrianKarem/status/1582474218973048832
Trump is an obese Wile E. Coyote.
@DPJHodges
·
1m
Hard to overstate the chaos that PMQs session has caused. Massive spending commitments scattered like confetti. Confusion over fracking. Questions over where the proposed spending cuts are coming from. Mayhem.
You aren't in a position to lecture others on political morality.
Violating that pledge and increasing tax to fund other people's so-called inheritances (which are now proposed to be inheriting taxpayers money, not their parents) marked the end of Boris being successful in the polls.
If you want Boris back as a pure 19th century Tory, good luck to you. Your party would deserve about 4% in the polls if it becomes the party of inherited estates and not the party of people who work hard, just as the last Tory party died a death and got replaced by a new party on the right instead.
Universal credit, disability benefits, pension credit = 10% inflation based rises
State pension, below median pay public sector workers = 8%
Above median pay public sector workers = 6%
Higher tax rate public sector workers = 4%
Even that is going to be very expensive but think it is relatively about right, and avoids strikes which end up costing the country more in other ways.
Taking care costs from the family home and assets beyond the proposed £86k cap to an unlimited level is totally against Tory principles.
Sunak and Boris never polled as low as Truss had after she pushed your Liberal libertarian agenda, cutting NI but now it seems proposing reversing the care costs cap.
Traditional Tory values are still far more popular than your libertarian ones
https://www.cityam.com/london-average-hits-440k-first-time-buyers-in-for-a-shock-as-house-prices-for-
newcomers-rise-24-per-day/
https://dontdisappoint.me.uk/resources/lifestyle/what-is-a-good-salary-in-london/
@Peston
·
56m
Amazingly
@trussliz
unable to confirm she would increase carers’ allowance by 10.1% following question from LibDem leader
@EdwardJDavey
. Plainly she did not get permission from
@Jeremy_Hunt
#PMQs
Average FTB house price in London is £440k, so 5.6x multiple of a median income couple. Far too high, not £30k to £600k preposterous.
"Where there is Mayhem, I will bring Mayday"
So why should the state treat two taxpayers differently in this scenario?
If so you are disincentivising saving / prudence.
Clearly the triple lock talk was a ruse to allow Truss to deliver some good news.
Don't know where you got the rest from. I have not suggested taxing wealth and inheritance more and I don't believe in cutting NI. On the contrary I would merge it with income tax so it would apply to non earners and simplify the tax system.
The 2019 winning Tory manifesto was absolutely clear a Tory government would put a cap on Social Care costs so nobody would have to sell the family home to pay for it.
Making everyone with a property over £200k sell it so most of its value goes in care costs as you want affects the majority of homeowners and their heirs in the UK, way more than just 4%
The problem with simply doing away with the Triple Lock is that there are lots of poor pensioners who really do need it uplifting in line with inflation. They have to find a away of taxing the better off pensioners whilst still protecting the poorest. Not rocket-science I wouldn't have thought.
The really irritating thing is that whatever you do the 1% will dodge making any contribution by a variety of methods. Greed at the very top is a real cancer in most societies and none more so than in the UK.
If you get shitty bad luck, but have assets to provide for your own way of life, however unfortunate it may be, then you should use them. Getting welfare, not because you need it but because HYUFD wants an extra 0 on his inheritance, isn't what taxes should be for.
NI needs to return to original principles to fund the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and health and social care, not be merged into Income Tax
I sincerely hope your expected accident isn't quite so serious as that.
But you still are ignoring my explanation that with the current massive Labour lead, the LibDems won't win it.