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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
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.
Yes my dad's nearly 90 and he regularly emails the publisher for updates. Says time's running out for both of them!
But you're right - looks like not happening sadly.
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
Ok, so a family with two earners at ~£80k buying a £440k property. That doesn't seem like they will be getting a lot of help from inheritance.
If both partners and a husband and wife work full time even on an average salary and have children then they also have to pay for childcare costs etc, it cannot all to go to fund a deposit or mortgage.
Of course £80k multiplied by 4 is only £320k, so you still need a £120k deposit on top of a mortgage even with 2 earners in London working full time for the average wage to get even a first time buyers property
But I think the most astonishing thing was the muted nature of support for her on the Tory benches. They couldn't even be bothered to try and shout Starmer down.
This is over. Even if she doesn't resign, she's completely destroyed her career. The election that never was on crack.
Just seen Starmer's questions at PMQ. Weak from him and Truss has been taken in hand and given some Rolls Royce coaching.
If there is no requirement for the PM to actually answer the questions, then it is basically a pointless exercise in my view. Starmer can't do anything about it. The parroting of a few phrases alongside coached theatrical posturing shows contempt for the format, and drives cynicism in politics. It is a bit sad that it is like this as there were historically some great moments in PMQs.
Edit - in the past if you just refused to answer the questions the way that Truss does you would be torn to shreds by the media. Now there is just so much noise PMQs has just become a throwback to ancient times.
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’s alright, it’s close enough after a couple of years off. It’s not as if someone’s going to set an international record and want to measure the course afterwards… Oh bugger.
But I think the most astonishing thing was the muted nature of support for her on the Tory benches. They couldn't even be bothered to try and shout Starmer down.
This is over. Even if she doesn't resign, she's completely destroyed her career. The election that never was on crack.
Snark and sarcasm from a lawyer is a brutal and vicious combination.
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.
Funny though eh how millions of well off pensioners with plenty of private provision get the State Pension which is part of Welfare.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
*betting post* following success in 2021, my tip for the Mercury prize 2022 failed utterly. Wet Leg - which I thought caught the zeitgeist rather well after the drear of the previous year - missed out to Little Simz' Sometime I Might be Introvert. Which was, I might add, in my opinion, shit, mixing two genres I hate: urban and jazz of the most pretentious sort. And moreover, no fun whatsoever. The moral is, until further notice, bet on the joyless self-indulgent whine and avoid anything which sounds like it might be fun.
Can't really understand why the govt would announce that they are treating a vote on an unpopular policy as a confidence vote at a time when the loyalty of their MPs to their leader is in serious question. Are they trying to maximise the chances of a confidence vote succeeding?
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
Shit happens.
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
So first the Triple lock stays (at the start of the month). Then yesterday it goes (was this Hunt or Truss who wants this) but today its back again (is this Truss or Hunt)? What the hell is going on?
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
What's wrong with capital gains tax on primary residence sales?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Not sure about that, I'd have thought that current circumstances favour concentrating on immediate income. Save for the rainy day when the sun's shining, not when it's peeing down with rain.
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
I suggest you go and read the question again if you think you have answered it.
I am not an ideological liberal like you suggest. You have said this to me before and others re their allegiances. Yes I am a LD and have been for many years, but the LDs cannot rely on my vote regardless. There are things I disagree with and will say so and if they stray too far away from me I will leave. No ideology involved just the nearest overlapping of views.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
*betting post* following success in 2021, my tip for the Mercury prize 2022 failed utterly. Wet Leg - which I thought caught the zeitgeist rather well after the drear of the previous year - missed out to Little Simz' Sometime I Might be Introvert. Which was, I might add, in my opinion, shit, mixing two genres I hate: urban and jazz of the most pretentious sort. And moreover, no fun whatsoever. The moral is, until further notice, bet on the joyless self-indulgent whine and avoid anything which sounds like it might be fun.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
To pay for your own care? You are benefiting from that care. You have this odd fixation on inheritance, maybe you should rely on your own income to build your own wealth rather than rely on an inheritance and your parents income and wealth.
What's wrong with capital gains tax on primary residence sales?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
Its a terrible idea because it taxes mobility, not assets. If you sell a £250k home to move house to another £250k home, then what "gain" have you made? We should abolish stamp duty too.
Tax property annually, whether you move or not. Why should a millionaire with a stable million pound home not pay taxes, but one who moves does?
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
Should people not pay their own cost of living where possible, with only the minimum state safety net for the very poorest?
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
I don't know a single other Tory (out of, say, 150) who would espouse FUDHY's bizaare 'everything overboard except inheritance' views....
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
No, that is not the main principle of Conservativism. The main principle of Conservativism is support for the Monarchy, landed estates and inherited wealth.
Yes the Conservative Party absorbed some free trade Liberals with the rise of Labour socialism whose main principles were paying your own way and lower taxes on income but those are not the core Conservative and Tory values
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582702483750936577 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.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
Only if you believe everyone is entitled to free care. Which probably means tax rises.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
No, that is not the main principle of Conservativism. The main principle of Conservativism is support for the Monarchy, landed estates and inherited wealth.
Yes the Conservative Party absorbed some free trade Liberals with the rise of Labour socialism whose main principles were paying your own way and lower taxes on income but those are not the core Conservative and Tory values
No, those were the main principles of the Tory Party that died in 1822. Good riddance, no flowers.
The main principles of Conservativism is personal responsibility, sound money and not making others including future generations pay for your own benefit.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
It's hard to encapsulate a political philosophy in one sentence. But for me, being able to own your own home by your own work rather than through your own inheritance must be quite close to it. If Toryism says that we can only acquire property through inheritance, it can do one.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Not sure about that, I'd have thought that current circumstances favour concentrating on immediate income. Save for the rainy day when the sun's shining, not when it's peeing down with rain.
Phase it in and this isn't for people like us who will be making AVCs and have money invested in ISAs etc... this would be for your Tesco shelf stacker earning an hourly wage that stacks up to £20-24k per year and ensuring that they will have a sizeable pension pot in retirement because the state pension doesn't seem sustainable and will likely be gone or worth a pittance in 30 years.
The recently donated IRIS-T SLM air defense battery from Germany 🇩🇪 is already successfully protecting the skies of Ukraine - the remains of its ground-to-air missile was found by locals today in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1582712521789964290
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
No, that is not the main principle of Conservativism. The main principle of Conservativism is support for the Monarchy, landed estates and inherited wealth.
Yes the Conservative Party absorbed some free trade Liberals with the rise of Labour socialism whose main principles were paying your own way and lower taxes on income but those are not the core Conservative and Tory values
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
To pay for your own care? You are benefiting from that care. You have this odd fixation on inheritance, maybe you should rely on your own income to build your own wealth rather than rely on an inheritance and your parents income and wealth.
I have a slightly above average income myself but that is neither here nor there, National insurance should fund most extra social care costs, not unlimited taking of the assets of someone needing social care beyond the proposed £86k contribution
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
No, that is not the main principle of Conservativism. The main principle of Conservativism is support for the Monarchy, landed estates and inherited wealth.
These were the same principles held by robber barons in olden days. They were generally considered a bad thing and you wonder why people detest your views?
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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
Shit happens.
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
The problem comes when the system discourages you from having that rainy day fund.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Not sure about that, I'd have thought that current circumstances favour concentrating on immediate income. Save for the rainy day when the sun's shining, not when it's peeing down with rain.
Phase it in and this isn't for people like us who will be making AVCs and have money invested in ISAs etc... this would be for your Tesco shelf stacker earning an hourly wage that stacks up to £20-24k per year and ensuring that they will have a sizeable pension pot in retirement because the state pension doesn't seem sustainable and will likely be gone or worth a pittance in 30 years.
Oh, absolutely, I agree with the principle, but not just at the moment, given everything else.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
Why? Its part of your assets. You need care - you realize some of your assets into cash to pay for care. Its no different from equity release to pay for a holiday, or to give to relatives for a deposit on a house. Why should the state (and remember the state is just shorthand for tax-payers) pay for your care if you have assets?
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
To pay for your own care? You are benefiting from that care. You have this odd fixation on inheritance, maybe you should rely on your own income to build your own wealth rather than rely on an inheritance and your parents income and wealth.
Genuinely, the problem here is cakeism in its profoundest sense. There's the poor who have to be paid for or die in the street, there's the rich who order services and pay for them, and there's HYUFD's constituency who are doing relatively OK but feel rich because of the illusion of housing wealth, and see the role of the Tory party as taking the illusion and making it reality. You can either have cake, or eat it. What you can't do is say you don't presently want to eat your cake so could taxpayers club together and buy you a packet of biscuits to stave off hunger.
What's wrong with capital gains tax on primary residence sales?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
Its a terrible idea because it taxes mobility, not assets. If you sell a £250k home to move house to another £250k home, then what "gain" have you made? We should abolish stamp duty too.
Tax property annually, whether you move or not. Why should a millionaire with a stable million pound home not pay taxes, but one who moves does?
Every property will be sold eventually. And moving sooner means you are more likely to avoid CGT as the value goes up over time.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
To pay for your own care? You are benefiting from that care. You have this odd fixation on inheritance, maybe you should rely on your own income to build your own wealth rather than rely on an inheritance and your parents income and wealth.
I have a slightly above average income myself but that is neither here nor there, National insurance should fund most extra social care costs, not unlimited taking of the assets of someone needing social care beyond the proposed £86k contribution
It's not taking, it's paying for services rendered. That person requires care services, that costs money and they have saleable assets which can pay for those services.
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.
Too many people disagree with this excellent statement. My parents home is not mine. It's theirs, and what they do with it is entirely up to them. Mortgage it to the hilt and put the entire lot on Red this afternoon if they want.
My mum has sometimes 'apologised' for taking a small loan on the house a few years ago. I told her nothing to do with me. Her house, her money.
I don't know what people used to do when a family size was 4 or 5 kids. How did we cope? Too entitled is everyone. Oldies for not wanting their triple lock touched, but kids too for wanting their parents house mortgage free when they die (and ideally not split between their sibling...)
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
I really could not care less what label you think I am, but I can tell you that none of my children expect the state to pay for our care if we need it and your attitude will be distasteful to many
You are still a Liberal not a Tory.
Preserving inheritance is one of the core values of Toryism
To hell with your vision of Toryism.
I believe in people being able to work for a living, and work for their own home. That was the vision of Lawson and Thatcher, not having taxpayers pay for your inheritance.
@HYUFD is there self interest here? We know you probably came from a wealthy family (Grandad's job, privately educated, etc) and you live in the South of England and probably don't earn a huge salary. But why should you get a boost over someone else like you, who doesn't have a well off family to fall back on. We should be encouraging self reliance to boost the economy (as long as we look after those that can't).
Another point of interest - not specifically relating to HYUFD, though it may be relevant for all I know - is that inheritances are not reliable. Mum and Dad might leave all their wealth to Peckham Pussies' Home, or indeed the Conservative Party or SNP. Or to some unknown cousin because they CBA to update their wills. Or they bought into bitcoin at the peak. Or were swindled by someone exploiting the fiscal "freedom" and "choice" and "deregulation".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
What's wrong with capital gains tax on primary residence sales?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
Its a terrible idea because it taxes mobility, not assets. If you sell a £250k home to move house to another £250k home, then what "gain" have you made? We should abolish stamp duty too.
Tax property annually, whether you move or not. Why should a millionaire with a stable million pound home not pay taxes, but one who moves does?
Every property will be sold eventually. And moving sooner means you are more likely to avoid CGT as the value goes up over time.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
Why? Its part of your assets. You need care - you realize some of your assets into cash to pay for care. Its no different from equity release to pay for a holiday, or to give to relatives for a deposit on a house. Why should the state (and remember the state is just shorthand for tax-payers) pay for your care if you have assets?
A contribution of £86k from your estate would still be paid even under the care costs cap. However beyond that National insurance should pay for social care, as it in part was set up to fund healthcare, not the entirety of the family estate
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582702483750936577 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.
Truss got though PMQs -not great but could have been much worse. As with Boris Johnson even when he got through one scrape you knew there would be another one along in a minute, so with Truss, she is only "safe" until the next financial crisis. The Conservatives must be mad not to lance the boil.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
No, that is not the main principle of Conservativism. The main principle of Conservativism is support for the Monarchy, landed estates and inherited wealth.
These were the same principles held by robber barons in olden days. They were generally considered a bad thing and you wonder why people detest your views?
I couldn't care less if you detest them, they are still the core Tory values and always have been and that can't be changed
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
This dilemma only exists because there is no longer a social expectation that people should take care of their own parents in old age. You want to have your cake and eat it by making the state pay for providing care instead.
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.
Too many people disagree with this excellent statement. My parents home is not mine. It's theirs, and what they do with it is entirely up to them. Mortgage it to the hilt and put the entire lot on Red this afternoon if they want.
My mum has sometimes 'apologised' for taking a small loan on the house a few years ago. I told her nothing to do with me. Her house, her money.
I don't know what people used to do when a family size was 4 or 5 kids. How did we cope? Too entitled is everyone. Oldies for not wanting their triple lock touched, but kids too for wanting their parents house mortgage free when they die (and ideally not split between their sibling...)
If and when the MiL dies I think we will get back slightly less than I've subbed her over the years. The SiL will do better out of it then we will but then again I earn way more than she does.
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.
Too many people disagree with this excellent statement. My parents home is not mine. It's theirs, and what they do with it is entirely up to them. Mortgage it to the hilt and put the entire lot on Red this afternoon if they want.
My mum has sometimes 'apologised' for taking a small loan on the house a few years ago. I told her nothing to do with me. Her house, her money.
I don't know what people used to do when a family size was 4 or 5 kids. How did we cope? Too entitled is everyone. Oldies for not wanting their triple lock touched, but kids too for wanting their parents house mortgage free when they die (and ideally not split between their sibling...)
I know. I've had to tell an elderly relative (nicely) not to be daft, and to reassure her when she fretted about saving her money for her grandchild and to spend it on a very few small comforts for herself - and it was a very, very small amount compared to the sums HYUFD is by implication bandying about (i.e. he feels robbed, for himself or on behalf of Tory voters, if they have to pay tax on a sum lower than £1m plus Party donations).
I think the Tories are preying on that mentality. Like conmen.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Not sure about that, I'd have thought that current circumstances favour concentrating on immediate income. Save for the rainy day when the sun's shining, not when it's peeing down with rain.
Phase it in and this isn't for people like us who will be making AVCs and have money invested in ISAs etc... this would be for your Tesco shelf stacker earning an hourly wage that stacks up to £20-24k per year and ensuring that they will have a sizeable pension pot in retirement because the state pension doesn't seem sustainable and will likely be gone or worth a pittance in 30 years.
Oh, absolutely, I agree with the principle, but not just at the moment, given everything else.
It's the perfect time to do it, just phase it in over a few years. People who are already set up for AVCs will benefit from huge pension accruals because of rapidly rising wages forecast for the next 4-6 years. A 13% overall contribution would make a huge difference to peoples retirements and really, I think if you take the path of least resistance it will never get increased because there will always be something going on.
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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
Shit happens.
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
The problem comes when the system discourages you from having that rainy day fund.
Discouraging you from having that rainy day fund is a bad thing.
Taxing today's workers so that those who have a rainy day fund don't need to use it, is worse.
Welfare should be a safety net and not a way of life. Taxing people so much they can't make their own savings, in order to use that taxes not on those who need it, but deliberately on those who don't, is perverse.
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
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%
I don't think that's necessarily true - Corbyn was a much bigger negative in 2019 than 2017 and Labour hadn't spent the last two years trying to overturn the referendum in 2017 either.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
It's the main principle of conservatism. Personal responsibility. Paying one's own way and ensuring future generations aren't burdened with high taxes.
No, that is not the main principle of Conservativism. The main principle of Conservativism is support for the Monarchy, landed estates and inherited wealth.
Yes the Conservative Party absorbed some free trade Liberals with the rise of Labour socialism whose main principles were paying your own way and lower taxes on income but those are not the core Conservative and Tory values
No, those were the main principles of the Tory Party that died in 1822. Good riddance, no flowers.
The main principles of Conservativism is personal responsibility, sound money and not making others including future generations pay for your own benefit.
No, those are the core principles of Orange Book Liberal Democrats, not Tories. Even as the 2010-2015 government showed there is some overlap to keep out Labour and stop them expanding the state and increasing taxes heavily on income as well as wealth
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".
It is misnamed, it is a pension that is entitled as part of your 50 years of NI payments. They could take the pension part out of NI and let people get their own private pensions. These would be significantly better than the pittance you get for 50 years NI payments. People on benefits could be paid a state pension or better benefits.
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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
Shit happens.
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
The recently donated IRIS-T SLM air defense battery from Germany 🇩🇪 is already successfully protecting the skies of Ukraine - the remains of its ground-to-air missile was found by locals today in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1582712521789964290
Well done Germany. Better late than never, now keep them coming please!
What's wrong with capital gains tax on primary residence sales?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
Its a terrible idea because it taxes mobility, not assets. If you sell a £250k home to move house to another £250k home, then what "gain" have you made? We should abolish stamp duty too.
Tax property annually, whether you move or not. Why should a millionaire with a stable million pound home not pay taxes, but one who moves does?
Every property will be sold eventually. And moving sooner means you are more likely to avoid CGT as the value goes up over time.
No it won't, as you'll still be taxed on the CGT next time you move again anyway.
If you get taxed CGT every time you move, then someone who moves 5 times for a career would take five hits to their equity. Every time they'd lose a slice of their equity and have to rebuild it from savings or increased mortgage, just to get back to where they were before. Someone who doesn't move, never takes that hit.
Why charge mobility, which is a good thing, rather than sitting on assets, which is not?
If someone sits in a family home of five bedrooms, by themselves, long after the kids have flown the coup because they want to avoid CGT and stamp duty, is that a good thing?
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
OTOH it does protect people from having a gaga or malicious parent who leaves everything to the cat's home or some manipulative sect. Or who leave a child out of the will for no good reason.
IT doesn't belong to the state. So that line of argument is irrelevant.
The relevant laws date from ancient times, though obviously modified in modern era (e.g. to cater for illegitimacy, adoption).
Also - one does have absolute freedom to dispose of a proportion of one's estate, though, whatever happens. Depends on the details. If one does not have close relatives it is much less of a restriction.
Just seen Starmer's questions at PMQ. Weak from him and Truss has been taken in hand and given some Rolls Royce coaching.
If there is no requirement for the PM to actually answer the questions, then it is basically a pointless exercise in my view. Starmer can't do anything about it. The parroting of a few phrases alongside coached theatrical posturing shows contempt for the format, and drives cynicism in politics. It is a bit sad that it is like this as there were historically some great moments in PMQs.
Edit - in the past if you just refused to answer the questions the way that Truss does you would be torn to shreds by the media. Now there is just so much noise PMQs has just become a throwback to ancient times.
The rather critical thing about PMQs that many don't understand is that the general public isn't the intended audience. It's about internal party morale more than anything else. Which makes the silence today the most important element to take away from it.
Incidentally, the most important statistic of the day was the 14% inflation in food costs, significantly above the 10.1% general inflation. While the middle classes can pretty much shrug this off, food costs are the largest single item of spending for those who are poor.
As a result, it would be calamitous to not increase benefits by at least the rate of inflation. I pointed recently to my Co-op sunflower oil rising from £1.19 to £2.40 in less than a year. Repeat this, or similar, across lots of basic foods and those who have to spend much of their income on food are absolutely stuffed.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The National Insurance threshold has been aligned with Income Tax now hasn't it? So someone only getting State Pension is exempt from it?
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
Keeping the triple lock on the state pension but taxing well-off pensioners who have big additional incomes would also be fair in the sense that it would represent intragenerational burden sharing.
Pensioners with incomes get taxed the same as non pensioners, another thick idiot spouts crap.
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.
Too many people disagree with this excellent statement. My parents home is not mine. It's theirs, and what they do with it is entirely up to them. Mortgage it to the hilt and put the entire lot on Red this afternoon if they want.
My mum has sometimes 'apologised' for taking a small loan on the house a few years ago. I told her nothing to do with me. Her house, her money.
I don't know what people used to do when a family size was 4 or 5 kids. How did we cope? Too entitled is everyone. Oldies for not wanting their triple lock touched, but kids too for wanting their parents house mortgage free when they die (and ideally not split between their sibling...)
Is it really the kids? My parents see a share of their money as mine when they pass away. I don't see it as mine at all and it is theirs to do as they please with. I don't think that split in perceptions is unusual at all.
My parents view is admirable at the individual level but I think causes problems at the collective level if we want a meritocratic society.
Indeed if pensioners felt more inclined to spend the money they do have there would actually be less need to tax their wealth or worry about the triple lock!
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
There's a lot to be said for the theory that your money doesn't belong to anyone once you are dead, and it is therefore entirely up to the state what happens to it.
What's wrong with capital gains tax on primary residence sales?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
Its a terrible idea because it taxes mobility, not assets. If you sell a £250k home to move house to another £250k home, then what "gain" have you made? We should abolish stamp duty too.
Tax property annually, whether you move or not. Why should a millionaire with a stable million pound home not pay taxes, but one who moves does?
Every property will be sold eventually. And moving sooner means you are more likely to avoid CGT as the value goes up over time.
No it won't, as you'll still be taxed on the CGT next time you move again anyway.
If you get taxed CGT every time you move, then someone who moves 5 times for a career would take five hits to their equity. Every time they'd lose a slice of their equity and have to rebuild it from savings or increased mortgage, just to get back to where they were before. Someone who doesn't move, never takes that hit.
Why charge mobility, which is a good thing, rather than sitting on assets, which is not?
If someone sits in a family home of five bedrooms, by themselves, long after the kids have flown the coup because they want to avoid CGT and stamp duty, is that a good thing?
CGT on main residence is a horrible idea. It's an amazing way to encourage older people NOT to downsize to be frank.
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
PAYING. FOR. YOUR. OWN. NEEDS. IS. NOT. PROPERTY. THEFT.
Taking the majority of the value of your home to pay care costs is theft.
Why? Its part of your assets. You need care - you realize some of your assets into cash to pay for care. Its no different from equity release to pay for a holiday, or to give to relatives for a deposit on a house. Why should the state (and remember the state is just shorthand for tax-payers) pay for your care if you have assets?
A contribution of £86k from your estate would still be paid even under the care costs cap. However beyond that National insurance should pay for social care, as it in part was set up to fund healthcare, not the entirety of the family estate
Why though? NI is just another tax. If it was truly an insurance to pay for healthcare and social care I suspect it would be a lot more expensive for the consumer/tax payer.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Not sure about that, I'd have thought that current circumstances favour concentrating on immediate income. Save for the rainy day when the sun's shining, not when it's peeing down with rain.
Phase it in and this isn't for people like us who will be making AVCs and have money invested in ISAs etc... this would be for your Tesco shelf stacker earning an hourly wage that stacks up to £20-24k per year and ensuring that they will have a sizeable pension pot in retirement because the state pension doesn't seem sustainable and will likely be gone or worth a pittance in 30 years.
Where are these 20-24k per annum shelf stacking jobs?
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
OTOH it does protect people from having a gaga or malicious parent who leaves everything to the cat's home or some manipulative sect. Or who leave a child out of the will for no good reason.
IT doesn't belong to the state. So that line of argument is irrelevant.
The relevant laws date from ancient times, though obviously modified in modern era (e.g. to cater for illegitimacy, adoption).
Also - one does have absolute freedom to dispose of a proportion of one's estate, though, whatever happens. Depends on the details. If one does not have close relatives it is much less of a restriction.
If they are gaga then they cant make a will.....sound mind applies
What you consider no good reason might differ from what they consider good reason.
Sorry don't care when it dates from or its part of ancient law. It is wrong that money is distributed in a way disagreed with by the person leaving it. All it does is say to kids you can act like a total shit and still get some money
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582702483750936577 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.
I feel like Apocaliz Now is moving from darkly amusing to genuinely alarming.
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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
Shit happens.
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
The problem comes when the system discourages you from having that rainy day fund.
Discouraging you from having that rainy day fund is a bad thing.
Taxing today's workers so that those who have a rainy day fund don't need to use it, is worse.
Welfare should be a safety net and not a way of life. Taxing people so much they can't make their own savings, in order to use that taxes not on those who need it, but deliberately on those who don't, is perverse.
I agree totally on the principle that you should pay your own way if you can.
I also agree that you should look after your own family if possible rather than dumping them on someone else. That's what I do (at personal cost).
But somehow there needs to be fairness between those that didn't spend all their money on fripperies and those that did.
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
The rational argument for society and thus the state getting a say is that if you give all your money to the donkey sanctuary and leave your children destitute paupers then it's the state (and our taxes) that end up picking up the welfare bill to support them. But I think really this kind of law comes from the same emotional "that's not right" instincts that many people have about inheritance being a parent-to-child natural expectation which also lies behind the dislike of inheritance tax and of social care being paid for out of the parent's wealth. It only takes a few high profile "that seems unjust" cases to prompt lawmaking...
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
core Tory values are nothing to do with tax.
They are to do with spending.
Government should do what it necessary and desirable and not overreach into social engineering.
It should do everything that it does well and efficiently and at the lowest possible cost.
Taxes should be simple, fair, easy to collect and not distort the economy.
(FWIW inheritance tax is not simple or easy to collect, but it is perceived as fair - even though that can be argued from a philosophical position - and reduces distortion in the economy caused by amassing capital).
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.
And the discussion is always about old folk. Plenty of young people get terrible progressive diseases that need social care.
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
Shit happens.
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
I can see involuntary euthanasia rising
There's a bit of an anomoly with dementia & cancer. If you've got say a half a million of assets (And are retired) then cancer treatment won't cost you financially much at all, whereas dementia could well clear you out.
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
There's a lot to be said for the theory that your money doesn't belong to anyone once you are dead, and it is therefore entirely up to the state what happens to it.
No there is actually nothing good that can be said about that view whatsoever
Incidentally, the most important statistic of the day was the 14% inflation in food costs, significantly above the 10.1% general inflation. While the middle classes can pretty much shrug this off, food costs are the largest single item of spending for those who are poor.
As a result, it would be calamitous to not increase benefits by at least the rate of inflation. I pointed recently to my Co-op sunflower oil rising from £1.19 to £2.40 in less than a year. Repeat this, or similar, across lots of basic foods and those who have to spend much of their income on food are absolutely stuffed.
The government should be using this as an opportunity to drive better personal health.
Not so much as in the old debate about healthier food being cheaper or not, but if households are having to rejig their shopping baskets, and most either have to or are choosing to, now is a good time to also think about how to make them that little bit healthier.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
There's a lot to be said for the theory that your money doesn't belong to anyone once you are dead, and it is therefore entirely up to the state what happens to it.
Why? The state doesnt own it. A government department to deal with who gets the Bunnikins figurines. State taking clothes to the charity shop operatives.
I also think now would be a good time for the government to increase the workplace pension to 8% employee and 5% employer contribution. Phase it in over a few years and ensure the current generation of workers have a solid personal pension.
Not sure about that, I'd have thought that current circumstances favour concentrating on immediate income. Save for the rainy day when the sun's shining, not when it's peeing down with rain.
Phase it in and this isn't for people like us who will be making AVCs and have money invested in ISAs etc... this would be for your Tesco shelf stacker earning an hourly wage that stacks up to £20-24k per year and ensuring that they will have a sizeable pension pot in retirement because the state pension doesn't seem sustainable and will likely be gone or worth a pittance in 30 years.
Where are these 20-24k per annum shelf stacking jobs?
The minimum wage is £9.50 per hour, even without any overtime that's £19.8k per year.
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
core Tory values are nothing to do with tax.
They are to do with spending.
Government should do what it necessary and desirable and not overreach into social engineering.
It should do everything that it does well and efficiently and at the lowest possible cost.
Taxes should be simple, fair, easy to collect and not distort the economy.
(FWIW inheritance tax is not simple or easy to collect, but it is perceived as fair - even though that can be argued from a philosophical position - and reduces distortion in the economy caused by amassing capital).
No, again that is core classical liberal Orange Book LD values not traditional 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 incomes get taxed the same as non pensioners, another thick idiot spouts crap.
Oh great, the thick turnip is back who thinks that National Insurance isn't a tax.
It absolutely is a tax, and as an employer when you file a P32 report you make a single payment to HMRC of tax which includes both forms of National Insurance and Income Tax in a single payment.
That National Insurance is not a tax is a less believable lie than Father Christmas.
I see Lizzy made it through PMQs. She was bad, of course, but I went in with such low expectations that it wasn’t quite as much of a car crash as I thought it would be.
Meanwhile the DM (I know, I know) seems to be suggesting a “quad” of Sunak, Mordaunt, Hunt and Wallace is going to take over but at the moment no one can decide what job they’re going to do. Which sounds grimly plausible.
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).
".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
Which is totally wrong, why should the state get to dictate where your money goes after you die. Maybe one of your offspring did something despicable like being a serial rapist. Why would you want them to benefit from your death? Your money does not belong to the state once they have taken any due taxes. They should not dictate how it is distributed
OTOH it does protect people from having a gaga or malicious parent who leaves everything to the cat's home or some manipulative sect. Or who leave a child out of the will for no good reason.
IT doesn't belong to the state. So that line of argument is irrelevant.
The relevant laws date from ancient times, though obviously modified in modern era (e.g. to cater for illegitimacy, adoption).
Also - one does have absolute freedom to dispose of a proportion of one's estate, though, whatever happens. Depends on the details. If one does not have close relatives it is much less of a restriction.
If they are gaga then they cant make a will.....sound mind applies
What you consider no good reason might differ from what they consider good reason.
Sorry don't care when it dates from or its part of ancient law. It is wrong that money is distributed in a way disagreed with by the person leaving it. All it does is say to kids you can act like a total shit and still get some money
Sorry - I forgot to explain that the calculation applies not to heritable property, ie real estate, but only to moveable property, which is evertything else (more ot less). So there is a fair amount more excluded from the legal rights, depending on the sums.
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.
He's a strange one - many tories have often highlighted the flexibility of their core principles as compared to Labour, which they praised as why they are the natural party of government.
Taking a corbynite approach of better to lose than compromise seems out of character, and as with them shows he cannot dislike Labour government that much, since he'd prefer it to the 'wrong' Tories winning.
Also, so much for being a complete loyalist - which I think is good, but is against his stated position.
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.
I'm not sure that's what it says in the party constitution, but that seems about right to me.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The National Insurance threshold has been aligned with Income Tax now hasn't it? So someone only getting State Pension is exempt from it?
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
Keeping the triple lock on the state pension but taxing well-off pensioners who have big additional incomes would also be fair in the sense that it would represent intragenerational burden sharing.
Pensioners with incomes get taxed the same as non pensioners, another thick idiot spouts crap.
Oh great, the thick turnip is back who thinks that National Insurance isn't a tax.
It absolutely is a tax, and as an employer when you file a P32 report you make a single payment to HMRC of tax which includes both forms of National Insurance and Income Tax in a single payment.
That National Insurance is not a tax is a less believable lie than Father Christmas.
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
core Tory values are nothing to do with tax.
They are to do with spending.
Government should do what it necessary and desirable and not overreach into social engineering.
It should do everything that it does well and efficiently and at the lowest possible cost.
Taxes should be simple, fair, easy to collect and not distort the economy.
(FWIW inheritance tax is not simple or easy to collect, but it is perceived as fair - even though that can be argued from a philosophical position - and reduces distortion in the economy caused by amassing capital).
No, again that is core classical liberal Orange Book LD values not traditional Tory values.
Tory values believe in inherited wealth
The Tory Party died 200 years ago this year.
Are you sure you're not a parody, designed to be so outrageous that it drives people to vote Labour?
Tim Farron @timfarron Honestly, when we sent her in undercover, we never thought it would work this well. As we celebrate/mourn today 100 years since the last Liberal PM, Agent Liz is ensuring that the Conservatives now get their opportunity to have a century out of power…
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.
Do you understand the delays in appropriate care caused by fights between LA (which pays for social care) and the NHS (which pays for nursing care even in a care home setting)? Making the division even more stark wouldn’t help matters
Comments
What if your husband gets hit with one in middle age and you've worked your nuts off and saved £50K over the years for the kid's university costs? Half of it has to be swallowed on social care.
But you're right - looks like not happening sadly.
Of course £80k multiplied by 4 is only £320k, so you still need a £120k deposit on top of a mortgage even with 2 earners in London working full time for the average wage to get even a first time buyers property
Starmer was brutal, and Truss was vacuous.
But I think the most astonishing thing was the muted nature of support for her on the Tory benches. They couldn't even be bothered to try and shout Starmer down.
This is over. Even if she doesn't resign, she's completely destroyed her career. The election that never was on crack.
Edit - in the past if you just refused to answer the questions the way that Truss does you would be torn to shreds by the media. Now there is just so much noise PMQs has just become a throwback to ancient times.
I wouldn't be topping up though.
How's this for lovely......
Which was, I might add, in my opinion, shit, mixing two genres I hate: urban and jazz of the most pretentious sort. And moreover, no fun whatsoever.
The moral is, until further notice, bet on the joyless self-indulgent whine and avoid anything which sounds like it might be fun.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1582674138250235905
Replying to
@AlastairMeeks
Good way to oust Truss- defeated on a confidence vote, and then Hunt says to King he thinks he can form a government
https://twitter.com/KitchingDr/status/1582710502496808960
Dementia sucks. It is a horrid, wretched disease, I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'd rather die of cancer than dementia.
But if you've saved for a rainy day, and a rainy day comes, then that is what the savings are there for. Your children might have wanted an inheritance, but your wellbeing should be their first priority, not themselves.
An inheritance should only ever be a "nice to have" not a "have to have". If your funds get consumed because of a rainy day, then they do. The best thing children can inherit is your love, your memories, good ethics etc - intangibles, not money.
So first the Triple lock stays (at the start of the month). Then yesterday it goes (was this Hunt or Truss who wants this) but today its back again (is this Truss or Hunt)?
What the hell is going on?
To take an example: Say you bought a home in London for £100k now worth £1m. That's a 900k gain. Now I think a full rate of 28% would be a bit much. So how about 10%?. Perhaps there could be an allowance of £50k? I'm just playing around here. The important point is the principle of taxing a gain in value. It's absurd that millionaires don't pay CGT when they sell their properties for big gains.
I am not an ideological liberal like you suggest. You have said this to me before and others re their allegiances. Yes I am a LD and have been for many years, but the LDs cannot rely on my vote regardless. There are things I disagree with and will say so and if they stray too far away from me I will leave. No ideology involved just the nearest overlapping of views.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Tax property annually, whether you move or not. Why should a millionaire with a stable million pound home not pay taxes, but one who moves does?
I don't know a single other Tory (out of, say, 150) who would espouse FUDHY's bizaare 'everything overboard except inheritance' views....
Yes the Conservative Party absorbed some free trade Liberals with the rise of Labour socialism whose main principles were paying your own way and lower taxes on income but those are not the core Conservative and Tory values
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582702483750936577
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.
The main principles of Conservativism is personal responsibility, sound money and not making others including future generations pay for your own benefit.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1582712521789964290
My parents home is not mine. It's theirs, and what they do with it is entirely up to them. Mortgage it to the hilt and put the entire lot on Red this afternoon if they want.
My mum has sometimes 'apologised' for taking a small loan on the house a few years ago. I told her nothing to do with me. Her house, her money.
I don't know what people used to do when a family size was 4 or 5 kids. How did we cope?
Too entitled is everyone. Oldies for not wanting their triple lock touched, but kids too for wanting their parents house mortgage free when they die (and ideally not split between their sibling...)
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
a) the triple lock stays, or
b) Truss goes.
Of course, a) and b) could still happen.
I think the Tories are preying on that mentality. Like conmen.
Taxing today's workers so that those who have a rainy day fund don't need to use it, is worse.
Welfare should be a safety net and not a way of life. Taxing people so much they can't make their own savings, in order to use that taxes not on those who need it, but deliberately on those who don't, is perverse.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-pensions-triple-lock-will-condemn-britain
If you get taxed CGT every time you move, then someone who moves 5 times for a career would take five hits to their equity. Every time they'd lose a slice of their equity and have to rebuild it from savings or increased mortgage, just to get back to where they were before. Someone who doesn't move, never takes that hit.
Why charge mobility, which is a good thing, rather than sitting on assets, which is not?
If someone sits in a family home of five bedrooms, by themselves, long after the kids have flown the coup because they want to avoid CGT and stamp duty, is that a good thing?
IT doesn't belong to the state. So that line of argument is irrelevant.
The relevant laws date from ancient times, though obviously modified in modern era (e.g. to cater for illegitimacy, adoption).
Also - one does have absolute freedom to dispose of a proportion of one's estate, though, whatever happens. Depends on the details. If one does not have close relatives it is much less of a restriction.
As a result, it would be calamitous to not increase benefits by at least the rate of inflation. I pointed recently to my Co-op sunflower oil rising from £1.19 to £2.40 in less than a year. Repeat this, or similar, across lots of basic foods and those who have to spend much of their income on food are absolutely stuffed.
My parents view is admirable at the individual level but I think causes problems at the collective level if we want a meritocratic society.
Indeed if pensioners felt more inclined to spend the money they do have there would actually be less need to tax their wealth or worry about the triple lock!
What you consider no good reason might differ from what they consider good reason.
Sorry don't care when it dates from or its part of ancient law. It is wrong that money is distributed in a way disagreed with by the person leaving it. All it does is say to kids you can act like a total shit and still get some money
I also agree that you should look after your own family if possible rather than dumping them on someone else. That's what I do (at personal cost).
But somehow there needs to be fairness between those that didn't spend all their money on fripperies and those that did.
They are to do with spending.
Government should do what it necessary and desirable and not overreach into social engineering.
It should do everything that it does well and efficiently and at the lowest possible cost.
Taxes should be simple, fair, easy to collect and not distort the economy.
(FWIW inheritance tax is not simple or easy to collect, but it is perceived as fair - even though that can be argued from a philosophical position - and reduces distortion in the economy caused by amassing capital).
Not so much as in the old debate about healthier food being cheaper or not, but if households are having to rejig their shopping baskets, and most either have to or are choosing to, now is a good time to also think about how to make them that little bit healthier.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Tory values believe in inherited wealth
It absolutely is a tax, and as an employer when you file a P32 report you make a single payment to HMRC of tax which includes both forms of National Insurance and Income Tax in a single payment.
That National Insurance is not a tax is a less believable lie than Father Christmas.
Meanwhile the DM (I know, I know) seems to be suggesting a “quad” of Sunak, Mordaunt, Hunt and Wallace is going to take over but at the moment no one can decide what job they’re going to do. Which sounds grimly plausible.
Taking a corbynite approach of better to lose than compromise seems out of character, and as with them shows he cannot dislike Labour government that much, since he'd prefer it to the 'wrong' Tories winning.
Also, so much for being a complete loyalist - which I think is good, but is against his stated position.
Are you sure you're not a parody, designed to be so outrageous that it drives people to vote Labour?
Tim Farron
@timfarron
Honestly, when we sent her in undercover, we never thought it would work this well. As we celebrate/mourn today 100 years since the last Liberal PM, Agent Liz is ensuring that the Conservatives now get their opportunity to have a century out of power…