A question - should the retired elderly pay for the costs of their own cancer treatment ?
In a resource limited environment the taxpayer has an unlimited liability in healthcare costs, that mismatch will eventually tell and some kind of upper limit based on age or money will be imposed unless healthcare can be hugely automated in the next 10-15 years.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
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.
Tpo be fair, it's a platypus of an imposition - it has hair but lays eggs and has a duck's beak. You're both right and both wrong. The trouble is the contractual element which is not found in any other tax that I can think of offhand* (other than the general principlke of "pay your taxes and we won't send you to jail").
Edit: *other than the road fund licence and the dog licence of lamented memory. Butd that's not quite the same thing, or is it?
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?
The same argument could be applied to any medical care, though. The distinction between which medical conditions fall under the NHS and which fall under "social care" seems rather arbitrary.
A question - should the retired elderly pay for the costs of their own cancer treatment ?
In a resource limited environment the taxpayer has an unlimited liability in healthcare costs, that mismatch will eventually tell and some kind of upper limit based on age or money will be imposed unless healthcare can be hugely automated in the next 10-15 years.
Even if it could be automated I don't think we have the cash to automate it.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The National Insurance threshold has been aligned with Income Tax now hasn't it? So someone only getting State Pension is exempt from it?
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
Keeping the triple lock on the state pension but taxing well-off pensioners who have big additional incomes would also be fair in the sense that it would represent intragenerational burden sharing.
Pensioners with incomes get taxed the same as non pensioners, another thick idiot spouts crap.
taxed yes, but they don’t pay NI on pension income - which is why I pay less overall living in the U.K. than I did in the so-called “tax haven” of Guernsey.
I hope Hunt uses this crisis to roll NI into income tax - I’ll be worse off, but it will be fairer, especially if poor pensioners who rely on the state pension are going to get a 10% increase (which many private pension recipients won’t see anything like, being capped at 5%).
After the major disruption of COVID and now the war in Ukraine, time for radical measures.
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
Please take this in the positive spirit it is intended. I think you are getting way too wound up about this. Suggest you shut down your computer and come back to PB tomorrow
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?
No it didn't, the current Tory Party is still a key part of today's Conservative Party just with a few free trade Liberals and Unionists added 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
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
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?
No it didn't, the current Tory Party is still a key part of today's Conservative Party just with a few free trade Liberals and Unionists added on
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.
Much to the family's amusement one of our close relatives spent no end of time moving people in and out of her will according to perceived sleights or being in her good books. The irony was that when she finally died in her late 90s she had been in a care home for years and had been going through her wealth, her house etc at such a rate of knots there was about enough left for a decent donation to the dogs home!
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Dead right. Cf Davey on warm water to wash incontinent son.
Clearly Labour should be trying to keep Truss hanging on, which makes Starmers job much harder than when he is trying to put further pressure on the PM du jour.
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.
THey paid through the nose for it so are entitled to receive it.
@William_Wragg says he wishes to maintain the letter he’s already put in to Sir Graham Brady so he will follow the whip on the fracking vote
Still means he's voting for the local beauty spot to be ruined by Fracking.
The excuse will be forgotten but the vote will be remembered in multiple Lib Dem leaflets between now and the next election.
Actually I expect that the whole thing will be ancient history by the time of the GE, given that there is zero chance of allowing fracking being government policy by then.
Any recommendations for a political biography?. No tories. I'm off to Saudi for Arabic immersion and motorbike accidents next week so I need something to read on the flight.
Something I can torrent because I'm not down for giving money to Uncle Jeff or professional authors.
The Years of Lyndon Johnson, The Path to Power? The whole series is a classic.
My dad's leaving me that. Meant to be the best ever polbio. You'd need a long flight though.
I’d go long - Christian Meier’s Caesar is a master class
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.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
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?
No it didn't, the current Tory Party is still a key part of today's Conservative Party just with a few free trade Liberals and Unionists added on
Not many if you keep personally telling them to join other parties....
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?
The same argument could be applied to any medical care, though. The distinction between which medical conditions fall under the NHS and which fall under "social care" seems rather arbitrary.
I agree with you on this point - medical costs are NHS, yet some conditions don't require medical care as such. I do not believe that the country has ever decided that all social care costs should be borne by the tax-payer in the way that the NHS is funded.
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?
No it didn't, the current Tory Party is still a key part of today's Conservative Party just with a few free trade Liberals and Unionists added on
Oh, so unionists aren't proper Tories?
Conservatives yes, not Tories no.
Ironically some of the Liberal Unionists like Chamberlain were protectionist in contrast to the free trade Peelites who added together with the Tories largely created today's Conservative and Unionist Party
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
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
If you ever applied, I’d try to make sure they refused your application.
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…
And there was me just getting ready to vote Lib Dem. Does nobody actually want my vote?
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
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…
And there was me just getting ready to vote Lib Dem. Does nobody actually want my vote?
Tis a joke - Tim Farron is actually quite good at them.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing.
True in a sense from the Speccie article; but if the government and parliament call a compulsory imposition "National Insurance" the general public are entitled to assume it is and does what it says on the tin. The clue is in the name. And entitlement to this aspect of welfare (unlike the NHS and UC) really does depend upon contributing directly with real amounts of money, decided by government not the contributor, or indirectly (through child care).
I still (as a pensioner) think the triple lock is terrible, but would perhaps stop thinking so if I had to live on pension+ p credit.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
I really could not care less what label you think I am, but I can tell you that none of my children expect the state to pay for our care if we need it and your attitude will be distasteful to many
You are still a Liberal not a Tory.
Preserving inheritance is one of the core values of Toryism
To hell with your vision of Toryism.
I believe in people being able to work for a living, and work for their own home. That was the vision of Lawson and Thatcher, not having taxpayers pay for your inheritance.
@HYUFD is there self interest here? We know you probably came from a wealthy family (Grandad's job, privately educated, etc) and you live in the South of England and probably don't earn a huge salary. But why should you get a boost over someone else like you, who doesn't have a well off family to fall back on. We should be encouraging self reliance to boost the economy (as long as we look after those that can't).
Another point of interest - not specifically relating to HYUFD, though it may be relevant for all I know - is that inheritances are not reliable. Mum and Dad might leave all their wealth to Peckham Pussies' Home, or indeed the Conservative Party or SNP. Or to some unknown cousin because they CBA to update their wills. Or they bought into bitcoin at the peak. Or were swindled by someone exploiting the fiscal "freedom" and "choice" and "deregulation".
At least in Scotland the family get *something* by law, even if the will says differently.
I had such a thing arise. I have never inherited anything, but I nearly did. My grandfather owned a grocer's shop in Wandsworth. He bought a house which he rented out. When he died it was left to his 4 children and had to be sold. Sadly this was in the days before Wandsworth was desirable so it wasn't a lot of money. One of my Uncles lived in the house and was now homeless and couldn't afford to buy a house anywhere on his quarter, so the rest chipped in some of their inheritance to buy him a flat outside of London. That was on the understanding that when he and his wife died it was left to his nephews and nieces. I was an executor. He died, then his wife died sometime later. I contacted the solicitor only to have one of those embarrassing calls. She had changed the will. She apparently had no living relatives, but lo and behold some had appeared in the meantime and she left it to them.
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.
This is nothing to do with inheritance
It provides for certainty and a regular market. In providing certainty you enable insurance companies to step in and fund a large chunk of the cost (which can be made mandatory to purchase if you want) because they can price it.
That’s really the purpose here. At the moment it’s very difficult to insure the market as a whole.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
Minimum wage will be 40 hour minimum in many places - possibly more.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
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…
And there was me just getting ready to vote Lib Dem. Does nobody actually want my vote?
Tis a joke - Tim Farron is actually quite good at them.
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.
This is nothing to do with inheritance
It provides for certainty and a regular market. In providing certainty you enable insurance companies to step in and fund a large chunk of the cost (which can be made mandatory to purchase if you want) because they can price it.
That’s really the purpose here. At the moment it’s very difficult to insure the market as a whole.
No, its just about inheritance.
If you have a million pound estate and are currently liable to £900k being potentially used to pay for your own expenses, then being told only £86k might be used to pay for your own expenses and the rest will be paid by other people's taxes . . . that's not required welfare, and its not justifiable. The £86k isn't the issue, its the blank cheque at taxpayers expense that is inexcusable.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
Oh I don't think anyone here is talking about taking the state pension away from those who have worked for it and need it.
Most want the state pension to be increased so that pension credit isn't required and then tax changed enough so it tapers away if you are wealthy enough to not really need it.
We then have a separate question regarding NI and pensions on which I personally think some portion of it should be paid by pensions but probably at a lower rate than 12% (because you aren't "saving" towards a pension / unemployment benefits) but should still be paying towards your health care costs.
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. On top, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
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.
PMQs is not really the battleground today. That is fracking, whatever the hell is going on with her advisors - and the group of those being assembled for the top jobs which her removal requires.
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
How is giving someone a contract of employment with a DB pension clause in it, misselling pensions, if you are able to and intend to pay the pension?
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
How is giving someone a contract of employment with a DB pension clause in it, misselling pensions, if you are able to and intend to pay the pension?
Because they weren't able to, and weren't intending to.
They were thinking that someone else later down the line would pay instead.
That's not paying for it, that's a Pyramid Scheme.
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…
And there was me just getting ready to vote Lib Dem. Does nobody actually want my vote?
Tis a joke - Tim Farron is actually quite good at them.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
Thats true TBF
I actually agree that asking for Pay Restraint and then allowing the Golden Generation to get more than double the % increase of their working counterparts is immoral
I say that as a recent member of the Pensioner Gravy Train
A piece of anecdata suggesting why US phone polls are not necessarily to be trusted.
https://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1582713246473068545 “In the poll we have in the field right now, only 0.4 percent of dials have yielded a completed interview. If you were employed as one of our interviewers at a call center, you would have to dial numbers for two hours to get a single completed interview.”
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Fair enough, it's been 15 years or so since I did an hourly rate retail job, back then it was 1.5x to work Saturday and 2x to work Sunday at £4.35/h or something like that.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
How is giving someone a contract of employment with a DB pension clause in it, misselling pensions, if you are able to and intend to pay the pension?
Because they weren't able to, and weren't intending to.
They were thinking that someone else later down the line would pay instead.
That's not paying for it, that's a Pyramid Scheme.
Hahaha
"They" are the government, and their ability to pay stems from their ability to print money.
If you don't like it you can vote them out, can't you? With that sovereignty you've reclaimed? Why do you hate freedom all of a sudden?
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.
PMQs is not really the battleground today. That is fracking, whatever the hell is going on with her advisors - and the group of those being assembled for the top jobs which her removal requires.
Perhaps those clever advisers have been encouraging her up over the wall of the trench, assuring her that the enemy has surely run out of bullets?
Is it? Its central claim that OMG it's going to ratchet up and up and up omits the point that it will still be the lowest state pension in the first world after any amount of ratcheting.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
How is giving someone a contract of employment with a DB pension clause in it, misselling pensions, if you are able to and intend to pay the pension?
Because they weren't able to, and weren't intending to.
They were thinking that someone else later down the line would pay instead.
That's not paying for it, that's a Pyramid Scheme.
Hahaha
"They" are the government, and their ability to pay stems from their ability to print money.
If you don't like it you can vote them out, can't you? With that sovereignty you've reclaimed? Why do you hate freedom all of a sudden?
I do support voting out the scoundrels that have lied to us in the past and made broken promises.
Indeed that's happened many times through any pensioners lifetime, so what's one more set of scoundrels being kicked out after they been shown to be dishonest and made promises they can't keep?
Anyone who was missold a pension, under the belief they'd paid for it, when they hadn't, has my sympathies. As does anyone who was missold by any other Pyramid scheme scam artists like Bernie Madoff.
The fact that the scoundrel here is politicians down the ages, rather than Madoff, doesn't make things any different.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
How is giving someone a contract of employment with a DB pension clause in it, misselling pensions, if you are able to and intend to pay the pension?
Seeing as you have no idea how long an employee might live for, the pension has to be valued on a pot/annuity basis. Staying in cash would require extraordinarily large sums to fund the pension - so some investment risk is needed. & how can the investments be guaranteed to make sufficient money to come to the value of the pot that is required to generate the annuity ?
UNLESS
You're the state so it's essentially an unlimited liability to the taxpayer.
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…
And there was me just getting ready to vote Lib Dem. Does nobody actually want my vote?
Tis a joke - Tim Farron is actually quite good at them.
A very off-putting one.
Only in your rather lopsided and blinkered mind.
I voted for the Lib Dems as recently as 2017. I'm not sure they can afford to be discouraging people like me!
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
Didn't you vote REMAIN in 2016? You only supported Leave because Leave won! A bit like General Fromm quickly dispatching (against orders) Colonel von Stauffenberg in July 1944.
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?
The point is that the longer a property is owned for the bigger the CGT bill is likely to be. Particularly if you have allowances. So yes someone could stay for the next 30 years in their 5 bedroom home. And when the property is sold the CGT bill is likely to be very big.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
Indeed. The Thatcher government removed the link with earnings - with the State Pension thereafter linked to inflation as then measured by the RPI. Labour failed to restore the link after returning to office in 1997 - leading to quite a row with the redoubtable Barbara Castle who campaigned strongly for it to be restored.
Blimey, an article in the spectator that is completely spot on. Stopped clocks and all that.
It's borderline-literate nonsense.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
Sure it does. And no liability towards a triple lock was ever announced or an accrued liability when people were paying the limited taxes they were paying that were insufficient to fund their retirement either.
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
There is no argument to the contrary as far as DB benefits are concerned.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
The scoundrels are the people who've been misselling pensions in the past, not the people alarmed at that misselling coming home to roost.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
How is giving someone a contract of employment with a DB pension clause in it, misselling pensions, if you are able to and intend to pay the pension?
Seeing as you have no idea how long an employee might live for, the pension has to be valued on a pot/annuity basis. Staying in cash would require extraordinarily large sums to fund the pension - so some investment risk is needed. & how can the investments be guaranteed to make sufficient money to come to the value of the pot that is required to generate the annuity ?
UNLESS
You're the state so it's essentially an unlimited liability to the taxpayer.
Quite. And it is only the state DB pensions that Barty has in his sights.
Nothing "essentially unlimited" about it though. The govt has actuaries to calculate person/years of liabilities and the near certainty that its receipts are going to rise with inflation in rough lockstep with its liabilities.
And has had the benefit of the money it has saved over the years by paying low salaries in exchange for high pensions.
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Fair enough, it's been 15 years or so since I did an hourly rate retail job, back then it was 1.5x to work Saturday and 2x to work Sunday at £4.35/h or something like that.
I looked in to getting a job at Aldi stacking shelves a few months ago, just out of interest. It was a 1 year contract. The terms on offer were part time and minimum wage, 15-30 hours per week, they offer you the hours at the start of the month, you have to accept them, not a particularly stable job. Not sure how representative that is though.
I think the full time jobs are more supervisory, IE Asda are paying £11.10 / hour for 40 hours per week for a 'section leader', that is just under 20k per year. See below for example.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
Didn't you vote REMAIN in 2016? You only supported Leave because Leave won! A bit like General Fromm quickly dispatching (against orders) Colonel von Stauffenberg in July 1944.
How you voted on Brexit has no difference to whether you are a Tory or Liberal, even if like me you accepted the result. UKIP and the Brexit Party were defined by backing Brexit, the Tories aren't given their leader at the time of the referendum opposed it even if they have accepted the result and delivered it with an EU trade deal
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Fair enough, it's been 15 years or so since I did an hourly rate retail job, back then it was 1.5x to work Saturday and 2x to work Sunday at £4.35/h or something like that.
I looked in to getting a job at Aldi stacking shelves a few months ago, just out of interest. It was a 1 year contract. The terms on offer were part time and minimum wage, 15-30 hours per week, they offer you the hours at the start of the month, you have to accept them, not a particularly stable job. Not sure how representative that is though.
I think the full time jobs are more supervisory, IE Asda are paying £11.10 / hour for 40 hours per week for a 'section leader', that is just under 20k per year. See below for example.
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. On top, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
You are assuming that they have spare cash though to make AVC's for many of these workers paying more into a pension now would leave them destitute. They are not people with a lot of discretionary money in their monthly budgets but rather the people who end up going to a pay day loan company if unexpected expenses crop up
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Fair enough, it's been 15 years or so since I did an hourly rate retail job, back then it was 1.5x to work Saturday and 2x to work Sunday at £4.35/h or something like that.
I looked in to getting a job at Aldi stacking shelves a few months ago, just out of interest. It was a 1 year contract. The terms on offer were part time and minimum wage, 15-30 hours per week, they offer you the hours at the start of the month, you have to accept them, not a particularly stable job. Not sure how representative that is though.
I think the full time jobs are more supervisory, IE Asda are paying £11.10 / hour for 40 hours per week for a 'section leader', that is just under 20k per year. See below for example.
How are you calculating £11.10 at 40h per week to be below £20k?
I'm pretty sure if you got a job at any Asda, Sainsbury's or whatever other retail they'd have you working 40h per week or more pretty quickly. They all have huge staff shortages, especially in their warehouses and distribution sections.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
Having a nationwide tax-funded quasi-insurance scheme is actually much the most, if not the only, way of resolving this, so that well-heeled healthy-to-the-enders are paying for well-heeled five-years-in-a-homers.
@William_Wragg says he wishes to maintain the letter he’s already put in to Sir Graham Brady so he will follow the whip on the fracking vote
Still means he's voting for the local beauty spot to be ruined by Fracking.
That is still a lie.
Nope. Given there is evidence that he voted to allow fracking (shown in today's vote) where is the lie?
Because the vote today is not to allow fracking, it's to not make Sir Keir effectively Prime Minister.
The only thing in the bill today that matters is Fracking the rest is just word tennis which will be totally ignored.
literally the bill reads
That this House calls on the Government to introduce a ban on hydraulic fracking for shale gas; and makes provision as set out in this Order:
The detail beneath it is irrelevant - any vote No is a vote for fracking
Not at all. If Labour's motion is defeated and the government amendment passes, what happens about fracking? Absolutely nothing - it's still uneconomic for the companies to proceed with it.
And if that was all that mattered, they wouldn't have put in the "make Sir Keir de facto PM" clauses that follow after the bit you quoted.
@William_Wragg says he wishes to maintain the letter he’s already put in to Sir Graham Brady so he will follow the whip on the fracking vote
Still means he's voting for the local beauty spot to be ruined by Fracking.
That is still a lie.
Nope. Given there is evidence that he voted to allow fracking (shown in today's vote) where is the lie?
Because the vote today is not to allow fracking, it's to not make Sir Keir effectively Prime Minister.
The only thing in the bill today that matters is Fracking the rest is just word tennis which will be totally ignored.
literally the bill reads
That this House calls on the Government to introduce a ban on hydraulic fracking for shale gas; and makes provision as set out in this Order:
The detail beneath it is irrelevant - any vote No is a vote for fracking
Not at all. If Labour's motion is defeated and the government amendment passes, what happens about fracking? Absolutely nothing - it's still uneconomic for the companies to proceed with it.
But unless it's banned between now and the next election it's still a risk and one that opposition candidates will make hay with.
Lots of arguments over inheritance here, but lets just get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
Having a nationwide tax-funded quasi-insurance scheme is actually much the most, if not the only, way of resolving this, so that well-heeled healthy-to-the-enders are paying for well-heeled five-years-in-a-homers.
Which was what the social care levy was going to be until Truss and Kwasi killed it and killed it in such a way that it couldn't be reversed 3 weeks later.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Agreed
Then you are a Liberal not a Tory too
Just wondering whether you would like to come out with our LD canvassing teams?
Please wear a blue rosette.
I don't want people voting for my party who are ideological Liberals, I would rather lose as a Tory than win as a Liberal.
Though given how unpopular the dementia tax was Bart wants back it is hardly a vote winner anyway
If your definition of being a tory is being a scrounging arse that likes to take money off the poor who can barely feed, heat and house themselves to keep himself rich then yes you are a tory.
The National insurance rise went to above average earners, not the poor
So what if it did, it was nowhere near enough to cover social care costs. That means the bulk comes out of general taxation.
Here is a thought if you want to keep your inheritance intact why don't you care for your elderly parents instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it so you don't have to and keep your undeserved wealth? Oh probably too much trouble and would interfere with your comfortable lifestyle too much.
I am a natural right winger but your views sicken me and if they really are the views of most tories(which I doubt) then your party deserves to die in a fire.
Yes, families can care for relatives who are sick as much as possible, again a core Conservative value. However there comes a point with severe dementia that is not possible and care assistance is needed
Yep and that assistance should be provided if you can't afford it, but if you do have a bucket load of assets you should pay for it just as you pay for everything else.
Your argument is that everyone should get benefits because poor people do.
Even under the care costs cap, you would still contribute up to £86k for your social care costs, just not lose all your estate to pay for it.
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
You missed the point. You are proposing a huge benefit to be given to people who are wealthy just because poor people get it. That is contribution to their care.
Today’s big revelation, distracting us from the parlous state of our country, is that years and years of HY posts weren’t motivated by political principal but are simply concerned about shielding his anticipated inheritance from tax.
No also principle, Tory principle.
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
I call BS and suspect you are simply trying to advance your own self interest.
You clearly have little knowledge of political history, the Tory Party was founded to protect the monarchy, landed interest, inherited wealth and established church. It was the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and the merchant class and industrial capitalists.
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
But why do you find it wothwhile to spend time and money in 2022 defending the landowners and inheritors? Are you one yourself? If so, isn't that a bit selfish and unchristian? If no, then wtf?
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Fair enough, it's been 15 years or so since I did an hourly rate retail job, back then it was 1.5x to work Saturday and 2x to work Sunday at £4.35/h or something like that.
I looked in to getting a job at Aldi stacking shelves a few months ago, just out of interest. It was a 1 year contract. The terms on offer were part time and minimum wage, 15-30 hours per week, they offer you the hours at the start of the month, you have to accept them, not a particularly stable job. Not sure how representative that is though.
I think the full time jobs are more supervisory, IE Asda are paying £11.10 / hour for 40 hours per week for a 'section leader', that is just under 20k per year. See below for example.
How are you calculating £11.10 at 40h per week to be below £20k?
I'm pretty sure if you got a job at any Asda, Sainsbury's or whatever other retail they'd have you working 40h per week or more pretty quickly. They all have huge staff shortages, especially in their warehouses and distribution sections.
You are right - £19.5 k p/a is the take home pay (£1632/month). It is £23k gross income (before tax and NI). That is actually a pretty decent wage, all in all.
Is it? Its central claim that OMG it's going to ratchet up and up and up omits the point that it will still be the lowest state pension in the first world after any amount of ratcheting.
I'm not sure "other countries run even more unsustainable models" is the killer point you think it is.
Suggested solution for the IR35/Employers NI hole that the Governments have got themselves into. - Have a separate corporation tax rate for PSCs. Set this to 35% (or 10% above the standard corporation tax rate for big businesses)
That's it. No more fiddling about. Government gets 35% on payments (no threshold) plus dividend tax, which leaves contractors in the same ballpark as employees (a little better off, but we're talking a couple of percent at most - and the uncertainty/holiday pay/flexibility accounts for much of that).
@eek - how close would that be to closing the financial gap for HMRC?
@William_Wragg says he wishes to maintain the letter he’s already put in to Sir Graham Brady so he will follow the whip on the fracking vote
Still means he's voting for the local beauty spot to be ruined by Fracking.
That is still a lie.
Nope. Given there is evidence that he voted to allow fracking (shown in today's vote) where is the lie?
Because the vote today is not to allow fracking, it's to not make Sir Keir effectively Prime Minister.
The only thing in the bill today that matters is Fracking the rest is just word tennis which will be totally ignored.
literally the bill reads
That this House calls on the Government to introduce a ban on hydraulic fracking for shale gas; and makes provision as set out in this Order:
The detail beneath it is irrelevant - any vote No is a vote for fracking
Not at all. If Labour's motion is defeated and the government amendment passes, what happens about fracking? Absolutely nothing - it's still uneconomic for the companies to proceed with it.
But unless it's banned between now and the next election it's still a risk and one that opposition candidates will make hay with.
If the companies publicly withdraw on the basis of it being uneconomic, that would neuter the issue - and I think that's very likely. So why waste time with a ban?
Do we need an outright ban on hydraulic fracking? Can't it just be safely regulated? And if there is no commercial interest in doing so on those terms, who cares?
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.
That's more than I thought, but still £18.5 k per year (37.5 hr week)
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
I think 40h per week is the standard full time for hourly rate employees (at least it was when I was one), additionally they will be working overtime and they get Sunday and bank holiday pay as extra. A full time shelf stacker at Sainsbury's would earn £21.3k outside of London and £23.5k in London before overtime and Sunday/bank holiday pay rates are taken into account. Additionally, they get a 10% discount on store purchases. It's not something I would do, but my point is that these people are going to be wholly reliant on the state pension and whatever meagre private pension pot they have, now is a great time to push up those contributions so that meagre becomes reasonable.
I think Sunday has been paid at standard hourly rates for years now. Bank holidays may be different but it's a long time since I looked at the part of the employment market.
Fair enough, it's been 15 years or so since I did an hourly rate retail job, back then it was 1.5x to work Saturday and 2x to work Sunday at £4.35/h or something like that.
I looked in to getting a job at Aldi stacking shelves a few months ago, just out of interest. It was a 1 year contract. The terms on offer were part time and minimum wage, 15-30 hours per week, they offer you the hours at the start of the month, you have to accept them, not a particularly stable job. Not sure how representative that is though.
I think the full time jobs are more supervisory, IE Asda are paying £11.10 / hour for 40 hours per week for a 'section leader', that is just under 20k per year. See below for example.
How are you calculating £11.10 at 40h per week to be below £20k?
I'm pretty sure if you got a job at any Asda, Sainsbury's or whatever other retail they'd have you working 40h per week or more pretty quickly. They all have huge staff shortages, especially in their warehouses and distribution sections.
You are right - £19.5 k p/a is the take home pay (£1632/month). It is £23k gross income (before tax and NI). That is actually a pretty decent wage, all in all.
Which was my earlier point about raising the minimum wage and dumping all of the in working benefits. If someone wants to work part time then we should let them make that as a lifestyle choice and stand the cost of doing so rather than having a complex system of in working benefits where someone working 20h per week will see a net gain that is vanishingly small compared to working 16h per week.
We find goods trade from UK to EU is down 16% and from EU to UK is down 20% from January 2021 onwards. Establishing the impact of Brexit is complicated because of Covid, supply chain issues and various data changes.
Comments
I don't oppose benefits for the poor either if out of work or on a very low income. I am a One Nation Tory not a classical liberal
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1582694461704146944
Dead right. Cf Davey on warm water to wash incontinent son.
Edit: *other than the road fund licence and the dog licence of lamented memory. Butd that's not quite the same thing, or is it?
PARLY @PARLYapp
@William_Wragg says he wishes to maintain the letter he’s already put in to Sir Graham Brady so he will follow the whip on the fracking vote
I hope Hunt uses this crisis to roll NI into income tax - I’ll be worse off, but it will be fairer, especially if poor pensioners who rely on the state pension are going to get a 10% increase (which many private pension recipients won’t see anything like, being capped at 5%).
After the major disruption of COVID and now the war in Ukraine, time for radical measures.
Sam Blewett
@BlewettSam
Liz Truss has pulled out of a scheduled visit this afternoon
No 10 has not given a reason for the last-minute cancellation of the trip, during which she was expected to take questions from broadcasters
Not particularly interesting except it was only announced at 1pm that it was going ahead.
https://twitter.com/AaronBell4NUL/status/1582700587908730880
The excuse will be forgotten but the vote will be remembered in multiple Lib Dem leaflets between now and the next election.
"More than just unsustainable, it isn’t particularly just. No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing."
How a payment is funded has no logical or legal bearing AT ALL on the nature of the liability it is discharging.
He's Brady's right hand man.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=caesar+meier&adgrpid=118548543540&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9vKFoa7s-gIVi5ntCh3W0A2zEAAYASAAEgL4PvD_BwE&hvadid=498456960440&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=1006886&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=17441255739369735623&hvtargid=kwd-299419263990&hydadcr=13725_1820902&tag=hydrukspg-21&ref=pd_sl_37ymvl4qer_b
There's an argument to make that DB pensions are a contractual obligation, there is no argument whatsoever that makes the triple lock one.
Ironically some of the Liberal Unionists like Chamberlain were protectionist in contrast to the free trade Peelites who added together with the Tories largely created today's Conservative and Unionist Party
These issues can't be unique to us.
Thinking about it, I suspect the April 2022 increase in the minimum wage will have driven a lot of inflation in supermarket costs, etc.
No matter how many times people tell you they paid their share, the state pension is a benefit, funded out of current taxes and borrowing.
True in a sense from the Speccie article; but if the government and parliament call a compulsory imposition "National Insurance" the general public are entitled to assume it is and does what it says on the tin. The clue is in the name. And entitlement to this aspect of welfare (unlike the NHS and UC) really does depend upon contributing directly with real amounts of money, decided by government not the contributor, or indirectly (through child care).
I still (as a pensioner) think the triple lock is terrible, but would perhaps stop thinking so if I had to live on pension+ p credit.
Still that's life (and death).
It provides for certainty and a regular market. In providing certainty you enable insurance companies to step in and fund a large chunk of the cost (which can be made mandatory to purchase if you want) because they can price it.
That’s really the purpose here. At the moment it’s very difficult to insure the market as a whole.
It is distressingly easy to triangulate your personal circumstances from the direction of your posting. you would like the government to disregard its obligations and ignore the rule of law over DB pensions: you don't have one.
On NI etc, the argument that it is not contractual is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Like declining to settle up bets with fellow PBers because they are not licensed bookies. Most of us like to stand by our word and perform on our promises irrespective of the legalities, and would like our country to do the same. You really can't take money from unsophisticated people under the guise of INSURANCE all their working lives and then say Oooh but *legally* there's no fund, sorry if you were confused.
Disclaimer: I don't qualify for a state pension for 5 years. When I get one I propose to allocate half of it to my drinks bill and give the rest to charity. No skin in the game.
If you have a million pound estate and are currently liable to £900k being potentially used to pay for your own expenses, then being told only £86k might be used to pay for your own expenses and the rest will be paid by other people's taxes . . . that's not required welfare, and its not justifiable. The £86k isn't the issue, its the blank cheque at taxpayers expense that is inexcusable.
Pay for your own care, if you can.
Most want the state pension to be increased so that pension credit isn't required and then tax changed enough so it tapers away if you are wealthy enough to not really need it.
We then have a separate question regarding NI and pensions on which I personally think some portion of it should be paid by pensions but probably at a lower rate than 12% (because you aren't "saving" towards a pension / unemployment benefits) but should still be paying towards your health care costs.
But the triple lock wasn't sold all your life, it is a modern invention that David Cameron came up with. Not a single pensioner has had that promised to them all their life, not one.
They were thinking that someone else later down the line would pay instead.
That's not paying for it, that's a Pyramid Scheme.
Liz Truss has pulled out of a scheduled visit this afternoon
No 10 has not given a reason for the last-minute cancellation of the trip, during which she was expected to take questions from broadcasters
1:54 PM · Oct 19, 2022
I actually agree that asking for Pay Restraint and then allowing the Golden Generation to get more than double the % increase of their working counterparts is immoral
I say that as a recent member of the Pensioner Gravy Train
https://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1582713246473068545
“In the poll we have in the field right now, only 0.4 percent of dials have yielded a completed interview. If you were employed as one of our interviewers at a call center, you would have to dial numbers for two hours to get a single completed interview.”
"They" are the government, and their ability to pay stems from their ability to print money.
If you don't like it you can vote them out, can't you? With that sovereignty you've reclaimed? Why do you hate freedom all of a sudden?
https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1582716055977271296
Too many on here call themselves Tories but are actually just classical Liberals who prefer the Conservatives to Labour normally but ideologically are closer to the Orange Book LDs
Indeed that's happened many times through any pensioners lifetime, so what's one more set of scoundrels being kicked out after they been shown to be dishonest and made promises they can't keep?
Anyone who was missold a pension, under the belief they'd paid for it, when they hadn't, has my sympathies. As does anyone who was missold by any other Pyramid scheme scam artists like Bernie Madoff.
The fact that the scoundrel here is politicians down the ages, rather than Madoff, doesn't make things any different.
Staying in cash would require extraordinarily large sums to fund the pension - so some investment risk is needed.
& how can the investments be guaranteed to make sufficient money to come to the value of the pot that is required to generate the annuity ?
UNLESS
You're the state so it's essentially an unlimited liability to the taxpayer.
@HYUFD wants people who are well off but need care to keep their money and the poorer in society to pay for it.
So taking from the Poor and giving to the Rich. A bit like a confused Robin Hood.
literally the bill reads
That this House calls on the Government to introduce a ban on hydraulic fracking for shale gas; and makes provision as set out in this Order:
The detail beneath it is irrelevant - any vote No is a vote for fracking
Nothing "essentially unlimited" about it though. The govt has actuaries to calculate person/years of liabilities and the near certainty that its receipts are going to rise with inflation in rough lockstep with its liabilities.
And has had the benefit of the money it has saved over the years by paying low salaries in exchange for high pensions.
I think the full time jobs are more supervisory, IE Asda are paying £11.10 / hour for 40 hours per week for a 'section leader', that is just under 20k per year. See below for example.
https://www.asda.jobs/vacancy/section-leader-61810-tamworth/61829/description/
Just with the rise of Labour as the main alternative to the Tories many Liberals joined the Tories to form today's Conservative Party
I'm pretty sure if you got a job at any Asda, Sainsbury's or whatever other retail they'd have you working 40h per week or more pretty quickly. They all have huge staff shortages, especially in their warehouses and distribution sections.
And if that was all that mattered, they wouldn't have put in the "make Sir Keir de facto PM" clauses that follow after the bit you quoted.
The very poorest however don't pay National insurance and Sunak's National insurance rise to pay for social care was focused on higher earners
That is actually a pretty decent wage, all in all.
That's a big decrease in the number of OAPs needing to find one of the biggest monthly expenses.
- Have a separate corporation tax rate for PSCs. Set this to 35% (or 10% above the standard corporation tax rate for big businesses)
That's it. No more fiddling about. Government gets 35% on payments (no threshold) plus dividend tax, which leaves contractors in the same ballpark as employees (a little better off, but we're talking a couple of percent at most - and the uncertainty/holiday pay/flexibility accounts for much of that).
@eek - how close would that be to closing the financial gap for HMRC?
We find goods trade from UK to EU is down 16% and from EU to UK is down 20% from January 2021 onwards. Establishing the impact of Brexit is complicated because of Covid, supply chain issues and various data changes.
https://twitter.com/mlawless13/status/1582651024921088001