For all that Labour shouted Bedroom Tax incessantly during 2010-15, what impact did it really make in the end? Now, this might be different because it's happening three weeks from the election rather than three years from it. But ultimately, the idea that people pay for their care is one that most are used to and accept (not Lucas obviously, for whom the banned or relocated businesses will pay for everything).
It strikes me as the kind of marketing that is a bit too clever by half: the slogan sounds superficially good but when you drill down, it doesn't make sense without a whole lot of explanation.
The thing about the bedroom tax is it wasn't a tax, it was a reduction in benefit. The dementia tax is an actual tax in the sense of being presented with a bill when you die.
The effect of this is threefold, the oldies will worry about what they will be leaving behind for their kids, the middle aged will worry about their inheritance, and wavering voters in working class constituencies where the Tories are looking to make headway will see this and think 'I can't vote for the nasty party' even if they are not personally affected by the tax.
Unlike the bedroom "tax" the biggest problem here is that with the bedroom tax, you knew for sure if it affected you. And the number it actually affected was very low.
Dementia terrifies most people, it is uncertain and random and can happen to any of us at any time. A "dementia tax" potentially affects all of us.
Brave? Courageous, as Sir Humphrey might say.
Maybe. I'm certainly not dismissing it.
That said, it's not a tax, it's a charge - there is a difference and I think the public can recognise it. The key question though is whether people do feel threatened by it. Speaking myself, as someone heading towards middle-age and with two parents of about 70, both of whom are in good health, do I feel threatened about my inheritance? To be honest, no. I don't view it as an entitlement as such and if their wealth has to be spent looking after them in their old age, so be it. They earned the money. Obviously, I'd rather not be in the position of having to choose but that's not a call we get to make.
Like the 'Community Charge' aka the 'Poll Tax'.
No, that was a tax and should have always been called a tax, not least because by not calling it one, it allowed its opponents to do so.
A tax is a levy on an activity. A charge is a payment for an activity. Just because that charge is delayed, it doesn't make it a tax.
OK, a personal example. When my grandfather went into a nursing home the family were forced to sell the council house he and my nan had bought (becoming WC Thatcherites in the process) to fund it. He was devastated, all he wanted was to go home or go and check his home, sit in his chair, look at his garden. All that has been smoothed now. He could have gone home and sat in his chair in his lounge, even if just for a day. Perceptions.
This is the thing. Local authority demands to sell property already happen, but without £100,000 asset protection.
I'm also slightly bemused as we have had a social care surcharge added to the council tax in the last year or so, so collective cover is also being enhanced.
It seems to be a subject that is not properly understood.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
So far two Tory MPs have gone on record to criticise the social care policy.
That tells you this isn't going down well with voters.
Which two
Have asked.
To put it bluntly, every Tory PPC should be out there today defending the policy, and defending their party for having the balls to try and tackle the issue.
I am not a Conservative supporter by any means. I am retired and my pension is high enough to be subject to income tax. I think it is right that people in my circumstances should not get the Winter Fuel Allowance, and I am completely happy that my assets should be used to fund any care I need in later life.
Both of those seems entirely sensible to me, and Mrs May has gone up in my estimation for having grasped the nettle.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
You don't need full time cancer care except for your final weeks if it cannot be cured
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
I'm a perpetually-depressive Tory (hence the name), but even I think the panic on here has been overblown. We do need to put Labour back on the defensive though.
So am interested in what people think:
Will the mythical Crosby attack machine swing into obvious action with three weeks to go, will it wait till the last 1-2, or will it just stick to below-the-radar stuff, e.g. Facebook ads?
And is the machine actually any good and does it have a fraction of the power attributed to it?
The best adverts are those that the prospect sees immediately before making a purchase decision. I think they'll leave the attack stuff to the last couple of weeks, or even the last week. The focus of all the campaigns is (or should be) on establishing enough credibility with the voters that they'll actually listen to the final-week messages and not dismiss them.
Remember, the election campaign is all about re-enforcing existing biases rather than establishing new ones. Nearly everyone has already decided who to vote for, even if they don't consciously know that they have.
WillS.
That's quite reassuring, thank you. Though I really wish I could take a fortnight off from being a politics-addicted nerd, for the sake of my nerves!
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
You are a young fogey who prefers the company of sheep to people, yet you still wax lyrical about our AMAZING restaurants. If you profess not to like cities, stay in the countryside and eat bumpkin food washed down with yokel cider.
You're making the classic error here that there are only 'the cities' and 'the countryside'. There isn't. There is a vast sprawl of provincalia, made up of towns and larger villages which surround or abut cities but which are temperamentally of neither the one nor the other. And it is to their voters that Mrs May is making her play.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
You don't need full time cancer care except for your final weeks if it cannot be cured
So, should it be dependent on how much care you need and how long it is likely to take you to die? I guess that is exactly what the proposals will mean.
Clinical care, or pallative care? The two are rather different.
Palliative care, for those dying of cancer, is very often provided by charities not the state. Hospices and MacMillan nurses are not part of the NHS.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
I was on about care at home but OK, point taken
But this is a big difference. Someone's home was already included in assets available to fund care at a home - something which it very much might have had to. By contrast, homecare is, in relative terms, a lot less expensive. It's unlikely that a large proportion of someone's house value would be used up in the same way.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
I was on about care at home but OK, point taken
But this is a big difference. Someone's home was already included in assets available to fund care at a home - something which it very much might have had to. By contrast, homecare is, in relative terms, a lot less expensive. It's unlikely that a large proportion of someone's house value would be used up in the same way.
I agree. I think I was being taken to task over my claim it would take 25 years.
So far two Tory MPs have gone on record to criticise the social care policy.
That tells you this isn't going down well with voters.
Which two
Have asked.
To put it bluntly, every Tory PPC should be out there today defending the policy, and defending their party for having the balls to try and tackle the issue.
I am not a Conservative supporter by any means. I am retired and my pension is high enough to be subject to income tax. I think it is right that people in my circumstances should not get the Winter Fuel Allowance, and I am completely happy that my assets should be used to fund any care I need in later life.
Both of those seems entirely sensible to me, and Mrs May has gone up in my estimation for having grasped the nettle.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Good afternoon, and well said. My parents are in a similar position, they raised a glass to the government for paying for a holiday with their winter fuel allowance last year.
Whilst it would be nice to inherit something from my parents, the chances are I'll be in my late fifties as and when it actually happens - at that point I'd much rather my parents lived their final months and years in the best way possible, rather than worrying about what I'll have left afterwards.
So, today we've learnt that the leader of the Labour Party doesn't know that winter-fuel payments are currently not taxable, and the leader of the LibDems doesn't know that currently your heirs may lose the entire value of all your assets including your house, apart from the last £23K, to pay for your care if you go into a care home.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
So, today we've learnt that the leader of the Labour Party doesn't know that winter-fuel payments are currently not taxable, and the leader of the LibDems doesn't know that currently your heirs may lose the entire value of all your assets including your house, apart from the last £23K, to pay for your care if you go into a care home.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
Who needs facts when it comes to scaring people about the Tory granny robbers.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Nah. I would have a written constitution so he or she couldn't do that.
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
Not sure that worked so well last time.
Didn't end too happily for the dictator either.
Don’t see any Senators in open toed sandals and bed linen lasting long in soggy cold London.
The Senate will be moved out of London, up North.
London is far too expensive a place to live and work.
This is for cheaper but BETTER government.
"Republicanism is the form of government that divides France the least." - Adolphe Thiers, first President of the French Third Republic, 1871.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
The period for which one is likely to need care is likely to be a good deal less if one is suffering from cancer than if one is suffering from dementia.
Bear in mind, that dementia sufferers who survive for some years are likely to have to go into residential care homes sooner or later. Under the current system, they'd potentially have no more than £23,000 of capital left when they died.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
You are a young fogey who prefers the company of sheep to people, yet you still wax lyrical about our AMAZING restaurants. If you profess not to like cities, stay in the countryside and eat bumpkin food washed down with yokel cider.
You're making the classic error here that there are only 'the cities' and 'the countryside'. There isn't. There is a vast sprawl of provincalia, made up of towns and larger villages which surround or abut cities but which are temperamentally of neither the one nor the other. And it is to their voters that Mrs May is making her play.
Boobjob is convinced that there are dragons and anthropophagi ranging right up as far as the M25.
Anyway I have to go, I've a cave wall to paint and the neighbouring village isn't going to pillage itself.
The point I made on the previous thread was that the WFA should be made taxable.
Are you sure it's not?
It's just income taxed like all other AFAIK. The only way it wouldn't be taxed is if your income fell below the taxable threshold.
It's tax free.
Thank you. But if one made it taxable that would not remove it from all that many - someone who had a state pension plus dividend and savings interest income could be on £30 to 340k a year and pay no tax.
Whatever the parties are saying, I'd metaphorically bet a yrs winter fuel allowance (that I will no longer get) that the policies around the older generation have been tested to destruction in focus groups.
May wouldn't be doing it unless she was certain it wouldn't damage her chances of winning the GE.
So far two Tory MPs have gone on record to criticise the social care policy.
That tells you this isn't going down well with voters.
Which two
Have asked.
To put it bluntly, every Tory PPC should be out there today defending the policy, and defending their party for having the balls to try and tackle the issue.
I am not a Conservative supporter by any means. I am retired and my pension is high enough to be subject to income tax. I think it is right that people in my circumstances should not get the Winter Fuel Allowance, and I am completely happy that my assets should be used to fund any care I need in later life.
Both of those seems entirely sensible to me, and Mrs May has gone up in my estimation for having grasped the nettle.
Good afternoon, everyone.
And good afternoon to you, Ma'am.
May I say I am in much the same boat as yourself and agree with your comments wholeheartedly. My boy is big enough and ugly enough to fend for himself and if he only gets 100k because the rest has gone on providing Herself and/or me with care, well he will have got 100K more than I got from my parents.
Whatever the parties are saying, I'd metaphorically bet a yrs winter fuel allowance (that I will no longer get) that the policies around the older generation have been tested to destruction in focus groups.
May wouldn't be doing it unless she was certain it wouldn't damage her chances of winning the GE.
Yeah I doubt there's much in the Tory manifesto that hasn't been tested thoroughly.
The point I made on the previous thread was that the WFA should be made taxable.
Are you sure it's not?
It's just income taxed like all other AFAIK. The only way it wouldn't be taxed is if your income fell below the taxable threshold.
It's tax free.
Thank you. But if one made it taxable that would not remove it from all that many - someone who had a state pension plus dividend and savings interest income could be on £30 to 340k a year and pay no tax.
Not quite. 11k Personal allowance, 5k dividends and 1k on interest, only makes £17k.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
I was on about care at home but OK, point taken
I have just organised live-in care at home for my mother. She has had a hip replacement operation, so her mobility is crocked for a couple of months. That aside she has all her faculties and other than falling over is not at risk from any incapacity. Nonetheless, her carer costs £155 per day. So it would take 1.75 years to burn through £100k.
This is about 50% more than I was expecting. I am just hugely relieved that she can afford it.
Someone I was at Uni with and shared a house with at College of Law for a year has recently been diagnosed with a viciously aggressive form of dementia. He will never come out of his care home.
He is 56.
He has a wife and kids who now have to live with the prospect of him being in that home, potentially for decades. Knowing the guy, I have no doubt that he would not want that prospect for either himself or his family. But there is currently no legal alternative.
If it should happen to me - and dementia is in my family - then I hope I get a chance to put my affairs in order and take the proverbial revolver into the library. I wouldn't want to endure it. I wouldn't want my closest to see me enduring it. And I wouldn't want to be a waste of vast resources in keeping me alive.
Personal view, and others, of strong faith perhaps, might find that deeply unacceptable. But it is my life and I would like to end it when I say so, not be kept alive by a system for who knows what purpose.
The point I made on the previous thread was that the WFA should be made taxable.
Are you sure it's not?
It's just income taxed like all other AFAIK. The only way it wouldn't be taxed is if your income fell below the taxable threshold.
It's tax free.
Thank you. But if one made it taxable that would not remove it from all that many - someone who had a state pension plus dividend and savings interest income could be on £30 to 340k a year and pay no tax.
Yes, and also it could entail a lot of admin expense for not much revenue, which I think is why it hasn't been made taxable in the past. One suggestion has been made in the past is to deem it to be paid inclusive of basic rate tax, so that higher-rate taxpayers (who will almost certainly fill in a tax return anyway) would pay tax on the difference between the basic-rate and higher-rate. That would involve very little admin, but would yield tuppence ha'penny.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
I was on about care at home but OK, point taken
I have just organised live-in care at home for my mother. She has had a hip replacement operation, so her mobility is crocked for a couple of months. That aside she has all her faculties and other than falling over is not at risk from any incapacity. Nonetheless, her carer costs £155 per day. So it would take 1.75 years to burn through £100k.
This is about 50% more than I was expecting. I am just hugely relieved that she can afford it.
For longer term ailments there is Attendance Allowance to be claimed (not taxable)
So, today we've learnt that the leader of the Labour Party doesn't know that winter-fuel payments are currently not taxable, and the leader of the LibDems doesn't know that currently your heirs may lose the entire value of all your assets including your house, apart from the last £23K, to pay for your care if you go into a care home.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
Whatever the parties are saying, I'd metaphorically bet a yrs winter fuel allowance (that I will no longer get) that the policies around the older generation have been tested to destruction in focus groups.
May wouldn't be doing it unless she was certain it wouldn't damage her chances of winning the GE.
They might have dropped a bollock by only testing on pensioners and not the family members who at looking at their inheritance.
The point I made on the previous thread was that the WFA should be made taxable.
Are you sure it's not?
It's just income taxed like all other AFAIK. The only way it wouldn't be taxed is if your income fell below the taxable threshold.
It's tax free.
Thank you. But if one made it taxable that would not remove it from all that many - someone who had a state pension plus dividend and savings interest income could be on £30 to 340k a year and pay no tax.
Not quite. 11k Personal allowance, 5k dividends and 1k on interest, only makes £17k.
Right, but to make 5k in dividends and 1k in interest you've got to have 200k salted away. So the idea that making it taxable is going to claw a lot of it back from monied oldsters seems unlikely, no? You could be quite monied and still have to pay nothing even if it were taxed.
I've heard the going rate for care homes in the nicer parts of Surrey is north of £1,200 per week which is up there with the cost of a week in a Vegas 5-star.
To be fair, it's not always that bad. I recently helped my uncle find a care home in Penzance, and I couldn't be more impressed with how the local authority has handled it. They found a good place (Penlee) that he really likes with en suite bathroom and lovely staff, they're paying for it all (£700/week), they're refunding him for the more expensive place he was rushed to after several nasty falls, they helped with organising his flat clearance, and the social services guy has come round twice since he moved in to see if he's happy and if they can do anything else to make things easier for him. He is a quiet chap with few private means and no special influence and they couldn't be doing more for him if he was royalty.
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them, rather as if Labour said the NHS isn't much cop or UKIP said immigration's not so bad really. They may win the argument or not, but I can't see that it's a great area for them to have an argument in the first place.
I've heard the going rate for care homes in the nicer parts of Surrey is north of £1,200 per week which is up there with the cost of a week in a Vegas 5-star.
To be fair, it's not always that bad. I recently helped my uncle find a care home in Penzance, and I couldn't be more impressed with how the local authority has handled it. They found a good place (Penlee) that he really likes with en suite bathroom and lovely staff, they're paying for it all (£700/week), they're refunding him for the more expensive place he was rushed to after several nasty falls, they helped with organising his flat clearance, and the social services guy has come round twice since he moved in to see if he's happy and if they can do anything else to make things easier for him. He is a quiet chap with few private means and no special influence and they couldn't be doing more for him if he was royalty.
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them, rather as if Labour said the NHS isn't much cop or UKIP said immigration's not so bad really. They may win the argument or not, but I can't see that it's a great area for them to have an argument in the first place.
It's been kicked in to the long-grass for so long that it's great someone is finally grasping the nettle if I can mix metaphors - there's no votes in it all only lost votes, which is why it's been postponed for as long as it has....
So Jezza has nailed his flag to handouts for millionaires with the fuel payment, along with a university funding scheme that most helps those earning 100k plus per annum.
The point I made on the previous thread was that the WFA should be made taxable.
Are you sure it's not?
It's just income taxed like all other AFAIK. The only way it wouldn't be taxed is if your income fell below the taxable threshold.
It's tax free.
Thank you. But if one made it taxable that would not remove it from all that many - someone who had a state pension plus dividend and savings interest income could be on £30 to 340k a year and pay no tax.
Not quite. 11k Personal allowance, 5k dividends and 1k on interest, only makes £17k.
Right, but to make 5k in dividends and 1k in interest you've got to have 200k salted away. So the idea that making it taxable is going to claw a lot of it back from monied oldsters seems unlikely, no? You could be quite monied and still have to pay nothing even if it were taxed.
Even half of PB didn't watch it, which tells you just how badly it was going to do.
The problem with these debates is the cutoff point for representation. The more parties you have the more pointless it becomes. The 3 party 2010 debates were far more enlightening than the 2015 7 party one. The 5 player debate in France was much better than the 11 candidate one that followed. Hillary vs Bernie was better than the 17 candidates GOP debates.
Its just possible that Mr May has noticed that around twice as many people live in the "province" as live in the main metropolitan areas. She may also have noticed that most of the seats in those areas are rock steady safe Labour seats so there is little point in trying to appeal to them.
One of the problems the Tories had with the Posh Boys was that the Tory target voters in the shires and the small towns neither liked not trusted them, and didn't beleive they understood their way of life. May is an instinctive grass roots Tory, she understands this, given the choice of appealing to a number of people most of whom would not give you the time of day, or twice as many people receptive to your message its not a hard choice.
(Not much in the UK could be described as provincial in the way my current home is, the nearest might be living on Sark )
Looking at the above tables it's clear the Tories did much better than expected. Such a shame Cameron didn't have a clearer crystal ball so he would have known he didn't have to offer a referendum to keep the UKIPers at bay. In historical significance that might end up close to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand
So, today we've learnt that the leader of the Labour Party doesn't know that winter-fuel payments are currently not taxable, and the leader of the LibDems doesn't know that currently your heirs may lose the entire value of all your assets including your house, apart from the last £23K, to pay for your care if you go into a care home.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
Oh, they know, they're just counting on voters not knowing.
So, today we've learnt that the leader of the Labour Party doesn't know that winter-fuel payments are currently not taxable, and the leader of the LibDems doesn't know that currently your heirs may lose the entire value of all your assets including your house, apart from the last £23K, to pay for your care if you go into a care home.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
Corbyn doesn't even know how to fill out his own tax return.
Looking at the above tables it's clear the Tories did much better than expected. Such a shame Cameron didn't have a clearer crystal ball so he would have known he didn't have to offer a referendum to keep the UKIPers at bay. In historical significance that might end up close to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand
I think UKIP are at bay precisely because of the Referendum.
Looking at the above tables it's clear the Tories did much better than expected. Such a shame Cameron didn't have a clearer crystal ball so he would have known he didn't have to offer a referendum to keep the UKIPers at bay. In historical significance that might end up close to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand
I think UKIP are at bay precisely because of the Referendum.
That's possible but more likely he was appeasing his own party for when he didn't get an absolute majority
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them
In the sense that it goes against their narrow partisan interest? They should be applauded for that, if so, surely?
Absolutely, if that was their thinking. I doubt it, though - "Let's concentrate in our manifesto on an area which might lose us votes". Really? Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think it's a calculation (because the issue is clearly of interest to their core vote) which may or may not work out.
early weather forecast for election day - Most of England will have a dry sunny day though rain will move into Northern and Central areasby evening Scotland and Wales will see rain bands on and off during the day - temps 16 - 18
@faisalislam: Winter Fuel Payments for all pensioners in Scotland to stay, @RuthDavidsonMSP tells Sky News its because "it's colder in Scotland"
@faisalislam: I'm sure saving Winter Fuel Payment only for Scottish pensioners will go down really well with, say, errrm, chilly n English pensioners
@faisalislam: ... current status: consulting Met Office meteorological charts comparing min winter temperatures in Northern England with Scotland
The DWP make additional Cold Weather Payments to any postcode area that has a week of prolonged cold weather (a seven day average below freezing, if memory serves).
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them
In the sense that it goes against their narrow partisan interest? They should be applauded for that, if so, surely?
Absolutely, if that was their thinking. I doubt it, though - "Let's concentrate in our manifesto on an area which might lose us votes". Really? Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think it's a calculation (because the issue is clearly of interest to their core vote) which may or may not work out.
Telling the Grey Vote that they are now guaranteed not to lose their home in their own life time no matter that the cost of their care, and that their kids will always have 100k to inherit. Yes, I can see that being a massive vote loser....
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Which gets at the heart of the matter. It's a mistake to say that voters want a free lunch, not because they don't - if offered, of course they'll take it - but because anyone whose support is necessary in a political system will find themselves at the centre of a bidding auction. And those capable of awarding themselves and their support a free lunch will tend to do so.
A dictatorship would just result in a different set of client groups having to be appeased.
I'm not sure it was entirely serious discussion :-)
But of course you're right. Even Kim Jong Un has his client group (In his case the armed forces, who get whatever they want).
No, it wasn't a serious suggestion but sometimes it's worth thinking them through anyway.
early weather forecast for election day - Most of England will have a dry sunny day though rain will move into Northern and Central areasby evening Scotland and Wales will see rain bands on and off during the day - temps 16 - 18
Such detail three weeks out will make even the VI polls seem reliable
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
I was on about care at home but OK, point taken
But this is a big difference. Someone's home was already included in assets available to fund care at a home - something which it very much might have had to. By contrast, homecare is, in relative terms, a lot less expensive. It's unlikely that a large proportion of someone's house value would be used up in the same way.
I agree. I think I was being taken to task over my claim it would take 25 years.
It probably wouldn't ever erode. People who have high care needs often have few other substantial outgoings beyond the regular utilities and taxes. Their income, even if relatively modest, will often cover quite a large amount of the home care.
However, if, say, it covered 40% of home care and residential care was ten times as much, it'd only cover 4% of that - near enough nothing at all.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
I was on about care at home but OK, point taken
I have just organised live-in care at home for my mother. She has had a hip replacement operation, so her mobility is crocked for a couple of months. That aside she has all her faculties and other than falling over is not at risk from any incapacity. Nonetheless, her carer costs £155 per day. So it would take 1.75 years to burn through £100k.
This is about 50% more than I was expecting. I am just hugely relieved that she can afford it.
For longer term ailments there is Attendance Allowance to be claimed (not taxable)
You have to have needed the care for at least 6 months first. I don't know what you do if you don't have the necessary £28k, to cover 6 months at the rate she's paying, before the assistance gets triggered.
More generally - I don't know if this is common knowledge, but it was news to me so I shall share. If someone grants you power of attorney, and it's been registered at the Office of the Public Guardian, you have only done half the job. If you want to operate that person's finances as they you were them you need to contact each financial provider and send them a certified copy of the PoA. They will then typically want an appointment with you where you produce ID, proof of address, etc. They will then contact the person you act for and confirm it all with them. Only when all that is in place will they treat you like the person you represent.
It is easier if they are someone you give money to (eg HMRC just needs to see the certified copy). If you want them to give you money, though, see above.
I only found this out when someone I knew with a PoA had her mother taken into hospital. She presented the PoA at the bank and only then did she find it was worthless.
Her lawyer never told her this and neither did mine.
early weather forecast for election day - Most of England will have a dry sunny day though rain will move into Northern and Central areasby evening Scotland and Wales will see rain bands on and off during the day - temps 16 - 18
Just as long as there isn't an unseasonal cold snap.....
Whatever the parties are saying, I'd metaphorically bet a yrs winter fuel allowance (that I will no longer get) that the policies around the older generation have been tested to destruction in focus groups.
May wouldn't be doing it unless she was certain it wouldn't damage her chances of winning the GE.
Yeah I doubt there's much in the Tory manifesto that hasn't been tested thoroughly.
Be nice if they tested the deficit figures .What year will it be eliminated now ? I know it was a long term economic plan but every election moving it on another 5 years can hardly be called that.
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them, rather as if Labour said the NHS isn't much cop or UKIP said immigration's not so bad really. They may win the argument or not, but I can't see that it's a great area for them to have an argument in the first place.
Or if a Lib Dem leader described himself as a bit eurosceptic!
So, today we've learnt that the leader of the Labour Party doesn't know that winter-fuel payments are currently not taxable, and the leader of the LibDems doesn't know that currently your heirs may lose the entire value of all your assets including your house, apart from the last £23K, to pay for your care if you go into a care home.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
Oh, they know, they're just counting on voters not knowing.
That's sadly the most likely explanation. C'mon Tories, get on every damn news channel and sell this. Read through this thread if you need help.
I have to say from what I have read of May's manifesto so far there is some good stuff on the economic front. On social care, my own opinion is that it is an improvement over the current situation, while not being totally ideal. It's certainly a step in the right direction. Something has to give if we are going to prepare at all for having so many old people, and this way puts most of the loss on inheritees.
My issue with Mayism is that it appears to have a membership of 1 within the tory party. Go back pre brexit and nobody in the party was talking about implementing milibandism. Yes, May is, I think, sincere in her aims here - it goes beyond tank parking. But the Tory party as a whole has clearly not had a damascene conversion to state intervention, and post-election they will all have their knives out the minute she fumbles. How does she implement a manifesto that none of her colleagues nor her press allies actually want? Only via watering it down in practice or huge chunks of red meat elsewhere on social policy.
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them, rather as if Labour said the NHS isn't much cop or UKIP said immigration's not so bad really. They may win the argument or not, but I can't see that it's a great area for them to have an argument in the first place.
I'm impressed.
She's taken the Mail and the Express with her, too.
WIth labour off w*nking in the bushes, the tories have faced up to the economic reality and taken the opportunity to sacrifice a sacred cow.
Even half of PB didn't watch it, which tells you just how badly it was going to do.
The problem with these debates is the cutoff point for representation. The more parties you have the more pointless it becomes. The 3 party 2010 debates were far more enlightening than the 2015 7 party one. The 5 player debate in France was much better than the 11 candidate one that followed. Hillary vs Bernie was better than the 17 candidates GOP debates.
I actually totally forgot until I took a quick peek at pb and saw people talking about...And decided watching fresh paint dry was still more appealing.
I am glad in a way that the empty chair stunt backfired. Much that I think may should be doing debates, tv companies shouldn't just be able to blackmail people.
It should be debates which tv companies broadcast not tv companies demand debates which politicians are forced to attend.
Comments
A tax is a levy on an activity. A charge is a payment for an activity. Just because that charge is delayed, it doesn't make it a tax.
I'm also slightly bemused as we have had a social care surcharge added to the council tax in the last year or so, so collective cover is also being enhanced.
It seems to be a subject that is not properly understood.
Both of those seems entirely sensible to me, and Mrs May has gone up in my estimation for having grasped the nettle.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It's just income taxed like all other AFAIK. The only way it wouldn't be taxed is if your income fell below the taxable threshold.
He says Labour will keep winter fuel payments. They go to everyone, he says. But wealthy pensioners do pay tax on them, he says.
Ah got it.
So the Winter fuel allowance is actually worth more like £700 of income to a working person...
Whilst it would be nice to inherit something from my parents, the chances are I'll be in my late fifties as and when it actually happens - at that point I'd much rather my parents lived their final months and years in the best way possible, rather than worrying about what I'll have left afterwards.
Would anyone care to set up a half-decent opposition party?
- Adolphe Thiers, first President of the French Third Republic, 1871.
Bear in mind, that dementia sufferers who survive for some years are likely to have to go into residential care homes sooner or later. Under the current system, they'd potentially have no more than £23,000 of capital left when they died.
Anyway I have to go, I've a cave wall to paint and the neighbouring village isn't going to pillage itself.
@Alice_Aforethought makes the case below.
May wouldn't be doing it unless she was certain it wouldn't damage her chances of winning the GE.
May I say I am in much the same boat as yourself and agree with your comments wholeheartedly. My boy is big enough and ugly enough to fend for himself and if he only gets 100k because the rest has gone on providing Herself and/or me with care, well he will have got 100K more than I got from my parents.
This is about 50% more than I was expecting. I am just hugely relieved that she can afford it.
I do wonder why it's not tax deductible.
More cynically, with the Tories so dominant among elderly voters, it's an odd choice of battleground for them, rather as if Labour said the NHS isn't much cop or UKIP said immigration's not so bad really. They may win the argument or not, but I can't see that it's a great area for them to have an argument in the first place.
https://twitter.com/glynis_fisher/status/865563662689329154
"Ex-Newcastle youth coach George Ormond faces sex charges"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39976788
The problem with these debates is the cutoff point for representation. The more parties you have the more pointless it becomes. The 3 party 2010 debates were far more enlightening than the 2015 7 party one. The 5 player debate in France was much better than the 11 candidate one that followed. Hillary vs Bernie was better than the 17 candidates GOP debates.
Its just possible that Mr May has noticed that around twice as many people live in the "province" as live in the main metropolitan areas. She may also have noticed that most of the seats in those areas are rock steady safe Labour seats so there is little point in trying to appeal to them.
One of the problems the Tories had with the Posh Boys was that the Tory target voters in the shires and the small towns neither liked not trusted them, and didn't beleive they understood their way of life. May is an instinctive grass roots Tory, she understands this, given the choice of appealing to a number of people most of whom would not give you the time of day, or twice as many people receptive to your message its not a hard choice.
(Not much in the UK could be described as provincial in the way my current home is, the nearest might be living on Sark
The Tories need to up their game. They really seem to have a problem with communication.
@faisalislam: I'm sure saving Winter Fuel Payment only for Scottish pensioners will go down really well with, say, errrm, chilly n English pensioners
@faisalislam: ... current status: consulting Met Office meteorological charts comparing min winter temperatures in Northern England with Scotland
This is clearly saying that our future outside of EU shackles is rosy and that Merkel recognises that she must try to prevent that happening.
You've just won a £77,000 Dementia Bonus
However, if, say, it covered 40% of home care and residential care was ten times as much, it'd only cover 4% of that - near enough nothing at all.
More generally - I don't know if this is common knowledge, but it was news to me so I shall share. If someone grants you power of attorney, and it's been registered at the Office of the Public Guardian, you have only done half the job. If you want to operate that person's finances as they you were them you need to contact each financial provider and send them a certified copy of the PoA. They will then typically want an appointment with you where you produce ID, proof of address, etc. They will then contact the person you act for and confirm it all with them. Only when all that is in place will they treat you like the person you represent.
It is easier if they are someone you give money to (eg HMRC just needs to see the certified copy). If you want them to give you money, though, see above.
I only found this out when someone I knew with a PoA had her mother taken into hospital. She presented the PoA at the bank and only then did she find it was worthless.
Her lawyer never told her this and neither did mine.
My issue with Mayism is that it appears to have a membership of 1 within the tory party. Go back pre brexit and nobody in the party was talking about implementing milibandism. Yes, May is, I think, sincere in her aims here - it goes beyond tank parking. But the Tory party as a whole has clearly not had a damascene conversion to state intervention, and post-election they will all have their knives out the minute she fumbles. How does she implement a manifesto that none of her colleagues nor her press allies actually want? Only via watering it down in practice or huge chunks of red meat elsewhere on social policy.
She's taken the Mail and the Express with her, too.
WIth labour off w*nking in the bushes, the tories have faced up to the economic reality and taken the opportunity to sacrifice a sacred cow.
I am glad in a way that the empty chair stunt backfired. Much that I think may should be doing debates, tv companies shouldn't just be able to blackmail people.
It should be debates which tv companies broadcast not tv companies demand debates which politicians are forced to attend.