Should be fun when we get an EVEL vote in commons and St Theresa loses her 13 Scottish donkeys. Will not be hard for opposition to stiff her big time.
May has a clear majority of English and Welsh seats. Not having the Scottish and Northern Irish MPs voting makes it easier not harder for her. EVEL may well be the thing that saves a lot of her planned legislation.
NI Sec appears to be involved in DUP/Tory negotiations !
" On a possible conflict of interest, Mr Brokenshire stresses that his work on the devolution settlement was "separate". "
Whilst it might not detonate the GFA (then again it might) it could well destroy Stormont talks and lead to re-establishment of direct rule. At which point Labour propose loosening abortion laws in NI and the Tories either have to vote with it and torpedoing their alliance or vote against and lose hundreds of thousands more female votes.
You'd have to have a heart of stone etc etc
I suspect many Tories have confused the DUP with the UUP, the UUP MPs have in the past served the Tory Whip
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
This is not quite right. Some councils will allow a deferment of payment from the sale of your home until after death. Not all do this - it is a lottery.
A lesson from history is that the Tories become utterly crippled whenever they try and propose a new tax.
Poll tax, pasty tax, granny tax, dementia tax..
You can see why stealth taxes and fiscal drag are so favoured by Chancellors.
True. Although the real lesson is that the Tories self destruct whenever they get obsessed over Europe.
Despite the fact that the Tory parliamentary party split almost evenly on whether to Remain or Leave, the party went into the election well united on its EU policy.
It's the electorate that delivered the rebuff. And that was down to austerity, tax and a wooden campaign, not a desire to re-open the wounds of the referendum campaign.
This is an obsession of Europhiles, who now smell blood.
But that wasn't the problem. The consequences of the obsession were:
a) Cameron's referendum commitment and all the ensuing history b) The loss of support from business and the educated, due to Brexit c) May's snap election, which wouldn't have been called but for Brexit d) The jettisoning of Tory economic strategy, as a direct consequence of Brexit, so they had no challenge to Corbyn's anti-austerity economics and hence lost their majority
e) and f) coming up are likely to be equally grim for the Tories.
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
The Tories tried that (admittedly, very badly) at the election.
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
The Tories tried that (admittedly, very badly) at the election.
The voters didn't like it.
Doesn't bode well when labour's policies are actually considered...
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
This is not quite right. Some councils will allow a deferment of payment from the sale of your home until after death. Not all do this - it is a lottery.
The Care Act 2014 requires all councils to offer the Deferred Payment Scheme. You are right that levels of enthusiasm for pushing this vary, and prior to the Act some weren't offering it at all.
My guess is between Eden and Brown. She will hang on until the Article 50 talks are finished and stand down.
I think under normal circumstances Theresa would be gone, but these aren't normal circumstances. The A50 clock is ticking, and the Tories know that squandering time on leadership contests would be an obscene dereliction of national duty. In hindsight, Theresa should have taken a belt-and-braces approach and delayed A50 until after the election. Of course, the danger was that she would have been branded a 'saboteur', so one can appreciate her queasiness. Unfortunately, she now has a gun to her head and nowhere to run.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
The young pay less tax than ever before, graduates paying off a student loan included.
Someone on the 1985 UK average wage of £6,997 paid 27% in tax.
Someone on the 2016 UK average wage of £26,208 paid 20%. If they have a student loan they paid 23%.
USA. Keynesian expansion under Obama. Growth better than us. A capitalist country - not an ignorant ideological austerity one.
There was very little of a 'Keynesian expansion' under Obama. In fact, if you include state-level spending, there was a similar gentle reining-in of expenditure to Osborne's. It certainly wasn't anything like the mad spending spree that the Left sometimes propose here.
Of course, the US economy also had other big advantages: less dependence on the poorly-performing Eurozone and, most importantly of all, a very flexible hire-and-fire labour market, which made adaptation quicker. Oddly, the Left are curiously blind to that last point.
Given that US went the whole hog and elected Trump at the end of it all, I'm not entirely sure its the best counter-argument in the world.
NI Sec appears to be involved in DUP/Tory negotiations !
" On a possible conflict of interest, Mr Brokenshire stresses that his work on the devolution settlement was "separate". "
Whilst it might not detonate the GFA (then again it might) it could well destroy Stormont talks and lead to re-establishment of direct rule. At which point Labour propose loosening abortion laws in NI and the Tories either have to vote with it and torpedoing their alliance or vote against and lose hundreds of thousands more female votes.
You'd have to have a heart of stone etc etc
I suspect many Tories have confused the DUP with the UUP, the UUP MPs have in the past served the Tory Whip
Yes indeed I agree. If Stormont talks break down, the government is finished.
As I said before like a fair number of your gender you resort to bluster when pulled up on ridiculous statements like the SNP being "hated" in the oil industry. Nor do I believe you campaigned for the Yes vote on the streets of Aberdeen. You don't win most votes in the city when you are "hated" and if you had campaigned I would certainly have heard of you..
What I do believe is that your posts are designed to damage the SNP and you have been caught out dissembling . As for my defence of Salmond it was aimed very clearly at his detractors who piled in on top of your posts.
They have feared him for a long time - and still do.
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
I would suggest introducing say a 5% band for estates over £100k. that would raise plenty of money, but not be super onerous.
Why not? It is at least a policy that can be costed and debated. It might even work
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
I would suggest introducing say a 5% band for estates over £100k. that would raise plenty of money, but not be super onerous.
Why not? It is at least a policy that can be costed and debated. It might even work
Thats what I'm suggesting. a lower rate of tax, but more people paying it. (keeping the 40% band for higher estates.)
Social care - only option that isn't electoral suicide is to make it free, part of the NHS and pay for it through general taxation. Sell it as an expansion of cradle to grave care by the state and tie it in with a big sweetie for the young. Sort out housing, especially the slum landlord mentality of the property portfolio BTL racketeers and you have a comprehensive package to sell to the electorate. Then it's just a question of whether you go more statist or capitalist on the rest. Back to the pre Thatcher norms.
The problem is the huge cost. A report said that it is too complex for insurance companies to arrive at a sensible protection policy and to include it in the NHS would require a 5% rise in basic tax
So be it. Bump up the personal allowance to protect low earners, reintorduce a starter rate of tax for the forst 5k aabove that, 5% on the upper rate and we all take the hit.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
There is only one way out of this problem and that is by appointing an independent commission and that all parties commit to accepting the recommendations
Yep, the only way is to have a death tax now, too much has gone to the Boomers for the current working population to keep funding them.
Why wait for the rich to die? Mansion tax and CGT on their houses now. Tax them if they don't sell, tax them if they do.
These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours.
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
I fear all you are doing is highlighting just how badly presented and poorly understood the Tory proposal was.
If even posters on here didn't understand it you can imagine how well it went down with the general public. The truth gets lost and distorted and your poll ratings go South
On which note, check out the twitter hashtag #DUPfilms
Even with inflation creeping up, fiscal stimulus in a liquidity trap, at the ZLB, is a credible govt policy, Richard.
It is, provided you don't come into the crisis with an existing humongous deficit and/or debt level.
We have seen consumer spending figures and that's with higher inflation. I am struggling to see where else we go...
With potential Brexit chaos and political instability, the place we go is falling living standards, higher taxes and higher unemployment, I'm afraid. The only uncertainty is the extent of it.
A pertinent point. Why is May taking the axe to her Brexit team just days before the negotiations start?
Isn't it obvious? She now realises that only the softest Brexit is remotely possible. And even that is a flying fuck at a rolling fleshlight that may not be achievable.
Very funny, although it seems some things should not be googled at work.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
The young pay less tax than ever before, graduates paying off a student loan included.
Someone on the 1985 UK average wage of £6,997 paid 27% in tax.
Someone on the 2016 UK average wage of £26,208 paid 20%. If they have a student loan they paid 23%.
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
I would suggest introducing say a 5% band for estates over £100k. that would raise plenty of money, but not be super onerous.
Why not? It is at least a policy that can be costed and debated. It might even work
Death tax, death tax, death tax.
Seriously, though, this might be the right time. The Daily Mail will be reluctant to attack May too much in next couple of years as they know a fall in the government will now lead to a Corbyn government. Gauke should seize the day.
Even with inflation creeping up, fiscal stimulus in a liquidity trap, at the ZLB, is a credible govt policy, Richard.
It is, provided you don't come into the crisis with an existing humongous deficit and/or debt level.
We have seen consumer spending figures and that's with higher inflation. I am struggling to see where else we go...
With potential Brexit chaos and political instability, the place we go is falling living standards, higher taxes and higher unemployment, I'm afraid. The only uncertainty is the extent of it.
Yes well of course that is a given as "the price", and hence totally welcomed by our Brexiters.
But the govt still needs to inject demand into the economy, whatever the state of it is.
Social care - only option that isn't electoral suicide is to make it free, part of the NHS and pay for it through general taxation. Sell it as an expansion of cradle to grave care by the state and tie it in with a big sweetie for the young. Sort out housing, especially the slum landlord mentality of the property portfolio BTL racketeers and you have a comprehensive package to sell to the electorate. Then it's just a question of whether you go more statist or capitalist on the rest. Back to the pre Thatcher norms.
The problem is the huge cost. A report said that it is too complex for insurance companies to arrive at a sensible protection policy and to include it in the NHS would require a 5% rise in basic tax
So be it. Bump up the personal allowance to protect low earners, reintorduce a starter rate of tax for the forst 5k aabove that, 5% on the upper rate and we all take the hit.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
There is only one way out of this problem and that is by appointing an independent commission and that all parties commit to accepting the recommendations
Yep, the only way is to have a death tax now, too much has gone to the Boomers for the current working population to keep funding them.
Why wait for the rich to die? Mansion tax and CGT on their houses now. Tax them if they don't sell, tax them if they do.
These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours.
Its a bit easier to take money off people once they've died and often assets are liquidated then when they're alive.
Even with inflation creeping up, fiscal stimulus in a liquidity trap, at the ZLB, is a credible govt policy, Richard.
It is, provided you don't come into the crisis with an existing humongous deficit and/or debt level.
We have seen consumer spending figures and that's with higher inflation. I am struggling to see where else we go...
With potential Brexit chaos and political instability, the place we go is falling living standards, higher taxes and higher unemployment, I'm afraid. The only uncertainty is the extent of it.
Just in case the Tories have some residual economic credibility left to lose...
That was a stupid comment. The SNP can never be a bigger enemy than the Tories. This was not a referendum. It was a general election. If Dugdale's intervention even elected one extra Tory MP, she has cut down the Tory short of majority by 2.
How stupid can you get ? Why she is not being sacked now I do not know.
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
I fear all you are doing is highlighting just how badly presented and poorly understood the Tory proposal was.
If even posters on here didn't understand it you can imagine how well it went down with the general public. The truth gets lost and distorted and your poll ratings go South
On which note, check out the twitter hashtag #DUPfilms
Tory foot-shooting continues apace.
LOL @ the films. Some great humour on twitter this morning!
Even with inflation creeping up, fiscal stimulus in a liquidity trap, at the ZLB, is a credible govt policy, Richard.
It is, provided you don't come into the crisis with an existing humongous deficit and/or debt level.
We have seen consumer spending figures and that's with higher inflation. I am struggling to see where else we go...
With potential Brexit chaos and political instability, the place we go is falling living standards, higher taxes and higher unemployment, I'm afraid. The only uncertainty is the extent of it.
Just in case the Tories have some residual economic credibility left to lose...
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
We have three choices:
1. Tax more 2. Spend less 3. All of the above
Choose.
Well, you guys could cancel your scheduled act of economic self-harm, then let your economy grow without increasing spending as fast so the spending dropped proportionally.
It wouldn't surprise me if that were true. One of my concerns as a progressively inclined voter is that there are far too many people on the left who believe in the 'one solution, revolution' mindset. Now they would almost certainly baulk at the suggestion, 'no, no we gave that up a long time ago' but when you look at things many people really do seem to believe that all that is needed is to get the Tories out, get rid of Westminster (SNP) and the progressive utopia would be upon us. Removing the Tories would in fact merely be the beginning of a process likely to take 10 to 15 years and need re-election twice in order to lay down some social democratic foundations, let alone socialist transformation.
Now it may be that many Corbynites/Scots Nats aren't that ambitious, they're just fed up with pay freezes, expensive housing, insecure jobs and would appreciate something a little better. I have sympathy but the politically active ones seem concerned with far more but not really detailed plans.
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
I fear all you are doing is highlighting just how badly presented and poorly understood the Tory proposal was.
If even posters on here didn't understand it you can imagine how well it went down with the general public. The truth gets lost and distorted and your poll ratings go South
On which note, check out the twitter hashtag #DUPfilms
Tory foot-shooting continues apace.
My mother is 90 and she certainly doesn't understand it. She thinks that care would be free now and that the Tory policy was to take her house to pay for it should she need it.
She has all her marbles although a 90-year-old brain is perhaps as good as 90-year-old back or a 90-year-old set of knees. To my intense distress she reads the Daily Mail. If given those inputs that what she took away as being the policy, it's a disaster.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
We have three choices:
1. Tax more 2. Spend less 3. All of the above
Choose.
Well, you guys could cancel your scheduled act of economic self-harm, then let your economy grow without increasing spending as fast so the spending dropped proportionally.
I wish they would, but the consensus seems to be that Brexit means Brexit...
Social care - only option that isn't electoral suicide is to make it free, part of the NHS and pay for it through general taxation. Sell it as an expansion of cradle to grave care by the state and tie it in with a big sweetie for the young. Sort out housing, especially the slum landlord mentality of the property portfolio BTL racketeers and you have a comprehensive package to sell to the electorate. Then it's just a question of whether you go more statist or capitalist on the rest. Back to the pre Thatcher norms.
The problem is the huge cost. A report said that it is too complex for insurance companies to arrive at a sensible protection policy and to include it in the NHS would require a 5% rise in basic tax
So be it. Bump up the personal allowance to protect low earners, reintorduce a starter rate of tax for the forst 5k aabove that, 5% on the upper rate and we all take the hit.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
There is only one way out of this problem and that is by appointing an independent commission and that all parties commit to accepting the recommendations
Yep, the only way is to have a death tax now, too much has gone to the Boomers for the current working population to keep funding them.
Why wait for the rich to die? Mansion tax and CGT on their houses now. Tax them if they don't sell, tax them if they do.
These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours.
Its a bit easier to take money off people once they've died and often assets are liquidated then when they're alive.
"These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours."
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
The Tories tried that (admittedly, very badly) at the election.
If the Brexit talks become really gummed up and intractable, what chance that Theresa seeks some kind of extension - say another two or three years? Our EU friends would probably be sympathetic. The fly in the ointment would be Jezza. It's in his interest to see No Deal, cliff-edge WTO, and chaos and humiliation all round. I'm not sure he'd permit it.
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
This is not quite right. Some councils will allow a deferment of payment from the sale of your home until after death. Not all do this - it is a lottery.
The Care Act 2014 requires all councils to offer the Deferred Payment Scheme. You are right that levels of enthusiasm for pushing this vary, and prior to the Act some weren't offering it at all.
The scheme has to be offered by councils but this doesn't mean that all individuals are eligible. Your ability to pay out of your other assets is considered first. It is also worth noting that if the council finds you eligible for the scheme you won't necessarily have a free choice as to which care home you go to.
Some of the places I visited when looking for somewhere for my father were heart-breakingly awful.
At least the issue has been brought to the forefront in this election and has raised awareness in the population at large. As well as determine how care will be funded in the future improving the quality of care on offer has to be part of the equation.
It's funny to think how nervous so many of us were a couple of weeks ago. Frayed nerves because of narrowing poll leads. In the end it wasn't even as bad as we all thought- it was worse!
That was a stupid comment. The SNP can never be a bigger enemy than the Tories. This was not a referendum. It was a general election. If Dugdale's intervention even elected one extra Tory MP, she has cut down the Tory short of majority by 2.
How stupid can you get ? Why she is not being sacked now I do not know.
Senior Labour folks in Stirling openly supported the Tories in Stirling - ex-miner !
Social care - only option that isn't electoral suicide is to make it free, part of the NHS and pay for it through general taxation. Sell it as an expansion of cradle to grave care by the state and tie it in with a big sweetie for the young. Sort out housing, especially the slum landlord mentality of the property portfolio BTL racketeers and you have a comprehensive package to sell to the electorate. Then it's just a question of whether you go more statist or capitalist on the rest. Back to the pre Thatcher norms.
The problem is the huge cost. A report said that it is too complex for insurance companies to arrive at a sensible protection policy and to include it in the NHS would require a 5% rise in basic tax
So be it. Bump up the personal allowance to protect low earners, reintorduce a starter rate of tax for the forst 5k aabove that, 5% on the upper rate and we all take the hit.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
There is only one way out of this problem and that is by appointing an independent commission and that all parties commit to accepting the recommendations
Yep, the only way is to have a death tax now, too much has gone to the Boomers for the current working population to keep funding them.
Why wait for the rich to die? Mansion tax and CGT on their houses now. Tax them if they don't sell, tax them if they do.
These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours.
Its a bit easier to take money off people once they've died and often assets are liquidated then when they're alive.
"These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours."
Erm. John Locke and property rights?
...will have to be swerved around somehow.
We still have a £50 billion deficit. The national debt is getting bigger. We can't borrow indefinitely and it's immoral anyway. Either we default on it or we bring forward future tax receipts.
In fact that's not a bad idea. Pay your estate's IHT now, while alive, and you'll be charged 30% not 40%.
Otherwise people will have to have things taken off them.
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
I would suggest introducing say a 5% band for estates over £100k. that would raise plenty of money, but not be super onerous.
Instead of wasting her time calling elections, Mrs May would have been better off starting this sort of conversation and getting some feedback for the next two years and then introducing a gradual ramping up of any increases. Give people years to understand what is going to happen then it is not a shock.
SNP on a precipice with regards Indy Ref II Scottish Tories about to get the DUP fallout and be part of a very unpopular gov't. Scottish Labour perhaps prevented Corbyn becoming PM... Scottish Lib Dems despite gains had alot of bedrock vote replaced in long term Lib Dem places like Inverness. Now behind the Tories in alot of the old haunts.
Wow. Was it true that DD was lined up for the chop post election? I'm surprised. I haven't been his greatest fan in recent years, but most Tories seemed to regard him as Brexit's star performer. What was Theresa thinking of?
Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
I have a bit of an issue with the view that property really, truly, belongs to the state by default, which is where this argument leads.
I am not in favour of an increase in IHT myself, but something needs to be done. The country is living beyond its means and we seem to be very resistant to admitting that.
The biggest failure of politics at the moment is the inability to discuss the truth.
I would suggest introducing say a 5% band for estates over £100k. that would raise plenty of money, but not be super onerous.
Instead of wasting her time calling elections, Mrs May would have been better off starting this sort of conversation and getting some feedback for the next two years and then introducing a gradual ramping up of any increases. Give people years to understand what is going to happen then it is not a shock.
I agree. They should have been sounding out public understanding of the issue first, instead they just seemed to have been developing policy in a vacuum.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
We have three choices:
1. Tax more 2. Spend less 3. All of the above
Choose.
I choose a fiscal stimulus to grow the economy and put is on track for a prosperous future.
@ Sandy
Are there any circumstances in which you'd agree the government should spend less? I don't mean in specific areas, but generally - is higher spending ever a bad thing?
We should certainly be spending less on in-work benefits - by making employers pay a real living wage.
Spend less on subsidies to private rail companies to pass on to their shareholders.
Spend less on housing benefits that just line the pockets of landlords.
More generally, the government should be in a position to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP in the good times, and only increase this during times of recession in order to insulate us all from the worst of the economic storm. Classic Keynesianism, really.
This would be the same Kezia Dugdale who suspended a local Labour party for considering a deal with the Tories but did not do the same for one considering a deal with the SNP? In any case she said the Tories might be better placed in only a few areas to beat the SNP it was not an endorsement of the Tories
But that's true. Most houses were exempt from the asset assessment because a spouse or dependent are living there. The second paragraph is absolutely correct. This was the essence of the Tory proposal.
Now you are just making things up.
No, you clearly have zero understanding of the current arrangements and the Tory proposal. Kindly recuse yourself from the discussion until you have done some research. You're embarrassing yourself.
It is you who clearly have no understanding. Either that or you are just making it up for political point scoring.
Do you deny that many people currently receiving residential care would, for the first time, have had a putative charge placed against their house under the Tory proposals?
Yes I do deny it. It is not for the first time at all. It has been that way for many years - thanks to Labour. Currently if you receive residential care your house is included in the value of your assets and must be sold when you are still alive, to pay for your care. The Tory proposal moves this to after your death. The status of other dependents doesn't change in either case.
This is not quite right. Some councils will allow a deferment of payment from the sale of your home until after death. Not all do this - it is a lottery.
The Care Act 2014 requires all councils to offer the Deferred Payment Scheme. You are right that levels of enthusiasm for pushing this vary, and prior to the Act some weren't offering it at all.
The scheme has to be offered by councils but this doesn't mean that all individuals are eligible. Your ability to pay out of your other assets is considered first. It is also worth noting that if the council finds you eligible for the scheme you won't necessarily have a free choice as to which care home you go to.
Some of the places I visited when looking for somewhere for my father were heart-breakingly awful.
At least the issue has been brought to the forefront in this election and has raised awareness in the population at large. As well as determine how care will be funded in the future improving the quality of care on offer has to be part of the equation.
As I understand it, not all councils are following the Care Act to the letter. It is a lottery.
People end up taking them to Court to block sales of houses before death.
The Tories were always keen that the SNP should not vote on devolved matters in the HoC.
Do the Tories now have a majority in the HoC on England only bills ?
Yep.
The DUP were originally against EVEL, I daresay they couldn't give a toss now.
As I understand it, it's actually a stage for English MPs to veto a bill or part of a bill considered English only; other MPs can still debate & vote on a bill. Reading about it, it appears to be the Speaker who decides which part of a bill should be defined as English, while a committee decides if a bill is pure Anglo Saxon. Seems like a complete lash up job to me.
And then you have the question why should the young have to pay more tax to keep the wealthy from paying for their social care so that they can hand down their wealth to their children.
The young pay less tax than ever before, graduates paying off a student loan included.
Someone on the 1985 UK average wage of £6,997 paid 27% in tax.
Someone on the 2016 UK average wage of £26,208 paid 20%. If they have a student loan they paid 23%.
You need to include employer NI here.
...And Council Tax and VAT at 20%, tax on insurance, electricity etc. They're not called stealth taxes for nothing!
NI Sec appears to be involved in DUP/Tory negotiations !
" On a possible conflict of interest, Mr Brokenshire stresses that his work on the devolution settlement was "separate". "
Whilst it might not detonate the GFA (then again it might) it could well destroy Stormont talks and lead to re-establishment of direct rule. At which point Labour propose loosening abortion laws in NI and the Tories either have to vote with it and torpedoing their alliance or vote against and lose hundreds of thousands more female votes.
You'd have to have a heart of stone etc etc
I suspect many Tories have confused the DUP with the UUP, the UUP MPs have in the past served the Tory Whip
Or the Tories say it's a matter of conscience and not for English MZps to impose their moral values
Comments
a) Cameron's referendum commitment and all the ensuing history
b) The loss of support from business and the educated, due to Brexit
c) May's snap election, which wouldn't have been called but for Brexit
d) The jettisoning of Tory economic strategy, as a direct consequence of Brexit, so they had no challenge to Corbyn's anti-austerity economics and hence lost their majority
e) and f) coming up are likely to be equally grim for the Tories.
The voters didn't like it.
Totally clean, 12 yr NCB, 245 -> 272
So that will definitely continue into the inflation statistics.
Someone on the 1985 UK average wage of £6,997 paid 27% in tax.
Someone on the 2016 UK average wage of £26,208 paid 20%. If they have a student loan they paid 23%.
'Scottish Labour leader faces backlash after urging Scots to vote TORY to keep Sturgeon out'
http://tinyurl.com/y8m4f3pz
As I said before like a fair number of your gender you resort to bluster when pulled up on ridiculous statements like the SNP being "hated" in the oil industry. Nor do I believe you campaigned for the Yes vote on the streets of Aberdeen. You don't win most votes in the city when you are "hated" and if you had campaigned I would certainly have heard of you..
What I do believe is that your posts are designed to damage the SNP and you have been caught out dissembling . As for my defence of Salmond it was aimed very clearly at his detractors who piled in on top of your posts.
They have feared him for a long time - and still do.
These people need to understand that just because you paid for something once already, that doesn't mean it's yours.
If even posters on here didn't understand it you can imagine how well it went down with the general public. The truth gets lost and distorted and your poll ratings go South
On which note, check out the twitter hashtag #DUPfilms
Tory foot-shooting continues apace.
Seriously, though, this might be the right time. The Daily Mail will be reluctant to attack May too much in next couple of years as they know a fall in the government will now lead to a Corbyn government. Gauke should seize the day.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/874576057579565056
But the govt still needs to inject demand into the economy, whatever the state of it is.
How stupid can you get ? Why she is not being sacked now I do not know.
Now it may be that many Corbynites/Scots Nats aren't that ambitious, they're just fed up with pay freezes, expensive housing, insecure jobs and would appreciate something a little better. I have sympathy but the politically active ones seem concerned with far more but not really detailed plans.
Do the Tories now have a majority in the HoC on England only bills ?
She has all her marbles although a 90-year-old brain is perhaps as good as 90-year-old back or a 90-year-old set of knees. To my intense distress she reads the Daily Mail. If given those inputs that what she took away as being the policy, it's a disaster.
As for my solution, my avatar gives a hint
Erm. John Locke and property rights?
Some of the places I visited when looking for somewhere for my father were heart-breakingly awful.
At least the issue has been brought to the forefront in this election and has raised awareness in the population at large. As well as determine how care will be funded in the future improving the quality of care on offer has to be part of the equation.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15331798.Tories_are_the_only_party__that_will_stand_up_for_Scotland___says_Stirling_Labour_vice_chair/
Tories won Stirling by 148 votes !
We still have a £50 billion deficit. The national debt is getting bigger. We can't borrow indefinitely and it's immoral anyway. Either we default on it or we bring forward future tax receipts.
In fact that's not a bad idea. Pay your estate's IHT now, while alive, and you'll be charged 30% not 40%.
Otherwise people will have to have things taken off them.
SNP on a precipice with regards Indy Ref II
Scottish Tories about to get the DUP fallout and be part of a very unpopular gov't.
Scottish Labour perhaps prevented Corbyn becoming PM...
Scottish Lib Dems despite gains had alot of bedrock vote replaced in long term Lib Dem places like Inverness. Now behind the Tories in alot of the old haunts.
Who wins out of that lot ?
The only person scared of Eck is Nicola, and with good reason
NEW THREAD
Spend less on subsidies to private rail companies to pass on to their shareholders.
Spend less on housing benefits that just line the pockets of landlords.
More generally, the government should be in a position to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP in the good times, and only increase this during times of recession in order to insulate us all from the worst of the economic storm. Classic Keynesianism, really.
People end up taking them to Court to block sales of houses before death.
The DUP were originally against EVEL, I daresay they couldn't give a toss now.
As I understand it, it's actually a stage for English MPs to veto a bill or part of a bill considered English only; other MPs can still debate & vote on a bill. Reading about it, it appears to be the Speaker who decides which part of a bill should be defined as English, while a committee decides if a bill is pure Anglo Saxon. Seems like a complete lash up job to me.