How much does in-home care actually cost on average?
If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?
It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?
eg house worth £300k, you've had some in-home care in last few years of your life at a cost of say maybe £20k to £30k - so kids inherit £270k to £280k net - is it really a big deal?
Whereas residential care is an absolute fortune in comparison.
I don't know the answer but I could foresee a situation where families decide to take more direct control of home care arrangements.
I know a few people who have been through this and having power of attorney in advance seems to be the way to go.
Excellent point - having a lasting (or enduring) power of attorney is strongly advisable!
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
How much does in-home care actually cost on average?
If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?
It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?
eg house worth £300k, you've had some in-home care in last few years of your life at a cost of say maybe £20k to £30k - so kids inherit £270k to £280k net - is it really a big deal?
Whereas residential care is an absolute fortune in comparison.
I don't know the answer but I could foresee a situation where families decide to take more direct control of home care arrangements.
I know a few people who have been through this and having power of attorney in advance seems to be the way to go.
Power of Attorney is a very sensible thing to have organised full stop and doesn't cost much...
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
You currently pay until you only have £23k left for your kids.
Right Wing MP's wanted us out of the EU and they have it. A little compromise is fair enough
But his moaning is absolutely not right wing. He apparently regards this as a stealth addition to IHT and has given a minimally adapted rant against IHT to rebut it, but the two things couldn't be more different (though the effects are the same). The proper conservative view is that people should pay from their own pockets for what they consume, with a safety net for those (and only for those) for whom it all goes pear-shaped. He is pro-having cake, pro-eating it.
Anne Perkins, Guardian As a political strategy, it is dazzling. She has also got some bold policy prescriptions. She has at last addressed pensioner privilege and intergenerational unfairness. She wants to get a mandate for some very unpopular policies. But what she really set out to do was establish herself as the leader for her times.
Hurrah, though this bad news for Harry Kane and Dele Alli.
Players who dive in English football will face bans from next season under new Football Association regulations.
Under the new rules, passed by the governing body at its annual general meeting on Thursday, a panel will review footage from the weekend each Monday looking for cases of simulation.
Any player unanimously found guilty of diving would be given a suspension.
1. The collapse of UKIP is real, as is the transfer of most of their votes to the Tories. 2. Given 1, a Tory floor of around 45% is not unrealistic, so if there is overstatement of the Tory numbers, it is by 1-2% 3. Labour are getting a multifaceted bounce - a return to two-party politics in England and Wales, a non-disastrous Manifesto (except the costing, which turns away mostly people who had already left Labour), and Farron's disastrous campaign 4. Labour will probably lose 2% of their bounce and I suspect the headline in any case overstates likelihood to vote by 4%. So my guess is that they'll be on about 28% 5. The LibDems will be squeezed into oblivion where they are currently #3, but will hold up better elsewhere. I am not sure that 7% is wrong overall, it may be a little higher, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 9%. 6. Greens on about 3%, UKIP 2%, SNP 5%, others 2%
Normalizing this to 100% gives:
Tory 47.9% Labour 30.8% LD 9.9% Green 3.3% UKIP 2.2% SNP 5.5% Others 2.2%
Baxtered 392 175 6 1 0 55
Adjusted Baxter (Tories better in first 70 seats all at the expense of Labour, gives +10 from Lab. In Scotland, Tories plus 4 from SNP, Lab plus 1, LDs plus 1)
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I think turnout will be quite high, simply because there seems to be a higher level of political engagement now than is usually the case.
Well, there wasn't in my barber shop the other day, I can tell you!
Richard, I've been meaning to ask you for a while what you think would be an ok performance for May - and what would be good, and what jolly good. I think we can assume her majority won't be any less than it is now, but just equalling the 2015 result would I'm sure be regarded as little better than disastrous so how many extra seats does she need to reach the three banchmarks?
If you are really in the mood you can also tell me what you think she will get but I wouldn't hold you to it. I'm finding it very difficult to read this election and so far have had only one bet of any consequence - tenner seat buy of Labour at 160. Personally I wouldn't care to say where the wheel of fortune will stop though.
Modern government can only survive if it appropriates a share of the rising value of assets. We can only hope that the burden on more desirable things like income is reduced at the same time.
The Romans didn't have the means to do any of this. Who knows what evils they might have inflicted on their empire, given modern means?
Hurrah, though this bad news for Harry Kane and Dele Alli.
Players who dive in English football will face bans from next season under new Football Association regulations.
Under the new rules, passed by the governing body at its annual general meeting on Thursday, a panel will review footage from the weekend each Monday looking for cases of simulation.
Any player unanimously found guilty of diving would be given a suspension.
I think you've hit your quota for spurs trolling on this thread. Might I refer you to Messrs Rashford and Sane in recent times as more heinous examples.
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
Who owns the house your parents live in?
I don't think the solution has changed much over the years from gifting the house to the child and remaining in it. That's especially relevant when the child still uses it as a base...
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't really see that. You need a house to live in, and you can either give it away or live in it, not both - except by gift-and-loan-back setups which are easily defeated by anti-avoidance clauses.
You can take a loan out against it, though, and pass the proceeds to the next generation. Estate = asset less liability.
True (if it works like IHT and they don't put different anti-avoidance measures in), iff someone is prepared to give you the loan. Elderly and demented are not the building society's favourite things.
Right Wing MP's wanted us out of the EU and they have it. A little compromise is fair enough
But his moaning is absolutely not right wing. He apparently regards this as a stealth addition to IHT and has given a minimally adapted rant against IHT to rebut it, but the two things couldn't be more different (though the effects are the same). The proper conservative view is that people should pay from their own pockets for what they consume, with a safety net for those (and only for those) for whom it all goes pear-shaped. He is pro-having cake, pro-eating it.
At the end of his quote he talks of 'right wing MPs', that's what I'm responding to
Hurrah, though this bad news for Harry Kane and Dele Alli.
Players who dive in English football will face bans from next season under new Football Association regulations.
Under the new rules, passed by the governing body at its annual general meeting on Thursday, a panel will review footage from the weekend each Monday looking for cases of simulation.
Any player unanimously found guilty of diving would be given a suspension.
Would be better if they docked the team 2pts. A player diving to win a last min pen that results in victory is worth an individual ban. What if the worst squad player dives & wins a pen? No harm done if they win and he is suspended
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
It isn't a tax. It is a method of recovering some of the costs of services provided to some people. If I engage your services as a lawyer are your charges a tax?
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Right Wing MP's wanted us out of the EU and they have it. A little compromise is fair enough
But his moaning is absolutely not right wing. He apparently regards this as a stealth addition to IHT and has given a minimally adapted rant against IHT to rebut it, but the two things couldn't be more different (though the effects are the same). The proper conservative view is that people should pay from their own pockets for what they consume, with a safety net for those (and only for those) for whom it all goes pear-shaped. He is pro-having cake, pro-eating it.
At the end of his quote he talks of 'right wing MPs', that's what I'm responding to
It would be just as conservative to pool the risk across society. Or are conservatives against national insurance these days.
At least engineer a market in personal insurance against care costs by the state offering tax incentives.
Its the tale of two manifesto disasters. Labour produce a balanced costed investment budget, then someone in the senior team does a Columbo Close on the deal and we announce we're going to buy the likes of Thames Water.
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
Yes it is hard to defend , I am sure the PB Tories on here will tell us how good it is.Taking houses of people who have worked all their lives to pay for it is macabre .Can you imagine the reaction if Labour had proposed this last week on here.
There is a massive difference between inheritance tax - just handing over a proportion of your earned assets to the government for nothing, and this - which is PAYING for something you have FWOABW consumed, i.e. social care, and then not until after you are dead anyway so it is painless during your lifetime.
There's no good way round it and I agree it will be unpopular, but it's at least an honest way of facing up to the fact we have an ageing population and we cannot simply pay for everyone's care from general taxation. Appreciated real estate value is "earned" without effort or toil, and paid back only after death. And you get to pass on £100K to your heirs. Could be worse. If not like this - then how? I don't believe a perfectly fair and painless way exists.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agree entirely! The key thing here is that the elderly are neither turfed out of their home nor left impoverished in their lifetime due to care costs. That's a great relief to many, and for poorer pensioners this takes them completely out of paying for care.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's not a utopia but it's better than we have now as far as I can see and "Cameron's cap" was flawed as it didn't include the hotel costs of care before it would kick in so was more spin than content... also how many times had they kicked it down the road already.
You can still also buy a care annuity to cap the risk to your inheritance as you can now for in home care OR in a care home as long as the provider is a registered carer and if you or your family have the means to do so.
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
Who owns the house your parents live in?
My parents. They bought it for 13 grand in 1981 and is worth a lot more now.
I provided one solution below. Another one was to move when the symptoms appear (prior to care being needed) and ensuring the new house is not in the name of the person requiring care.
I just hope this proposed change will actually improve social care provided by local authorities. It would be a crime if the current level is maintained and the extra money goes into local councillors jaunting off to hot places and funding non smoking clinics for LBGTQRXWZ's
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agree entirely! The key thing here is that the elderly are neither turfed out of their home nor left impoverished in their lifetime due to care costs. That's a great relief to many, and for poorer pensioners this takes them completely out of paying for care.
And if you have to pay a tax or a charge, I volunteer to do so after death in preference to right now...
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
If we are to remove 4-5% from the big two, and the others are as crap as the polls suggest, surely the betting move is....
Any guesses as to what I think?
OK!
Surely sell turnout?
Though the stark choice on offer may boost turnout. Afterall one can't say why bother voting they're all the same.
My view is that the public are bored of elections.. this is the 3rd in three years. Also I think many die hard Labour voters who cant have Jezza will abstain rather than vote Tory, although I am pretty much basing this on my parents, who agree w May but wont vote Tory as they feel they are letting down their parents!
The 'bored of elections' angle is one that been aired little on PB, Sure, we're all interested in it here but in the real out there (which I visit occasionally) there's a definite sense of 'oh no, not again.'
I think turnout will be very low.
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I'm not sure whether the "great unwashed" care why the vote is happening, just that it is happening and if they back [or oppose] an option on the ballot.
While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.
The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
OK, noted with thanks, Philip. I've backed a smaller than usual turnout to modest stakes and am happy to stand by it - and admit my mistake later if I'm wrong.
Maybe the problem around here is that the two big Constituencies (Wanstead and Woodford) have big majorities, although over in marginal Hampstead which I visit regularly, I don't notice any greater buzz.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
Currently the dementia tax is how long can you cope spending 24 hours a day with the person with dementia in your home...
What I'm impressed is that a solution is being proposed. This has been kicked down the road for 15+ years and finally things are being done..
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
Who owns the house your parents live in?
My parents. They bought it for 13 grand in 1981 and is worth a lot more now.
I provided one solution below. Another one was to move when the symptoms appear (prior to care being needed) and ensuring the new house is not in the name of the person requiring care.
My parents are absolutely debt averse.
My mother thinks debt is the eighth deadly sin, she'll think she's leaving me and the kids her debts.
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
He'll be guaranteed £100k of inheritance. The rest is down to luck. Will either parent need £200K of care home fees paying out of the estate?
Also, no clarity of whether the surviving parent gets automatic transfer of the property to them on death before the state starts getting its £200K back.
Right Wing MP's wanted us out of the EU and they have it. A little compromise is fair enough
But his moaning is absolutely not right wing. He apparently regards this as a stealth addition to IHT and has given a minimally adapted rant against IHT to rebut it, but the two things couldn't be more different (though the effects are the same). The proper conservative view is that people should pay from their own pockets for what they consume, with a safety net for those (and only for those) for whom it all goes pear-shaped. He is pro-having cake, pro-eating it.
At the end of his quote he talks of 'right wing MPs', that's what I'm responding to
Yes, sorry, I was responding to his claim that this will enrage right wing MPs (whose view he apparently shares). His/their implied argument is bonkers: It's like saying that all purchases from Waitrose should be free, at least free to higher rate taxpayers, because having to pay for them blatantly reduces the amount of money the shopper could otherwise pass on in his will. The right wing MP who uses the NHS should rewalise that he is pushing the boundaries by doing so, and should not seek to extend the boundaries further.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
Currently the dementia tax is how long can you cope spending 24 hours a day with the person with dementia in your home...
What I'm impressed is that a solution is being proposed. This has been kicked down the road for 15+ years and suddenly things are being done..
Just as some progress is being made on the medical front, but better late than never.
Mr. Animal, that was a consequence of the civil wars and repeated donatives devaluing the silver content of the currency, causing rampant inflation and food shortages. It wasn't a matter of policy, but necessity and misfortune.
Rome was better as a republic. Augustus and Tiberius made serious errors of judgement in establishing the imperial role.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Likewise. If anyone is concerned about this they surely could also take out some kind of private insurance or save towards eol costs. Either way if you're comfortable off it's the right thing to do. Certainly in my planning.
Agreed. Should also be a rule change to penalty goals, to stop deliberate hand ball on the line for the same reason. No way Gyan was scoring the pen when Suarez did his little party trick in the WC.
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I'm not sure whether the "great unwashed" care why the vote is happening, just that it is happening and if they back [or oppose] an option on the ballot.
While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.
The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
OK, noted with thanks, Philip. I've backed a smaller than usual turnout to modest stakes and am happy to stand by it - and admit my mistake later if I'm wrong.
Maybe the problem around here is that the two big Constituencies have big majorities, although over in marginal Hampstead which I visit regularly, I don't notice any greater buzz.
I have no idea where the line is on the markets but would you be happy to do a tenner friendly bet on turnout versus 2015? I think it will be up and you presumably think it will be down?
Happy to do either a straight bet or a charity one whichever you prefer.
There's no doubt Jeremy has raised his game. I suspect this is partly the reason opposition to the Tories has galvanised around Labour. Ironically I was just talking to two people who would always support Labour but this time are looking elsewhere.
The first works in HR for a huge company who supplies services to the NHS. She believes her job will go if Corbyn gets in and bans private companies The second a cafe owner doesn't think it's fair that corporation tax should go up to 25% whether you're a small cafe or Costa!
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
He'll be guaranteed £100k of inheritance. The rest is down to luck. Will either parent need £200K of care home fees paying out of the estate?
Also, no clarity of whether the surviving parent gets automatic transfer of the property to them on death before the state starts getting its £200K back.
currently where the first spouse goes in to a home and the second spouse stays in the home if charges are being rolled up against the house then the second spouse is not affected until either he/she dies or needs to go in to a home themselves - at that point the house is then normally sold.
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
Who owns the house your parents live in?
My parents. They bought it for 13 grand in 1981 and is worth a lot more now.
I provided one solution below. Another one was to move when the symptoms appear (prior to care being needed) and ensuring the new house is not in the name of the person requiring care.
My parents are absolutely debt averse.
My mother thinks debt is the eighth deadly sin, she'll think she's leaving me and the kids her debts.
It still boils down to transferring assets around family members early enough that no claw back is possible....
As I stated given that the child still lives with the parents its easier to justify than would otherwise be the case. Especially if its timed alongside large house renovations / improvements (thinking about how some Asian families have solved this issue).
Mr. Animal, that was a consequence of the civil wars and repeated donatives devaluing the silver content of the currency, causing rampant inflation and food shortages. It wasn't a matter of policy, but necessity and misfortune.
Rome was better as a republic. Augustus and Tiberius made serious errors of judgement in establishing the imperial role.
Not sure the concept of policy is entirely relevant to the more primitive system of rule in either the Rebuplic or the Empire, tbh.
But to bring it back to the 21st century, surely necessity and misfortune - and how we pay for them - are central to the end of life care discussions.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
People can have a wide range of reasons why they require lots of care in old age. there is no intrinsic reason why other taxpayers should pay for this if they can afford to pay it out of their assets. I've invented a phrase for it 'saving for a rainy day' - maybe you should try it and by fewer shoes
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't really see that. You need a house to live in, and you can either give it away or live in it, not both - except by gift-and-loan-back setups which are easily defeated by anti-avoidance clauses.
You can put it into trust for your beneficiaries with the absolute right to live in it during your lifetime. It no longer belongs to you.
I'll probably put mine in trust as it's worth £450 k - funny money, I didn't spend more than £150k to build it - with some to go to distant relatives and some to other beneficiaries or charity.
Not because I'm rich. More because I think this and previous Labour policy is a f*****g shambles.
The most sensible process would be to fund old age care out of general taxation and benefit from the collective security and risk-spreading that the NHS provides. Will you get dementia at 68 and toddle on until you're 91, or will you stay fit and die of a sudden stroke at 101? You have little idea.
The state needs to provide the basics, just as it needs to provide an adequate pension. If you get demented and want luxury old-age accommodation, you're free to pay for it. Or if you have rich friends, go and live in the Ritz like Thatcher did.
Richard, I've been meaning to ask you for a while what you think would be an ok performance for May - and what would be good, and what jolly good. I think we can assume her majority won't be any less than it is now, but just equalling the 2015 result would I'm sure be regarded as little better than disastrous so how many extra seats does she need to reach the three banchmarks?
If you are really in the mood you can also tell me what you think she will get but I wouldn't hold you to it. I'm finding it very difficult to read this election and so far have had only one bet of any consequence - tenner seat buy of Labour at 160. Personally I wouldn't care to say where the wheel of fortune will stop though.
Objectively speaking, a majority of 50 or more would be OK in terms of what she needs in order to be able to govern, but expectations have been allowed to get out of hand, so politically that would be a bit of a disaster. Also, against Corbyn one should expect much more than that. So I'd say that a majority of 100 would be the minimum to be considered a success.
The other point I'd make is that it depends on where those seats are. Making progress in Scotland, even if only a handful of gains, is politically vital. If she can also win seats in former Labour strongholds of the North, that will also be politically potent, in order to get away from the perception of the Tories not governing for the whole country. Both seem likely.
As regards my current expectations, I'm not as bullish as some. Maybe something like:
Con 390 Lab 178 LD 12 SNP 46 PC 4 Green 1 NI 18 Speaker 1
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
People can have a wide range of reasons why they require lots of care in old age. there is no intrinsic reason why other taxpayers should pay for this if they can afford to pay it out of their assets. I've invented a phrase for it 'saving for a rainy day' - maybe you should try it and by fewer shoes
Just for Justin, the Tory lead is only 9% when it is all voters included
Does headline voting intention allow for likelihood of changing mind?
Or does it just allow for turnout differential?
Think it's based on turnout weighting (which helps Tories) and some Don't Knows being assumed to go back to their 2015 vote (which has been favouring Labour lately).
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
Who owns the house your parents live in?
My parents. They bought it for 13 grand in 1981 and is worth a lot more now.
I provided one solution below. Another one was to move when the symptoms appear (prior to care being needed) and ensuring the new house is not in the name of the person requiring care.
My parents are absolutely debt averse.
My mother thinks debt is the eighth deadly sin, she'll think she's leaving me and the kids her debts.
It still boils down to transferring assets around family members early enough that no claw back is possible....
As I stated given that the child still lives with the parents its easier to justify than would otherwise be the case. Especially if its times alongside large house renovations / improvements...
That's right I think. You can set it up so the house automatic transfers into the hands of the children the moment one parent dies. Is this what you are driving at?
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.
Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
Mr. Animal, that was a consequence of the civil wars and repeated donatives devaluing the silver content of the currency, causing rampant inflation and food shortages. It wasn't a matter of policy, but necessity and misfortune.
Rome was better as a republic. Augustus and Tiberius made serious errors of judgement in establishing the imperial role.
Point me to the politicians who advocate high taxation but not as a necessity?
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
People can have a wide range of reasons why they require lots of care in old age. there is no intrinsic reason why other taxpayers should pay for this if they can afford to pay it out of their assets. I've invented a phrase for it 'saving for a rainy day' - maybe you should try it and by fewer shoes
It's not an issue for me, I try and save 40% of my salary. She's really debt adverse, she always saves but she'll see the nightmare examples and worry.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.
Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
Certainly it would be fairer to ramp up IHT and use the proceeds to pay for the care.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.
Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
That is already the case. Except under these proposals the person needing care will not have to worry about sorting anything out whilst being cared for. The argument here is really whether one believes in free social care for all paid from general taxation or that care costs should be born by the service user from their estate after death.
Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
Who owns the house your parents live in?
My parents. They bought it for 13 grand in 1981 and is worth a lot more now.
I provided one solution below. Another one was to move when the symptoms appear (prior to care being needed) and ensuring the new house is not in the name of the person requiring care.
My parents are absolutely debt averse.
My mother thinks debt is the eighth deadly sin, she'll think she's leaving me and the kids her debts.
It still boils down to transferring assets around family members early enough that no claw back is possible....
As I stated given that the child still lives with the parents its easier to justify than would otherwise be the case. Especially if its times alongside large house renovations / improvements...
That's right I think. You can set it up so the house automatic transfers into the hands of the children the moment one parent dies. Is this what you are driving at?
Trusts are explicitly mentioned in the Tory manifesto for their tax reduction possibilities and the need to reduce those options - so personally I wouldn't be rushing to create a new trust...
Richard, I've been meaning to ask you for a while what you think would be an ok performance for May - and what would be good, and what jolly good. I think we can assume her majority won't be any less than it is now, but just equalling the 2015 result would I'm sure be regarded as little better than disastrous so how many extra seats does she need to reach the three banchmarks?
If you are really in the mood you can also tell me what you think she will get but I wouldn't hold you to it. I'm finding it very difficult to read this election and so far have had only one bet of any consequence - tenner seat buy of Labour at 160. Personally I wouldn't care to say where the wheel of fortune will stop though.
Objectively speaking, a majority of 50 or more would be OK in terms of what she needs in order to be able to govern, but expectations have been allowed to get out of hand, so politically that would be a bit of a disaster. Also, against Corbyn one should expect much more than that. So I'd say that a majority of 100 would be the minimum to be considered a success.
The other point I'd make is that it depends on where those seats are. Making progress in Scotland, even if only a handful of gains, is politically vital. If she can also win seats in former Labour strongholds of the North, that will also be politically potent, in order to get away from the perception of the Tories not governing for the whole country. Both seem likely.
As regards my current expectations, I'm not as bullish as some. Maybe something like:
Con 390 Lab 178 LD 12 SNP 46 PC 4 Green 1 NI 18 Speaker 1
Thanks Richard.
Yes, that looks eminently plausible (but I'm still keeping my money in my pocket!) and I agree anything less than majority of 50 wouldn't look that great, even if it would be plenty to ensure a full five year term.
I like your Labour figure! It makes me a few bob AND Corbyn would be aimed out. Win/Win!! :-)
It's not in response to a national need, but an entirely optional course they've chosen to take. Roman taxation problems were a result of civil wars and rampant inflation. Indeed, the comparable response now would be reducing the deficit, but Labour wants to increase it.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.
Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
That is already the case. Except under these proposals the person needing care will not have to worry about sorting anything out whilst being cared for. The argument here is really whether one believes in free social care for all paid from general taxation or that care costs should be born by the service user from their estate after death.
Surely the question is do you think the country can afford to pay for all social care from general taxation? After that you then have to ask who will pay for it....
It's not in response to a national need, but an entirely optional course they've chosen to take. Roman taxation problems were a result of civil wars and rampant inflation. Indeed, the comparable response now would be reducing the deficit, but Labour wants to increase it.
Fine but I think you will find they deploy the same pernicious arguments as those Romans of old.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
People can have a wide range of reasons why they require lots of care in old age. there is no intrinsic reason why other taxpayers should pay for this if they can afford to pay it out of their assets. I've invented a phrase for it 'saving for a rainy day' - maybe you should try it and by fewer shoes
It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong. It's a shame that they prevented serious discussion of this issue for so long, but we have arrived at a good point. I believe we should all be paying to look after people who are unlucky enough to get dementia or some other debilitating disease in old age. And as the Tories have observed, there is certainly enough wealth in the country to be doing it.
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't really see that. You need a house to live in, and you can either give it away or live in it, not both - except by gift-and-loan-back setups which are easily defeated by anti-avoidance clauses.
You can put it into trust for your beneficiaries with the absolute right to live in it during your lifetime. It no longer belongs to you.
You can, but the tax consequences are, um, not ideal:
"If you make a gift into any type of trust but continue to benefit from the gift - for example, you give away your house but continue to live in it - you will pay 20% on the transfer and the gift will still count as part of your estate. These are known as gifts ‘with reservation of benefit’. " https://www.gov.uk/guidance/trusts-and-inheritance-tax
Another question - which is the more worrying for the elderly? That they might be turfed out of their home or forced to sell to pay for care/ability to get care when needed or how much cash the kids get?
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I'm not sure whether the "great unwashed" care why the vote is happening, just that it is happening and if they back [or oppose] an option on the ballot.
While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.
The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
OK, noted with thanks, Philip. I've backed a smaller than usual turnout to modest stakes and am happy to stand by it - and admit my mistake later if I'm wrong.
Maybe the problem around here is that the two big Constituencies have big majorities, although over in marginal Hampstead which I visit regularly, I don't notice any greater buzz.
I have no idea where the line is on the markets but would you be happy to do a tenner friendly bet on turnout versus 2015? I think it will be up and you presumably think it will be down?
Happy to do either a straight bet or a charity one whichever you prefer.
It'll be a charity one, if at all, Philip. Drop me an email if you are interested. arklebar@gmail.com
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
It's a dementia tax.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
Governments cannot very well legislate to outlaw bad luck.
Unless you have the inverse of a tax allowance on inheritance - governments will claim the first £10K of any estate...? spread the pain?
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.
Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
Indeed. Instead of penalising the families of people who are unlucky enough to get dementia, why not ensure that contributions are spread across all of those who have significant equity in their properties?
If May wants a landslide she needs to send out the troops to squash the dementia tax line of attack and sell the benefit of in life security of care. This election us getting very interesting, and I'm glad I've restricted myself to fun levels of exposure in bets.
It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.
They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.
There's no doubt Jeremy has raised his game. I suspect this is partly the reason opposition to the Tories has galvanised around Labour. Ironically I was just talking to two people who would always support Labour but this time are looking elsewhere.
The first works in HR for a huge company who supplies services to the NHS. She believes her job will go if Corbyn gets in and bans private companies The second a cafe owner doesn't think it's fair that corporation tax should go up to 25% whether you're a small cafe or Costa!
The problem is, Roger, that the small cafe owner probably pays 25% whereas Costa's effective rate is likely to be much lower because of tax avoidance manoeuvres.
It's not in response to a national need, but an entirely optional course they've chosen to take. Roman taxation problems were a result of civil wars and rampant inflation. Indeed, the comparable response now would be reducing the deficit, but Labour wants to increase it.
Old Roman saying, during the late Republic, in respect of the senatorial regional governorships: you needed to make three fortunes - one to pay for the bribes that got you there, one to bribe your successors/public officials to prevent them prosecuting you and one for you to keep. Call it extortion or taxation, it was still levying money from the population, and it was built into the late Republic just as much as the later Empire.
I can see that we'll soon be claiming that anyone who is down to their last hundred grand is in relative poverty.
It is bonkers that currently if someone had a million in cash but rented a home they would be expected to pay, but someone with a million pound home and a modest income wouldn't. They are equally wealthy.
Also you can either pay when you work, or pay when you die, but you are going to have to pay for the care you use. It's not "free".
The only real argument I can see against the proposals are that they don't pool risk, but I suspect that the same people moaning about this proposal would moan just as much about tax rises.
Afternoon all. Catching up on the manifesto, good to see that I agree with the majority of it, and fantastic to see progress on the social care issue - something that's been kicked down the road for too long by politicians of all stripes.
Hopefully a government with a large majority can keep looking through the too-difficult list, merger of income tax, national insurance and universal credit next maybe; or perhaps reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax charge on private health insurance?
Another question - which is the more worrying for the elderly? That they might be turfed out of their home or forced to sell to pay for care/ability to get care when needed or how much cash the kids get?
My guess would be the former, but I don't expect the argument to get past "Dementia Tax".
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. This seems like an eminently reasonable policy to me.
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I'm not sure whether the "great unwashed" care why the vote is happening, just that it is happening and if they back [or oppose] an option on the ballot.
While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.
The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
OK, noted with thanks, Philip. I've backed a smaller than usual turnout to modest stakes and am happy to stand by it - and admit my mistake later if I'm wrong.
Maybe the problem around here is that the two big Constituencies have big majorities, although over in marginal Hampstead which I visit regularly, I don't notice any greater buzz.
I have no idea where the line is on the markets but would you be happy to do a tenner friendly bet on turnout versus 2015? I think it will be up and you presumably think it will be down?
Happy to do either a straight bet or a charity one whichever you prefer.
It'll be a charity one, if at all, Philip. Drop me an email if you are interested. arklebar@gmail.com
Last time it was 66.4% William hill are 4/7 under 63%
I can see that we'll soon be claiming that anyone who is down to their last hundred grand is in relative poverty.
It is bonkers that currently if someone had a million in cash but rented a home they would be expected to pay, but someone with a million pound home and a modest income wouldn't. They are equally wealthy.
Also you can either pay when you work, or pay when you die, but you are going to have to pay for the care you use. It's not "free".
The only real argument I can see against the proposals are that they don't pool risk, but I suspect that the same people moaning about this proposal would moan just as much about tax rises.
"Why is that millionaire ex-banker in Mayfair getting his care for free? How 'progressive' is that?"
It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.
They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.
Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.
Comments
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/labour-vote-share-rises-their-support-much-softer-conservatives
Just for Justin, the Tory lead is only 9% when it is all voters included
gift with reservation rules
*sighs*
https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/865220645046681601
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
As a political strategy, it is dazzling. She has also got some bold policy prescriptions. She has at last addressed pensioner privilege and intergenerational unfairness. She wants to get a mandate for some very unpopular policies. But what she really set out to do was establish herself as the leader for her times.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/18/conservative-party-manifesto-theresa-may-the-panel
Players who dive in English football will face bans from next season under new Football Association regulations.
Under the new rules, passed by the governing body at its annual general meeting on Thursday, a panel will review footage from the weekend each Monday looking for cases of simulation.
Any player unanimously found guilty of diving would be given a suspension.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39962886
The Romans were all about low taxation.
There's a solid right wing economic underpinning to this, surely.
1. The collapse of UKIP is real, as is the transfer of most of their votes to the Tories.
2. Given 1, a Tory floor of around 45% is not unrealistic, so if there is overstatement of the Tory numbers, it is by 1-2%
3. Labour are getting a multifaceted bounce - a return to two-party politics in England and Wales, a non-disastrous Manifesto (except the costing, which turns away mostly people who had already left Labour), and Farron's disastrous campaign
4. Labour will probably lose 2% of their bounce and I suspect the headline in any case overstates likelihood to vote by 4%. So my guess is that they'll be on about 28%
5. The LibDems will be squeezed into oblivion where they are currently #3, but will hold up better elsewhere. I am not sure that 7% is wrong overall, it may be a little higher, but I'd be surprised if it exceeds 9%.
6. Greens on about 3%, UKIP 2%, SNP 5%, others 2%
Normalizing this to 100% gives:
Tory 47.9%
Labour 30.8%
LD 9.9%
Green 3.3%
UKIP 2.2%
SNP 5.5%
Others 2.2%
Baxtered
392
175
6
1
0
55
Adjusted Baxter (Tories better in first 70 seats all at the expense of Labour, gives +10 from Lab. In Scotland, Tories plus 4 from SNP, Lab plus 1, LDs plus 1)
406
166
7
1
0
49
Majority 162
No doubt way off
Richard, I've been meaning to ask you for a while what you think would be an ok performance for May - and what would be good, and what jolly good. I think we can assume her majority won't be any less than it is now, but just equalling the 2015 result would I'm sure be regarded as little better than disastrous so how many extra seats does she need to reach the three banchmarks?
If you are really in the mood you can also tell me what you think she will get but I wouldn't hold you to it. I'm finding it very difficult to read this election and so far have had only one bet of any consequence - tenner seat buy of Labour at 160. Personally I wouldn't care to say where the wheel of fortune will stop though.
The Romans didn't have the means to do any of this. Who knows what evils they might have inflicted on their empire, given modern means?
How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?
I don't think the solution has changed much over the years from gifting the house to the child and remaining in it. That's especially relevant when the child still uses it as a base...
They’ve published some info about a Chairy of which I’m a Trustee, some which is grossly out of date. I’m just wondering how ‘real’ they are.
At least engineer a market in personal insurance against care costs by the state offering tax incentives.
There's no good way round it and I agree it will be unpopular, but it's at least an honest way of facing up to the fact we have an ageing population and we cannot simply pay for everyone's care from general taxation. Appreciated real estate value is "earned" without effort or toil, and paid back only after death. And you get to pass on £100K to your heirs. Could be worse. If not like this - then how? I don't believe a perfectly fair and painless way exists.
If they popped their clogs due to sunmat else then no tax is liable ?
You can still also buy a care annuity to cap the risk to your inheritance as you can now for in home care OR in a care home as long as the provider is a registered carer and if you or your family have the means to do so.
Maybe the problem around here is that the two big Constituencies (Wanstead and Woodford) have big majorities, although over in marginal Hampstead which I visit regularly, I don't notice any greater buzz.
What I'm impressed is that a solution is being proposed. This has been kicked down the road for 15+ years and finally things are being done..
My mother thinks debt is the eighth deadly sin, she'll think she's leaving me and the kids her debts.
Also, no clarity of whether the surviving parent gets automatic transfer of the property to them on death before the state starts getting its £200K back.
Rome was better as a republic. Augustus and Tiberius made serious errors of judgement in establishing the imperial role.
Or does it just allow for turnout differential?
Agreed. Should also be a rule change to penalty goals, to stop deliberate hand ball on the line for the same reason. No way Gyan was scoring the pen when Suarez did his little party trick in the WC.
Happy to do either a straight bet or a charity one whichever you prefer.
The first works in HR for a huge company who supplies services to the NHS. She believes her job will go if Corbyn gets in and bans private companies The second a cafe owner doesn't think it's fair that corporation tax should go up to 25% whether you're a small cafe or Costa!
As I stated given that the child still lives with the parents its easier to justify than would otherwise be the case. Especially if its timed alongside large house renovations / improvements (thinking about how some Asian families have solved this issue).
But to bring it back to the 21st century, surely necessity and misfortune - and how we pay for them - are central to the end of life care discussions.
Not because I'm rich. More because I think this and previous Labour policy is a f*****g shambles.
The most sensible process would be to fund old age care out of general taxation and benefit from the collective security and risk-spreading that the NHS provides. Will you get dementia at 68 and toddle on until you're 91, or will you stay fit and die of a sudden stroke at 101? You have little idea.
The state needs to provide the basics, just as it needs to provide an adequate pension. If you get demented and want luxury old-age accommodation, you're free to pay for it. Or if you have rich friends, go and live in the Ritz like Thatcher did.
The other point I'd make is that it depends on where those seats are. Making progress in Scotland, even if only a handful of gains, is politically vital. If she can also win seats in former Labour strongholds of the North, that will also be politically potent, in order to get away from the perception of the Tories not governing for the whole country. Both seem likely.
As regards my current expectations, I'm not as bullish as some. Maybe something like:
Con 390
Lab 178
LD 12
SNP 46
PC 4
Green 1
NI 18
Speaker 1
Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
Yes, that looks eminently plausible (but I'm still keeping my money in my pocket!) and I agree anything less than majority of 50 wouldn't look that great, even if it would be plenty to ensure a full five year term.
I like your Labour figure! It makes me a few bob AND Corbyn would be aimed out. Win/Win!! :-)
It's not in response to a national need, but an entirely optional course they've chosen to take. Roman taxation problems were a result of civil wars and rampant inflation. Indeed, the comparable response now would be reducing the deficit, but Labour wants to increase it.
"If you make a gift into any type of trust but continue to benefit from the gift - for example, you give away your house but continue to live in it - you will pay 20% on the transfer and the gift will still count as part of your estate. These are known as gifts ‘with reservation of benefit’. " https://www.gov.uk/guidance/trusts-and-inheritance-tax
Governments cannot very well legislate to outlaw bad luck.
Unless you have the inverse of a tax allowance on inheritance - governments will claim the first £10K of any estate...? spread the pain?
Not popular either you say...??!
This election us getting very interesting, and I'm glad I've restricted myself to fun levels of exposure in bets.
Also you can either pay when you work, or pay when you die, but you are going to have to pay for the care you use. It's not "free".
The only real argument I can see against the proposals are that they don't pool risk, but I suspect that the same people moaning about this proposal would moan just as much about tax rises.
Hopefully a government with a large majority can keep looking through the too-difficult list, merger of income tax, national insurance and universal credit next maybe; or perhaps reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax charge on private health insurance?
Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.
ie 2nd preferences dropped.
Outraged of Islington.