Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
How about the same scenario - under current rules - with the same two widows except that one rents her home and has the £322,000 all in the bank?
Means testing should cover all assets or none. There should be no right to inherit property at the expense of the state.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
The process is actually quite difficult, particularly as EU citizens need to provide evidence of private health insurance, etc, despite being covered by the NHS. It is ironic that friends of mine are now struggling to prove that they had private health cover to work in the NHS.
It is in our interest to have a more straightforward process for people such as this.
I thought insurance provisions were for students and the self-employed?
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
The process is actually quite difficult, particularly as EU citizens need to provide evidence of private health insurance, etc, despite being covered by the NHS. It is ironic that friends of mine are now struggling to prove that they had private health cover to work in the NHS.
It is in our interest to have a more straightforward process for people such as this.
I thought insurance provisions were for students and the self-employed?
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
And...
The pooling of risk 'insurance premium' presumably by a state 'levy' on all estates is a genuine alternative but in your hypothetical the lady who lives to 95 and had nothing pays the same as her neighbour whose had 10 years expensive care.
there's no utopia here BUT at least this proposal is to grasp the nettle at last!
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
How about the same scenario - under current rules - with the same two widows except that one rents her home and has the £322,000 all in the bank?
Means testing should cover all assets or none. There should be no right to inherit property at the expense of the state.
A bit rich from someone who said in an early thread that they would give all their assets away to avoid such charges like these/IHT!
I think people are salivating too much over mums £££s and forgetting a key factor here. Older people have a fear of being forced to sell their home, having it taken away, not ever being able to go back to or stay in their home if sick. All that has now gone away. Once the system beds in the debate over a total cost cap can start.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
I don't see their point.
Their situations are the same until they become different. And then because they become different, different things happen.
It's the Trousers of Time. You don't know which leg you'll slide down.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
You clearly have no idea what happens at the moment.
Let’s have a third widow, Z, aged 80, who lives in rented accommodation and has assets below 23k.
One of your widows, X, gets Alzheimer’s, and the second Y does not.
At present, as a single person with a property worth 312 k, X would pay for her care till her assets fell below the threshold of 23k.
Even worse -- care home fees are higher for private residenst than for state-funded ones. So, X will pay for her care, and subsidise Z’s State care. There was a private-rate and a Council-rate for the care home my mother stayed in.
Of course, Z’s state care should be subsidised, but by all of us. At present, X makes a disproportionate contribution through the inflated fees.
Whatever the merits & de-merits of May’s proposals, she is at least reducing the existing unfairness.
The moment she entered, the Cabinet shot to their feet, as though just electrocuted in the privates. They burst into frantic applause. Look, miss, I’m clapping as hard as I possibly can. Please don’t sack me! It may not be enough to save Liz Truss and Sajid Javid.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
The process is actually quite difficult, particularly as EU citizens need to provide evidence of private health insurance, etc, despite being covered by the NHS. It is ironic that friends of mine are now struggling to prove that they had private health cover to work in the NHS.
It is in our interest to have a more straightforward process for people such as this.
I thought insurance provisions were for students and the self-employed?
This suggests that EEA citizens who are workers/self-employed qualify for permanent residence status. Self-sufficient people and students require the insurance.
The Conservatives will have to find almost £40 billion from further tax rises or spending cuts after producing an uncosted manifesto committed to eliminating the budget deficit by 2025.
Senior Conservatives were scrambling to play down the prospect of post-election tax rises after Theresa May scrapped a promise not to raise income tax or national insurance.
Experts warned that a new Tory government was likely to raise national insurance for the self-employed and to remove deductions on income tax and corporation tax as well as potentially broadening the base of products that qualify for 20 per cent VAT.
Eliminating the deficit isn't "uncosted". We know precisely how much it will "cost" (i.e. need in savings).
In any case they're saying it'll take nearly 10 years so hardly a priority.
Nevertheless this can only happen if the Tories manage to increase government income (or cut spending - which is getting towards pretty much impossible given pressure and promises) by an amount equivalent to the deficit, over the ten year period. This clearly points to further tax rises (for example Hammond's wheeze with self employed NI reappears) that aren't spelled out in the manifesto.
I make it 49/8/1/1 seats on Baxter with those Scottish figures. Moray still going blue; LD and Lab keep what they have.
Ian Murray hangs on by about 600 votes over the Tories, becomes a tight 3-way marginal (34/33/28%).
I would have agreed that Ian Murray was a dead cert to hang onto his seat forty eight hours ago, but that was before Kezia Dugdale suspended those Labour Aberdeen City councillors who have formed a coalition with a resurgent Conservative grouping. Be in no doubt that the political optics of her decision to punish them in this way while allowing Labour councillors to form a coalition with the SNP in Fife looks terrible up here when her candidates in seats like Murray's are relying heavily on tactical voting from Scottish Conservative voters.
Yes that seems an odd one. No reason SLAB shouldn't be able to form either an SNP or Tory coalition depending on local circumstance. Only an idiot rules those out particularly at a local level.
Kezia Dugdale is a fool. No Scottish council can operate without coalitions.
Apparently it is because of the specific deal that was penned, and because the national party needs to sign off on any local deal, which is just silly when a PR system requires deals, probably with those you don't like.
Labour rules are ridiculously inflexible and centralised. When I was in potential coalition discussions with both Labour and Tory, both myself and the Tories were free to enter into any arrangement on any terms at our discretion, provided we could deliver the backing of our local council Groups. Labour had to refer every detail to their regional office who I was told would then have to seek authority from party HQ; this on top of local Labour procudures which involved not only the group but various other committees.
The fact that Labour doesn't trust individuals with responsibility to make their own decisions is hard wired into their psyche and explains why they are invariably so poor at governing.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
How about the same scenario - under current rules - with the same two widows except that one rents her home and has the £322,000 all in the bank?
Means testing should cover all assets or none. There should be no right to inherit property at the expense of the state.
A bit rich from someone who said in an early thread that they would give all their assets away to avoid such charges like these/IHT!
That is just estate planning!
Fox jr needs the money when setting up a household, paying off his tuition fees etc, not when he is 60 and I am 90.
I intend not to be a burden on the state, I have a decent pension from years of service, good genes and a healthy lifestyle.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
You clearly have no idea what happens at the moment.
Let’s have a third widow, Z, aged 80, who lives in rented accommodation and has assets below 23k.
One of your widows, X, gets Alzheimer’s, and the second Y does not.
At present, as a single person with a property worth 312 k, X would pay for her care till her assets fell below the threshold of 23k.
Even worse -- care home fees are higher for private residenst than for state-funded ones. So, X will pay for her care, and subsidise Z’s State care. There was a private-rate and a Council-rate for the care home my mother stayed in.
Of course, Z’s state care should be subsidised, but by all of us. At present, X makes a disproportionate contribution through the inflated fees.
Whatever the merits & de-merits of May’s proposals, she is at least reducing the existing unfairness.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
Immigration is not going to be significantly reduced either.
Fallon said so yesterday. "tens of thousands.." not a policy, it is an ambition.
Fallon was all over the place on Newsnight. He's one of the better Tory performers and he could not make a coherent case.
Did we get an answer as to whether this figure would include students?
Universities will go to the wall if it does.
I'd read the whole thing in the other direction: The Brexit bureaucracy puts the squeeze on foreign student numbers and schools take the hit anyhow. That makes the number of new students coming in smaller than the number of graduates going out.
So students are net negative, and by keeping them in the figures she has more room to let non-students in and/or force fewer low-quality British people out without blowing her target.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
How about the same scenario - under current rules - with the same two widows except that one rents her home and has the £322,000 all in the bank?
Means testing should cover all assets or none. There should be no right to inherit property at the expense of the state.
A bit rich from someone who said in an early thread that they would give all their assets away to avoid such charges like these/IHT!
That is just estate planning!
Fox jr needs the money when setting up a household, paying off his tuition fees etc, not when he is 60 and I am 90.
I intend not to be a burden on the state, I have a decent pension from years of service, good genes and a healthy lifestyle.
You just said that 'there should be no right to inherit property at the expense of the state'. Your planning does seem to be at the expense of the state. Not saying it is a bad thing, just that it is a touch hypocritical.
Having had time to consume the Conservative manifesto (slow day in the Jacobite rebellion) I must say it's a masterpiece of banal soundbites, political chicanery and motherhood and apple pie and all without any detailed costings.
Fortunately for the Tories enough of the nation seems willing to swallow it whole in the hope that the strong and stable Mrs May will make a decent fist of not putting them personally in the workhouse.
Conservative landslide looms ....
One non-banal soundbite that caught my eye... "We will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act."
I put that under political chicanery. The Prime Minister should not have the ability to call an election for party advantage. Sounds familiar ....
Now it's been shown to be a paper tiger, I don't frankly think it's worth keeping in its current form. The only way such an act would be foolproof is if a majority of all parties in either the Commons or Parliament voted for it, which would almost never happen. So it may as well be got rid of.
It still requires parliament to formally trigger rather than a single person, which is an improvement.
As with surprisingly many things, I agree with kle4.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
IMO fairer to charge both widows. Risk pooling seems a much better way.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
You clearly have no idea what happens at the moment.
Let’s have a third widow, Z, aged 80, who lives in rented accommodation and has assets below 23k.
One of your widows, X, gets Alzheimer’s, and the second Y does not.
At present, as a single person with a property worth 312 k, X would pay for her care till her assets fell below the threshold of 23k.
Even worse -- care home fees are higher for private residenst than for state-funded ones. So, X will pay for her care, and subsidise Z’s State care. There was a private-rate and a Council-rate for the care home my mother stayed in.
Of course, Z’s state care should be subsidised, but by all of us. At present, X makes a disproportionate contribution through the inflated fees.
Whatever the merits & de-merits of May’s proposals, she is at least reducing the existing unfairness.
Yes, the differential treatment of people with financial assets as against a property asset was always unfair.
And finally - the Debate of all the Losers last night.
How much did CCHQ have to pay to run that ? Coalition of Chaos or what.
It's the LDs I feel sorry for. <\blockquote>Me too. They get a bum deal from the public, the leaders ok at best, and are dying but don't know it or cannot stop it.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
+1 - nice to agree with you here as it is a rare event.
I'd also hesitate a guess that a general estate death tax to fund care would be far far more damaging to party's popularity in the long run. The 80% of inheritors who lose 20k for nothing would see to that. People in general want their family to pass in comfort and dignity and will be happy to inherit less if that happens and their stress is relieved. Taking 20k off estates of people who needed no state care will really hack off the lower middle class homeowners.
I'd also hesitate a guess that a general estate death tax to fund care would be far far more damaging to party's popularity in the long run. The 80% of inheritors who lose 20k for nothing would see to that. People in general want their family to pass in comfort and dignity and will be happy to inherit less if that happens and their stress is relieved. Taking 20k off estates of people who needed no state care will really hack off the lower middle class homeowners.
Well you'd fund it through general taxation so there wouldn't be an identifiable charge.
If she lost all her money in a bad investment one might offer a sympathetic shrug but sadly life deals some people good, and some people bad, hands.
If she made a bad investment /= if she gets dementia
No - just failing to understand the left-wing concern for the children of rich people getting large bequests. But yes - life is a bitch sometimes and it's not always down to the state to provide recompense. Certainly not in the original example quoted.
Good morning all. Been giving some thought to the implications of the social care proposals. Firstly, I think we might be a bit guilty of the wish being father of the thought in terms of possible vote impact- betting wise we are looking for things that might move the market and open up opportunities. In terms of the actuality, well I'm not so sure it will shift voting intentions much. Aside from the potential impact on those needing home care for long term illness, the situation has been improved markedly for those who have to go into care homes with a much higher cap. Also, the threat of having to sell your home has been taken away. That will be a big relief to many older voters. Also, nobody 'expects' to become ill or get dementia. The negative impact on votes will come when people have experienced the effect, not so much in fear of it. I think winter fuel and kids lunches will shift more votes than care.
But it's all so surreal. This election campaign is one of the best cases of missing the elephant in the room we've ever seen.
I heard John McDonnell telling John Humphrys that it nearly made him cry that 10 million pensioners were going to be deprived of their winter fuel allowance and 30,000 died last year because of lack of heating.......
Doesn't he know the Tories have won with a landslide and the reason is not pensioners in body bags but Corbyn?
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
Immigration is not going to be significantly reduced either.
Fallon said so yesterday. "tens of thousands.." not a policy, it is an ambition.
Fallon was all over the place on Newsnight. He's one of the better Tory performers and he could not make a coherent case.
Obviously they know it's a nonsense and unachievable, and we all know why it's in the manifesto.
Indeed. And in 2022, they will campaign on 'we delivered Brexit, it was tough but now we can work on that immigration figure' and get away with it due to the recentness of Brexit. Kicking the immigration can to 2027 by when they might have an idea. Or not.
Good morning all. Been giving some thought to the implications of the social care proposals. Firstly, I think we might be a bit guilty of the wish being father of the thought in terms of possible vote impact- betting wise we are looking for things that might move the market and open up opportunities. In terms of the actuality, well I'm not so sure it will shift voting intentions much. Aside from the potential impact on those needing home care for long term illness, the situation has been improved markedly for those who have to go into care homes with a much higher cap. Also, the threat of having to sell your home has been taken away. That will be a big relief to many older voters. Also, nobody 'expects' to become ill or get dementia. The negative impact on votes will come when people have experienced the effect, not so much in fear of it. I think winter fuel and kids lunches will shift more votes than care.
But it's all so surreal. This election campaign is one of the best cases of missing the elephant in the room we've ever seen.
I heard John McDonnell telling John Humphrys that it nearly made him cry that 10 million pensioners were going to be deprived of their winter fuel allowance and 30,000 died last year because of lack of heating.......
Doesn't he know the Tories have won with a landslide and the reason is not pensioners in body bags but Corbyn?
Shouldn't the answer to that be to give a more generous winter fuel payment (or any increase in their pension) to the poorest pensioners? As opposed to wasting it on the well-off.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
I don't see their point.
Their situations are the same until they become different. And then because they become different, different things happen.
It's the Trousers of Time. You don't know which leg you'll slide down.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's s.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
The process is actually .
I thought insurance provisions were for students and the self-employed?
This suggests that EEA citizens who are workers/self-employed qualify for permanent residence status. Self-sufficient people and students require the insurance.
It also states that eligibility for NHS does not count as comprehensive insurance cover.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
Indeed.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
This suggests that EEA citizens who are workers/self-employed qualify for permanent residence status. Self-sufficient people and students require the insurance.
It also states that eligibility for NHS does not count as comprehensive insurance cover.
If she lost all her money in a bad investment one might offer a sympathetic shrug but sadly life deals some people good, and some people bad, hands.
If she made a bad investment /= if she gets dementia
No - just failing to understand the left-wing concern for the children of rich people getting large bequests. But yes - life is a bitch sometimes and it's not always down to the state to provide recompense. Certainly not in the original example quoted.
Interesting notion that everyone who owns a home worth more than £100,000 is rich. And that the Spectator is left wing!!
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
You clearly have no idea what happens at the moment.
Let’s have a third widow, Z, aged 80, who lives in rented accommodation and has assets below 23k.
One of your widows, X, gets Alzheimer’s, and the second Y does not.
At present, as a single person with a property worth 312 k, X would pay for her care till her assets fell below the threshold of 23k.
Even worse -- care home fees are higher for private residenst than for state-funded ones. So, X will pay for her care, and subsidise Z’s State care. There was a private-rate and a Council-rate for the care home my mother stayed in.
Of course, Z’s state care should be subsidised, but by all of us. At present, X makes a disproportionate contribution through the inflated fees.
Whatever the merits & de-merits of May’s proposals, she is at least reducing the existing unfairness.
My quotes were from the Spectator article, so your suggestion about having no idea about what happens should be addressed to them. You assert that widow X is making a disproportionate contribution because local government is able to negotiate a lower rate at care homes. They are in effect buying in bulk and that usually allows them to negotiate a discount. This is an ill thought out policy by Theresa May.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
Immigration is not going to be significantly reduced either.
Fallon said so yesterday. "tens of thousands.." not a policy, it is an ambition.
Fallon was all over the place on Newsnight. He's one of the better Tory performers and he could not make a coherent case.
Obviously they know it's a nonsense and unachievable, and we all know why it's in the manifesto.
Indeed. And in 2022, they will campaign on 'we delivered Brexit, it was tough but now we can work on that immigration figure' and get away with it due to the recentness of Brexit. Kicking the immigration can to 2027 by when they might have an idea. Or not.
Brexit leads to disaster if all the EU care workers, crop pickers, nurses and restaurant staff go home. We already have the problem that many don't feel welcome and some are starting to drift back already. And their remittances home aren't as valuable as before. Brexit will need a concerted effort to keep these (mostly unskilled) immigrants coming; we won't be able to afford any action to try and stop them. I am quite sure the Gvt realises this already.
I'd also hesitate a guess that a general estate death tax to fund care would be far far more damaging to party's popularity in the long run. The 80% of inheritors who lose 20k for nothing would see to that. People in general want their family to pass in comfort and dignity and will be happy to inherit less if that happens and their stress is relieved. Taking 20k off estates of people who needed no state care will really hack off the lower middle class homeowners.
Well you'd fund it through general taxation so there wouldn't be an identifiable charge.
Then the grey vote is angry their potential care is paid for by their kids taxes going up.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
Indeed.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
Perhaps they do in London and southern England.
It certainly seems to worry a lot of left-wingers that potential inheritees (?) might lose out on wedges of unearned wealth. Quite bizarre.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
You clearly have no idea what happens at the moment.
Let’s have a third widow, Z, aged 80, who lives in rented accommodation and has assets below 23k.
One of your widows, X, gets Alzheimer’s, and the second Y does not.
At present, as a single person with a property worth 312 k, X would pay for her care till her assets fell below the threshold of 23k.
Even worse -- care home fees are higher for private residenst than for state-funded ones. So, X will pay for her care, and subsidise Z’s State care. There was a private-rate and a Council-rate for the care home my mother stayed in.
Of course, Z’s state care should be subsidised, but by all of us. At present, X makes a disproportionate contribution through the inflated fees.
Whatever the merits & de-merits of May’s proposals, she is at least reducing the existing unfairness.
My quotes were from the Spectator article, so your suggestion about having no idea about what happens should be addressed to them. You assert that widow X is making a disproportionate contribution because local government is able to negotiate a lower rate at care homes. They are in effect buying in bulk and that usually allows them to negotiate a discount. This is an ill thought out policy by Theresa May.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Was that flippant? Any idea how difficult it is to look after someone with advanced dementia or Parkinson's?
At some point it becomes a job for a professional, usually in a residential setting - for safety reasons as much as anything else.
Me too. They get a bum deal from the public, the leaders ok at best, and are dying but don't know it or cannot stop it.
The LibDems went into this election with a fundamentally flawed strategy. So fundamental, even I could spot it from a thousand paces.
Now I'm not a professional politician, so I could be excused for causing the death of my party by being a prat. Those who fought their colleague for the top job? Not so much...
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
Indeed.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
Perhaps they do in London and southern England.
Not the ones I come across. In fact the recent trend I've noted has been for those in their 40s to complain about profligate parents who need bailing out. The money seems to be flowing upwards through the generations rather than down in some quarters.
Has anyone considered the issue of the elderly refusing to go into care in order to protect their kids inheritance?
I know of cases - who have had trouble getting parents to accept they need care because of pride, refusing to believe their is anything wrong with them etc. Now this is another factor.
If there's a cap - everyone knows where they stand.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
Indeed.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
Perhaps they do in London and southern England.
A lot of people in London/SE see their home (and sometimes other homes) as their sole or principal pension provision. Which implies that they will downsize (or relocate) and spend much of the proceeds assuming they get to enjoy a long retirement. Schemes that enable equity release to fund care costs amplify the effect. If these prospective pensioners spend much of their equity in this way then a diminishing amount will be passed on to the next generation. All of which supports the view that house prices there are probably coming down.
This suggests that EEA citizens who are workers/self-employed qualify for permanent residence status. Self-sufficient people and students require the insurance.
It also states that eligibility for NHS does not count as comprehensive insurance cover.
The rules need to be urgently simplified and clarified, with grandfather rights, so that these people can be regularised.
My point is if you are working/self-employed you don't need the comprehensive insurance cover
Indeed it is the same in Spain where I live. You only get Spanish NHS cover if you are over 65, or working [+spouses , children of above]. If you are under 65 and not working [this is my status] you cannot get residence or use the Spanish NHS and you MUST obtain private medical cover. Personally I think that is quite fair.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Was that flippant? Any idea how difficult it is to look after someone with advanced dementia or Parkinson's?
At some point it becomes a job for a professional, usually in a residential setting - for safety reasons as much as anything else.
Yes, I have quite a good idea of how difficult this can be. It's noteworthy that husbands and wives in their 80s usually nevertheless make the effort while children in their 50s too often don't.
I'd also hesitate a guess that a general estate death tax to fund care would be far far more damaging to party's popularity in the long run. The 80% of inheritors who lose 20k for nothing would see to that. People in general want their family to pass in comfort and dignity and will be happy to inherit less if that happens and their stress is relieved. Taking 20k off estates of people who needed no state care will really hack off the lower middle class homeowners.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
Indeed.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
Perhaps they do in London and southern England.
Not the ones I come across. In fact the recent trend I've noted has been for those in their 40s to complain about profligate parents who need bailing out. The money seems to be flowing upwards through the generations rather than down in some quarters.
Really? The world will have ended if I ever needed to bail my parents out.
To some extent, my parents are still subsidising my life indirectly.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Or we could all put a living will in place, honoured by the state, that as soon as we are diagnosed with dementia, we want to have a slap up farewell for a few weeks or months, and then be allowed an early Exit....
Everybody happy. Death with dignity, no medical costs to the State, rellies get pretty much their full whack from the old dear....
With my trot head on, I guarantee it's the grubby inheritors of large estates that will lose a few % of their unearned inheritance that will kick up more fuss than Bob and Janet who lose out on half but are happy mum passed on with dignity. The rage is strong in the entitlement brigade
If she lost all her money in a bad investment one might offer a sympathetic shrug but sadly life deals some people good, and some people bad, hands.
If she made a bad investment /= if she gets dementia
No - just failing to understand the left-wing concern for the children of rich people getting large bequests. But yes - life is a bitch sometimes and it's not always down to the state to provide recompense. Certainly not in the original example quoted.
Interesting notion that everyone who owns a home worth more than £100,000 is rich. And that the Spectator is left wing!!
Unfortunately I did not have access to the article to read it. From my part of the world £100,000 is pretty good money to hold [assuming mortgage free]. Either way I've always viewed saving as a good thing in case you need the money in tough times. If I'm able to leave some to my partner and family at the end that is a bonus - not one I expect the state to subsidise in full should I need to use them for my own needs.
My quotes were from the Spectator article, so your suggestion about having no idea about what happens should be addressed to them.
You assert that widow X is making a disproportionate contribution because local government is able to negotiate a lower rate at care homes. They are in effect buying in bulk and that usually allows them to negotiate a discount. .
You quoted the Spectator for a reason. You purred : “Interesting to see what happens when people start realising....”
A council-funded resident of a care home would pay fees of £24,570 per year while the self-funder would pay £34,320, or an excess of £9,750.
That is huge differential per annum that X pays so Z’s care is subsidised.
It is not a bulk discount. The evidence for this is that in areas where the bulk of the residents are paid for by the Council, care homes are closing or going bankrupt. Don’t take my word for it, take the GMBs
The double lock must be one of the worst proposals for an election - one that appears to disadvantage a key group of voters whilst in all likelihood not saving the government a penny of future expenditure. All the signs are that we are moving into a higher inflation environment in which pension increases will largely be driven by inflation (with an underpin of earnings).
Has anyone considered the issue of the elderly refusing to go into care in order to protect their kids inheritance?
I know of cases - who have had trouble getting parents to accept they need care because of pride, refusing to believe their is anything wrong with them etc. Now this is another factor.
If there's a cap - everyone knows where they stand.
Again, it's a problem that exists today. We're having that exact problem with my great uncle, though I don't think it's about money (though he hates spending it), and more that he just doesn't like other people!
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
How about the same scenario - under current rules - with the same two widows except that one rents her home and has the £322,000 all in the bank?
Means testing should cover all assets or none. There should be no right to inherit property at the expense of the state.
A bit rich from someone who said in an early thread that they would give all their assets away to avoid such charges like these/IHT!
That is just estate planning!
Fox jr needs the money when setting up a household, paying off his tuition fees etc, not when he is 60 and I am 90.
I intend not to be a burden on the state, I have a decent pension from years of service, good genes and a healthy lifestyle.
You also save on razor blades, normal foot ware and keep your mind active with bar chart innovations ....
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
Hahaha. I agree and it's funny to see left-wingers rushing to their defence today.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
Indeed.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
The PB Tories rallying to defend the 'Dementia Tax' today.
I prefer 'grasping relations tax' (who wanted the stateother tax payers to pay)......
I think its critics prefer the concept of pooled risk - which in this case only the state could feasibly arrange. Rather than your disobliging caricature.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Lol - not sure I'd be happy to get my bedtime hot milk from them though.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Or we could all put a living will in place, honoured by the state, that as soon as we are diagnosed with dementia, we want to have a slap up farewell for a few weeks or months, and then be allowed an early Exit....
Everybody happy. Death with dignity, no medical costs to the State, rellies get pretty much their full whack from the old dear....
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Was that flippant? Any idea how difficult it is to look after someone with advanced dementia or Parkinson's?
At some point it becomes a job for a professional, usually in a residential setting - for safety reasons as much as anything else.
Yes, I have quite a good idea of how difficult this can be. It's noteworthy that husbands and wives in their 80s usually nevertheless make the effort while children in their 50s too often don't.
If those children are in full time employment that would in any case be impossible.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
That duty is interpreted differently by different people. Some extremely well-heeled voters opted for Leave in pursuit of an unregulated hard right fantasy. Sadly, we shall all need to live with the consequences of that economic and cultural vandalism for decades to come.
And some didn't. For me it was about standing up for people who have been ignored by the London-centric individuals who have dominated politics for the last 20 years
I could make comments about your wholly self-deceiving altruism, given that the Leave campaign was won by frightening people with xenophobic lies. But instead I invite you to consider that Remain voters strongly believed that Remain would have been in the best interests of the country as a whole
Some of them did, some were persuaded into it by economic scaremongering lies.
If both campaigns had been completely honest, Leave would have won by a landslide.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Who is that unfair to? Not the dementia sufferer, who - like all of us - will have the comfort of knowing they will get care for the rest of their life if they are unfortunate enough to succumb. Her loved ones? She could just as easily be pissed off that they don't want to care for her and leave her estate to the local cats charity. Why should they assume that their inheritance should be delivered gross, without the cost of the health of their dear departed being first met?
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
The grasping relations could always choose to look after Aunt Agatha themselves rather than pack her off into a care home if they want to protect their investment.
Or we could all put a living will in place, honoured by the state, that as soon as we are diagnosed with dementia, we want to have a slap up farewell for a few weeks or months, and then be allowed an early Exit....
Everybody happy. Death with dignity, no medical costs to the State, rellies get pretty much their full whack from the old dear....
This suggests that EEA citizens who are workers/self-employed qualify for permanent residence status. Self-sufficient people and students require the insurance.
It also states that eligibility for NHS does not count as comprehensive insurance cover.
The rules need to be urgently simplified and clarified, with grandfather rights, so that these people can be regularised.
My point is if you are working/self-employed you don't need the comprehensive insurance cover
Indeed it is the same in Spain where I live. You only get Spanish NHS cover if you are over 65, or working [+spouses , children of above]. If you are under 65 and not working [this is my status] you cannot get residence or use the Spanish NHS and you MUST obtain private medical cover. Personally I think that is quite fair.
Many foreign countries require non-natives to have health insurance to get a residence permit - and, amazingly enough - when that residence permit expires - to leave. Such barbarity! Such inhumanity!
Comments
The pooling of risk 'insurance premium' presumably by a state 'levy' on all estates is a genuine alternative but in your hypothetical the lady who lives to 95 and had nothing pays the same as her neighbour whose had 10 years expensive care.
there's no utopia here BUT at least this proposal is to grasp the nettle at last!
Their situations are the same until they become different.
And then because they become different, different things happen.
It's the Trousers of Time. You don't know which leg you'll slide down.
Let’s have a third widow, Z, aged 80, who lives in rented accommodation and has assets below 23k.
One of your widows, X, gets Alzheimer’s, and the second Y does not.
At present, as a single person with a property worth 312 k, X would pay for her care till her assets fell below the threshold of 23k.
Even worse -- care home fees are higher for private residenst than for state-funded ones. So, X will pay for her care, and subsidise Z’s State care. There was a private-rate and a Council-rate for the care home my mother stayed in.
Of course, Z’s state care should be subsidised, but by all of us. At present, X makes a disproportionate contribution through the inflated fees.
Whatever the merits & de-merits of May’s proposals, she is at least reducing the existing unfairness.
WillS.
This suggests that EEA citizens who are workers/self-employed qualify for permanent residence status. Self-sufficient people and students require the insurance.
The fact that Labour doesn't trust individuals with responsibility to make their own decisions is hard wired into their psyche and explains why they are invariably so poor at governing.
Fox jr needs the money when setting up a household, paying off his tuition fees etc, not when he is 60 and I am 90.
I intend not to be a burden on the state, I have a decent pension from years of service, good genes and a healthy lifestyle.
So students are net negative, and by keeping them in the figures she has more room to let non-students in and/or force fewer low-quality British people out without blowing her target.
Two things: I don't know why anybody is surprised and I don't know why anybody is gloating, every kipper I know is perfectly relaxed about it all.
I heard John McDonnell telling John Humphrys that it nearly made him cry that 10 million pensioners were going to be deprived of their winter fuel allowance and 30,000 died last year because of lack of heating.......
Doesn't he know the Tories have won with a landslide and the reason is not pensioners in body bags but Corbyn?
https://twitter.com/pollytoynbee/status/865474950144040961
It also means children can be refused residence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-born-children-eu-couple-parents-dutch-spanish-denied-permanent-residency-brexit-a7682696.html
The rules need to be urgently simplified and clarified, with grandfather rights, so that these people can be regularised.
My total inheritances have amounted to a few thousand, from several different people.
Nor do I know anyone who's ever had one of these big multi hundred thousand pound inheritances so casually talked about here.
Now if my parents were to die today I might get somewhere in six figures but I've never factored that into my lifetime financial planning.
Do people really plan their lives on the basis that at some unspecified point of the future they're going to inherit hundreds of thousands ?
Perhaps they do in London and southern England.
Seems to me this is less a Dementia Tax, more a Grasping Relations Tax....
You assert that widow X is making a disproportionate contribution because local government is able to negotiate a lower rate at care homes. They are in effect buying in bulk and that usually allows them to negotiate a discount.
This is an ill thought out policy by Theresa May.
She did this before, and people on twitter posted a load of articles of the 80s/90s by her where she slagged Clarke off.
She even once called him the destroyer of the NHS and Thatcher's public services/union basher.
Ignore the hush puppies and blokeish spin and focus on That he cut taxes and cut public spending made him a typical right wing Tory
I need to know if pensioners start bringing it up for errm... reasons....
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/865344935205253121
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/865346335746252804
At some point it becomes a job for a professional, usually in a residential setting - for safety reasons as much as anything else.
Now I'm not a professional politician, so I could be excused for causing the death of my party by being a prat. Those who fought their colleague for the top job? Not so much...
The real idiots are those who think that columnists somehow believe what they write, rather than write to get a desired reaction from their audience.
I know of cases - who have had trouble getting parents to accept they need care because of pride, refusing to believe their is anything wrong with them etc. Now this is another factor.
If there's a cap - everyone knows where they stand.
I'm probably overthinking things :}
Now, dementia tax.
TRIPLE LOCK TRIPLE LOCK TRIPLE LOCK TRIPLE LOCK TRIPLE LOCK TRIPLE LOCK TRIPLE LOCK
To some extent, my parents are still subsidising my life indirectly.
Everybody happy. Death with dignity, no medical costs to the State, rellies get pretty much their full whack from the old dear....
http://tinyurl.com/p9rcpgz
A council-funded resident of a care home would pay fees of £24,570 per year while the self-funder would pay £34,320, or an excess of £9,750.
That is huge differential per annum that X pays so Z’s care is subsidised.
It is not a bulk discount. The evidence for this is that in areas where the bulk of the residents are paid for by the Council, care homes are closing or going bankrupt. Don’t take my word for it, take the GMBs
http://tinyurl.com/leehu5q
I know a lot about this, and have had recent personal experience.
Your experience seems to be limited to cutting & pasting from the Spectator.
I remember the polling surge the Tories got following their IHT policy announcement at the 2007 conference.
Voters like the idea of giving their houses to their kids, free of any taxes.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/865473214788411392
We will legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting
Where does it say 'photo'?
Has the Dementia Tax cut-through? It has in my little world.
If both campaigns had been completely honest, Leave would have won by a landslide.
Are you a paid apologist for the TMay regime?
What's even the point, it can't be different from May's can it?