PMQ's is becoming a waste of time. I suggested this morning that all Truss has to do is parrot the same lines irrespective of the questions in a confident manner and she will survive, and so it appears to be the case.
PMQ's is a load of old horseshit. It's great theatre, sure, but politically it's horseshit.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
We cannot afford it especially with the cancellation of the NI increase and estates will be reduced as a consequence
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
PMQ's is becoming a waste of time. I suggested this morning that all Truss has to do is parrot the same lines irrespective of the questions in a confident manner and she will survive, and so it appears to be the case.
It's not a waste of time - if it gets rid of her -good. If she stays equally good - as it demonstrates that the Tory party is functionally incompetent.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
But the tax to pay for the change has gone - so where is the money to come from given that we now have a budget deficit that needs to be filled thanks to Truss and co accidently revealing the true state of Government finances and spooking the markets.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
There are not the votes to remove the triple lock so it does not matter what either Hunt or Truss prefer, it is staying.
I predict that Hunt will say he can't confirm it will stay for the next parliament at this stage, although by the election time both parties will commit to it for another parliament.
This is just tiring. She keeps riffing on the same points and gets away with it. 'Energy price guarantee'. 'difficult economic times' 'taking on the militant unions'.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £150k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastate us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners and their heirs lose most of their property value in care costs.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
This is just tiring. She keeps riffing on the same points and gets away with it. 'Energy price guarantee'. 'difficult economic times' 'taking on the militant unions'.
That's what Johnson did, to be fair. But he did it with humour and unflappability. She just hasn't got the knack.
Not sure what the SNP chap was doing questioning Truss's commitment to Ukraine. For all her faults, that really is not in question. Very unhelpful intervention.
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
There are not the votes to remove the triple lock so it does not matter what either Hunt or Truss prefer, it is staying.
I predict that Hunt will say he can't confirm it will stay for the next parliament at this stage, although by the election time both parties will commit to it for another parliament.
If the young wont vote then how is this ever going to change?
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I do wonder if she's just the worst kind of partisan politician, a more extreme version of Gordon Brown - Labour came out this morning refusing to promise to keep the triple lock so she thinks she needs to.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
The doctors are the ones with a million in assets!
Wealth taxes have their place but they're really just deferred income taxes. With wealth taxes you will end up getting taxed when you earn money, taxed when you spend it, and taxed in between too. And people with a lot of wealth will be able to shield it, so it will end up just being a tax on elderly middle class people. The best way forward is to reform council tax so it is more linear in actual property valuations, but I don't think I'd go beyond that. The real problem for the young is the high cost of housing - to buy and to rent - and that should be tackled at source.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I think @MaxPB does have a point that some of the tax breaks are astonishingly generous to the better-off. For example, the amount that the Nabavi household has been able to stash away in tax-free ISAs over the years is pretty remarkable, even if we haven't stashed as much as some people. Some time of lifetime limit would have been sensible. Unfortunately it's hard to set that up retrospectively.
And 6% every 10 years isn't some earth shattering number that will impoverish these people, it's small enough that people won't try and avoid it, but large enough that people will deploy their wealth better to generate enough capital return over the period to ensure their wealth doesn't fall.
I say this as someone who would almost certainly get caught up in a wealth tax.
On the other hand, it's perhaps easier for you to say that, as you are clued up. A lot of people will find that much more difficult to cope with, and they will resent the way that smart alec financial wide boys (as they will be seen) and the rich can evade the tax in all sorts of ways - British Virgin Islands, CHannel Islands, etc. etc. Just at the time when many are elderly and finding it difficult to make safe judgements - remember what happened with private pensions: the financial sharks came out en masse when an earlier Tory government threw skips-ful of fish guts and blood into the water.
We're talking about a 0.6% annual rate of capital growth to keep the taxman at bay. It's not a big ask and it's not going to impoverish anyone who decides to stick with cash or cash ISAs either.
Bit less than that, actually - compound over 10 years, obviously.
Yes, a bit lower but essentially 0.6% per year capital growth isn't a huge ask of anyone. Even basic bitch cash ISAs pay out ~1.5% and ~4% best rate which over 10 years is 16% - 48% fund growth.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
But the tax to pay for the change has gone - so where is the money to come from given that we now have a budget deficit that needs to be filled thanks to Truss and co accidently revealing the true state of Government finances and spooking the markets.
The cost of not doing anything on social care will far outweigh the "costs" of a little more debt for this one, no matter what the bond markets do.
It is a total disaster zone and is dragging the NHS down with it.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
I think you will find it is the right and ERG and the members who are destroying the party
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
The IHT threshold was raised to over a million years ago
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Will the last one out of Truss's electoral coalition please switch off the lights?
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
The IHT threshold wqs raised to over a million years ago
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
There's a nice story tweeted in reply to that, about Truss's staff being told to pretend that members of her family had died, to get her out of awkward media appearances.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £150k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastate us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners and their heirs lose most of their property value in care costs.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
HYUFD can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
The IHT threshold wqs raised to over a million years ago
only if you have an expensive house
AND an approved family. And it's only over a million to the extent that you also leave money also to the Tories (or, much less probably with that demographic, another party), and admittedly to charity.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Were is past tense.
I'm my own person, not a party hack. Reversing tax rises levied on earned income, but not unearned income, I totally support. Taxing working people in order to give benefits to those living on welfare they've not paid for, which is what our triple lock has become, I don't.
Smarkets confidence vote market all over the place this morning (on Brady chatter?). I bought a bit more no at 10.5 this morning and just sold it at 1.56 (less sure than I was of there not being a vote called, so I've covered to be green both ways now).
The 10 seemed crazy though (hence my buy). Cock up? Smarkets automated trading?
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Will the last one out of Truss's electoral coalition please switch off the lights?
They wont need to as there will already be a blackout thanks to her refusal to tell people to reduce energy use.
It's stupid political game playing of the sort that is entirely unnecessary in the circumstances.
Well, from Labour's point of view it's a game which will reap rewards at the ballot box.
Not really, they're winning a landslide anyway. And they're guaranteeing that they'll face the same sort of nonsense back when they do.
Today they've probably just given the Lib Dem's 15-30 seats that would previously have been winnable with a different Tory leader.
But now every Tory MP is going to go into the next election trying to explain why they want fracking in their area.
Let's have a look at what the government is actually proposing:
to consult to ensure there is a robust system of local consent, and clear advice on seismic limits and safety, before any hydraulic fracturing for shale gas may take place; and believes that such consultation must consider how the views of regional mayors, local authorities and parishes should be reflected as well as the immediate concerns of those most directly affected.
Which effectively means no fracking.
In which case, why are the Tories putting it there in the first place? They know it's unpopular, and just further trashing their brand for nothing.
Because when there is an energy shortage, they want to be able to say that they've tried things.
So why haven't they put lots of money into fusion research? That's about as relevant this winter.
Because fusion isn't producing energy elsewhere in the world. Fracking is.
Except the CEO of the only firm that has tried to implement fracking in the UK now says Fracking simply isn't possible in the UK.
Which is the greatest irony in all this - it's an argument over something that makes zero economic sense unless the world is completely screwed at which point we don't need it for different reasons.
Which is why we should just permit it, and leave it to the market to see if it actually happens, and it probably won't.
Preventing people from wasting their investors cash figuring out if it works in the UK or not because of Greenpeace and the crusties kicked off is moronic, especially in the middle of an energy crisis.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Will the last one out of Truss's anti-growth coalition please switch off the lights?
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
Better would be to fix tax on rich pensioners, and keep the triple lock.
How long should we keep the triple lock for?
I ask because it is committing to give an ever increasing share of the cake to each pensioner, during a period when the proportion of pensioners are also increasing. At some point the whole cake will end up just on state pensions if we retain it indefinitely.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unTory principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra care cost funds should come from not property theft and Sunak was right on that.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory. If you put up taxes on both then you are a Socialist
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
There are not the votes to remove the triple lock so it does not matter what either Hunt or Truss prefer, it is staying.
I predict that Hunt will say he can't confirm it will stay for the next parliament at this stage, although by the election time both parties will commit to it for another parliament.
If the young wont vote then how is this ever going to change?
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
Though it's not impossible that the triple lock becomes this century's Corn Law for the Tories.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
The problem with pension credit is that a lot of very poor pensioners don't claim it, either out of ignorance, or pride, or because it's just too difficult to navigate.
The basic state pension really isn't that generous. People who criticise the triple lock on the grounds that it's feather-bedding well-off pensioners are aiming at the wrong target.
That isn't to say that it's a good policy, it's not, or at least not any more, because of its long-term ratchet effect. But increasing the state pension by inflation, along with working-age benefits, is necessary in present circumstances, given that inflation is currently so skewed towards food and fuel, both of which make up a very large proportion of the daily unavoidable expenditure of the the recipients.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
Keep it and roll NI into IT, and protect lowest earning pensioners with targetted PA
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Will the last one out of Truss's electoral coalition please switch off the lights?
They will not have to. It is likely the lights will put themselves out according to the National Grid
"John Pettigrew, the National Grid chief, said blackouts would have to be imposed during the "deepest darkest evenings" in January and February if electricity generators did not have enough gas to meet demand, especially if there is a period of cold weather."
Just stopped on my mail route for coffee with this view, which is Aldbourne: the village that’s most of my round
yuk. get those sheep moved and there's room for an oil well.
But not a set of solar panels.
Welbeck Estate, Nottinghamshire (taken this weekend).
The grass does grow below the panels so could be grazed but there's not a lot of room and I'm not sure I'd trust a load of sheep in there...
I'd prefer to see them on every roof than in a field, but it was definitely generating plenty of power.
What a bloody eyesore. Industrialisation of the countryside.
I find them less distracting than wind turbines to be honest, as they are only visible from the edge of the field in question.
Farming is also industrialisation of the countryside. In the Flatlands there are miles of featureless fields (see my avatar) with zero biodiversity.
The land in this part of Nottinghamshire is very sandy so probably needs a lot of fertiliser input to grow much, so it is far from the worst place to put them.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
It was suggested Hunt is looking at energy and bank windfall taxes of circa 40 billion which if so he could have some room to agree the triple lock, not that I agree with it (triple lock)
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Yes, I think if they're going to uprate benefits by earnings then the state pension has to follow. It's also time to look at the taper for high earning pensioners. Hunt has got free reign to do it and voters will forgive almost anything right now given the previous market reaction to running an unbalanced budget. I'd present it as "this or £20bn cut from the NHS and schools, a 4p rise on the basic rate or 5% on VAT". Cutting the state pension for pensioners with £50k+ private income isn't going to be controversial.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
Better would be to fix tax on rich pensioners, and keep the triple lock.
How long should we keep the triple lock for?
I ask because it is committing to give an ever increasing share of the cake to each pensioner, during a period when the proportion of pensioners are also increasing. At some point the whole cake will end up just on state pensions if we retain it indefinitely.
The state pension is less than £10,000 a year. If you are worried about champagne-swilling pensioners driving Rolls-Royces, then look at tax relief rates on contributions or elsewhere, but please do bear in mind these people are not typical. And I think your arithmetic misses the possibility of economic growth. People at the bottom, whether pensioners or not, do need protection. As PB has already noted, inflation-plus increases in phone and other contracts will doubtless precipitate more suffering.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
The problem with pension credit is that a lot of very poor pensioners don't claim it, either out of ignorance, or pride, or because it's just too difficult to navigate.
The basic state pension really isn't that generous. People who criticise the triple lock on the grounds that it's feather-bedding well-off pensioners are aiming at the wrong target.
That isn't to say that it's a good policy, it's not, or at least not any more, because of its long-term ratchet effect. But increasing the state pension by inflation, along with working-age benefits, is necessary in present circumstances, given that inflation is currently so skewed towards food and fuel, both of which make up a very large proportion of the daily unavoidable expenditure of the the recipients.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
I think he will say that while they want to keep the triple lock, they can't guarantee to afford it in these circumstances.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Looking at Hunt as she said it he seemed to smile so I do expect it to happen
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The National Insurance threshold has been aligned with Income Tax now hasn't it? So someone only getting State Pension is exempt from it?
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Pathetic decision.
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I thought you were one of her only three fans on here?
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
Poor pensioners as well.
That could be achieved with pension credit.
The problem with pension credit is that a lot of very poor pensioners don't claim it, either out of ignorance, or pride, or because it's just too difficult to navigate.
The basic state pension really isn't that generous. People who criticise the triple lock on the grounds that it's feather-bedding well-off pensioners are aiming at the wrong target.
That isn't to say that it's a good policy, it's not, or at least not any more, because of its long-term ratchet effect. But increasing the state pension by inflation, along with working-age benefits, is necessary in present circumstances, given that inflation is currently so skewed towards food and fuel, both of which make up a very large proportion of the daily unavoidable expenditure of the the recipients.
Agreed, I have said many, many times the system needs to change so that the top third don't get it, the middle third see no change and the bottom third see a 50% increase, the government banks the other 50% and cuts the deficit.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Who is this idiot taking entirely the wrong line on Ukraine?
Considering how bad things are going for Truss it's quite impressive that some berk from the SNP managed to come off looking like the biggest idiot at PMQs today.
Keeping the triple lock will of course mean bigger cuts elsewhere .
Yep.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
Tbh, I think she's spoken out of turn there and Hunt will confirm it's still on the table later today or tomorrow. She can't fire him so he can countermand her whenever he wants. Eventually she has to resign.
Hunt seemed to nod when she said it.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
Keep it and roll NI into IT, and protect lowest earning pensioners with targetted PA
No, ring-fence NI for the state pension and contributory unemployment benefit and healthcare as it was set up for. Add social care costs to what it help funds too as Sunak was rightly starting to do
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
You have it backwards, I would have a cap against removing the final £86k (or similar) of people's assets.
Replacing it with a £150k cap on expenditure, without a cap on people's final assets means that those with £200k in assets get to keep only £50k of assets, while those with £1,000,000 in assets get to keep £850,000 of assets, not because they've worked for it but because taxpayers are working to fund it.
Caps should be a floor below which people won't have to pay, not a cap so that those with moderate assets lose all of their assets worth speaking about - but a privileged few get to keep their assets funded by the taxpayer.
The expenditure cap is £86k not £100k. Your reintroduction of May's disastrous dementia tax which did so much damage in 2017 with unlimited care costs would devastated us with our core vote, especially in the South.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners lose most of their property value in tax.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Its not a tax, its paying for your own living expenses.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
No it is a tax, a theft of the family home and principle asset from them and their children. A grossly unborn principle.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra cost funds should come from.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory.
You can't steal "a family home" from "their children" since their children don't own the home.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Yes you can, as that inheritance will often help children and grandchildren with a deposit for their own home, especially in the South.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
Get a job, and earn your deposit.
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Taken together with the questions over her Chief of Staff, Tory MPs now have an excuse to boot Truss out which doesn't impinge on either their judgement in putting her into the final two, or imply a rejection of the Tory members' vote.
Simon Bottery @blimeysimon · 4h Delay may not sound too bad but is in reality just a step away from abandonment. A saving grace may yet be that a) cap costs don't really kick in for a few years and b) surely the govt wants SOME achievements to point to at the next election? #socialcare
Good, it absolutely should be abandoned.
The idea that people who are working to make ends meet, should be taxed so that people with a million in assets only spend 150k and the inheritance gets protected is repugnant.
Taxing to fund doctors or teachers, that's for the common good, taxes to fund inheritances - no, no, no.
Never mind a million, if you have £200k in assets removing the £86k cap means you and your heirs too lose most of your estate in care costs.
No, no, no. The sooner we get rid of Truss and you, her biggest fan on here, the sooner we stop this betrayal of the last Tory manifesto and our core support
I'm curious as to who except you supports a social care cap on this site?
The vast majority of the public and especially Tories do too.
The fact PB has an unrepresentative high share of dementia tax lovers doesn't change that
I am a very strong supporter of the Cap. Partly because it is part of a wider reform of social care.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
The IHT threshold was raised to over a million years ago
Misread that at first, and though that if it was raised over a million years ago, surely it needs updating?
Comments
The grass does grow below the panels so could be grazed but there's not a lot of room and I'm not sure I'd trust a load of sheep in there...
I'd prefer to see them on every roof than in a field, but it was definitely generating plenty of power.
Dizzy Lizzy
Wow. @trussliz has now over-ruled @Jeremy_Hunt and pre-committed that the state pension will rise in line with 10.1% inflation. This really is a car crash. “I’ve been clear we are protecting the triple lock” she says. Opposite of what Hunt told me on Monday
============
Don't worry. When he over-rules her she will stand there and say that she has delivered what she said she would. Just as she did with the 2 year Energy Cap.
If you are worried about kids inheriting millions then change the IHT situation DO NOT punish just those individuals who are unlucky to get dementia or parkinsons.
Carers who need every penny - can't be promised the same
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-sheep-on-a-roof-lofoten-islands-norway-24556689.html?imageid=2BF554BD-C7E6-42E8-A1DF-9A6D7610B6CA&p=172766&pn=1&searchId=83ac46d906391ccba324d37dfa7472af&searchtype=0
Get Truss out now and replace her with Hunt. Thanks for abolishing the Health and Social Care Levy, but if you're committing to that in these circumstances, you have no economic judgement whatsoever.
I predict that Hunt will say he can't confirm it will stay for the next parliament at this stage, although by the election time both parties will commit to it for another parliament.
'Energy price guarantee'. 'difficult economic times' 'taking on the militant unions'.
The average house price in the UK is now nearer £300k than £200k so your disastrous policy would see most homeowners and their heirs lose most of their property value in care costs.
The core principle of Toryism is preservation of estates and assets, enough of your libertarian liberalism which is polluting and destroying my party!
Was teed up beautifully for Truss
That seems like.. stupid politics
It is a total disaster zone and is dragging the NHS down with it.
If most homeowners lose most of their property value to pay for their own living expenses at the end of their life, then that's OK, they can't take it with them. What do they need a property for after they've died?
The core principle of Thatcher and Lawson's Toryism was that encouragement of work and not vested interests.
Vested interests like yours wanting taxpayers to pay for your estate are no better than militant unions.
Probably on younger welfare claimants.
Every time the pensioners get more feather bedding. Of course it seems to never be mentioned that state pension is part of the dreaded "welfare".
I'm my own person, not a party hack. Reversing tax rises levied on earned income, but not unearned income, I totally support. Taxing working people in order to give benefits to those living on welfare they've not paid for, which is what our triple lock has become, I don't.
The 10 seemed crazy though (hence my buy). Cock up? Smarkets automated trading?
Jason Stein, a special adviser, is to face a formal investigation by the Propriety and Ethics Team in Whitehall, I am told…more below…
https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1582688612621365248
Preventing people from wasting their investors cash figuring out if it works in the UK or not because of Greenpeace and the crusties kicked off is moronic, especially in the middle of an energy crisis.
I ask because it is committing to give an ever increasing share of the cake to each pensioner, during a period when the proportion of pensioners are also increasing. At some point the whole cake will end up just on state pensions if we retain it indefinitely.
National insurance was set up in part to pay for health and care costs and that is where any extra care cost funds should come from not property theft and Sunak was right on that.
If you put taxing of wealth and capital above taxing of income then you are a Liberal not a Tory. If you put up taxes on both then you are a Socialist
Tories 33pp behind in Scotland.
( @MikeSmithson , its percentage points, not percent. Or should that be pedant points?)
Though it's not impossible that the triple lock becomes this century's Corn Law for the Tories.
If the parents sell the home, to fund their own care, then that's what their parents have done. The children have no dibs or reservation or rights to a home they don't own.
If that means you don't get your inheritance, then get a job instead. Work for your own money, don't have it gifted to you.
Which means its gone.
That's what should happen at least. Its unethical to keep it in these circumstances.
Perhaps it's an indication there will be other tax changes affecting pensioners to pay for it.
The basic state pension really isn't that generous. People who criticise the triple lock on the grounds that it's feather-bedding well-off pensioners are aiming at the wrong target.
That isn't to say that it's a good policy, it's not, or at least not any more, because of its long-term ratchet effect. But increasing the state pension by inflation, along with working-age benefits, is necessary in present circumstances, given that inflation is currently so skewed towards food and fuel, both of which make up a very large proportion of the daily unavoidable expenditure of the the recipients.
"John Pettigrew, the National Grid chief, said blackouts would have to be imposed during the "deepest darkest evenings" in January and February if electricity generators did not have enough gas to meet demand, especially if there is a period of cold weather."
https://news.sky.com/story/prepare-for-blackouts-on-cold-weekday-evenings-national-grid-chief-warns-12723349
Farming is also industrialisation of the countryside. In the Flatlands there are miles of featureless fields (see my avatar) with zero biodiversity.
The land in this part of Nottinghamshire is very sandy so probably needs a lot of fertiliser input to grow much, so it is far from the worst place to put them.
Parents should not have to sell the family home to fund their care. End of.
If you believe that you belong in the Liberal Democrats not the Tories.
Protecting inheritance is a core Tory value
If he abolished Employees National Insurance and merged it into Income Tax, so all income both earned, unearned, is taxed the same then I would completely forgive the Triple Lock staying. That's the only thing that would justify it.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1582668826549792768
If you can't, then that's a shame for you, but you have no right to have the taxpayer fund your deposit for you.
Taken together with the questions over her Chief of Staff, Tory MPs now have an excuse to boot Truss out which doesn't impinge on either their judgement in putting her into the final two, or imply a rejection of the Tory members' vote.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1582698851210645505
https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1582688612621365248