General Election 2017

[highflyer]

Interesting to see both the Tories and Labour pumping money into Adwords for the term 'Dementia tax'. Modern, campaigning, eh?

View attachment 85658

I suspect this is foolish from the Tories as they are now engaged in legitimizing the term 'dementia tax'. Which is the LAST thing they want.

'dementia tax...that sounds bad'
Is about the level of policy analysis most people are going to apply.

 

[studio150]

I see NSC has reverted to the delusional political stance that Labour will win the General Election.

There are going to be a lot of disappointed NSCers come the morning of June 9th...

No, the poll is who will you vote for, not who do you think will win the General Election. They are to completely different things.

 

[Albumen]

The sheer hypocrisy of the Tories and their media chums....

While the mainstream media focuses on Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged “support” for the IRA, it is conveniently ignoring a Conservative politician who actually used to be a member. And even said that:
I agreed with the shooting of British soldiers and believed the more who were killed the better.
Smear. Lie. Repeat
Following last week’s release of their shambolic manifesto, Theresa May’s poll ratings have taken a significant slump in the past couple of days. To accompany this downturn we’ve see the Tories’ loyal attack dogs in the media attempting to smear the opposition with anything they can get their hands on.

Yeah she may have been quite high in the IRA but she doesn't have a beard.

 

[spring hall convert]

Blimey this poll has moved a bit. Weren't Labour only just above 20% in the old one?

Bear this in mind: To get back to the situation they are in at the moment, the Tories likely need to win by 7%. By Theresa May's own terms when calling the election, that would be a failure.

Latest polls have the lead as low as 9%.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Interesting to see both the Tories and Labour pumping money into Adwords for the term 'Dementia tax'. Modern, campaigning, eh?

View attachment 85658

I'm trying to find out some decent information in plain English what this actually means, and how we can all soften the blow financially for our parents.

 

[Bozza]

The sheer hypocrisy of the Tories and their media chums....

Please do not copy and paste whole articles - it's not fair on the publication responsible.

Please edit your post to leave the first para or two and then a URL so people can go to the source, and repay the organisation responsible with their eyeballs.

Edit: I've done it for you.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Well I found the information I needed from the Daily Mail, if this is wrong then tell me.


Currently, local authorities step in to fund such care once the assets of the elderly person have fallen below £23,250 — but the value of their property is excluded from this effective means test.

Under Mrs May's proposals, the sum that the elderly can keep before calling on local authority funding for their care will be more than quadrupled, to £100,000.

But — and it is a big but — those assets will now include the value of any property that they own.

What it explicitly does not mean is the elderly facing the loss of their home — which is the biggest fear for many people. Such money as is required to be repaid will be taken only after their death, out of the proceeds of their estate.

So to describe it as 'a tax on dementia', as Jeremy Corbyn has done, is an odious attempt to terrify the very people he purports to protect. If there is a price to be paid, it will come out of their children's inheritance. The physical comfort and familiar surroundings of the elderly home care receiver is not at stake.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4528738/DOMINIC-LAWSON.html#ixzz4hnczP9jQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I'm trying to find out some decent information in plain English what this actually means, and how we can all soften the blow financially for our parents.

Buy their house off them although they make checks on this.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Yeah she may have been quite high in the IRA but she doesn't have a beard.

Surely the difference is that Gatland is a councillor (and was originally sacked after it was exposed albeit is now back in) as opposed to Corbyn who is the leader of the opposition. In my mind, one of the basic requirements for any potential PM is that they would put the country and its military personnel first should the situation demand it. Corbyn's politics and history suggest he wouldn't and neither would other members of his potential cabinet. Whilst I don't agree that Gatland should be allowed to re-invent herself as a career politician, she's far enough down the ladder to be an irrelevance.

If Maybot was exposed as running recruitment fairs for young Tories in Tora Bora caves then naturally this would be a different story.

 

[spring hall convert]

I wonder who the Tories are planning to get to administer the brand new products that will have to sit behind the dementia tax?

Still at least it'll soften the blow when all the banks **** off to Frankfurt post-Brexit.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Well I found the information I needed from the Daily Mail, if this is wrong then tell me.


Currently, local authorities step in to fund such care once the assets of the elderly person have fallen below £23,250 — but the value of their property is excluded from this effective means test.

Under Mrs May's proposals, the sum that the elderly can keep before calling on local authority funding for their care will be more than quadrupled, to £100,000.

But — and it is a big but — those assets will now include the value of any property that they own.

What it explicitly does not mean is the elderly facing the loss of their home — which is the biggest fear for many people. Such money as is required to be repaid will be taken only after their death, out of the proceeds of their estate.

So to describe it as 'a tax on dementia', as Jeremy Corbyn has done, is an odious attempt to terrify the very people he purports to protect. If there is a price to be paid, it will come out of their children's inheritance. The physical comfort and familiar surroundings of the elderly home care receiver is not at stake.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4528738/DOMINIC-LAWSON.html#ixzz4hnczP9jQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It's an utterly reprehensible policy whatever you call it. People have worked hard to buy a home of their own and have paid tax on the money they used to buy the home. The 100k start limit is an utter joke given there is barely a property in the country that is worth less than that. I know, I'm going to sell my house, piss the money up the wall and then the state can pay my care fees when I'm older - after all where's the incentive to work hard and own your own home if in the end the government will get it anyway ?

This single policy has moved my vote from Tory to Labour.

 

[beorhthelm]

amused to see so many on the left against the dementia tax. its a) a reheated Labour policy and b) a tax on wealth. so why the objection to it?

 

[Bozza]

It's an utterly reprehensible policy whatever you call it. People have worked hard to buy a home of their own and have paid tax on the money they used to buy the home. The 100k start limit is an utter joke given there is barely a property in the country that is worth less than that. I know, I'm going to sell my house, piss the money up the wall and then the state can pay my care fees when I'm older - after all where's the incentive to work hard and own your own home if in the end the government will get it anyway ?

This single policy has moved my vote from Tory to Labour.

I haven't read widely around this one yet but surely, as highlighted a few posts before this one, it doesn't seem right that...

- Someone with £300k in cash
- Someone with £100k in cash and £200k in property equity

...are treated differently, does it?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It's an utterly reprehensible policy whatever you call it. People have worked hard to buy a home of their own and have paid tax on the money they used to buy the home. The 100k start limit is an utter joke given there is barely a property in the country that is worth less than that. I know, I'm going to sell my house, piss the money up the wall and then the state can pay my care fees when I'm older - after all where's the incentive to work hard and own your own home if in the end the government will get it anyway ?

This single policy has moved my vote from Tory to Labour.

I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying this has always been the case that your house has to be sold to pay for nursing home fees if you need it. I think it takes the fing piss, but they have all done it. My nan had to pay for her care from the sale of her house and that was under Labour and yet there where people who paid nothing because they had nothing.

 

[Simster]

It's an utterly reprehensible policy whatever you call it. People have worked hard to buy a home of their own and have paid tax on the money they used to buy the home. The 100k start limit is an utter joke given there is barely a property in the country that is worth less than that. I know, I'm going to sell my house, piss the money up the wall and then the state can pay my care fees when I'm older - after all where's the incentive to work hard and own your own home if in the end the government will get it anyway ?

This single policy has moved my vote from Tory to Labour.

I think you'll find it is dawning on the government that the cost of Brexit is going to be absolutely enormous. We are now faced with a choice of a Labour government who don't know their own minds on Brexit but regardless are incapable of basic mathematics, and a Tory government who know full well the only way to pay for Brexit is to raise taxes but are too scared to tell the people.

The consequence of this is that we are seeing all sorts of stealth taxes being dreamt up, especially by the Tories. This is a classic example. It is little more than an inheritance tax by the back door. Normally I'd be all for this, but sadly we all know this is only being driven by the exorbitant cost of Brexit rather than any sensible social care policy.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The Conservatives should be on course for a 100+ majority which would give them the ability to put through whatever policies they want, whether on the manifesto or not. Given this, you would have expected them to put forward a bland manifesto pretty much devoid of anything controversial or revolutionary. Instead they have put forward something that is turning off their elderly supporters in their thousands.

It almost leads me to wonder whether May & some other senior tories secretly still want Brexit to fail (was Boris ever really pro?) but knows that scuppering it would be the end of the Tories and that "Hard Brexit" would be disastrous for Britain.

It's probably a sign of how confident they are that they decided to announce this controversial policy which would need to be in their manifesto to avoid claims they conned the electorate and to see off internal and House of Lords opposition.

Think it's more likely they would prefer Corbyn to remain after the election so are willing to take a rise in Labour support/hit on the size of their majority.

 

[Ernest]

I'm looking forward to tonight's Andrew Neil's interview with our glorious leaderene, perhaps he will ask her what she is cooking Phil for his tea after or what time he has to put the bins out on bin day ? Or perhaps what other boy jobs she makes him do ?

I doubt Corbyn will get such an easy ride when he is interviewed by him though.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So are the Labour party going to abolish Nursing home fees, the answer is no. If they don't take your home to pay for nursing home fees, anything you have left is subject to inheritance tax after you pass. So all those people who have property and savings are ****ed either way. You might as well spend all your money, or leave the country.

 

[CHAPPERS]

[tweet]866598214958501889[/tweet]

 

[highflyer]

I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying this has always been the case that your house has to be sold to pay for nursing home fees if you need it. I think it takes the fing piss, but they have all done it. My nan had to pay for her care from the sale of her house and that was under Labour and yet there where people who paid nothing because they had nothing.

Indeed, there is a growing problem and the current (non) options for tackling that problem are unfair.
We have to deal with the problem. We all know that

What we realy need in my opinion is a proper national care service - paid for by increases in inheritance tax (I'd like to see a combination of slightly lowered entry threshold plus an increase in rate above a second threshold). Payment according to ability to pay and service based on need.

Somehow the Tories managed to miss (or just didn't care about) the very obvious inequity built into their proposals. Rather undermines their reputation for 'competence' I'd say.

I am not sure what the differences were between what Andy Burnham proposed (and took a hammering from the Daily Mail and others) and the current Tory proposals. He says his were similar - but fairer. Anyone care to enlighten?