PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st May 2017, 13:54   #9461 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I'm off to the pub this evening, and will be surrounded by staunch Conservative supporters, many of whom are retired. It'll be interesting to hear their reactions to this policy, as I'd guess that the majority fall into the "comfortably off retired" bracket, with a fair proportion being ex-military, with a smattering of farmers (who generally like to be vocal about stuff like this!).
Yet heaven forbid you suggest cutting their subsidies...
Jet II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 14:14   #9462 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
The government should pay for the care required by older folk who have often worked all their lives.
And how are they going to do that? When will people realise that the government don't have any money of their own.
Andy_S is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 14:34   #9463 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_S View Post
And how are they going to do that? When will people realise that the government don't have any money of their own.
Of course they have money, it is just a matter of how they choose to spend it.
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 14:41   #9464 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
Of course they have money, it is just a matter of how they choose to spend it.
But that money comes from taxes, so ultimately you have the ludicrous position of younger people, in work and paying taxes, funding older people who should have had the foresight to make provision for their own old age.

Social care shouldn't be something that any government has to provide as a matter of course for all, it should be a safety net to support a minority who need it because of circumstances they were unable to plan for.
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 14:47   #9465 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
Of course they have money, it is just a matter of how they choose to spend it.
That's not what I said.

I said "they don't have any money of their own".

One way or another, social care has to be paid for. If, as you say, the government pay, they can only do so by raising the money in the form of tax.
Andy_S is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 14:48   #9466 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
But that money comes from taxes, so ultimately you have the ludicrous position of younger people, in work and paying taxes, funding older people who should have had the foresight to make provision for their own old age.

Social care shouldn't be something that any government has to provide as a matter of course for all, it should be a safety net to support a minority who need it because of circumstances they were unable to plan for.

Never mind "safety nets" the government should provide support for us all in our old age, we have made our contribution during our working productive life time. It is not exactly a surprise folk getting older and needing that help as time marches on.
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:14   #9467 (permalink)
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2,807
A government sponsored programme of voluntary euthanasia with a reduction on the IHT rate for an early application?
cavortingcheetah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:20   #9468 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavortingcheetah View Post
A government sponsored programme of voluntary euthanasia with a reduction on the IHT rate for an early application?
Don't give them ideas..........bet someone has thought about it.
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:22   #9469 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 23
Perhaps a cut in foreign aid? After all, charity begins at home.

Indirectly, our government will be using your future security to fund India's space program.

How about hammering all the overseas speculators who are buying up large tranches of our housing stock - particularly in London - and consequently forcing up property prices and creating this overinflated market?
annakm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:24   #9470 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
Never mind "safety nets" the government should provide support for us all in our old age, we have made our contribution during our working productive life time. It is not exactly a surprise folk getting older and needing that help as time marches on.
Why should people abdicate responsibility for having a roof over their head and food to eat to the government, simply because they've grown old?

We all try and support ourselves through life, and we should plan to do that when we're no longer working. Anyone that decides to spend all their money when they are young, and then expects others to pay for their retirement, is frankly irresponsible.

I fully accept that a minority will be victims of circumstances outside their own control, and should be provided with social care that's taxpayer funded, but the majority should plan for their own retirement. It's not as if this is something at all new, as I mentioned previously, I was advised to make sure I had a decent pension in place when I first started work, nearly 45 years ago.
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:27   #9471 (permalink)
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 840
ORAC....

I will return to your response, albeit in the interim you may wish to save your soul from, apparently, eternal damnation and join the other for whom the prospect of voting Labour is, seemingly, akin to an encounter with the anti-Christ....although I think it's fair to say I won't be voting Tory... and vote Labour

In the interim, and until, presumably, the parallel thread on the topics on here, one in particular, gets merged, here's the lighter side....

Private Eye | Official Site - the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs magazine, edited by Ian Hislop

And then came....Boris, without whom no election would be complete without his demonstration of how to be the complete Tory.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-in-manifesto
Krystal n chips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:36   #9472 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
It's not as if this is something at all new,
Exactly, so the government has been aware they there will be a growing requirement for social care and should have planned accordingly and not just pushed it off into a corner and hoped the problem will go away. It is the government's responsibility to provide care for the elderly. Just seems fair and reasonable to me......
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:42   #9473 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Why should people abdicate responsibility for having a roof over their head and food to eat to the government, simply because they've grown old?.
Not always too easy to do when you have dementia or Alzheimers.....
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:43   #9474 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 23
What about the difference in house prices nationwide? A couple might have a tiny flat in London worth £400k and be forced to sell for the care of one partner yet another couple, in the same situation, in the north east in a larger property, could be comfortably be under the £100k threshold.
annakm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:43   #9475 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
It is the government's responsibility to provide care for the elderly.
Once again Mike, that care has to be funded. So who pays?

Quote:
Originally Posted by annakm View Post
.....and be forced to sell for the care of one partner.....
The whole point of the Conservative proposal is that we will not be forced to sell our homes.
Andy_S is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:48   #9476 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_S View Post
Once again Mike, that care has to be funded. So who pays?

Quite simple, the government. Why not?
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:50   #9477 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 72
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by annakm View Post
What about the difference in house prices nationwide? A couple might have a tiny flat in London worth £400k and be forced to sell for the care of one partner yet another couple, in the same situation, in the north east in a larger property, could be comfortably be under the £100k threshold.

Such anomalies would be irrelevant if the government took responsibility.
Planemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:52   #9478 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
What about the difference in house prices nationwide? A couple might have a tiny flat in London worth £400k and be forced to sell for the care of one partner yet another couple, in the same situation, in the north east in a larger property, could be comfortably be under the £100k threshold.
So if one or both of the couple in the north need to go into care, when they die they leave an asset worth up to £100K. If the couple in the south need to go into care, when they die they leave an asset worth at least £100K.

Why should the taxpayer fund them in leaving any greater sum to their heirs?
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:53   #9479 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 73
Posts: 1,804
If someone has £100,000 in the bank and a house worth £300,000, what 'charge' would be effected?
G-CPTN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 15:58   #9480 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,558
Being a non-theist I have no fear for my soul, merely for my country if Corbyn, McDonald, Abbott and Thornberry were in anyway responsible for exercising power.
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1