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, 09:30   #9461 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 584
As mentioned in another forum just now, it has probably cost the Tories the majority they were hoping for, and might well cost them any majority at all.

Which goon dreamed it up? I think we should be told.
old,not bold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:33   #9462 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,662
The NASTY PARTY.
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:34   #9463 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 16
Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans - BBC News

Sounds like they're pretty committed to the policy.
BehindBlueEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:39   #9464 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,662
The stubborn, uncaring, dogmatic NASTY PARTY.
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:40   #9465 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Age: 73
Posts: 1,284
So, at present if you have to go into a care home, you will lose all your cash except for 23K.
Under Tory plans, you will be provided for at home instead, losing all your cash except for 100K.
What's nasty about that?
jindabyne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:42   #9466 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Any alternative does not bear contemplating. This is what becomes of having no credible opposition.
Though I do detect a smidgen of political bias here.
Avitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:52   #9467 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,662
jindabyne,

Try telling that to the thousands upon thousands of property owning middle income Tories who are now faced with losing their house that was intended to be their childrens legacy.

The uncaring, dogmatic, just shot themselves in the foot NASTY PARTY
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:53   #9468 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 70
Posts: 3,029
Has the UK politics Hamsterwheel been closed?

Just checked - no, it's still there, so why is this running as a separate thread?

Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 21st May 2017 at 09:54. Reason: just checked
Tankertrashnav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 09:57   #9469 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jindabyne View Post
So, at present if you have to go into a care home, you will lose all your cash except for 23K.
Under Tory plans, you will be provided for at home instead, losing all your cash except for 100K.
What's nasty about that?
Exactly. I really can't see what all the fuss is about. People on low incomes, with modest savings, in rented homes, are either unaffected, or may be better off if they have more than 23,000 in savings.

I don't see why there should be any assumption that the state should take on responsibility for people, just because they have got old. The state hasn't taken on responsibility for me for the past many decades, I've had to take responsibility for paying for a roof over my head, food on the table, etc. Why on earth should that change just because I've got a bit older?
VP959 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:04   #9470 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 152
I said in an earlier post that, although UKIP minded, I would be voting Tory in the GE, unless something happened in the meantime. That something turns out to be the Tory manifesto. There's very little in it which attracts my vote - quite the opposite. The lunacy of keeping the foreign aid budget to a fixed proportion, the continuing commitment to HS2, the vague social care and winter fuel payment proposals, the hint of changes to TV licencing. There are more but it all seems designed to upset the people " who are just managing".
Whilst I can't bring myself to vote Labour, their policies have far more voter appeal. It's a pity that the Labour leadership are such an unattractive bunch.
With no UKIP candidate standing in my area [ and LibDems and Green have even less appeal than Labour ] I have a dilemma. At present I'm thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. Whatever I do I intend to attend the polling booth.
I'll be interested in the reactions to this post - could they make up my mind ?
Incidentally I've voted in every GE since the early 60's. Sometimes Tory, sometimes Independent, sometimes UKIP and sometimes with a spoiled paper. Make of that what you will !
papajuliet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:45   #9471 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,273
I have little choice. Here in Brighton Kemptown the Conservative MP had a majority of about 600 at the last election over Labour and I cannot in all conscience allow a party led by Corbyn gain the seat. So I will vote Conservative even though I dislike May's Heathist big government policies. Which is doubtless what she and her advisers are expecting many to do.
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:52   #9472 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I don't see why there should be any assumption that the state should take on responsibility for people, just because they have got old.
Even if they did, one way or another it would have to be paid for.

Why is there this perception that the government can magically provide everything at no cost?
Andy_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 11:13   #9473 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jindabyne View Post
So, at present if you have to go into a care home, you will lose all your cash except for 23K.
Under Tory plans, you will be provided for at home instead, losing all your cash except for 100K.
What's nasty about that?
There are stories floating around that once you've read the small print of the financial products you'll be forced to buy (their employers aren't, after all, going to wait until you die to pay the carers their salaries) the interest and/or the banks' profits and/or fees and charges come out of the 100k, quite possibly leaving nothing at all left.


I have no idea how accurate these rumours are.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 11:16   #9474 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
losing their house that was intended to be their childrens legacy.
Why should the children be entitled to a "legacy"?

2 c
2 sheds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 11:20   #9475 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 sheds View Post
Why should the children be entitled to a "legacy"?

2 c
Good point. I've never received any form of legacy, nor any subsidy from my parents once I was over 18. I never expected anything, and have told my remaining parent that I don't want any legacy. I was brought up to look after myself and plan for my own future, not rely on someone else's taxes to support me.
VP959 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 11:20   #9476 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 16
But, ironically, if you don't get ill, you - or your family - get to keep your assets so hardly fair to penalise the vulnerable. After all, haven't we all paid in advance through our contributions?
BehindBlueEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 11:49   #9477 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,273
Quote:
After all, haven't we all paid in advance through our contributions?
NI is a Ponzi scheme for pensions which is rapidly becoming unaffordable as life expectancy increases - which is why the retirement age is increasing.

The NHS is funded out of income tax and, again as average age increases and the complexity and costs of treating the elderly increase, is becoming unaccordable.

No centralised national care Scheme was ever envisaged, promised or costed. It is now being grasped as a cheaper way to take care of the elderly than the NHS, but there is no coherent plan on paying for it or integrating the two. To date every government has steered clear of it as there is no up side in votes, whoever touches it will get burnt and ripped apart by the opposition of the day.

In cost terms there are about 3 taxpayers to every OAP to meet their pension, NHS and care costs. By 2030 that will be 2 to every OAP, and it will get worse. You think they will continue to willingly do so?

Making the elderly pay for their care in old age means their children will lose out on a nest egg inheritance. But not doing so makes the children of the asset poor pay higher taxes so that the children of the asset rich can do inherit homes they will never be able to afford, is that equitable or right?

Last edited by ORAC; 21st May 2017 at 12:32.
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 12:20   #9478 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,273
From the Grauniad, though those in the comments section aren't impressed....

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...are-any-fairer
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 12:31   #9479 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 47
Several issues with this.
1) it is complete luck of the draw whether or not you will need care in later life and for how long/how much it will cost.

2) Those best able to afford it will also be those best places and able to avoid it.

3) Elderly social care, particularly residential is a complete and utter rip off industry filled with vultures. Without tackling this side of the industry first will lead to a licence to print money for the most unscrupulous.

Whilst with an ageing population social care will need to be paid somehow, this is a blunt raid on some very vulnerable in society. Particularly those losing their marbles.
back to Boeing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 12:44   #9480 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Making the elderly pay for their care in old age means their children will lose out on a nest egg inheritance. But not doing so makes the children of the asset poor pay higher taxes so that the children of the asset rich can do inherit homes they will never be able to afford, is that equitable or right?
Speaking for myself, I never had any expectation of a nest egg inheritance. If I was that desperate for one when my parents went into care I would have moved them in with us. But as I didnt, someone had to pay for the care they received in the Nursing home.
Jet II 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 02:17.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1