Conservative Party Manifesto

[PopGun]

25 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Dementia tax u-turn from Mother Theresa.

Strong and stable 

[kzb]

27 minutes ago, Quicken said:

Yep. That didn't take long did it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/22/theresa-may-expected-announce-dementia-tax-u-turn/

 

 

What a shambles.

Just think, loads of "experts" will have hammered out this policy for the manifesto. 

Notice there is no figure mentioned for this cap, which she has had to come out with at a moments notice.

Are they going all-out to lose this election?

[RentingForever]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

What a shambles.

Just think, loads of "experts" will have hammered out this policy for the manifesto. 

Notice there is no figure mentioned for this cap, which she has had to come out with at a moments notice.

Are they going all-out to lose this election?

And it's only a "we will consult on..."

[billybong]

.

Quote

Theresa May has announced a dramatic U-Turn on the Conservative's controversial "dementia tax".

The Prime Minister's plans for social care reform will now include a cap on total contributions.

The policy will still offer protection for people with assets of £100,000 or less, a sharp increase on the current £23,250 threshold.

I understand PM will say Green Paper on social care will now include a cap on total contributions as well as the £100k capital floor

— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam)

U-turn coming on social care. There will be a cap. Read today's @EveningStandard for the details

— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) May 22, 2017

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary,  told the London Evening Standard: “We want to make sure that people who have worked hard and saved up all their lifetimes, do not have to worry about losing all their assets through a disease as random as dementia.

“That’s why we want to introduce and absolute limit on the amount of money anyone has to pay for their care.”

It comes after Boris Johnson suggested the controversial plans to force pensioners to contribute to the costs of their care could be watered down.

 

Apparently a Green Paper is only a consultation document so likely just advisory.  It might well be that they intend to accept the advice but taking the word of some politicians bent on garnering votes for a general election seems a bit risky when considering casting your vote.  

It doesn't sound as if the manifesto is going to be amended to take into account the tax "U-turn" - not that manifestos have any legal standing in any event.

The announcement has all the makings of a desperate pre-election con to try to salvage vote losses due to an apparently unpopular policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_paper

Edited May 22, 2017 by billybong

[Quicken]

It's a U-Turn. This was yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/39990986

Quote

The policy scraps a planned £72,000 cap on care costs paid by the individual. The Tories argue that allowing people to keep a "floor" of £100,000 of assets which cannot be touched is fairer.

 

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, RentingForever said:

And it's only a "we will consult on..."

Exactly.  Anyway, once this dementia tax is in place, they sky is the limit. 

This is policy is probably the biggest robbery from the British public in history, beating even the bank bail outs of 2007-8.

The £100k will never be increased and this supposed cap can increase at will with every budget. 

A fairer way of doing it would be to socialise the costs.  Yes have a property equity tax, but everybody pays it not just the ones unlucky enough to get dementia.

It could be a graduated tax, starts off at a few per cent and increases at certain thresholds, just like income tax.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Can we change this thread to "Conservative Party list of stuff they would like to do but will back track on because no one will vote for them".

 

Ta

[Errol]

Sounds like the PM has dementia herself.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

The issue of health care is only going to become hotter as the population ages. I know a couple who both retired from the council at 60, they are in great health, I fully expect them to live until 100. So that is 40 years of pension payments and free healthcare, which is going to add up to more than they contributed in their 40 years of working. 

It's simple. You encourage even more people working at the other end of the demographic spectrum (doing what who knows, the important thing about working is working, not actually doing anything useful for society), and ignore the fact that they'll need to retire eventually. Let the fallout from the collapsing pyramid land on someone else, we'll be long dead by then.

[billybong]

^ bbc link

Quote

Asked if the Tories might reconsider the plans given the criticism, Mr Green said: "No... we have set out this policy, which we're not going to look at again."

He's clearly well out of the loop.  No point in interviewing him.

[billybong]

6 minutes ago, kzb said:

Exactly.  Anyway, once this dementia tax is in place, they sky is the limit. 

This is policy is probably the biggest robbery from the British public in history, beating even the bank bail outs of 2007-8.

The £100k will never be increased and this supposed cap can increase at will with every budget. 

A fairer way of doing it would be to socialise the costs.  Yes have a property equity tax, but everybody pays it not just the ones unlucky enough to get dementia.

It could be a graduated tax, starts off at a few per cent and increases at certain thresholds, just like income tax.

My highlight.

They might well be anticipating using this tax to fund bank bail outs in 2017-18.

[Riedquat]

56 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

Agree with this , people don't want to understand simple maths.As far as they are concerned they paid into system so thats enough to cover everything when it clearly isnt. Pensions schemes are getting less lucrative for this reason , they are struggling to pay out to the current pensioners let alone let more in.

It's easy enough to spot the flaws with the current situation (see my previous post), which is why it's depressing to see how many people point blank refuse to. That's why I accept that I'm going to have to work to longer than 65. But that needs to be balanced by those already retired having to take some of the hit. It's no use bleating on about being entitled to what they were promised if they expect someone else to pay for it.

If all the automation that p1sses me off actually had any use it should be the thing that squares this circle - people retiring at the same age means a smaller proportion of the population is working at any given time, the automation should be making up that difference so we don't need as high a proportion. But once again economics and short-term self-interest and laziness gets in the way of being sensible.

[thisisthisitmaybe]

Mrs May took a gamble but as she is not by nature a gambler it has not paid off.

I suspect the social care idea was an attempt to attract younger voters who are worried about escalating costs for keeping the old alive.

But Corbyn has the young vote sown up. She has only managed to alienate her core older support.

She is just like Gordon Brown who was also indecisive and given to u-turns whilst self fashioning themselves as prudent and sensible leaders.

This is the problem: the spivs win elections, not the well meaning.

Corbyn is a seasoned campaigner and knows how to win even when written off by the MSM. He is a spiv revolutionary with no moral compass (e.g. IRA) but he knows how to seize the moment. He only has to be lucky once.

I think he could win outright now.

Edited May 22, 2017 by thisisthisitmaybe

[billybong]

^ bbc link

Quote

 

He stressed a £100,000 inheritance was still "four times as good" as being left with £23,250 - the current threshold over which residential care costs must be funded.

 

Even for a single child on average it still wouldn't fund purchase of an average UK house, just a deposit - even more so after QEeney Carney got to work.

Edited May 22, 2017 by billybong

[White Craw]

19 minutes ago, kzb said:

A fairer way of doing it would be to socialise the costs.  Yes have a property equity tax, but everybody pays it not just the ones unlucky enough to get dementia.

It could be a graduated tax, starts off at a few per cent and increases at certain thresholds, just like income tax.

Too sensible, go to the back of the class!

 

Of course, it doesn't take too long to work out who wouldn't like this approach.

[TulipsFromThreadneedle]

20 minutes ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Mrs May took a gamble but as she is not by nature a gambler it has not paid off.

I suspect the social care idea was an attempt to attract younger voters who are worried about escalating costs for keeping the old alive.

But Corbyn has the young vote sown up. She has only managed to alienate her core older support.

She is just like Gordon Brown who was also indecisive and given to u-turns.

Corbyn is a seasoned campaigner and knows how to win even when written off by the MSM.

I think he could win outright now.

I'd bet you £50 that he will not win outright or more if you wish.

 

[White Craw]

31 minutes ago, Quicken said:

It's a U-Turn. This was yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/39990986

Damian Green has said the Conservatives will not "look again" at plans to fund social care in England, despite fears they will be unpopular with voters.

The Tory manifesto says elderly people needing care at home would have to meet the costs but could keep £100,000 after the bill is deducted from their estate.

The work and pensions secretary told the BBC it would still be "a reasonable inheritance" to pass on to dependants.

Damian will be expecting to leave much more than £100,000. Also, if he is unfortunate enough to need care in the future, his retirement INCOME will likely cover his fees.

[thisisthisitmaybe]

1 minute ago, TulipsFromThreadneedle said:

I'd bet you £50 that he will not win outright or more if you wish.

 

Alas like Mrs May I am not a gambler, but at least I know it.

[TulipsFromThreadneedle]

Just now, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Alas like Mrs May I am not a gambler, but at least I know it.

I think there is a chance he could lead a coalition of chaos.  zero chance of an outright majority. Grand coalition is not out of the question.

[TulipsFromThreadneedle]

3 minutes ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Alas like Mrs May I am not a gambler, but at least I know it.

She should have cut foreign aid and spent that on healthcare along with what she proposes on elderly care.

And built a token amount of council houses, even if it were only 200k over the next 5 years ... May and her chums strike me as being out of touch university types who claim to know about the average working person as they didnt go to Eton.

[CunningPlan]

Looks like anyone sitting on cash needs to buy a property asap then.

Don't whatever you do, downsize.

In fact, best thing you could do if you have cash and a house is buy an even bigger house.

 

[Broken biscuit]

24 minutes ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Alas like Mrs May I am not a gambler, but at least I know it.

Good job too - or you'd be broke by now.

[Broken biscuit]

^^^^^^

meant in a light hearted manner by the way

[Frugal Git]

13 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Looks like anyone sitting on cash needs to buy a property asap then.

Don't whatever you do, downsize.

In fact, best thing you could do if you have cash and a house is buy an even bigger house.

 

I've pointed out this perverse incentive to upsize unnecesarily to my parents who are in that position (financially, thankfully not in regard to their health).

Also applies to the new IHT rules - where, if you are approximate millionaires you are better to make sure its a ~400k house + 600k cash rather than 200k house and 800k cash.

We all think its a ridiculous situation (and of course, wouldn't do it) but it just shows the lunacy and moral hazard that our banking and political class indulge in.

[Broken biscuit]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Exactly.  Anyway, once this dementia tax is in place, they sky is the limit. 

This is policy is probably the biggest robbery from the British public in history, beating even the bank bail outs of 2007-8.

The £100k will never be increased and this supposed cap can increase at will with every budget. 

A fairer way of doing it would be to socialise the costs.  Yes have a property equity tax, but everybody pays it not just the ones unlucky enough to get dementia.

It could be a graduated tax, starts off at a few per cent and increases at certain thresholds, just like income tax.

But why single out property? I'm not against "socialising the costs", but I fail to see why certain asset classes should be treated differently from others.

Any yes, I know that property (primary residence) is currently treated more favourably than other assets. That in itself is a problem that makes finding an acceptable solution even more difficult.