Saturday, Oct 03, 2009
Land-hoarders party has great idea
BBC: Tories launch care home guarantee
Maybe I'm being thick here but can someone point out why anyone needs a house if they're in residential care?
Posted by phdinbubbles @ 09:08 AM (1728 views) Add Comment
85 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. little professor said...
To pass on to the little darlings, what what. Can't have the peasants getting a slice of our hard-inherited wealth.
"Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said the party would invite people to pay a one-off fee of £8,000 at age 65 to waive residential fees for life."
So, only the cash-rich who have a spare 8 grand lying around will be able to save their homes. The majority of hard-working people will not be able to take advantage of this guarantee. But then, who cares about poor people, harumph.
2. James In London said...
Surely all this will do is create a three tier system. Top tier being the super-rich who still pay for the best residential care; the second being those who partake in the one-off fee £8000-funded NCS (National Care Service - honestly, how does this Tory initiative differ from Brown's announcement earlier?); lowest tier being those perpetually poor who were (are) perpetuallypriced out of the housingmarket so have no assets to speak of.
I may be having a particularly pessimistic Saturday, but roll on legalised euthanasia.
3. will said...
There are care homes and there are care homes. If you pay your £8000 which would you end up in? I would expect the wealthy to want to pay for all their care costs in the best homes, and at around £500 per person per week £8000 would last four months.
4. sovietuk said...
This is an excellent idea and is to be heartily commended. Mortgages that have been paid off are often the result of many years of hard work and its only fair that a decased person can pass the asset through the family. Reducing government waste should be the priority rather than stealing familes assets.
5. krustyatemyhamster said...
@3
You are a soviet aren't you. You think people are entitled to wealth they haven't earned. There's no difference between the statement you've just made and someone coming on here saying benefit scroungers shouldn't have their rights to free cash taken away by hard working people.
Inheritors are benefit scroungers - they need to be given the same stigma.
6. will said...
@4
Well said Krusty.
I believe that too many people in the country are relying on inheritance to fund their pensions. Sadly for many, this doesn't usually work out in the long term. I have seen many wealthy families expecting large inheritance only to find little at the end when it's too late.
Get saving on your own.
7. c'mon correction said...
I agree with soviet, if a person or persons work hard all their life they deserve to have a comfortable retirement. Everyone who earns contributes to society by paying taxes all their life, that is doing your 'bit', everyone even gets their inhertiance taxed heavily also; and generally the more you earn the more tax you pay back into society. I'm all for a fair wealth distribution system, but we need to balance that with reward for hard work and competion in order to push individuals. If people have nothing to aspire to, then why will they bother?
Krusty@4
My wife and I are expecting our first, and I will work even harder to make our child's life as good as I can, let me tell you it is a HUGE motivator for me, my child won't be a 'scronger', what ever inheritiance is left after tax will be a legacy to my child that if they work hard then hopefully they can do the same for their children.
What legacy do 'benefit scrongers' lay down to their offspring?
8. nomad said...
Let's not lose sight of the villains here - a government that builds up huge deficits during a booming revenue era and then continues to borrow during desperately lean times.
Houses do take a long time to buy - boomers didn't make the rules - and when people retire they have been contributing to their pension and health care for fifty years.
If you want to strip them of all that they have then do it in an open and honest way - burglary and muggings.
9. Sarah said...
krustyatemyhamster: A large group of my work colleagues read this great site on a daily basis and most of us have been doing so for at least 3 years. We are not particularly knowledgeable about the economy so we don't blog but we really do appreciate the small group of posters who are very informative. Uncle Tom, Mark Wadsworth and Flashman are the best contributors in our opinion. Unfortunately there is also a very small group of nasty posters who spoil our enjoyment. I am sure I speak for the silent majority when I say that if you have nothing useful to say or nothing pleasant to say then please stop posting. I will not post again so please do not bother directing any of your usual poison in my direction
I am sorry for singling you out but your recent comments about people’s children and about other posters being single cell or whatever was a step too far. I think you are a very angry person and it is quite ugly to witness
10. mark wadsworth said...
PhD - that was my first thought when I saw it on the telly.
Like any other "Ism", home-owner-ism is full of inherent contradictions.
On the one hand they say "Buying a home and saving is a good thing and should not be discouraged. People should be self-reliant and not rely on State handouts", (with which, if it were taken to its logical conclusion, I would pretty much agree) but then they go on to say "So that's why the State should pay for care-home fees for home-owners so that their children can inherit the home".
FFS! If you want to play the "self-reliant" card, then pay for your own bl00dy care home fees. If the only way your kids can inherit from you is by the taxpayer being forced to fund your care, then that's neither self-reliance on your part nor on the part of your kids. At least the "benefit scroungers" are only asking for enough to keep themselves going, they aren't asking for big capital handouts they can pass on to their kids.
Apart from being offered council houses at a huge discount, of course, thus elevating them to the hallowed "Home-owner" class and hence beyond reproach, which I have always regarded as a crime against humanity.
11. sovietuk said...
Discuss the situation of inheritance tax with people from many other countries. They cannot believe it when they learn about how decent hard working people and families are stripped of their assets when they die in the UK.
12. nomad said...
A human side to this is that very few people, no matter how old, go into hospital or a care home thinking they will not be coming home again.
13. techieman said...
Well i think that this is basically an insurance premium. Im not too interested in the moral argument. The question is who pays? The tax payer or the person obtaining services? I suppose all people that haven't got the required assets get it free - so that leaves the others above the asset threshold.
Then its a question of risk / reward. So there must be selection. My understanding at the moment is that the local authority wont take the house if one of the spouses remains in it. So why would a couple have to pay £16k?
A flat fee doesn't seem right either. I think there needs to be more fat to this policy. As i said im not interested in the polarised arguments on whether or not this is a good idea, or morally correct, the rest of you can argue the toss on that one!
14. uncle tom said...
This is quite a neat idea, and not very party political. It presents a sensible solution to a thorny issue, without needing the help of the taxpayer. No doubt the insurers will be able to offer 'roll-up' options for those who don't have the spare cash at the outset.
This is not a recipe for more empty houses, indeed it will encourage the old and frail to move into residential care sooner rather than later, so their homes can be liberated for the benefit of the next generation.
Labour will be kicking themselves that they didn't think of it first...
15. robh said...
This is a really good story as it ties into so many aspects of life that is almost impossible to discuss it without fights breaking out
Is there any real reason that the family should get anything if they aren't living in the family home? I might work hard for an education but no one will get it when I die. If I work hard for a house, I would like to be able to live in it as long as I could and I would be heartbroken to lose it while I was alive. I agree with nomad on that. After I'm dead, well... we would be better to look after each other now than 'horde' for houses
Better to have a smaller house now and educate the children that try and stockpile to hand over when they are too old to enjoy it and I'm too dead to see it
16. tenyearstogetmymoneyback said...
I agree with the people who think this is a neat idea. However, I wonder about the figure of £8000.
I would have expected it to be higher.
On the plus side, if the Bank of Mum and Dad have to fork out £16000, then that it £16000 less
that it can afford for a deposit for their darling offspring.
17. mark wadsworth said...
@ Techie, Uncle Tom, if it were as simple as being an insurance premium, and assuming that £8,000 is actuarially correct, why aren't insurance companies already offering this? Maybe because the actuarial cost is far, far higher? Because the taxpayer is subsidising it?
Plus, what is the moral difference between e.g. the heirs working hard to earn the money to pay the care, and somebody else working hard to earn the money to buy the house off the heirs (which the heirs otherwise might not have inherited)?
Why is it unfair to ask the carees or their heirs to cough up, but perfectly fair to expect other people to pay for this (either through their taxes or because all things being equal this props up house prices)?
18. krustyatemyhamster said...
Bloggers voting for higher house prices and unearned income, on a house price crash blog that espouses the need for lower house prices and disdain for people earning wealth through capital appreciation. Absolute hypocrisy. No wonder this Country's facing decades in the gutter.
19. Mrmx9 said...
To respond to a previous poster.
How can you not be stripped of your assets when you are dead - you are dead!
20. titaniccaptain said...
Great idea.....
Here I go out into Titanic Cretin mode with my usual simplistic and basic argument that will be as popular here as Gary Glitter on Children In Need....but hear me out.
I believe in home ownership.
I believe that everyone has a right to it but I don't believe that a home should be allowed to be used as a financial instrument for profit or ever fall into the category of "An asset". The family home should be exactly that...a home....anything that safeguards the elderly and preserves of the idea that a house is more than just an asset ......I am behind.
It was this very same "A home is an asset" thinking that brought about the boom....policy should follow some basic values that we are throwing away every day just to fit in with our economic situation (Look at today's fear voting Ireland) THAT WAS CAUSED BY A LACK OF MORAL FIBER.
We should be be cautious in the way we make policy and check if policy follows morality or the nightmare scenario where morality is dictated by policy.....then we are in communitarianism hell.
21. uncle tom said...
Mark,
There are insurance backed schemes already, but they are for premium cost care that is entirely in the private sector.
State sector care has demanded a financial contribution from those with assets - that is the difficult issue that this seeks to address.
22. c'mon correction said...
@3@4@16Krusty - stop spinning like your masters!!
I want to buy a house at a reasonable price to raise a family in, and I also would like to leave some of what I've worked for (be it money, books, a piece of furniture, whatever) to my children rather than 100% back to the state.
There is no hypocrisy there dude. In other countries where renting is the norm and not home ownership, rents are cheaper and the elderly have cash rather than bricks and mortar, it is my LABOUR in whatever form that I pass down to my children.
Inhertiance doesn't cause house price booms.
23. dude said...
@9: sovietuk: "are stripped of their assets when they die in the UK."
Are you serious? What need have *you* of your assets when you die? As long as what you have pays for your funeral then that's ok. If you want your children to have something you've earned then fine, but give it to them *before* you die. If you can't do without it, then you can't afford to give it to them.
Once you die the state rightfully has the first call on anything you own. Only after it has taken its share can others then get theirs.
I thought @1: little professor's comments summed it up admirably.
24. shipbuilder said...
I think that the point many are missing here is that the value of your house is not simply the sum of your labour over the years - it is that plus the extra wealth you gained - scarcity value, completely unearned, as a result of owning a piece of land in the UK. You are not 'entitled' to this any more than any other handout - it comes at the expense of others, so in a reasonable tax system this is what should be taxed and redistributed to its rightful owners - everyone else. Current inheritance tax is a bit of a blunt instrument in this respect, but I think we all know what the real tax solution is, if we want to let people keep what they ACTUALLY earned.
25. c'mon correction said...
Nothing really goes up in value, we just work harder for it.
26. cornishman said...
By lowering interest rates to practically nothing, it has saved many financially stretched house owners from having to sell.
By not forcing old people to sell their house if they go into long term residential care - it removes another whole load of forced sellers from the market. Thus helping keep house prices high.
As a bonus - the government would get a big cash input now - and be out of office by the time anyone tried to claim...
27. Acetip said...
Am I right in thinking that I already pay insurance for this reason it's called NATIONAL INSURANCE
28. flashman said...
This scheme is barking mad. Why the fudge do old people need to keep hold of their homes if they are in care?
£8000 is clearly not enough to pay for all this, so the younger taxpayer would in effect be subsidising a scheme that keeps houses out of their reach. There have been revolutions for lesser offences.
It is only an outrage that old people are forced to sell their homes if you are indoctrinated with the credo that perpetual/subsidised homeownership is a god given right. The state doesn’t have enough money to support everyone in his or her old age. Unfortunately that means that wealthier pensioners will have to put their hand in their pockets and pay extra. It’s unfair in a way because wealthier pensioners will have already paid above average tax but thems’ the breaks when no one else can afford to pay. If our successive governments had managed the pot a bit better (for example if the god of housing, Thatcher, hadn't sold our assets too cheaply, to mask the destruction of our industries) things might be different ... but unfortunately, we are skint, so wealthy people have to cough up the cash. On what planet does it matter if their money is in houses, shares, paintings, candlesticks or cash? They have to sell what they’ve got, even if it is a sacred house
In a weird way it would be good for the economy and house prices if wealthier people had to pay even more for their care. Many of them would go on an enjoyable spending spree, to ensure that they end up poor enough to get free care. Their money would swirl around the economy instead of being hoarded and their only partially used houses would be released to young families who need the space
By the way, it is too simplistic to claim that all house price appreciation is unearned. What if a person rehabilitates an old wreck of a house with their manual graft and imagination? What if they extended and improved it using already taxed income to pay a team of builders?
29. letthemfall said...
Strikes me as a typical Tory idea: £8000 is not much for the very wealthy to pay, who may well have assets worth millions. Once again it is the least well off who are at a disadvantage.
30. uncle tom said...
Letthemfall,
This makes no odds to the millionaires - it's a measure aimed at the less wealthy homeowners - those who can't afford private residential care.
Flashman,
This will actually encourage people to move into a care home when they get too frail, allowing them to sell their homes and give the proceeds to their children and grand children while they are still alive to see the benefit.
The calculation of £8k probably stacks up against the proportion who currently go into care homes, and the money the state currently claws back. Whether the calculation allows for any increase in uptake is more doubtful.
The bottom line is that this is a good measure from the point of view of bolstering the supply side of the property market.
31. flashman said...
The opening paragraph of the article: A "home protection scheme" to prevent older people having to sell their properties to fund long-term care has been unveiled by the Conservatives
uncle tom: how does the above opening paragraph gel with your comment " this is a good measure from the point of view of bolstering the supply side of the property market"? Please bear in mind that it is called a "home protection scheme"
By the way, I always enjoy a debate with you. Good stuff
32. cornishman said...
"The bottom line is that this is a good measure from the point of view of bolstering the supply side of the property market."
- but only if the house is sold. Most people with a house would probably say that now is not a good time to sell as "they could not get what the house is worth". Probably no mortgage - so it would probably be rented out - IMO.
33. nomad said...
If the discussion has come down to who takes the money when I die, then I would rather it went to the most distant of cousins than to the state. All governments, but especially the current believe they can spend my money more sensibly than I can.
So what will it go on? Their expenses, quangos, Hammersmith black lesbian one-legged outreach officers? Rather put it back directly into the economy.
34. uncle tom said...
To understand why this is a good idea, you need to have a good take on the current status quo, especially as it affects old people with families who are not wealthy, where the only significant asset in the family may be the older person's home.
These people often feel they have a duty to protect their children's inheritance, but if they have to go into a care home, their wealth gets stripped away.
The result is that they often won't go into a care home until they absolutely can't cope by themselves any more, often a sinlge person rattling around in a family house.
If they felt able to go into a care home sooner, without depriving their children of their inheritance, then by doing so, a vacant house will be delivered to the market, sooner than would otherwise be the case.
Whether they decided to sell the house, rent it, or let a younger member of the family live there makes no odds, it still represents increased housing supply.
35. mdmick said...
nomad @29
I resent your negative view of Hammersmith
36. mdmick said...
TC @32
A lot of people miss the point that Darwin did not apply his work to the human race.
He applied it to species and left it for other people to progress with the theory.
It is a subtle point and you might say, "Well of course he meant us humans too"
BUT it is academically important to point out that a lot of the conclusions drawn from The Origin of The Species
are inferred rether than stated.
Innit!
37. braindeed said...
It's another couple of nails in the coffin lid of social mobility. It's shockingly bad value for the younger generations and makes as much sense as platinum plated civil servant pensions, and all the other 'playerz' toxic paper ‘assets’ that busted the banks.
No taxpayer would ever subscribe, if they’d had the actuarial consequences fully explained.
Eric Arthur is starting to look like a Pollyanna.
38. titaniccaptain said...
I do not want to support the current system in anyway shape or form....infact I want to see it crumble. No one here no matter how poor or rich is a free man. The rich have a more superior illusion of freedom than the poor but we are restricted by the state and economic slaves to it....and that means the rich as well.
I want none of my money to reach the state.... and just before I pop my clogs I will buy gold bars or whatever things I can buy of value then hide them for the kids to dig up a few years later.
Everyone should help each other in a Utopian society and keep trying to reach that pinnacle of perfection and never stop striving. But that society is one where the state serve the people and not the other way around. A state that dictates the will and law of its people is not democratic and that's the state that YOU live in Now today....We are not talking about anarchy but less rules.
I have even heard myself saying that same old mantra "Who's going to pay for it all?" you hear everywhere.......the answer should be simple...the community that the individual lives in should pay for it and the individual pays into the community over his or her lifetime....if he or she wishes....or else he or she doesn't receive the benefit of living in such a community. By the way for those that think that the death of an elderly family/neighbor/person means there will be a greater supply of houses then f*cking shame on you.....and that means me aswell because all of us have become brainwashed into believing that we are commodities and users of commodities.
If an elderly family/neighbor/person dies it means hearts are broken and that a light in this world has gone out no matter how faint.
Today everyone is viewed as what their "worth" is.....how much they give or take from a system.....the dehumanization of humanity is in progress...all this started with Darwin.
"Whats poor Darwin got to do with it ?" I hear you cry...well in Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" he put forwards a theory that has shaped mankind ever since and that is man is the product of his environment and is the king of the animal kingdom thanks to evolution and natural selection and God doesn't even get a look in because he something we invented to make ourselves feel better...I would argue that a belief in Darwin's theory does the same to relieve us of guilt and any idea of being judged for sin.
So with God out of the picture and natural selection in the picture we view the world as a feeding ground....with the inherited values of Christianity becoming eroded by the generation some may cheer..... Even though they still hold some of the basic inherited values from Christianity. Many a non believer would argue that their values and perceptions of decency have nothing to do with Christianity...but they grew up in a world that has had nearly 2000 years of a single belief system behind it and molding the inherited values of which still surround us today. BUT those values are thinning at an alarming rate.
With man as the central character in this and his newly found position as "Master of his own destiny" the world is up for grabs...the land, the people, the homes all belong to the best thing that man can come up with to serve himself.....communitarianism...(which covers the middle ground and the extremes of left right politics. It polarizes our thinking and limits us to that concept of Super Mother State Vs Capitalism and everything inbetween is all that there is.)
This is where the state says what the community should be and in turn the community says what the individual should be.
"Is this not what Christianity did?" I here you cry from the rooftops.....I would say we have never had a real Christian church...we have had man made manipulation machines mascaraing as religious institutions running this and other countries. But at least there were core values behind the mask of religion.... our post Darwin society makes the elderly, vulnerable and sick burdens to us as they fall out of our desired natural selection gene pool.
39. mdmick said...
re: tc @32 well, you were 32 and then suddenly my reply to you was ahead of your post.
Go figure!
40. mdmick said...
@30 UT
UT, you generally back up what you say with reference to experience.
And, generally, it is hard to disagree with you.
And, I think that you are right in this case too.
I wonder if there is some privatised care home initiative partially motivating the policy though.
Off topic:
Also, I feel strongly that provision for the elderly is weird in this country.
I can't figure out if NHS staff have a bias towards euthanasure and whether that justifies their poor treatment of the elderly - in my experience - in an attempt to hasten death OR if it is simply poor admin practices.
Furthermore, the concept of cosy care homes seems, in part, false to me. Some care homes are magnificent and some are just a place for people to dribble until they catch a bad cold and die.
Add to this:
A woman on breakfast tv this week was saying that people over 65 should get part time jobs because, otherwise, they will be bored sat at home all day 'bored out of their skuls/minds'. And I was thinking about how, at least, with 65 as an age limit, dementia is not much of an employment law issue.
It seems to me that old age is ill thought out in this country and shame on us as a nation for not putting it towards the top of the list of motivating policy.
41. titaniccaptain said...
Tis True MD Mick......but as you hinted at its like me saying "all religions are false and man made" and then someone asking the question "Does that apply to Zoroastrians?"
42. krustyatemyhamster said...
@braindeed
"It's another couple of nails in the coffin lid of social mobility. It's shockingly bad value for the younger generations and makes as much sense as platinum plated civil servant pensions, and all the other 'playerz' toxic paper ‘assets’ that busted the banks.
No taxpayer would ever subscribe, if they’d had the actuarial consequences fully explained.
Eric Arthur is starting to look like a Pollyanna."
Yep - another policy aimed at the destruction of meritocracy and self-reliancy.
43. the number cruncher said...
UT - how can you defend this - your reasoning seams poor to me
the scheme is just a bribe aimed at floating voters who are cash rich enough to take advantage of it (and understand it)
It is state funding of swing Tory voters just like the sale of council houses
Its unfair, unjust and plain wrong
once again the poor fund the rich. The Tories do it overtly while labour do it covertly.
44. braindeed said...
Double tops, number cruncher
45. mdmick said...
TC,
How did you know I was hinting about Zoroastrians? !!!
Privately, I think the Origin of the Species was entirely aimed at Zoroastrians
46. Titaniccaptain said...
lol mdmick.
Zoroastrian vegan budgies.
47. flashman said...
titanic: Christianity has delivered no more and no less that any other religion. Quite frankly we would be better off without the thousands of years of wickedness imposed on us by its’ practitioners. There is no point in distancing the purity of religion from the behaviour of its practitioners or manipulators because wickedness has been the output of religion since time began. It’s a given
Hiding your wealth in the form of gold bars for your children to dig up, is a crime in both legal and moral terms. You should honestly declare your estate and pay your share. No offence, but there is a whiff of hypocrisy in your gold stash plan, that strikes me as quite typical of ‘religious’ behaviour.
Paying taxes does not make me a slave. Taxes are all about social responsibility and paying them is the decent thing to do. When you think of tax in terms of decency, you will cease to think of yourself as enslaved. As an aside …it seems to me that it is usually the nouveau riche who have the largest aversion to paying tax. I suppose they have had the time to acquire money but not enough time to acquire breeding. The Victorian rich vied to outdo each others' philanthropic projects. Today’s noveau riche have tax avoidance accountants
48. titaniccaptain said...
lol mdmick.
Zoroastrian vegan budgies.
49. braindeed said...
I agree with Flash's text in its entirety – I am almost weary with the hypocrisy of the neo-cons and their utter grasp of how to manipulate the herd.
Sometimes I think I’m in a foreign land, because I don’t recognise the new meanings of so many words. I weep for the crushed expectations of the talented but poor, of the creeping re-establishment of feudalism. Of the eradication of the core values that held us together (flawed somewhat, admittedly), of the ‘certainty’ that says we must emasculate our working class through inward ‘competition’ – just so the already comfortably off can afford a coolie for their gated islands.
Does no-one else care?
50. titaniccaptain said...
@Flashman
I agree with your point about the arbitrators of wickedness through the medium of Christianity and religion but we are human and Christianity actually accepts that we are flawed and recognizes our human frailty.
How much tax did the Victorian rich pay? charitable and philanthropic projects were something which were optional and encouraged by the strict Christian ethos of the day. Now we have a forceful imposition of "charitable" giving via taxes.
If you have total acceptance and belief in the government that imposes taxation on you and you agree with the way your taxes are being spent and also you are 100% aware of where your hard earned cash goes, then you're right you're not a slave.....i.e. if you agree with the Iraq/Afghanistan war, the bank bailouts, the quangos etc..... then your fine. But if you do not agree like I don't then your a slave to whatever the will of the government of the day is. As I said we enslave ourselves to the poor version of democracy we are presented with in the United Kingdom.
There is no hypocrisy in tax avoidance when you have no interest in propping up a system that you disagree with.
I do not believe that we should pay our share towards a system that doesn't work......now a system that does work in a smaller community sense with a proportion of my money going to national defense I would gladly contribute and pay my share.
51. titaniccaptain said...
@Braindeed
Not wanting to contribute to a society is a symptom that the more control you give away to a larger group of individuals the more resentment people have with paying tax toward such an imposing system when they have very little say in the workings of it.
52. braindeed said...
@45.....I do not believe that we should pay our share towards a system that doesn't work
The system is f*@ked because of the prevailing view that ......' There is no hypocrisy in tax avoidance when you have no interest in propping up a system that you disagree with.'
Get off the moral high ground, you shyster.
53. titaniccaptain said...
And yes I am a Shyster and many things worse.
54. titaniccaptain said...
Braindeed do you actually agree with contributing towards this system run by this government and all its waste?
55. braindeed said...
48. titaniccaptain said...
And yes I am a Shyster and many things worse.
And so the debate putrefies - remember his admission, readers
56. braindeed said...
You're a self-certified shyster - f*ck off
57. titaniccaptain said...
Whats wrong with admitting to being flawed?
58. techieman said...
after putting some good arguments - although a little one sided, i feel a reversion to type of an aggressive poster or two. i say two because its clear that someONE has a multiple personality disorder. What does he see when he looks in the mirror?
Scary stuff!!!!
59. devo said...
braindead
You are a troublemaker with nothing useful to contribute.
Do one.
60. devo said...
flashman said... Taxes are all about social responsibility and paying them is the decent thing to do.
Yes, in a decent society, which this isn't.
61. devo said...
I am tempted to advocate tax strikes and mortgage strikes, but no matter; they are effectively happening already.
62. titaniccaptain said...
Oh well nothing like a good old fashioned heated debate chaps.......
63. devo said...
@58. flashman said.. I strongly disapproved of Thatcher and Blair but withholding my tax payments would have deprived hospitals and schools of their budget
Ah, bless.
Do you really think your paymasters hold the same sentiments?
64. flashman said...
devo and titanic: I agree that society isn't particularly decent at the moment but we still should pay our taxes. We have a vote but if the majority vote for someone we don't approve of, then we have to accept the majority decision and follow the rule of law. Of course there is nothing wrong with campaigning against the incumbents which is in a way is what we are doing here. I have never voted Tory or Labour and I strongly disapproved of Thatcher and Blair but withholding my tax payments would have deprived hospitals and schools of their budget (although it does bother me when I think that I paid for the Iraq incursion).
I suppose I would agree with a tax strike if a government abolished the vote
Going to bed now
Cheers
65. titaniccaptain said...
Yes bed for me too......Good night all.
66. uncle tom said...
number cruncher,
Yes, the scheme appeals to key floating voters - politics is politics...
But these are not wealthy floating voters; they are mostly decent, older, responsible floating voters; who have, on average, probably spent their lives on well below average incomes..
And whilst, at the end of the day, it will probably not be cost neutral; simply because take up of state care home provision will increase, the lion's share of the cost will, as always, be mostly borne by the more affluent in society - those that Labour apologists like to portray as being protected by Tory policy..
..so welcome it!
67. the number cruncher said...
UT
You are obviosly a man of intelligence and compassion, neigh even a renascence man. I learn from you and am impressed by your intellect
why do you defend social division so much, and this wicked Tory policy?
68. the number cruncher said...
Tax is the only measure of a good society, and to explain just how F****ed up this country is:
I was chatting to my 'mentor' a very good man I have huge respect for last Wednesday. He is a very wealthy man and has built many good businesses. He has taught me many things and supported my 'business' ventures(but my ventures are charitable in nature).
I had a chat with him last week and explained that my effective tax rate is about 55% as an comfortably above average PAYE earner. He has a net worth approaching £50 million (his accountant once told me, although my senior friend would never be so crass as to tell me) and his effective tax rate is about 20%.
How is that fair? Why do we have a system like that? In his life, my senior, friend has tried to achieve the socially useful things I do and never managed and has huge respect for what I have achieved.
So why do I pay tax of 55% on my income and he pays 20%...
69. devo said...
62. the number cruncher said... Tax is the only measure of a good society
Says who, HMRC?
70. braindeed said...
Reminds me of the schoolyard......certain personalities getting a cowardly kick in whilst the the melee ensues - you know who you are, girls
@52. titaniccaptain said...
Whats wrong with admitting to being flawed?
Peter Suttcliff's defence, I believe.
tit an a captain@ 48 said...
And yes I am a Shyster and many things worse. ----- EXPECT TO SEE THAT AGAIN
@54. devo said...
braindead
You are a troublemaker with nothing useful to contribute.
Preface that with 'In my opinion'.....then it makes grammatical sense, if still being a load of factual b*ll*cks.
tetchieman @ 53....ONE has a multiple personality disorder. What does he see when he looks in the mirror?
Scary stuff!!!!
Bless..get out more
There really are some self obsessives in here
71. krustyatemyhamster said...
@braindeed
Calm down a bit please. "I weep for the crushed expectations of the talented but poor, of the creeping re-establishment of feudalism." was one of the best lines I've read on here for a while.
It is depressing to read the views of the feudalists on here. One gets the impression that half the people posting want a crash so they can then build up their property portfolio and pass on the privilege to their kids. I wouldn't mind if they were just honest about it, but they have a tendancy to take the moral high ground.
I'd quite happily forgo the inheritance from my parents and parents-in-law if everyone else did. Why? Precisely because I want to live in a Country that has a level playing field on which to compete - to provide a better future for my children - the point is that the distribution of tax can then be amended - for example, reducing income and business taxes to reward those that work over those that scrounge. What I will give my children and wish to leave them with is the ability to go out onto the playing field and play the game - not some squalid and sordid financial or land-entitlement inheritance. I intend to leave enough money for someone to bury me, and so should everyone else.
The irony is that those that work their guts out to leave something for their children usually end up with the children they deserve - a bunch of wasters that squander the inheritance.
Multiple personality disorder isn't in the DSM-IV or ICD-10, so I'm not sure what it is.
72. braindeed said...
I reckon there's a F1 fan in......with Ordinary Car Dissapointment side affects
73. nomad said...
Too much amateur psychology going on here.
Amazed to see this thread went on into the night. Did you all forget "Strictly" and "X-Factor"?
KAH@66. I liked your comment very much until "The irony is that those that work their guts out to leave something for their children usually end up with the children they deserve - a bunch of wasters that squander the inheritance." Too sweeping by far.
I'm in the camp that believes our world is changing forever. We were financially fortunate enough to sell at peak and now rent - a life and not a financial decision. I think now that we will be missing the downsize to a smaller house and renting for the rest of our lives - no bad thing - or going straight to a retirement apartment.
Either way we expect to be offering support to our children and grandchildren in this life and not the next. It is IMO the best way to spend money - undiluted straight into the economy. Not into wastral government coffers and not into charities with their million+ marketing budgets.
74. Horatio Hornblower said...
So old people in homes don't need houses.
Their children will take possession of their vacant houses without parting with any cash.
What this means ask the Government.
75. techieman said...
b/dead who said i was talking about you? Still if the cap fits (and i could be talking about any kind of cap cause obviously you are a complete stunt) then wear it.
Basically if you want to spend your life trying to f*ck people you best be prepared to be able to take it up the jackse..
76. uncle tom said...
why do you defend social division so much, and this wicked Tory policy?
If you think I defend social division, then you have me completely wrong.
'wicked tory policy' is the sort of mindless spin rhetoric you get from New Labour - 'Mandelson speak' - the party of government for the last twelve years, and one that has presided over a substantial widening of the gap between rich and poor...
This should have been a Labour policy - but Labour has lost sight of the country's decent ordinary people.
I'm not afraid to criticise the Tories - but this is a good policy - give credit where it is due.
77. braindeed said...
tetchieman @ 69 says......
Vrhoom vrhoom.........
If we're going to exchange banalities, let me just say, you're online persona leaves me with the impression of being an utter cretin.
PS This is a Blog - no actual jackses can ever be harmed, now go out and get some fresh air.
78. shipbuilder said...
What is so desperately sad about this thread is the underlying desire by so many to join the 'elite' that they claim to despise, whether it be government, the rich, the banks or whatever.
So much time spent on this site by so many trumpeting moral rights and wrongs when at the heart of it ultimately lies the desire to be part of the land-owning class, the landed gentry etc. and so ultimately benefit at the expense of others without penalty or compensation (tax). To receive wealth/power without effort via control of the ultimate resource, the earth, the very core goal of such 'elites'.
Who 'owns' the UK - its citizens, or the landowners? Who should receive the benefits of all our efforts? All of us (and a citizens income could do this without the 'state' spending it), or those who hold a piece of paper with a 'claim' to the earth?
How tragic the motivation behind our society - the lifetime-defining desperate goal of each individual to work and sacrifice, work and sacrifice in order to achieve the dream of becoming one of the hallowed few, or at least a tiny imitation of their power and wealth and so secure a part of what one already owns.....
79. techieman said...
brainded
you are indeed strange - thought you would bite by the way. As i said you do have some thought provoking contributions, but if anyone disagrees with your position with sensible comments then its you that tries to "win" - by some school playground tactics.
@ 56 you have responded to 3 contributors who have told you not to be such a tw*t, and yet you persist - you cant help yourself obviously! As Krusty (thats 4) says you need to calm down because your points are devalued by your angst.
Self obsessives????? You need to take the Amazon rain forest out of your eye before you remove the splinters from others.
So 4 people that disagree with your conduct are wrong and you are right? Once we had a pointless exchange were you stated banging on about the difference between opinion and fact. Of course i ignored it because it was just plain dumb.
I love this one:
"You are a troublemaker with nothing useful to contribute.
Preface that with 'In my opinion'.....then it makes grammatical sense, if still being a load of factual b*ll*cks."
First of all it makes grammatical sense as it stands. Actually its not factual bllocks at all. Im not sure i would use the word "trouble maker" thats a bit weak but you are a wind up because people have made innocent remarks and you want - because you cant express your disagreement without doing so - resort to name calling.
The opinion bit is "with nothing useful to contribute" - i would actually disagree with the Dr part of your schitzo persona, since i think you do have some good contributions. Not that I agree with them all the time.
So your opinion is i am a cretin. Laughable inasmuch as i am supposed to value YOUR opinion? Actually im quite pleased you think that why would i want to be respected by an idiot like you? Still it amazes me that people have soo much anger in them and yet release it by trying to bully others to accept their view. Take some advice and go and do something useful with that anger - take on a mugger of old ladies for example.... or even something less useful like taking on a couple of millwall supporters, or the ICF.
And am i alone in this view???? Nope thought not.
I am sure i am going to get some idiotic remark back "like my mate can buy you ten times over .... probably". Thats a bit like my mate can beat you up. Still it adds to the amusement!
I'm off out now - enjoy the rest of your weekend, ramming your views down the throats of your cohorts. Perhaps some of them are weak enough not to argue back or probably more likely they really (like me going forward) cant be ar5ed! Only you can take responsibility for your own reformation, your real life persona sounds like a short ar5ed chippy idiot who was bullied either at school or by their parents, probably with a crutch (drinks drugs whatever) then again you would be right if you said thats my opinion. i would agree but finish by saying to which i am entitled.
No more time to waste on your development!!!
80. techieman said...
Shippy - i agree with your comment @ 72 - which is why i said im not that interested in the moral side of this in my post @ 11. Its a very polarising subject, and does tend to make you want to question your views and motives.
81. techieman said...
yes and if we are going to go on about grammar, what about this - yours at 71
"let me just say, you're online persona leaves me with the impression of being an utter cretin."
So actually its grammatically a self -diagnoses!!!! You missed a "you". Still your words... eat 'em!
82. titaniccaptain said...
As a sanctimonious, self obsessed, egotistical pr*ck....I find it hard to get offended because I take insults as compliments due to my delusion of being of superior status.
Back to subject I will finish my say on this emotive topic by stating that I find the whole concept of the "State" immoral if it is an undemocratic one. And our current "state" is far from democratic but gives a most excellent illusion of it. I don't believe in feudalism but I believe in the "Home" as a sacred thing which are NOT the same thing and should therefore be exempt from being wound up in people's estates. I also believe in the community which should be made and molded by the individuals who live within it and not the other way around. The community should be supported by the individuals within it and that means financially if they have a say withing the community...if they don't then they should not be expected to pay ANYTHING on principle. The state dehumanizes us in so many ways.....i.e. leave the state get on with it...we control your community and you in turn.
And as has been said above this subject always seems to polarize opinions either to the feudal communitarian right or the socialist communitarian left.........but this need not be the case......just rip the state out of the equation and do not support it.
83. krustyatemyhamster said...
Entitlement - holding a title.
Sense of entitlement - one feels one has the right to charge others for having to use one's entitlement.
"Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits..." opening lines from wikipedia. So i was right - land-owners are benefit scroungers - people who want a guarantee to benefits with no questions asked.
Give a few scraps of entitlement to the plebs and let them argue amongst themselves about it. If they realise they've been had, start a war.
84. braindeed said...
techieman@79....And am i alone in this view???? Nope thought not.
I can only presume you were conversing with one of the voices in your head, you sad b*stard.
85. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.