Nulab Plan To Thieve Your Savings And Str Funds?

[shell]

Here we go . . .

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/arti...mp;in_page_id=6

"Plans unveiled by Health Secretary Andy Burnham last month envisaged everyone with property and savings over £23,500 paying a lump sum into an insurance scheme to fund the full costs of their personal care.

The amount - which could be deferred until a person's death and taken from their estate - would be around £20,000 for everyone above the Government's threshold.

But it has now emerged that another option is a sliding scale, with people with larger savings paying more than £20,000, while those who have only a modest amount pay less. People with a

normal-sized family home would pay less than those with expensive homes and large private pension pots.

The Government's Green Paper of proposals on care and support says: 'People at or over retirement age would be required to pay into a national scheme. It would be possible to vary how much people had to pay according to what they could afford.

'The size of people's contribution could be set according to what savings or assets they had, so that the system was more affordable for people who were less well-off.' Mr Burnham said:

'We want a fairer, simpler and more affordable system than now.'

But Neil Duncan-Jordan of the National Pensioners' Convention said the sliding scale idea was nothing more than 'reshuffling the chairs on the Titanic'. The Department of Health stressed that it was just one of many options. Others include a voluntary insurance scheme or a partnership model in which the Government would pay only a third of the cost of care.

All the schemes cover only personal care, such as help with washing, eating, dressing and moving around, which costs an average of £30,000 over a lifetime.

None of the options include the huge costs of bed and board for people who move into a care home, amounting to an average

of £16,800 a year. The omission led to critics branding the Green Paper a 'betrayal'."

So I guess we'd all better hurry up and buy a horrible, not very expensive little house then? Or is it time to invest in a home safe?

[cells]

Caring for the old is going to cost in the region of £100-200 k per person, pay no attention to this £20k ********.

People will live 10 years or more in a state of living undead where they need helpers and then full time carers. That isn’t going to be cheap.

There is no way we can pay that sort of sum, think about it, it will cost over £200B a year more than we currently pay. Equivalent to doubling income tax for everyone!!!!!

The only options are as I can see

Automation of care for the elderly that could be via machines or just more efficient large homes to look after them.

Shipping off the old to a cheaper country where looking after them will cost 90% less, for example India.

The alternative is to not fight nature and accept there is a time to die.

Wearing adult dippers and stones off your head from morphine for 10 years isnt really helping anyone.

[dr ray]

Here we go . . .

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/arti...mp;in_page_id=6

"Plans unveiled by Health Secretary Andy Burnham last month envisaged everyone with property and savings over £23,500 paying a lump sum into an insurance scheme to fund the full costs of their personal care.

The amount - which could be deferred until a person's death and taken from their estate - would be around £20,000 for everyone above the Government's threshold.

But it has now emerged that another option is a sliding scale, with people with larger savings paying more than £20,000, while those who have only a modest amount pay less. People with a

normal-sized family home would pay less than those with expensive homes and large private pension pots.

The Government's Green Paper of proposals on care and support says: 'People at or over retirement age would be required to pay into a national scheme. It would be possible to vary how much people had to pay according to what they could afford.

'The size of people's contribution could be set according to what savings or assets they had, so that the system was more affordable for people who were less well-off.' Mr Burnham said:

'We want a fairer, simpler and more affordable system than now.'

But Neil Duncan-Jordan of the National Pensioners' Convention said the sliding scale idea was nothing more than 'reshuffling the chairs on the Titanic'. The Department of Health stressed that it was just one of many options. Others include a voluntary insurance scheme or a partnership model in which the Government would pay only a third of the cost of care.

All the schemes cover only personal care, such as help with washing, eating, dressing and moving around, which costs an average of £30,000 over a lifetime.

None of the options include the huge costs of bed and board for people who move into a care home, amounting to an average

of £16,800 a year. The omission led to critics branding the Green Paper a 'betrayal'."

So I guess we'd all better hurry up and buy a horrible, not very expensive little house then? Or is it time to invest in a home safe?

Income, inheritance and capital gains taxes are not sufficient to pay for the mess Nulab created so a wealth tax is the next logical step.

Rather than invest in a house the logical answer is to hide your wealth from the state and hand it over to the next generation if you don't need it yourself. Physical gold is my choice. Or else retire abroad and take yor savings with you

[loginandtonic]

the way these taxes and more taxes are going (Labour always taxes heavily) there's going to be such an exodus that the entire country will comprise immigrants from E Europe on £7 per hour and houses will be ten grand each max

[Guest absolutezero]

Here we go . . .

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/arti...mp;in_page_id=6

"Plans unveiled by Health Secretary Andy Burnham last month envisaged everyone with property and savings over £23,500 paying a lump sum into an insurance scheme to fund the full costs of their personal care.

The amount - which could be deferred until a person's death and taken from their estate - would be around £20,000 for everyone above the Government's threshold.

But it has now emerged that another option is a sliding scale, with people with larger savings paying more than £20,000, while those who have only a modest amount pay less. People with a

normal-sized family home would pay less than those with expensive homes and large private pension pots.

The Government's Green Paper of proposals on care and support says: 'People at or over retirement age would be required to pay into a national scheme. It would be possible to vary how much people had to pay according to what they could afford.

'The size of people's contribution could be set according to what savings or assets they had, so that the system was more affordable for people who were less well-off.' Mr Burnham said:

'We want a fairer, simpler and more affordable system than now.'

But Neil Duncan-Jordan of the National Pensioners' Convention said the sliding scale idea was nothing more than 'reshuffling the chairs on the Titanic'. The Department of Health stressed that it was just one of many options. Others include a voluntary insurance scheme or a partnership model in which the Government would pay only a third of the cost of care.

All the schemes cover only personal care, such as help with washing, eating, dressing and moving around, which costs an average of £30,000 over a lifetime.

None of the options include the huge costs of bed and board for people who move into a care home, amounting to an average

of £16,800 a year. The omission led to critics branding the Green Paper a 'betrayal'."

So I guess we'd all better hurry up and buy a horrible, not very expensive little house then? Or is it time to invest in a home safe?

Don't you think your thread title is rather over-sensationalist?

[57percent]

Can they take mine out of the million pound in tax I've paid over the last decade?

[Minos]

Here we go . . .

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/arti...mp;in_page_id=6

"Plans unveiled by Health Secretary Andy Burnham last month envisaged everyone with property and savings over £23,500 paying a lump sum into an insurance scheme to fund the full costs of their personal care.

The amount - which could be deferred until a person's death and taken from their estate - would be around £20,000 for everyone above the Government's threshold.

But it has now emerged that another option is a sliding scale, with people with larger savings paying more than £20,000, while those who have only a modest amount pay less. People with a

normal-sized family home would pay less than those with expensive homes and large private pension pots.

The Government's Green Paper of proposals on care and support says: 'People at or over retirement age would be required to pay into a national scheme. It would be possible to vary how much people had to pay according to what they could afford.

'The size of people's contribution could be set according to what savings or assets they had, so that the system was more affordable for people who were less well-off.' Mr Burnham said:

'We want a fairer, simpler and more affordable system than now.'

But Neil Duncan-Jordan of the National Pensioners' Convention said the sliding scale idea was nothing more than 'reshuffling the chairs on the Titanic'. The Department of Health stressed that it was just one of many options. Others include a voluntary insurance scheme or a partnership model in which the Government would pay only a third of the cost of care.

All the schemes cover only personal care, such as help with washing, eating, dressing and moving around, which costs an average of £30,000 over a lifetime.

None of the options include the huge costs of bed and board for people who move into a care home, amounting to an average

of £16,800 a year. The omission led to critics branding the Green Paper a 'betrayal'."

So I guess we'd all better hurry up and buy a horrible, not very expensive little house then? Or is it time to invest in a home safe?

Isn't a house an asset?

[Mega]

The Days of us running LARGE ARMED Forces are coming to an end..............Dads army will be the norm.

MIke

Edited August 28, 2009 by Mega

[dr ray]

Can they take mine out of the million pound in tax I've paid over the last decade?

Obviously they will refund you what you've paid towards your care in old age. They can't possibly be thinking of taxing you twice for the same thing.

A recent legal case vs Worcester PCT established that the NHS is liable for all medical and personal care costs in a demented patient and we already pay for the NHS through income tax.

How will you celebrate the refund which will inevitably be heading your way?

[Minos]

This is the trouble with the great ponzi scheme - the welfare state - only works when more mugs are paying in than taking out. Unless you elect a government who will dismantle most of it, your future's are bleak.

[cells]

The Days of us running LARGE ARMED Forces are coming to an end..............Dads army will be the norm.

MIke

It isnt the armed forces which currently make up some 5% of government spending. £30B out of £700B. even if you cut the armed forces in half you don’t save much.

If you wanted to save big bucks it would be in welfare, that is the NHS, state pension, benefits, handouts etc.

[57percent]

This is the trouble with the great ponzi scheme - the welfare state - only works when more mugs are paying in than taking out. Unless you elect a government who will dismantle most of it, your future's are bleak.

The problem is, we all want more than we deserve.

I was so happy in '97 when Labour took over, everything was gonna be better.

Turned out, we couldn't afford any of it.

The tories will take over, cut spending, raise, then lower taxes. Hard times ahead, but we'll get through.

On the other side, NHS, education, care for the elderly will be way below what we have today, so everyone

will want better and Labour will be back in ... repeat.

[SwissBob]

I'm afraid Labour are well underway regarding stealing your savings, the only way they will pay off all their liabilities is through massive inflation, i.e. stealing your savings:

Labour's Legacy of Liabilities All six and a half trillion pounds worth.

[Bruce Banner]

The problem is, we all want more than we deserve.

I was so happy in '97 when Labour took over, everything was gonna be better.

Turned out, we couldn't afford any of it.

The tories will take over, cut spending, raise, then lower taxes. Hard times ahead, but we'll get through.

On the other side, NHS, education, care for the elderly will be way below what we have today, so everyone

will want better and Labour will be back in ... repeat.

I must be older and wiser than you, as I was absolutely distraught.

[Cinzano Bianco]

The Days of us running LARGE ARMED Forces are coming to an end..............Dads army will be the norm.

MIke

Sorry bro, hugely wrong. The armed forces budget is miniscule compared with what it is tasked to achieve. It is massively over stretched, and is half the size it was in the 90's.

[cells]

The problem is, we all want more than we deserve.

I was so happy in '97 when Labour took over, everything was gonna be better.

Turned out, we couldn't afford any of it.

The tories will take over, cut spending, raise, then lower taxes. Hard times ahead, but we'll get through.

On the other side, NHS, education, care for the elderly will be way below what we have today, so everyone

will want better and Labour will be back in ... repeat.

The NHS should be very basic and run very leanly.

Dentistry should be purely private, no state dentists but to combat overpriced dentists the government should simply increase university places for doctors and dentists considerably. Lots of kids with AAA don’t get in, anyone with BBB or above should be offered a place. Plenty of dentists would mean cheap dentistry work.

Also good education in this would save lots of hassle.

GPs should also have the right to end lives as they basically did in the past, no need extending our lives by 5 years if we are in dippers and don’t know what day it is.

Benefits should be very harsh in that your out every day looking for work.

There should be no state pension for anyone with net assets exceeding £10k.

For anyone with assets less than that, the state pension should be just enough to get by (let them take lodgers in if they want more than that, most places in the uk you can rent a room out for £5000 pa or more inc bills, and the bills will cost you little more with 1 more person in the house).

We should not be fighting any wars unless the country is a real threat and the Taliban with donkeys are no real threat. How many people die smoking or driving vs “terrorism�

University should be full fee paid for everyone. However all universities should be required to let anyone who wishes sit their exams and gain their degree for a reasonable fee. Say £1000 per year. So you’re your cleaver you can study yourself or in groups and get yourself a degree from oxford for £3k. if not go through the traditional route and pay £20k a year.

Lots of things could be done to make the country fairer.

Taxing jim to give to john isnt one of them

[Guest pioneer31]

'We want a fairer, simpler and more affordable system than now.'

What?????

New Labour is to "fair" what Gary Glitter is to childcare, Saddam is to pain relief and Harold Shipman is to live preservation.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

I'm afraid Labour are well underway regarding stealing your savings, the only way they will pay off all their liabilities is through massive inflation, i.e. stealing your savings:

Labour's Legacy of Liabilities All six and a half trillion pounds worth.

Does that include the £1-2 trillion in unfunded civil service pension liabilities.... or unfunded state pensiona dn SEPRS liabilities? All due over the enxt 25 years.

[Bruce Banner]

Don't you think your thread title is rather over-sensationalist?

I don't think it was sensational enough.

This proposal is nothing short of theft, especialy so in the case of those of us who have no intention whatsoever of being a burden on others in our old age and fully intend to make our own way to Digitas when the time comes.

Nu Labour, new danger.

[Bloo Loo]

LABOUR BORROWS BILLIONS

TAXES TO DOUBLE

shock horror, I wonder if there is a link between the two headlines above?

journos only need answer.

A: No

B: Yes

C: depends on what the editor decides

D: Big Brother at 10PM channel 6

[puppee]

so what happens if i live into my 80's but do not require the care they are nicking my money for , would this then be classed as theft , then can my nieces sue the govt for the money plus the interest lost on it , this govt is getting desperate about ways the can raise some capital bankruptcy is looming i think ?

[Bloo Loo]

Sorry bro, hugely wrong. The armed forces budget is miniscule compared with what it is tasked to achieve. It is massively over stretched, and is half the size it was in the 90's.

thats easily fixed...BRING THEM HOME...TODAY.

[loginandtonic]

I don't think it was sensational enough.

This proposal is nothing short of theft, especialy so in the case of those of us who have no intention whatsoever of being a burden on others in our old age and fully intend to make our own way to Digitas when the time comes.

Nu Labour, new danger.

yeah they weren't kidding when they said that in 97, how i wish i'd listened

[Cinzano Bianco]

thats easily fixed...BRING THEM HOME...TODAY.

I agree with you, though we need an armed force of sorts, and what little we budget for them should not be cut imo.

[hilltop]

And what, by way of contrast, do Camermoron and the Tories propose? Putting old people out in the cold to die is not a vote winner. This is a 'no pockets on a shroud' issue. You can't take it with you and your care has to be paid for. Might as well stump up.