Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Cameron/osborne To Confiscate Everybodies Home (On Average)


Recommended Posts

What you're arguing for, it seems, is the nationalisation of the care home industry because you believe this is the best way to protect the unearned gains of HPI.

Your first principles are a tad different to my own.

If the NHS wasn't a vessel for corporate profits via such as PFI and a money sucking black hole for excessive pay/pensions at the higher levels. The money we have already put in would have funded more hospitals that could be used for old age care, or payments to care-homes, at a reduced level to what they are now because currently it's more corporate largess.

You seem happy to pay for the same thing more than once. It reminds me of one I posted the other day

Did you know there are people on this thread who if they went to the bar in the pub to pay £4 for a pint might have the following conversation:

Them: Here's the £4...

Bartender: Sorry it's £20 a pint now

Them: Why's that?

Bartender: I noticed the public sector were being paid more than the private sector so I awarded myself a huge pay rise and pension increase. When we extended the pub I could have borrowed the money from the bank at 5% but instead borrowed it from my mate at 250%. So now I have brought in a container charge, a floor charge, a seat charge and a table charge.

Them: (Handing over the £20..) Well somebody has to pay for the glass, the carpet, the seat and the table.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=186104&view=findpost&p=909220440

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the NHS wasn't a vessel for corporate profits via such as PFI and a money sucking black hole for excessive pay/pensions at the higher levels. The money we have already put in would have funded more hospitals that could be used for old age care, or payments to care-homes, at a reduced level to what they are now because currently it's more corporate largess.

You seem happy to pay for the same thing more than once. It reminds me of one I posted the other day

Yes, the state spends its money very badly.

So why do you want to nationalise care homes? This sounds like an enlargement of the state to me, but I suppose its money well spent when its being used to ringfence the assets of homeowners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NHS wasn't a vessel for corporate profits via such as PFI and a money sucking black hole for excessive pay/pensions at the higher levels. The money we have already put in would have funded more hospitals that could be used for old age care, or payments to care-homes, at a reduced level to what they are now because currently it's more corporate largess.

You seem happy to pay for the same thing more than once. It reminds me of one I posted the other day

Why do people assume that because someone holds a opinion that they disagree with they must be wrong on everything else. I have heard no one in this thread in support of PFI so do not know what you are going on about.

I think people should pay for their own oldage care. I do not support PFI and other gimmicks to rob the tax payer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the state spends its money very badly.

So why do you want to nationalise care homes? This sounds like an enlargement of the state to me, but I suppose its money well spent when its being used to ringfence the assets of homeowners?

I don't want a larger state. I want a smaller better run state with accountability.

It's not ring fencing the assets of home owners. It only ring fences the assets of the wealthiest home owners. It confiscates the entire assets of the less well off home owners.

Earlier on I mentioned a charge based on the percentage of assets owned. If it was 1% of assets rather than a set figure that only penalises the less well off, would that be fairer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NHS wasn't a vessel for corporate profits via such as PFI and a money sucking black hole for excessive pay/pensions at the higher levels. The money we have already put in would have funded more hospitals that could be used for old age care, or payments to care-homes, at a reduced level to what they are now because currently it's more corporate largess.

You seem happy to pay for the same thing more than once. It reminds me of one I posted the other day

Exactly

They are building the modern facilities that they will just hand over to the crooks in the Lords and elsewhere (that we have paid for multiple times over) after they have deliberately bankrupted the NHS

If you notice one or two hospital trusts - they are already trying out the best methods to bankrupt them!

Edited by erranta
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want a larger state. I want a smaller better run state with accountability.

It's not ring fencing the assets of home owners. It only ring fences the assets of the wealthiest home owners. It confiscates the entire assets of the less well off home owners.

Earlier on I mentioned a charge based on the percentage of assets owned. If it was 1% of assets rather than a set figure that only penalises the less well off, would that be fairer?

Well would you think it fair if you had to pay £50,000 but someone who is wealthier than you had to pay £150,000 for the same service?

If so why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, on these sorts of thread, lots of people make the non-cited claim that 'people are living longer'.

Where is the data on this? Are people REALLY living longer? Or are just more people living to the maximum age?

What was the average age in 1900, the maximum age in 1900, both compared to now?

It's all a huge cover up of the City theft from people's pension pots

Hugely overcharged fees and charges

EXTORTION - no other word for it

Regulated Pension market - Dutch Pensioners retire with 40% more - than UK 'conned' tossa's (in the CITY parlance)

Edited by erranta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, on these sorts of thread, lots of people make the non-cited claim that 'people are living longer'.

Where is the data on this? Are people REALLY living longer? Or are just more people living to the maximum age?

What was the average age in 1900, the maximum age in 1900, both compared to now?

It depends on your definition of living . The NHS is responsible for people breathing longer, it is how their performance is evaluated, whether or not that translates into an acceptable quality of life is a matter of opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want a larger state. I want a smaller better run state with accountability.

It's not ring fencing the assets of home owners. It only ring fences the assets of the wealthiest home owners. It confiscates the entire assets of the less well off home owners.

Earlier on I mentioned a charge based on the percentage of assets owned. If it was 1% of assets rather than a set figure that only penalises the less well off, would that be fairer?

You don't want homeowners to pay for their own care because it apparently conflicts with their right to enjoys HPI. This is a pro home-ownerist position, why should the members of HPC be concerned with the unearned gains of British landowners? I certainly don't want to see my taxes fund the care home industry so they can continue to keep the housing stock all to themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a case where a couple had rented both private and for 45 years LA. Saved hard for 60 years of their lives to make sure they could live a comfortable life in their retirement and maybe leave their children a little inheritance. Went into a home with serious medical conditions and dementia when she was widowed for three and a half years. LA made her pay 100% of her care and when the savings dropped to the threshold the LA under their new rules would only pay half until her savings literally dropped so she had enough for her funeral and solicitors probate costs.

Cost to her £120k which included her pension collected over the period in care

The husband was not out of work for even one day in 51 years and she worked part time. Except for their State Pension they never received any other benefits whatsoever.

In the home was a very old Spanish lady who did not speak a word of English brought over by her children put into the home and the LA were forced to fund her care. You just can`t make it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a case where a couple had rented both private and for 45 years LA. Saved hard for 60 years of their lives to make sure they could live a comfortable life in their retirement and maybe leave their children a little inheritance. Went into a home with serious medical conditions and dementia when she was widowed for three and a half years. LA made her pay 100% of her care and when the savings dropped to the threshold the LA under their new rules would only pay half until her savings literally dropped so she had enough for her funeral and solicitors probate costs.

Cost to her £120k which included her pension collected over the period in care

The husband was not out of work for even one day in 51 years and she worked part time. Except for their State Pension they never received any other benefits whatsoever.

In the home was a very old Spanish lady who did not speak a word of English brought over by her children put into the home and the LA were forced to fund her care. You just can`t make it up.

I agree it is a disgrace but surely this should be a reason to starve the state of other peoples money not to encourage it to steal more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

100%+..This is why isnt it.The government know only around 60% of the population will work.They need to keep them trapped and working as long as possible.

If large parts start getting a big inheritance in their 50s they can clear their debts and/or retire early.

Thr argument that people should pay for their care if fine,accept the people who have paid through NI wont get any,those whp havent paid (hardly worked) get it free.

They have already stolen savings,pensions etc,this is the las thing they need.Stop any wealth passing down to the plebs.

The state simply is moving to take the last bits of wealth.

Ahh Haaa that olde chestnut!

What about the majority who worked all their lives to put thru a 'heirarchy' FREE thru University/even higher waste of working people's money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want homeowners to pay for their own care because it apparently conflicts with their right to enjoys HPI. This is a pro home-ownerist position, why should the members of HPC be concerned with the unearned gains of British landowners? I certainly don't want to see my taxes fund the care home industry so they can continue to keep the housing stock all to themselves.

Now you are being really silly.

The money could be savings in the bank not in a home. Either way it would be taken for something we have already paid for. Did you see my Wetherspoons thread? 45% of everything we spend there goes in tax. UK = pay more and more in taxes etc, get less and less in services and health care because our taxes are being misappropriated.

Anyway over and out. We aren't going to agree so you can have the last word if you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are being really silly.

The money could be savings in the bank not in a home. Either way it would be taken for something we have already paid for. Did you see my Wetherspoons thread? 45% of everything we spend there goes in tax. UK = pay more and more in taxes etc, get less and less in services and health care because our taxes are being misappropriated.

Anyway over and out. We aren't going to agree so you can have the last word if you like.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing for subsidies for those with assets worth hundreds of thousands of £'s. If this wasn't the case I apologise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dignitas should be doing a roaring trade in the next few decades. Most western governments hate euthanasia because it's more difficult for them to seize or otherwise obtain the wealth of folk who've passed their best, have no quality of life and know it. Gift the money to your kids, wait seven years then book a one way flight to Zurich. It's the way forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dignitas should be doing a roaring trade in the next few decades. Most western governments hate euthanasia because it's more difficult for them to seize or otherwise obtain the wealth of folk who've passed their best, have no quality of life and know it. Gift the money to your kids, wait seven years then book a one way flight to Zurich. It's the way forward.

Just buy your home using a company. the whole system is in a big mess, those at the top get the best care those at the bottom lose everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just buy your home using a company. the whole system is in a big mess, those at the top get the best care those at the bottom lose everything.

i surpose in one way im lucky i work with 66 girls has a comunity carer,when/if me mother ever needs any care that i cant help with, ie personal care i will pay one of the girls cash in hand.my company charges 15 quid an hour and pays us 7.50.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I read it they are not "confiscating" anything, they are saying people with the means will have to contribute to their own care costs? In some (many?) cases this will involve the sale of a house?

From what I can tell, it's already that. The elderly who need care-home care have to pay for it, unless they have no assets to draw upon.

Although you'd struggle to arrive at that conclusion with some other posters suggesting care has been covered by their National Insurance contributions.

It's the same argument I hear when calling for Winter Fuel Allowance and Free bus/rail passes for the elderly to be abolished; '"We paid our national insurance contributions for it." Forgetting they were new Labour bribes brought in during their first time 1997.

What the politicians been discussing bringing in is a cap on costs, as pressure has been put on them to do so. Demographics seeing more people getting older and not wanting to play by the old rules. The precious HPI has to be all theirs, with free care. They're not happy the cap isn't set low enough for them.

At present, care home residents can be landed with unlimited charges if they have assets, including their house, of more than £23,500.

At present, there is no limit on the amount of money a person may be asked to pay to fund their care in old age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being is that you have paid it's called tax.

Really? I don't recall anyone promising that the state would dress me and feed me when I have an asset like a house.

We are not talking about medical care here, but help with dressing, etc. I don't see that taxpayers should pay for that for an elderly person with tens or hundreds of thousands of £'s of assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I don't recall anyone promising that the state would dress me and feed me when I have an asset like a house.

We are not talking about medical care here, but help with dressing, etc. I don't see that taxpayers should pay for that for an elderly person with tens or hundreds of thousands of £'s of assets.

Exactly. Living in a new location, a new home, no longer in your old home.

If it's a temporary stay, then put money aside to pay for it. It's it's permanent, why do you need your old home? You need to raise money to pay for the fees.

Edited by Venger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.