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 (2087 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

85 Comments

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:11AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:27AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:28AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:33AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:42AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:08AM Report Comment
 

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?

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:26AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:29AM Report Comment
 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:32AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:40AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:47AM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:56AM Report Comment
 

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!

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:39AM Report Comment
 

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...

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:04PM Report Comment
 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:31PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:47PM Report Comment
 

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)?

Saturday, October 3, 2009 01:16PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 01:47PM Report Comment
 

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!

Saturday, October 3, 2009 01:57PM Report Comment
 

20. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 02:20PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 02:41PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 03:44PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 04:04PM Report Comment
 

25. c'mon correction said...

Nothing really goes up in value, we just work harder for it.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 04:24PM Report Comment
 

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...

Saturday, October 3, 2009 04:37PM Report Comment
 

27. Acetip said...

Am I right in thinking that I already pay insurance for this reason it's called NATIONAL INSURANCE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 05:01PM Report Comment
 

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?

Saturday, October 3, 2009 05:13PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 05:18PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 06:07PM Report Comment
 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 06:16PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 06:18PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 06:41PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:20PM Report Comment
 

35. mdmick said...

nomad @29

I resent your negative view of Hammersmith

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:21PM Report Comment
 

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!

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:35PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:37PM Report Comment
 

38. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

39. mdmick said...

re: tc @32 well, you were 32 and then suddenly my reply to you was ahead of your post.

Go figure!

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:39PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:42PM Report Comment
 

41. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 07:58PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 08:01PM Report Comment
 

44. braindeed said...

Double tops, number cruncher

Saturday, October 3, 2009 08:10PM Report Comment
 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 08:52PM Report Comment
 

46. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:12PM Report Comment
 

48. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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?

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:30PM Report Comment
 

50. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

51. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 09:55PM Report Comment
 

53. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

54. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:06PM Report Comment
 

56. braindeed said...

You're a self-certified shyster - f*ck off

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:08PM Report Comment
 

57. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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!!!!

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:45PM Report Comment
 

59. devo said...

braindead

You are a troublemaker with nothing useful to contribute.

Do one.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:51PM Report Comment
 

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.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:55PM Report Comment
 

61. devo said...

I am tempted to advocate tax strikes and mortgage strikes, but no matter; they are effectively happening already.

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:00PM Report Comment
 

62. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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?

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:22PM Report Comment
 

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

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:28PM Report Comment
 

65. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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!

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:36PM Report Comment
 

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?

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:03AM Report Comment
 

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%...

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:39AM Report Comment
 

69. devo said...

62. the number cruncher said... Tax is the only measure of a good society

Says who, HMRC?

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:42AM Report Comment
 

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

Sunday, October 4, 2009 09:00AM Report Comment
 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 09:46AM Report Comment
 

72. braindeed said...

I reckon there's a F1 fan in......with Ordinary Car Dissapointment side affects

Sunday, October 4, 2009 09:56AM Report Comment
 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 10:26AM Report Comment
 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 10:31AM Report Comment
 

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..

Sunday, October 4, 2009 11:08AM Report Comment
 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 11:49AM Report Comment
 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:43PM Report Comment
 

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.....

Sunday, October 4, 2009 01:29PM Report Comment
 

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!!!

Sunday, October 4, 2009 01:35PM Report Comment
 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 01:39PM Report Comment
 

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!

Sunday, October 4, 2009 01:47PM Report Comment
 

82. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

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.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 03:28PM Report Comment
 

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.

Monday, October 5, 2009 02:24PM Report Comment
 

85. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

Add comment

  • 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
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies