This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 18 May 17 5.57pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I'm more worried about the in laws giving up their house to pay for care to be honest. But yes, like many others, I may miss out on an inheritance. This policy is not going down well. Which is good, as having heard responses across the broadcast media, it's going to make a lot of people not vote Tory. Funny that people on here have complained about inheritance tax, (which affects a tiny proportion of people) but seem happy with what is being labelled by some commentators as a death tax. Edited by nickgusset (18 May 2017 4.44pm) Listening to the radio this morning. Someone texted on complaint that their 93 year old mum needed care and the person didn't see why the mother should pay. She had been retired 33 yrs, nearly as long as she had worked. People are living longer, retired for 15-20 years in stead of 5-10. Something has to give. If my kids want an inheritance, they're gonna have to wipe my arse for me once in a while. Seems fair
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 6.11pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by becky
Of course, there is always the time-honoured way to avoid losing your inheritance from your aged parents - look after them in their old age yourselves instead of expecting the state to organize their care. .....and no, I don't think this is something that the NHS should be paying for, as old age is not an 'illness' just something, like the rest of life, that some people cope better with than others. (However, I am aware that Alzheimer's does need professional care in it's latter stages, so not including this in my above comment) Well the manifesto specifies dementia... I'm not saying that all old people should get state aid if not needed, however when sick and vulnerable people are on a list of tough s*** sort it out yourselves it does cause one to question how morally bankrupt Theresa has become. It'll be cancer patients next.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 18 May 17 6.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Well the manifesto specifies dementia... I'm not saying that all old people should get state aid if not needed, however when sick and vulnerable people are on a list of tough s*** sort it out yourselves it does cause one to question how morally bankrupt Theresa has become. It'll be cancer patients next. I may be wrong but the NHS will still treat people with dementia?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 18 May 17 6.17pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
I did say if psychological reasons can be proven then they wouldn't lose care (I mean the typical huge costs of treatment due to obesity and lack of care). I know this wouldn't happen but some things are going to have to. What do you propose? Carry on as we are? Something will have to give. Charges for GP visits if earnings in 40% bracket+? When I was living in Australia they have a system which is slightly similar. You have to pay a small fee for medical visits and procedures unless you are on a low income. It helps stop time wasters and means that it's still free for those who can't afford it but those who can contribute a small amount for their visit. The Aussie healthcare system is a lot less underfunded and doctors have a much better quality of life.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 18 May 17 6.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Are you an orphan? No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east. It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate. I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%. I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair. Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
hedgehog50 Croydon 18 May 17 6.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east. It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate. I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%. I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair. Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me. Dear oh dear. What do you mean by 'fair'? Would it be fair that someone who has worked hard all their life and been responsible with their money in order to pass it on to their children has it all taxed by the government and largely squandered, whereas someone who has been irresponsible all their life receives all sorts of benefits paid from taxes because they are 'poor'?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
.TUX. 18 May 17 7.00pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
Listening to the radio this morning. Someone texted on complaint that their 93 year old mum needed care and the person didn't see why the mother should pay. She had been retired 33 yrs, nearly as long as she had worked. People are living longer, retired for 15-20 years in stead of 5-10. Something has to give. If my kids want an inheritance, they're gonna have to wipe my arse for me once in a while. Seems fair Agreed.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 7.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by .TUX.
Agreed. Indeed, but in the case of dementia it's different.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 18 May 17 7.20pm | |
---|---|
Just a reminder after reading some previous posts where people are either upset or confused that you have an alternative to it. Do not vote Conservative vote Corbyn and Labour.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 7.21pm | |
---|---|
[Link] The policy The new Tory policy is to give the financial services industry the opportunity to administer the asset stripping of elderly people who are unfortunate enough to end up with dementia, physical infirmities or other conditions that require social care. If the elderly person is deemed to have assets worth over £100,000 (the average house price in the UK is £215,000) then they will be treated as if they are rich and made to pay their own social care costs, even though they payed a lifetime of National Insurance contributions to cover the cost of health and social care in their old age. The Tories have ever-so-kindly said that the elderly people won't have to sell their homes immediately in order to cover the costs, but that they can get "equity release" products so that the wealth can be extracted from the value of their homes after they die. Creating a new market One of the obvious beneficiaries of this policy will be the financial services industry who will get to design and market these "equity release" products. A consideration of the root cause of the social care problem just goes to show how depraved this is. Here's a simple timeline of events.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 May 17 7.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Depression isn't the biggest cost to the NHS with 1/2 days of care costing thousands and thousands, then again and again..... You are right Rudi: [Link] And as for obesity: [Link] You were quite right in saying obesity costs the NHS a fortune and something should be done about it.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 May 17 7.27pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Just a reminder after reading some previous posts where people are either upset or confused that you have an alternative to it. Do not vote Conservative vote Corbyn and Labour. You must be joking....biggest laugh I have had all day after watching all the morbid election cr@p on the TV. Quite depressing I my opinion.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.