Jump to content

General election? June 8th?


trousers

Recommended Posts

No surprise that the Telegraph didn't even notice that there was a TV debate last night, in which the audience gave both major leaders considerable grief for not being prepared to debate.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa May's "Dementia Tax" (the socialists 'clever' name for it) is causing a bit of a stir in the Trousers household. Lady Trousers thinks its unreasonable for the state to be able to tap into the equity in our house (less £100k) to finance the (potential) cost of our care in old age. One of her observations is that someone with a similar lifestyle to us living in, say, Carlisle, could (would?) end up paying less for their elderly care than us simply because their house is likely to be worth less than ours (on a like-for-like basis), due to us living in the inflated house prices world that is the south east of England.

 

Maybe there will be regional nuances in the final policy details that levels things out, but without knowing how the policy will work in practice, it does seems a tad "unfair" on the surface.

 

Does Lady Trousers have a fair point?

 

The problem is someone has to pay for it and the Tories types cry like babies at the thought of paying a bit more tax.

 

What I don't like about it is the fact that having Dementia, or a loved one with Dementia is a nasty situation to be in already without knowing that the longer it goes on the more likely you will have to sell the family home when the inevitable happens. I know if I was ever in that horrible situation I would much rather just top myself and leave my family with a house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa May's "Dementia Tax" (the socialists 'clever' name for it) is causing a bit of a stir in the Trousers household. Lady Trousers thinks its unreasonable for the state to be able to tap into the equity in our house (less £100k) to finance the (potential) cost of our care in old age. One of her observations is that someone with a similar lifestyle to us living in, say, Carlisle, could (would?) end up paying less for their elderly care than us simply because their house is likely to be worth less than ours (on a like-for-like basis), due to us living in the inflated house prices world that is the south east of England.

 

Maybe there will be regional nuances in the final policy details that levels things out, but without knowing how the policy will work in practice, it does seems a tad "unfair" on the surface.

 

Does Lady Trousers have a fair point?

your house will have gone up more in the south. I wish to pass money onto my children and grandchildren and so would love to have the care for us but who pays for it? As I will have paid higest bands of tax for decades is it right that I get to pay more for care ????

Anyway the idea is fair although annoying, the care homes charge massive fees and they will benefit big time as they just keep upping their charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is someone has to pay for it and the Tories types cry like babies at the thought of paying a bit more tax.

 

What I don't like about it is the fact that having Dementia, or a loved one with Dementia is a nasty situation to be in already without knowing that the longer it goes on the more likely you will have to sell the family home when the inevitable happens. I know if I was ever in that horrible situation I would much rather just top myself and leave my family with a house.

 

I imagine a lot of people will simply sign their house over to their kids in advance. You can already do this to avoid IHT as long as you don't die within seven years.

 

Of course, there are risks with that approach (if you fall out with your kids they can kick you out, for example - or if your kid gets divorced then their ex-spouse would usually be entitled to some of the wealth in that kid's share).

 

The people who end up in a tricky situation will be ones who have a very rapid deterioration in health and don't have much of a support network to help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine a lot of people will simply sign their house over to their kids in advance. You can already do this to avoid IHT as long as you don't die within seven years.

 

Of course, there are risks with that approach (if you fall out with your kids they can kick you out, for example - or if your kid gets divorced then their ex-spouse would usually be entitled to some of the wealth in that kid's share).

 

The people who end up in a tricky situation will be ones who have a very rapid deterioration in health and don't have much of a support network to help them.

 

Not that watertight either

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39589083

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask Lady Skirt what's she done to increase the value of her house. She's lived in it & it's gone up and up in value, certainly much more than a lady living in Carlisle's house has. You buy a house pay a mortgage for 25 years & your house has trebled or quadrupled in value, it's pure profit for doing nothing, yet there's no capital gains tax. Labour seem happy to tax the **** out of the rich, many of whom have got rich by their skills and entrepreneurial spirit, yet God forbid taking some extra from people's houses, despite the fact that the only skill involved in increasing the value is living in it.

 

I'm with Michael Portillo on this one. People save for a rainy day, and if they get dementia, guess what , that's the rainy day. Of course I feel sorry for people with it, my fathers just be diagnosed with early stage, but it's not the states job to look after him when he can afford to pay for his own care. Maybe I'll lose my inheritance, but what did I do to earn that inheritance? Nothing, I was just born his son. I would have thought labour would have been in favour of this as I thought they didn't particularly approve of inherited wealth. They'll take it in inheritance tax but complain when the Tories take it to pay for care, weird. Equally weird is the Tories cutting inheritance tax , but taking it to pay for care. It's pretty much the same to me, so don't quite get the political argument

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask Lady Skirt what's she done to increase the value of her house. She's lived in it & it's gone up and up in value, certainly much more than a lady living in Carlisle's house has. You buy a house pay a mortgage for 25 years & your house has trebled or quadrupled in value, it's pure profit for doing nothing, yet there's no capital gains tax. Labour seem happy to tax the **** out of the rich, many of whom have got rich by their skills and entrepreneurial spirit, yet God forbid taking some extra from people's houses, despite the fact that the only skill involved in increasing the value is living in it.

 

I'm with Michael Portillo on this one. People save for a rainy day, and if they get dementia, guess what , that's the rainy day. Of course I feel sorry for people with it, my fathers just be diagnosed with early stage, but it's not the states job to look after him when he can afford to pay for his own care. Maybe I'll lose my inheritance, but what did I do to earn that inheritance? Nothing, I was just born his son. I would have thought labour would have been in favour of this as I thought they didn't particularly approve of inherited wealth. They'll take it in inheritance tax but complain when the Tories take it to pay for care, weird. Equally weird is the Tories cutting inheritance tax , but taking it to pay for care.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agree. Spoken like a true New Liberal (i.e. Hobhouse) and a luck egalitarian.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this one... It's because labour were launching a huge new policy and thrust Dianne Abbott onto a round of 7 interviews. She as the Shadow Home Secretary should have had all the details when launching get own policy. She didn't.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this one... It's because labour were launching a huge new policy and thrust Dianne Abbott onto a round of 7 interviews. She as the Shadow Home Secretary should have had all the details when launching get own policy. She didn't.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

How come she got it right the 6 interviews before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and Dianne Abbott genuinely thinks that hiring 20,000 police officers will cost £300k. No really.

 

This isn't about not having encyclopedic knowledge of numbers, or a slip of the tongue, it's about completely mis-describing or misunderstanding what's he's talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the FBI are investigating Trump over ties to Russia. Yet, he's still president...

I'm glad you said Russia because for a minute I thought you were going to suggest that trump used to have afternoon tea with Osama bin laden.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you said Russia because for a minute I thought you were going to suggest that trump used to have afternoon tea with Osama bin laden.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Didn't you know, Jeremy Corbyn flew one of the planes into the twin towers. And he had an affair with Gerry Adams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And their investigation found out what?

If I told you I would have to kill you.

 

Trump cavorting with the Russians has nothing to do with a prospective PM siding up to active terrorists killing innocent people on Britain's streets... Unless the Russians were setting off bombs in US cities...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And their investigation found out what?

 

That in a 30-year career defined by non-achievement, Corbyn was as usual merely a grandstanding, self-aggrandising waffler, who invited senior Republicans on to the Commons terrace to polish his right-on credentials.

 

See also: his protest at the trial of the IRA men actually found guilty of the Brighton bombing.

 

(Seen the file.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That in a 30-year career defined by non-achievement, Corbyn was as usual merely a grandstanding, self-aggrandising waffler, who invited senior Republicans on to the Commons terrace to polish his right-on credentials.

 

See also: his protest at the trial of the IRA men actually found guilty of the Brighton bombing.

 

(Seen the file.)

 

And yet now we have peace. The IRA situation could have trundled on forever like Palestine/Israel without the work of quite a few "wafflers."

 

By the way, which way will you be voting at GE 2017?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet now we have peace. The IRA situation could have trundled on forever like Palestine/Israel without the work of quite a few "wafflers."

 

By the way, which way will you be voting at GE 2017?

We have a peace where soldiers who were doing their job during the job are still hounded and threatened with criminal investigation yet terrorists who killed civilians and disappeared people are unprosecutable.

 

A peace created by Blair offering too much.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet now we have peace. The IRA situation could have trundled on forever like Palestine/Israel without the work of quite a few "wafflers."

 

By the way, which way will you be voting at GE 2017?

 

the IRA lost. They were murdering British folk.

Corbyn could have backed the SDLP instead of being overtly supportive of people murdering his fellow citizens, British Royal Family and fellow members of Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet now we have peace. The IRA situation could have trundled on forever like Palestine/Israel without the work of quite a few "wafflers."

 

By the way, which way will you be voting at GE 2017?

Jeremy Corbyn played no meaningful role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Throughout it all he was a meaningless irrelevant backbench MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet now we have peace. The IRA situation could have trundled on forever like Palestine/Israel without the work of quite a few "wafflers."

 

By the way, which way will you be voting at GE 2017?

 

To think that Corbyn had anything to do with the peace process and that by talking to the IRA was somehow playing a part in it, is pure pony, a complete rewrite of history. He only talked to one side & he clearly wanted that side to win. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the people who did work hard for peace

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the IRA lost. They were murdering British folk.

Corbyn could have backed the SDLP instead of being overtly supportive of people murdering his fellow citizens, British Royal Family and fellow members of Parliament.

 

Seeing as you support the EDL, whose supporters recently murdered an MP, you and Corbyn have something in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})