Is that £75k cap the current policy or a nice thing we don't have?
For people who sold their home and moved into residential care, this will "squeeze you dry" until you have £100k instead of £23k, right?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
For people who sold their home and moved into residential care, this will "squeeze you dry" until you have £100k instead of £23k, right?
Possumowner
Member
I've just reread pages 55-58 of the Tory manifesto...and it's made me even more angry.Basically about mental health and burning injustices,along with homelessness​ etc...I've never read such horseshit in my life,claiming how wonderful they've done/are doing...Since in power 7 years ago they've sent it backwards, cutting services,closing MH wards, cutting ESA,pip and ESA assessment disasters, homelessness​ up and skyrocketing....and now they want us to trust them.They can fuck off 😡 so angry
Dirtyshubb
Member
This makes me fucking furious!
The worst part is I can see this working on our damn country. "life's hard and we need a leader who is tough" is something I can easily imagine idiots here saying.
He can stand proud today knowing he's only getting criticism from peasants with low IQs.
Theonik
Member
In savings. Whereas the new policy includes all assets including your house.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The £75k cap is the nice thing we do not have. It was, if my understanding is right, in the independent report on care whose author was furious about the Tory proposals yesterday.
I'll concede though - if you sell your home and move into residential care, this will in theory leave your loved ones with more money than before. It's the upside of the policy.
But for those that wish to be cared for at home, this is a pretty rotten deal.
The right way to do this is to merge health and social care, plug the spending shortfall and implement protections to prevent runaway costs from gutting your estate.
This almost makes me want to vote Green, if I didnt feel Id be throwing my vote away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXtN1QW9uY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXtN1QW9uY
I must admit, I don't get the "social care" thing.
NHS was built as "free at the point of use".
Yes, it's going to cost a load as the population gets older and dementia rates rise, but why do we suddenly start asking people to pay for their own care needs when they get old / get dementia?
We (as a society) need to foot to bill, for the benefit of all. If that means increasing income taxes, or inheritance taxes, or a combination of a few, to fund an NHS that is "free at the point of use" then surely people aren't going to moan about that, because we (nearly) all get old, we'll (nearly) all need care.
Just don't understand that if you get, for example, cancer, then your care needs will be taken care of, with no payments from yourself (as it 100% should be) but if you get dementia, you have to pay to get looked after.
NHS was built as "free at the point of use".
Yes, it's going to cost a load as the population gets older and dementia rates rise, but why do we suddenly start asking people to pay for their own care needs when they get old / get dementia?
We (as a society) need to foot to bill, for the benefit of all. If that means increasing income taxes, or inheritance taxes, or a combination of a few, to fund an NHS that is "free at the point of use" then surely people aren't going to moan about that, because we (nearly) all get old, we'll (nearly) all need care.
Just don't understand that if you get, for example, cancer, then your care needs will be taken care of, with no payments from yourself (as it 100% should be) but if you get dementia, you have to pay to get looked after.
Halph n Halph
Member
That's how I see it.
Huw_Dawson
Member
This gave me a good chuckle, but it is not really a pitch to run the country.
Halph n Halph
Member
Assets available for covering residential care always included your house.
This new policy is basically a way of saying: don't bother working hard and saving money all your life and don't bother investing it in to your home. Don't bother trying to build up any inheritance for your kids. It's all completely pointless. Because the likelihood is it will be taken away from you. So just spend all your money and then the government will still provide you with the social care but free of charge!
Can't pensioners sign their homes over to their kids to bypass this, or would that be too obvious and the tax police will come?
Anyway, how does this policy compare to other countries in Europe? We're already behind in so many areas. It makes me feel physically sick when I speak to my colleagues in France and hear the state benefits they receive compared to us, especially things like sick leave due to their state insurance policies.
I get the feeling they are courting the protest vote which is pretty much all they can do at this point.
How many people in residential care still have a house? That shit is expensive.
I think pretty much everyone wishes to get care at home. In my experience there comes a point where that's no longer an option.
Which is why ask, is my experience the norm? Do more people move into residential care or stay at home until the end?
I've tried searching and only found this,
but I don't think it answers my question.
nelsonroyale
Member
Ah, the Lib Dems...A party of professional ditherers...A party whose whole stance is centred around opposition. To the tories, to Brexit, to Scottish Independence. Even their support for the EU is from a pretty unprogressive stand point. The Lib Dems are struggling to keep up with the times...
I think stuff like this already happens, you just have to do it a certain number of years in advance.
That loophole was eliminated a while back. You can do some things with a trust I believe, but it's not easy.
Re this policy, I think we need to be clearer about our objections to it. Because on the face of it, the tories are raising taxes from the people who have money to pay for healthcare for those who are sick. In particular, they are going after inheritances which we in the left have been very vocal about as being unfair, and helping to increase the imbalance of wealth and power in the country.
It just feels a bit weird to be attacking from the left on a government policy that, on the face of it, aligns with a lot of the stuff we've been saying for some time. I think we need to articulate opposition to the policy better than "May wants to steal your home".
That ad is great. Sadly I don't think it will help the greens much on June 8th.
Seven prior to your death (which can be a tough thing to predict).
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
My gdad just died after losing his mind and my nan's left crippled in debt, this brings tears to my eyes..
Huw_Dawson
Member
Bloody ironic to say that when we have been in government more recently than Labour has been.
Another point on the Tory's care plan:
May said 'products would be available' but she did not say what. I read this morning that those 'products' would be from the insurance industry. And, of course, there is no cap on how much the insurance premiums are. Nor is there any regulation on how quickly homes must be sold off by the insurer, which naturally has little interest in the family left behind after the sack of money has died.
So what this does also represent is a big new market for financial services. The perfect Tory policy!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Demanding people use their own assets to pay for dementia care is vile. It just creates a ridiculous lottery where if you get dementia, your assets get ravaged, and if you don't get dementia, you're de facto getting a tax break since less will be required of you when helping others. The whole point of the National Health Service is to act as a sort of giant insurance - none of us know what health ailments face us, so we all pool our risks and pay in the same amount in the awareness that we all could have been the recipients. This policy fundamentally undermines that community and that tradition of good British people caring for one another. For a party pretending to have abandoned Thatcherism, it's one of the worst examples of sacrificing the unfortunate and the sick to the whims of the markets.
Because its only against people unfortunate enough to need care in their old age - that's not really doing much to redress inequality or to make society more meritocratic, its just reducing the estates of people not quite wealthy enough to be able to cover the cost of social care themselves.
Additionally, I don't think its fair to recoup the costs of this stuff directly. If you are old and need to be put in permanent care then that should be covered by the state regardless and paid for by taxation from everybody.
Question about the "free breakfast/May is stealing kids lunches!" policy:
But in this policy, we're already doing the means testing for the sake of lunch. Why would this same classification not be applied to breakfast as well? We'll be paying for means testing AND paying to feed everyone anyway?
What is the reasoning behind this?
(I'm not in favour of means testing, but that's besides the point.)
I thought the argument against means testing is it costs more than it saves. In this case: it's cheaper to pay to feed all the kids than to work out which ones need the assistance.
But in this policy, we're already doing the means testing for the sake of lunch. Why would this same classification not be applied to breakfast as well? We'll be paying for means testing AND paying to feed everyone anyway?
What is the reasoning behind this?
(I'm not in favour of means testing, but that's besides the point.)
Huw_Dawson
Member
Farron made the point last night that it is mad to scrap free school lunches for infants when primary schools have invested in what was needed to provide for it. In addition, Clegg noted that the free school lunch policy guaranteed all infants got one decent meal a day - that does not happen with free breakfasts.
It's another bonkers cut by a government that has already won the election.
It's another bonkers cut by a government that has already won the election.
Exactly.
It's a struggle for some families (not passing judgement in any way, there are a variety of different reasons why it is) to get their kids to school on time... getting them in 30 mins earlier in order to go to breakfast club just isn't going to happen for a lot of people.
And the Tories, of course, know this, know a lot less people who currently have lunch will have breakfast, so will save more money, but they still get their headline.
Bunch of cnuts
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Means-tested winter fuel payments would be a bad thing and I'm not sure why some liberals/progressives/leftists are supporting it. Means-testing almost always costs more to administer than is recouped by reduced provision of benefits, tends to undermine the quality of state services because people who don't get something are much happier when that thing is reduced, and creates a stigmatizing culture of scroungers/dependents and shaming. There is almost no welfare provision that would not be improved by universality.
Literally the only somewhat-good policy the Conservatives have for the ageing problem is reducing triple-lock to double-lock. But even then, it's papering up the cracks. Pensioners are one of the least vulnerable demographics in our society (demographically), and it makes no sense to lock in a system that guarantees that pensioners always receive real increases in pensions. The most viable policy is a single-lock - pensions should just be some fixed proportion of mean real earnings.
But then... literally no party can actually enter an election on that, since it would be suicide, so I'll give the Conservatives some credit for this policy - they're moderately better than Labour on it (a rarity!). That said, given Labour's demographic performances, I understand that pragmatically they really need to win over pensioners, so it's a compromise in Labour's platform I'm somewhat willing to accept.
Literally the only somewhat-good policy the Conservatives have for the ageing problem is reducing triple-lock to double-lock. But even then, it's papering up the cracks. Pensioners are one of the least vulnerable demographics in our society (demographically), and it makes no sense to lock in a system that guarantees that pensioners always receive real increases in pensions. The most viable policy is a single-lock - pensions should just be some fixed proportion of mean real earnings.
But then... literally no party can actually enter an election on that, since it would be suicide, so I'll give the Conservatives some credit for this policy - they're moderately better than Labour on it (a rarity!). That said, given Labour's demographic performances, I understand that pragmatically they really need to win over pensioners, so it's a compromise in Labour's platform I'm somewhat willing to accept.
Couldn't you just tie winter fuel payments to the already means tested pension credit? That'd reduce administrative costs at least, but I've no idea if that's an appropriate cut off point for getting winter fuel payments.
The dementia tax thing is monstrous. It's basically saying to pensioners that if you get a debilitating illness that requires care, but you want your kids to inherit anything, then you had best book a flight to Switzerland.
The dementia tax thing is monstrous. It's basically saying to pensioners that if you get a debilitating illness that requires care, but you want your kids to inherit anything, then you had best book a flight to Switzerland.
Only a Tory could look at the rising number of people suffering from dementia and think "There's money to be made here".
Starwolf_UK
Member
It was talked about earlier in this thread so those you that missed newsnight:
Sir Michael Fallon is challenged on the Conservative manifesto - BBC Newsnight
If comments were not disabled I would immaturely comment "6 Mayniacs watched this".
Sir Michael Fallon is challenged on the Conservative manifesto - BBC Newsnight
If comments were not disabled I would immaturely comment "6 Mayniacs watched this".
It has 6 dislikes when I watched it
Huw_Dawson
Member
The problem with a winter fuel payment to everyone is that on the one hand you don't have to worry about the admin cost, but on the other it's weird to chuck Alan Sugar £300 of taxpayer's money.
Once again, evidence based politics. If proper costings show means testing winter fuel allowance would save money and not hurt any pensioners, it should be done as the money can be better spent elsewhere. But I think Crab would say those are both too big 'ifs' to be palatable to the left.
Once again, evidence based politics. If proper costings show means testing winter fuel allowance would save money and not hurt any pensioners, it should be done as the money can be better spent elsewhere. But I think Crab would say those are both too big 'ifs' to be palatable to the left.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I feel it's more likely they're thinking "How the hell do we pay for all this?".
Miles Quaritch
Member
I can't stop laughing at 'unashamedly moral'.
These people know their core audience have so much faith in them and trust them so much they don't even bother trying to hide the lie any more.
These people know their core audience have so much faith in them and trust them so much they don't even bother trying to hide the lie any more.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
There are other reasons not to want it. Broadly speaking, people are really bad at connecting taxes and spending. Wealthy pensioners defend receipt of the winter fuel allowance even though on net they'd be better off if the winter fuel allowance was cut - because they'd have to pay less tax, and while everyone gets the same winter fuel allowance, wealthy pensioners pay relatively more tax.
Universal services are much more durable and resistant to damaging reductions than means-tested ones. Means-tested services always get associated with the ideas of scroungers and shirkers, with stigamization and shows like Benefits Street that just try to demonise people. This is nothing something we should tolerate. If paying Alan Sugar £300 is the cost we pay to pay a poorer pensioner £300, instead of paying a poorer pensioner £200 because Sugar no longer defends a high allowance, that's a cost I'm willing to pay - especially because it was Sugar paying it all along as the higher income tax needed falls disproportionately on him.
There's more to evidence-based policy than the short term 'do the numbers add up'. You also have to think 'well, how will people respond to this?'.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Well they have fund that care and with the UK leaving a huge market of potential nurses, doctors and carers...
I don't see why they shouldn't pay for their own treatment and care. I get that people are sympathetic to the plight of old people, but a lot of these fuckers went out of their way to screw over the country. Not to mention, fuck over the mentally ill and the disabled by throwing their lot in with the Tories and their promises of a triple lock and other benefits that meant taking away from the genuinely needy of society.
Fuck 'em.
Huw_Dawson
Member
A penny on the pound to address the shortfall, a health and social care tax on the wage slip, and a merged health and social care service that would be both more effective and more efficient.
And Crab, I agree on benefits stigma. That is why 'will people actually apply for this if it is not automatic' has to be part of the judgement.
You could work out which was cheaper but it would be much more difficult to work out the cost of creating "a stigmatizing culture of scroungers/dependents and shaming" as Crab puts it. You can't decide everything based off of costs/savings.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I thought they were merging health and social care? I'm sure I heard that on the radio the other day.
Anyway, I was merely presenting another plausible line of thought in response to the idea that the Tories sit around going "We're evil. Let's do evil things".
Everyone's trying to answer that question.
Only someone totally callous would come up with this answer.
Huw_Dawson
Member
As above - you assess *both* the economic cost (the Tory way) and the social cost (the Labour way) and you make an intelligent decision.
As was put to McDonnell just now, Pension Credits are means tested, and were made so under Labour, and they're broadly successful. (At least, I think that was the argument). Is that a good comparison to make? Is it true that they are broadly successful?
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
...I'm pretty sure Alan Sugar should be paying a tiny bit more than £300 in tax?
what are you on about?
she's a strong and stable leader, leading a strong and stable government for a strong and stable Britain.
strong
stable
Expected. Just propaganda at this point.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Well yeah, so why are you chucking £300 back at him afterwards? It's a drop in the ocean for him but £300 is £300. If the money is not needed then there should be a debate.
But taxing higher income earners is essentially the catch-all means test. And cheaper to do. Right?
The problem is that capital gains should be taxed more.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They're not really merging them. They're still institutionally separate, but central government is trying to encourage 'joined-up care' with greater collaboration between hospitals and private care companies. The trouble is that lots of these things aren't financially viable. For example, one of the leading contributors to falls and consequent hospital treatment among the elderly is ill-fitting footwear. If all care companies provided all residents with tailored slippers, it would result in significant savings for the NHS (completely serious, I know it sounds trivial but my current consultancy work is in the care sector). But those care companies have to pay up for that, and they're not the ones making the savings, so they have no incentive to do it (well, no financial incentive).
What the Conservatives are trying to do is get local councils to create financial structures that encourage this - shared-gains, and so on, where if the local hospital makes a 5% savings in a given year, a quarter of the proceeds or whatever go to the private care companies in that region. But it's completely pointless because local councils don't have the money to make these structures. Care is absolutely cut to the damn bone. So the 'merger' (joined-up care) is just not happening, there isn't the funding to create all these fancy incentives.
In a way, it's like the workers' rights May is promising. It's a nice fancy promise, but nobody has the means to enforce it, so in the end, you're just left with vulnerable people getting fucked.
Theonik
Member
It's not really a debate worth having, namely because there is only so many Alan Sugars and £300 is fuck all for government. (It is also in volume where it matters.)
But the debate itself is harmful.
Its not really the olds that lose out though, they still get their care - its their family that don't get the proceeds of the estate.
If the Tories wanted to reduce inequality by upping estate taxes that would be totally fine - but they don't. This policy does nothing to redress existing inequality, but still takes from families unfortunate enough to have a parent/grandparent who needs care.
So basically this is going to make rich families much more wealthy, as they will effectively inherit more than unfortunate working/middle class ones
Its not that they consciously think "lets be horrendous", its just the fact that "this is horrendous" doesn't even occur to them.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So, two worlds.
World 1:
State pays Alan Sugar £300. State taxes Alan Sugar £600.
State pays poor pensioner £300. State taxes poor pensioner nothing.
World 2:
State pays Alan Sugar nothing. State taxes Alan Sugar £300.
State pays poor pensioner £250. State taxes poor pensioner nothing.
State pays bureaucrats £50 to administer the system.
Which is the better world?
Or, put another way, a strongly progressive income tax is already means-testing. It doesn't matter if we pay you more if we're taking that back plus more in tax. What's the point of individually testing everything on top of that? There is none.
Means-testing is a bad policy. Always is, always will be.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked