Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36092370)

They do, actually, because the election pledge on taxes was made before the pandemic struck. I think fair-minded people would accept that.

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------


The NHS, of course. That’s already in the bag. Ka-ching!

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------



Well, how is he funding the pandemic? I suspect he was going to borrow the money, taking advantage of low interest rates, and let growth over the years reduce the debt.

But he’s had to use that strategy to fund the pandemic.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092432)

How would the cost be secured against the "home"(see dictionary definition above). IT IS AN ASSET. It no longer serves the function of being their home. Just as if somebody lives in a rented home, but also owns a property. Try getting that past the DWP as not being an asset. How does a person with dementia have an emotional attachment to a home they no longer live in, when they can't even recognise their own family.

I repeat(as usual) the question, of how are the appropriate levels of costs to be determined at point of incurring those costs? Are people going to be allowed to book into a very expensive care home, and because they are actually penniless, never have to pay anything. because it's supposedly all sorted out after their death?
Problem is that too many people want an expensive service, but don't want to pay for it.:mad:
The only solution would be to provide a base level service for everybody, unless they pay upfront themselves. Even then, with a £86,000 lifetime cap, what happens when then reach it?
Just as in the 1980s, when the costs of care were allowed to be passed off onto the Benefits system(Supplementary Benefit), rather than the Council budget. Because the Benefits system refunded any and all costs, the council didn't have to be too bothered about what the level of costs were, because they weren't paying.


If they have assets, they should be expected to pay. Especially as I keep pointing out, they are unable to benefit in any other manner from that wealth.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092435)

<SNIP>

I think you're hitting yet missing a key issue. people expect that they have a right (rightly or wrongly) to be able to leave an inheritance to their children, dog, charities etc.

So, whilst the person needing residential care cannot benefit from their assets, others can.

Tie that to the common ignorance that is the payments I make via NI are for my state pension (which of course is twaddle) and you get resistance from individuals.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36092441)

This is going to raise £36 billion over three years, give or take a thousand million the cost of the world class test and trace whatever that thing was, pretty much every single worker is going to be paying more to fund this corrupt chumocracy, I'd say we deserve better but I'm not sure we do anymore :(

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092443)

"expect they have a right" is not the same as "have a right", especially if the taxpayer is expected to pick up the bill instead.


When it comes down to it, people will still have to sell their "homes", and people will still gripe about that.
From official government document on these proposals.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092442)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092432)

How would the cost be secured against the "home"(see dictionary definition above). IT IS AN ASSET. It no longer serves the function of being their home. Just as if somebody lives in a rented home, but also owns a property. Try getting that past the DWP as not being an asset. How does a person with dementia have an emotional attachment to a home they no longer live in, when they can't even recognise their own family.

I repeat(as usual) the question, of how are the appropriate levels of costs to be determined at point of incurring those costs? Are people going to be allowed to book into a very expensive care home, and because they are actually penniless, never have to pay anything. because it's supposedly all sorted out after their death?
Problem is that too many people want an expensive service, but don't want to pay for it.:mad:
The only solution would be to provide a base level service for everybody, unless they pay upfront themselves. Even then, with a £86,000 lifetime cap, what happens when then reach it?
Just as in the 1980s, when the costs of care were allowed to be passed off onto the Benefits system(Supplementary Benefit), rather than the Council budget. Because the Benefits system refunded any and all costs, the council didn't have to be too bothered about what the level of costs were, because they weren't paying.


If they have assets, they should be expected to pay. Especially as I keep pointing out, they are unable to benefit in any other manner from that wealth.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36092447)

Because nursing care in a residential home is not always permanent. It can be short or medium term after a prolonged hospital stay. It is not unheard of for an individual to be able to return home.

Furthermore living arrangements can be complex, as can house ownership. Elderly siblings sometimes live together, and sometimes elderly parents and children do. The individual who does not require nursing care may have part-ownership of the house or may simply not have anywhere else to go.

Putting a charge on the property against its eventual sale avoids a lot of potential complications, including unpleasant local newspaper stories about councils turning often quite vulnerable people out of their homes in order to pay for its owner’s care.

(Edit) it’s also the case that the capital tied up in the house will most likely increase its value in real terms, whereas if it were liquidated and then banked its value would at best keep pace with inflation but most likely would depreciate in real terms. Keeping the money that will eventually be used to pay off the bill in property rather than in the bank is financially astute.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36092458)

When are people requiring only short or medium term care ever expected to sell their home. :rolleyes:


The case study of "Yusuf" in the Government document "Build Back Better" is incorrect. It claims the cap would kick in after 3 years and 4 months. The cap only applies to eligible costs, which will usually be a lot less than the actual costs. The difference under the new proposals will be a lot less than stated. Not only would take longer to reach the cap, he would still have to pay the excess.
Things like issues of part-ownership are already taken into account.



The housing market never crashes?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36092435)

OB i do like the way you selectively quote.

Didn't Boris say yesterday in his statement to the HoC that this action was being taken partially due to the fact that proceeding governments had kicked this particular can down the road?

Let us not say that this is entirely down to the Covid pandemic, because as your illustrious leader himself admitted yesterday. it isn't.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092444)

[COLOR="Blue"]The Brexit dividend over three years would raise £48 billion.
What's happened to that?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36092497)

Maybe the dividend never existed and you've been lied to.

As for healthcare we've been underfunding for decades, and saying we're happy to pay more in opinion polls. The Govt have called our bluff.

Whether it should be the young (again) to subsidise the old and wealthy is open to debate. There were other fairer taxes (eg capital gains, upper tiers of income tax, inheritance tax) - targeting those that can afford it, that could have been used. Not very Tory though.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36092509)