Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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.
|
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
---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
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. 
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. |
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.