General Discussion

Anyone anything to say about this proposal?

here is my problem,

was going to vote  tory a brexiter, unionist, and pensioner now going to use my vote as a protest due to triple lock and home care, but which party??

labour   corbyn yyou must be joking

lib dems remaners and policy liars

More info here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39957879

If someone elderly like me needs care and owns a £300,000 property why should it not be used to pay for care i am far from a Tory voter but find nothing wrong with the above.  Things have to change if you want everything free then be prepared to have huge increases in Tax,NI, and VAT now folk dont want that so this is the alternative.  Pensions we again have had it easy with the triple lock the same applies if the working population want a reduction in there take home pay to give me a rise then thats ok but i doubt thats how they would see it but i could be wrong.

Why not charge for hospital treatment/presciption charges visits to/from GPs/district nurses etc as well as social care?

(I'm playing devil's advocate now).

Thoughts anyone? 

Just heard Mummy (for that is what she is allegedly called by some) say yet again that we have an ageing population and that by the end of the next decade there will be 2million more people aged 75 and over.

So........ever increasing ageing population=more than likely ever increasing demands on the NHS by that ageing population plus also ever increasing demand for social care.

So why should one (the NHS) be paid for by the collective taxpayer and the other one (social care) be paid for by the individual?  

UPDATE! UPDATE!

TheresaMaybeI'llchangemymind has er..........changed her mind.

Now she's saying that there will indeed be a cap on social care costs. Only trouble is.........she's not saying how much that cap will be. All will be decided after the election apparently.

I wonder why that cap will be determined after the election and not before. Eh?

Scratching my head now trying to figure that one out.  

Ah! 

I've just heard that May will reconsider and publish a green paper (which will presumably be post election) - but still saying that £100K will remain untouched to pass on to children. So nothing has really changed.

Letter on this subject in one of today's national newspapers:

"I have worked all my adult life, paying tax and national insurance, and I have saved for my retirement. Now Mrs May wants to take my savings if I need care.  If I had lived on benefits and had no savings or house then care would be provided free. I would not want to see those in need denied but it is hardly fair to penalise those who have worked".    

Do you know if that quote is from somebody who considers themselves a Tory voter? I'd hope older Tory voters are now waking up to the fact that the Tories don't really give a damn about them.

Maybe May thinks that people will vote Tory solely based on delivering Brexit and she can therefore effectively create a death tax on property via the backdoor.

It shows how out of touch she is with both many of her core voters and the nation as a whole.

however i have to agree with @leatash given the tories are committed to an ideology of austerity, pensioners cannot expect preferential treatment such as triple lock on pensions, etc. 

Baby boomers simply 'lucked out' when house values rose astronomically. Younger people are lucky if they can get onto the property ladder at all, if they do it may be by the time their in their late 30s or early 40s. 

Younger generations may not receive a pension by the time they reach their 60s. Pensions may be a thing of the past and these the hiatus of the pension scheme glory years.

Many people in society are unemployed, on exploitative zero hours contracts or if they are in employment are earning below the living wage standard; working but still in debt or poverty and struggling to get by.

Older university educated voters were able to study by way of grants and did not have to re-pay £9K per year tuition fees at the beginning of their adult lives.

Some younger generations would hope to benefit from inheriting property from their parents so it's not about an inter-generational 'them and us', but under the current austere status-quo who should we tax to provide social care?

Or who can we tax?

Seeing as a lot of contributors on Dawlish.com are probably approaching retirement age or already retired, who would you tax to provide your social care? Or what alternatives can you suggest that doesn't financially burden younger generations? I mean who will pay for their social care in decades to come or aren't you bothered? As you'll be dead and buried by then.

This country invests much less than many other European countries in health care, social care, education, etc - in its own people - and has done so over many decades. So working, paying taxes and saving all your adult life for your retirement is meaningless under a neoliberal system which haemorrages any national wealth created to a rich elite and foreign corporations. 

This country has among the lowest levels of corporation tax in Europe now under the Tories and is among the richest nations in the world. Yet other European nations don't make the elderly pay for social care using a death tax on their property.

We have food-banks, zero-hours contracts, £9K per year tuition fees, now a cessation of free school meals, cuts to the disability allowance, etc..

Did elderly homeowners with pensions and savings think they were immune from the this austerity mad Tory government?

The Tories want to shrink the state and concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, they were always coming after your nest-egg.

At least this Tory government is showing their true colours. They are complete b*****ds. 

Vote Tory and say goodbye to the NHS. They have already sold off bits to the likes of Richard Branson. They are under funded staff are underpaid, overworked unless you are a manager on ahuge salary.

My dad used to tell me all you need is three things in life, food in your belly, a dry roof and a good pair of wellies.  If you have those three things life is good, and it was.  Today my kids want things, society has changed to "want want want" I am entitled, why cant i have a new car, own my own house, go to Uni, my iPhone 6s is out of date i need a upgrade.  The world is mad we need to get back to the THREE THINGS IN LIFE.

i agree @leatash society has become very materialistic and consumeristic, these are wants, not needs. we need university to be affordable as society necesitates trained doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc but we don't need so many universities and not everyone needs to get a degree. we need less cars on the roads and less pollution from carbon emissions. we don't need products like the iphone, with all the waste from old models, unethical child labour and resultant zombies glued to screens. so yes the world is pretty mad.

I could cope with a wet roof as long is it didn't leak!

Were getting off the subject...bottom line if you are a pensioner, vote tory to lose your winter allowance, your house to pay for your care, and an end to the triple lock.

All this other claptrap is ignoring the issue...PENSIONERS  VOTE  TORY TO REDUCE  YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING...............END OF.

Why should a pensioner who has millions get winter fuel allowance those on benifits ie housing benifit will still get it.  The triple lock needs to be paid for so if you all want to pay more tax for my pay rise each year then fair enough but I am happy with whats on offer. So last but not least my house this already happens, i have friends in care homes that are being funded by the sale of there house at least under the new system they will have a £100,000 left for the kids.  And going back to winter fuel allowance why should those living in Spain get it yes its mad but true live in the sun and get cash to not heat your home. 

Just been reading the Tory manifesto about pensioners and social care etc.

On the matter of winter fuel payments the Tory manifesto says who will get WFP  and who won't will be determined by means testing. But at what level of income a pensioner would be eligible for WFP and on what level not, the manifesto is silent. 

I hear what you say Leatash about fuel payments going to the very rich. But I'll just raise some points.

1. Not all those retirees in Spain are necessarily well off and it can be cold in that country (honest!) in the winter.

2. How will the means testing take place? How much will it cost? If based on pensioners in receipt of pension credit then two issues arise a) do all those entitled to pension credit claim pension credit? Cos if not then those who would be eligible for the winter fuel payment by dint of their getting pension credit will not get the winter fuel payment and b) just a tad unfair surely on those ever so eensy weensy only ever so slightly above the income threshold to be eligible for pension credit if who is eligible the winter fuel payment is determined by who is in receipt of pension credit.  

This is what I understand the present situation to be re WFP.

Winter fuel payment

If you're older, you may be entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment.

If you're a woman, you can get a Winter Fuel Payment once you've reached State Pension age.

If you're a man, you can get a Winter Fuel Payment once you've reached the State Pension age of a woman born on the same day as you.

From https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/older-people/benefits-for-older-people/   

And of course under Labour everything was just perfect...

Life is very simple, if you want all the services,benifits, social care etc then all of us will have to pay more in tax. I would increase the basic rate by 4p, VAT to 30%, 50p on a litre of fuel, double the tax on fags and beer.  i would also chase those who evade tax and that will give you what the population wants but will you vote for me??  Now Mr Corbyn tells us we can have everything but where is the money coming from?  The rich won't pay for it, believe me they will just leave and take their dosh with them.  Now there is a lot of talk from the Labour Party about redistribution of wealth well i remember the great Tony Ben having this conversation with my Dad and this is what he had to say " If you took all the money in the uk and put it in one pot then divided it equally giving everyone exactly the same amount in a years' time there would be millionares and there would be those who dont have a crust to eat so redistribution of wealth will never work "

1263 I was not getting of the subject, just trying to point out that when i was a kid and young adult we were happy with less, now everyone expects everything as they believe its their right, but is it?

@leatash so are you saying nobody should bother even trying to redress the balance and tackle inequality in the uk?

Maybe Tony Benn is right and it's just human nature that some will take more than others, but that is what a democracy is meant to tackle.

If it doesn't can it be called a democracy?

Doesn't Corbyn, like you suggest, also want to prevent tax evasion by the wealthy?

I largely agree with your comments on the basic rate, VAT, fuel, and especially fags and booze. I'd advocate a sugar tax too which would imprive physical health standards, especially in children. And by legalizing all drugs revenues would be raised through tax, addicts receive help and beneficial drugs like CBD for example would help many suffering from cystic fibrosis, chronic pain, insomnia to mention but a few. It would also reduce organized crime and prostitution which is linked to the illegal drug trade. It would also end the control of the Cartels in Latin America and enable lawless areas of that continent to develop properly and address decades of violence, poverty and corruption.

But really we need to scrap the corrupt UN, IMF, WTO which are biased toward and controlled the 5 main nuclear powers - but overwhelmingly by the USA. which in turn are effectively controlled by multi-national corporations and a wealthy elite and have no resposibility toward any nation's citizens.

Otherwise this and other countries will remain in debt indefinitely and austerity will become the norm. We need greater change than what can be delivered at the national level.

@burneside no it was far from perfect, under new labour it was just a disaster waiting to happen. but then blairism was really just a continuation of thatcherism. and it was callaghan's labour government who really ceded sovereigny by accepting the imf's conditions in the 1970s, which then paved the way for thatcherite/blairite privatization from '79 onward. it's just convenient for the tories and the right in general to create and perpetuate the propaganda myth called brexit; that we lost our sovereignty to the eu.

Many EU member states and most poor/developing world nations are basically governed by IMF rules, which makes their 'democracies' simply defunct, subordinate systems.

Sovereignty was really ceded to the International Monetary Fund which is far from democratic and based in Washington DC, effectively our politicians have all but sold out to the Americans and corporate interest over the last 40 years, Brexit will just finish what was started.

We live in turbulant dangerous times and we need a strong no nonsense leader and Corbyn certainly isnt that we need a leader that will put troops on the street and if necessary lock down the country. Now May is already proving she is a tough cookie no nonsense gets on with it she will be tough with Europe take our borders back no free movement and will mobilise troops as she has done this morning. On the other hand, Corbyn will snap like a twig in a storm when the europeans start on him, our borders will remain open and anybody with a sob story will be allowed in, the man is a wimp with outdated ideas. I am a pensioner and have worked all my life i havent got a great deal but manage ok my hope is that the tories win and Corbyn goes, and then i can rejoin the Labour party and hopefully they bring in a decent leader who can unite the party and win the next election.

@leatash, if you're referring to terrorist attacks like the one in manchester yesterday then we'll only see more of the same if we elect a government that continues to meddle in the middle east. 

May is not a tough cookie, she's as clueless with counter-terrorism and foreign policy as she is with social care. She won't address the root causes, she's too much of a U-turning coward and the Tories are allied to the US elite - Look at the 'Atlantic Bridge' dealings. A show of force solves nothing in the long-term. It's for show and for political gain. She's taking advantage of the Manchester bombing and those victims.We've never had troops in so many cities following any previous attacks, but it fits with her 'strong and stable' mantra at a time when she looked anything but strong and stable on her social care manifesto back-tracking. Andrew Neil made her look very foolish.

And troops on the streets won't stop a suicide bomber detonating a hidden explosive device, if anything blowing up troops will encourage more attacks and more recruits to ISIS, especially if they film it and it goes viral on the web.

Many terrorists are radicalized within the UK itself and born here. What will closing borders achieve when they can communicate over the dark web and establish in-country cells that work in isolation from ISIS in Libya and Syria?

Maybe you're right and Corbyn's socialist ideas are outdated, if so why did you ever vote for Labour, a supposedly social democrat party? You're a pensioner who sang the red flag in your youth with your Dad - what do you define as being true Labour the Blair years? Labour under Callaghan? Wilson? Attlee? 

You vote for a party not a leader, this isn't the US. If you don't like Corbyn fine but listen to the policies and vote for those.

The Labour party's stance on social care and the NHS should be enough to vote for them ... unless you are millionaire of course!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/plan-to-confiscate-grans-house-and-steal-your-inheritance-strangely-unpopular-20170525128189

Tony did it for me great years.

@leatash, fair enough if you're a staunch blairite you're very unlikely to vote for a corbyn led labour. so thank you for clarifying as i did wonder if you were a socialist.

@S i agree, if only voting was about listen to and weighing up policies, but unfortunately our right wing media has made it all about politician's personalities, with personal attacks, belittling and propaganda against corbyn - nothing seems off limits. other politicians go to pieces when straight forward political questions are asked about their previous roles, track history, policies, u-turns, etc. they take it too personally, which suggests they're sociopaths with huge egos. corbyn to his credit knew what he was up against when he won the party leadership and has conducted himself wth decorum.

@Lynne I think the Daily Mash piece sums up the Tories to a tee. But joking aside, it'll effect not just for the elderly who own homes which they wish to pass on to children, but for anyone in society (across all generations) who is disabled or suffering from neurological illnesses who will have to fund their own care, whereas cancer sufferers can receive treatment free from the nhs. there probably needs to be a debate about whether health and social care should be continue to be treated separately.

The 'dementia tax' is just a short-term revenue boost to the Treasury, what'll happen in the near future when adults and young people who may never own a home reach retirement age, become disabled or psychologically unwell, they won't have the assets to fund their care. A better solution is need than one that penalizes the elderly, the disabled and gives preferential treatment to those who suffer one type of illness over another; The Tories are clueless and politics in general is all about short-termism and winning an election every five years. 

Is social care not in the hands of the Local Authority? Now i have a number of friends who have had to sell their homes to fund their care.  Under the new proposals they would have a £100,000 left and would only have the property sold when their care ceased or have i read the said proposal incorrectly. Now if i have read it correctly and at my age over 70 and have just completed 214 Wainwright's i do make mistakes so if i have please enlighten me.

i should have posted this article in the last post but couldn't find it. see the quote/reference. if social care is the responsibility of the local authority as @leatash writes, then central government is only responsible for for health care policy for those with 'cancer or acute illness' see below. The problem exists as most care homes closed years ago andf we now have the under-funded 'care in the community policy', which hasn't worked. Or am I wrong?

So the Tories say pay for it yourselves. yet no party really has a definitive answer to the problems we face as a nation. The Tories just stand out as being without caring and compassion as well as being inept.

"In all the manifestos the distinction between health and social care remains an opaque, isolated attempt to overcome fragmentation by focusing on integration and “more joined-up care” notwithstanding. People with cancer or acute illness have their needs met by the NHS but those who develop dementia, or have chronic long-term neurological conditions or disabilities, are deemed to have social care needs. In between the two is a grey area of “continuing healthcare”. The disputed boundary between fully-funded and means-tested care would become even more contentious under Conservative plans."

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/may/24/election-manifestos-social-care

And again if i remember correctly is the recent rise in council tax being ring fenced for social care?