General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 109 of 270 < 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 >

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 18 May 17 5.57pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I'm more worried about the in laws giving up their house to pay for care to be honest. But yes, like many others, I may miss out on an inheritance. This policy is not going down well. Which is good, as having heard responses across the broadcast media, it's going to make a lot of people not vote Tory. Funny that people on here have complained about inheritance tax, (which affects a tiny proportion of people) but seem happy with what is being labelled by some commentators as a death tax. Edited by nickgusset (18 May 2017 4.44pm) Listening to the radio this morning. Someone texted on complaint that their 93 year old mum needed care and the person didn't see why the mother should pay. She had been retired 33 yrs, nearly as long as she had worked. People are living longer, retired for 15-20 years in stead of 5-10. Something has to give. If my kids want an inheritance, they're gonna have to wipe my arse for me once in a while. Seems fair the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 18 May 17 5.57pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I'm more worried about the in laws giving up their house to pay for care to be honest. But yes, like many others, I may miss out on an inheritance.

This policy is not going down well. Which is good, as having heard responses across the broadcast media, it's going to make a lot of people not vote Tory.

Funny that people on here have complained about inheritance tax, (which affects a tiny proportion of people) but seem happy with what is being labelled by some commentators as a death tax.

Edited by nickgusset (18 May 2017 4.44pm)

Listening to the radio this morning. Someone texted on complaint that their 93 year old mum needed care and the person didn't see why the mother should pay. She had been retired 33 yrs, nearly as long as she had worked. People are living longer, retired for 15-20 years in stead of 5-10. Something has to give.

If my kids want an inheritance, they're gonna have to wipe my arse for me once in a while. Seems fair

the dignified don't even enter in the game

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 6.11pm
Originally posted by becky Of course, there is always the time-honoured way to avoid losing your inheritance from your aged parents - look after them in their old age yourselves instead of expecting the state to organize their care. .....and no, I don't think this is something that the NHS should be paying for, as old age is not an 'illness' just something, like the rest of life, that some people cope better with than others. (However, I am aware that Alzheimer's does need professional care in it's latter stages, so not including this in my above comment) Well the manifesto specifies dementia... I'm not saying that all old people should get state aid if not needed, however when sick and vulnerable people are on a list of tough s*** sort it out yourselves it does cause one to question how morally bankrupt Theresa has become. It'll be cancer patients next.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 6.11pm

Originally posted by becky

Of course, there is always the time-honoured way to avoid losing your inheritance from your aged parents - look after them in their old age yourselves instead of expecting the state to organize their care.

.....and no, I don't think this is something that the NHS should be paying for, as old age is not an 'illness' just something, like the rest of life, that some people cope better with than others. (However, I am aware that Alzheimer's does need professional care in it's latter stages, so not including this in my above comment)

Well the manifesto specifies dementia...

I'm not saying that all old people should get state aid if not needed, however when sick and vulnerable people are on a list of tough s*** sort it out yourselves it does cause one to question how morally bankrupt Theresa has become. It'll be cancer patients next.

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 18 May 17 6.13pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Well the manifesto specifies dementia... I'm not saying that all old people should get state aid if not needed, however when sick and vulnerable people are on a list of tough s* sort it out yourselves** it does cause one to question how morally bankrupt Theresa has become. It'll be cancer patients next. I may be wrong but the NHS will still treat people with dementia? the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 18 May 17 6.13pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Well the manifesto specifies dementia...

I'm not saying that all old people should get state aid if not needed, however when sick and vulnerable people are on a list of tough s*** sort it out yourselves it does cause one to question how morally bankrupt Theresa has become. It'll be cancer patients next.

I may be wrong but the NHS will still treat people with dementia?

the dignified don't even enter in the game

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 18 May 17 6.17pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman I did say if psychological reasons can be proven then they wouldn't lose care (I mean the typical huge costs of treatment due to obesity and lack of care). I know this wouldn't happen but some things are going to have to. What do you propose? Carry on as we are? Something will have to give. Charges for GP visits if earnings in 40% bracket+? When I was living in Australia they have a system which is slightly similar. You have to pay a small fee for medical visits and procedures unless you are on a low income. It helps stop time wasters and means that it's still free for those who can't afford it but those who can contribute a small amount for their visit. The Aussie healthcare system is a lot less underfunded and doctors have a much better quality of life.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 18 May 17 6.17pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

I did say if psychological reasons can be proven then they wouldn't lose care (I mean the typical huge costs of treatment due to obesity and lack of care).

I know this wouldn't happen but some things are going to have to. What do you propose? Carry on as we are? Something will have to give. Charges for GP visits if earnings in 40% bracket+?

When I was living in Australia they have a system which is slightly similar. You have to pay a small fee for medical visits and procedures unless you are on a low income. It helps stop time wasters and means that it's still free for those who can't afford it but those who can contribute a small amount for their visit.

The Aussie healthcare system is a lot less underfunded and doctors have a much better quality of life.

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 18 May 17 6.21pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Are you an orphan? No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east. It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate. I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%. I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair. Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 18 May 17 6.21pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Are you an orphan?

No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east.

It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate.

I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%.

I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair.

Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me.

hedgehog50 Croydon 18 May 17 6.51pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east. It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate. I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%. I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair. Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me. Dear oh dear. What do you mean by 'fair'? Would it be fair that someone who has worked hard all their life and been responsible with their money in order to pass it on to their children has it all taxed by the government and largely squandered, whereas someone who has been irresponsible all their life receives all sorts of benefits paid from taxes because they are 'poor'? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 18 May 17 6.51pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east.

It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate.

I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%.

I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair.

Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me.

Dear oh dear. What do you mean by 'fair'? Would it be fair that someone who has worked hard all their life and been responsible with their money in order to pass it on to their children has it all taxed by the government and largely squandered, whereas someone who has been irresponsible all their life receives all sorts of benefits paid from taxes because they are 'poor'?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

.TUX. 18 May 17 7.00pm
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch Listening to the radio this morning. Someone texted on complaint that their 93 year old mum needed care and the person didn't see why the mother should pay. She had been retired 33 yrs, nearly as long as she had worked. People are living longer, retired for 15-20 years in stead of 5-10. Something has to give. If my kids want an inheritance, they're gonna have to wipe my arse for me once in a while. Seems fair Agreed. Yes, the state is responsible for many things, but the amount of people i know who completely ignore THEIR role in the latter years of their parents lives is nothing short of shocking. Buy Litecoin.

.TUX.

18 May 17 7.00pm

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

If my kids want an inheritance, they're gonna have to wipe my arse for me once in a while. Seems fair

Agreed.
Yes, the state is responsible for many things, but the amount of people i know who completely ignore THEIR role in the latter years of their parents lives is nothing short of shocking.

Buy Litecoin.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 7.18pm
Originally posted by .TUX. Agreed. Yes, the state is responsible for many things, but the amount of people i know who completely ignore THEIR role in the latter years of their parents lives is nothing short of shocking. Indeed, but in the case of dementia it's different.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 7.18pm

Originally posted by .TUX.

Agreed.
Yes, the state is responsible for many things, but the amount of people i know who completely ignore THEIR role in the latter years of their parents lives is nothing short of shocking.

Indeed, but in the case of dementia it's different.

steeleye20 Croydon 18 May 17 7.20pm
Just a reminder after reading some previous posts where people are either upset or confused that you have an alternative to it. Do not vote Conservative vote Corbyn and Labour.

steeleye20

Croydon 18 May 17 7.20pm

Just a reminder after reading some previous posts where people are either upset or confused that you have an alternative to it.

Do not vote Conservative vote Corbyn and Labour.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 7.21pm
[Link] Rarely, if ever, has a political party included such a depraved policy in their election manifesto, but in 2017 the Tories decided to cross the Rubicon by announcing a policy of thumping dementia sufferers with a wealth extraction tax to pay for their own social care. The policy The new Tory policy is to give the financial services industry the opportunity to administer the asset stripping of elderly people who are unfortunate enough to end up with dementia, physical infirmities or other conditions that require social care. If the elderly person is deemed to have assets worth over £100,000 (the average house price in the UK is £215,000) then they will be treated as if they are rich and made to pay their own social care costs, even though they payed a lifetime of National Insurance contributions to cover the cost of health and social care in their old age. The Tories have ever-so-kindly said that the elderly people won't have to sell their homes immediately in order to cover the costs, but that they can get "equity release" products so that the wealth can be extracted from the value of their homes after they die. Creating a new market One of the obvious beneficiaries of this policy will be the financial services industry who will get to design and market these "equity release" products. A consideration of the root cause of the social care problem just goes to show how depraved this is. Here's a simple timeline of events. The financial services industry gambles itself into insolvency betting on all kinds of dodgy sub-prime mortgage junk. The Labour government steps in to save the banks and avert financial catastrophe by borrowing hundreds of billions to prop up the banks and salvage the nose-diving economy. The Tories use this high level of borrowing as an excuse to launch their ideological austerity agenda, and set about slashing government spending. One of the worst affected areas is social care which suffers £4.6 billion in Tory cuts (at a time of rising demand). The Tories announce a plan to force pensioners to pay for their own social care by asset stripping the value of their homes. The financial services industry are handed a lucrative new "equity release" market to profit from, and the Tory press describe this kind of corporate equity extraction scheme as if it's some kind of wonderful favour to the elderly that they're being allowed to live in their own house as its equity is harvested away by the banks that screwed the economy in the first place!

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 18 May 17 7.21pm

[Link]
Rarely, if ever, has a political party included such a depraved policy in their election manifesto, but in 2017 the Tories decided to cross the Rubicon by announcing a policy of thumping dementia sufferers with a wealth extraction tax to pay for their own social care.

The policy

The new Tory policy is to give the financial services industry the opportunity to administer the asset stripping of elderly people who are unfortunate enough to end up with dementia, physical infirmities or other conditions that require social care.

If the elderly person is deemed to have assets worth over £100,000 (the average house price in the UK is £215,000) then they will be treated as if they are rich and made to pay their own social care costs, even though they payed a lifetime of National Insurance contributions to cover the cost of health and social care in their old age.

The Tories have ever-so-kindly said that the elderly people won't have to sell their homes immediately in order to cover the costs, but that they can get "equity release" products so that the wealth can be extracted from the value of their homes after they die.

Creating a new market

One of the obvious beneficiaries of this policy will be the financial services industry who will get to design and market these "equity release" products.

A consideration of the root cause of the social care problem just goes to show how depraved this is. Here's a simple timeline of events.
The financial services industry gambles itself into insolvency betting on all kinds of dodgy sub-prime mortgage junk.
The Labour government steps in to save the banks and avert financial catastrophe by borrowing hundreds of billions to prop up the banks and salvage the nose-diving economy.
The Tories use this high level of borrowing as an excuse to launch their ideological austerity agenda, and set about slashing government spending.
One of the worst affected areas is social care which suffers £4.6 billion in Tory cuts (at a time of rising demand).
The Tories announce a plan to force pensioners to pay for their own social care by asset stripping the value of their homes.
The financial services industry are handed a lucrative new "equity release" market to profit from, and the Tory press describe this kind of corporate equity extraction scheme as if it's some kind of wonderful favour to the elderly that they're being allowed to live in their own house as its equity is harvested away by the banks that screwed the economy in the first place!

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 May 17 7.21pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Depression isn't the biggest cost to the NHS with 1/2 days of care costing thousands and thousands, then again and again..... You are right Rudi: [Link] And as for obesity: [Link] You were quite right in saying obesity costs the NHS a fortune and something should be done about it. Why is it that when you walk down the high street the largest looking person male or female is ALWAYS eating the largest pie available or the biggest ice cream on sale. It looks pretty awful and it seems they just do not care. Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 May 17 7.21pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Depression isn't the biggest cost to the NHS with 1/2 days of care costing thousands and thousands, then again and again.....

You are right Rudi: [Link]

And as for obesity: [Link]

You were quite right in saying obesity costs the NHS a fortune and something should be done about it.
Why is it that when you walk down the high street the largest looking person male or female is ALWAYS eating the largest pie available or the biggest ice cream on sale. It looks pretty awful and it seems they just do not care.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 May 17 7.27pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Just a reminder after reading some previous posts where people are either upset or confused that you have an alternative to it. Do not vote Conservative vote Corbyn and Labour. You must be joking....biggest laugh I have had all day after watching all the morbid election cr@p on the TV. Quite depressing I my opinion. Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 May 17 7.27pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Just a reminder after reading some previous posts where people are either upset or confused that you have an alternative to it.

Do not vote Conservative vote Corbyn and Labour.

You must be joking....biggest laugh I have had all day after watching all the morbid election cr@p on the TV. Quite depressing I my opinion.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 18 May 17 7.32pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Dear oh dear. What do you mean by 'fair'? Would it be fair that someone who has worked hard all their life and been responsible with their money in order to pass it on to their children has it all taxed by the government and largely squandered, whereas someone who has been irresponsible all their life receives all sorts of benefits paid from taxes because they are 'poor'? I'd say a fairer system would be to tax the recipient not the estate. But essentially for the beneficiary they have done literally nothing to earn it other than be a member of the lucky sperm club.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 18 May 17 7.32pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I'd say a fairer system would be to tax the recipient not the estate.

But essentially for the beneficiary they have done literally nothing to earn it other than be a member of the lucky sperm club.

.TUX. 18 May 17 7.46pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Indeed, but in the case of dementia it's different. You've just proven my point Nick. Buy Litecoin.

.TUX.

18 May 17 7.46pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Indeed, but in the case of dementia it's different.

You've just proven my point Nick.

Buy Litecoin.

Rudi Hedman Caterham 18 May 17 7.58pm
Originally posted by susmik You are right Rudi: [Link] And as for obesity: [Link] You were quite right in saying obesity costs the NHS a fortune and something should be done about it. Why is it that when you walk down the high street the largest looking person male or female is ALWAYS eating the largest pie available or the biggest ice cream on sale. It looks pretty awful and it seems they just do not care. Some have no self respect or respect for anything. Those outside Greggs I'm talking about, doing the sweep and brush of pastry flakes off their clothes. Edited by Rudi Hedman (18 May 2017 8.36pm) COYP

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 18 May 17 7.58pm

Originally posted by susmik

You are right Rudi: [Link]

And as for obesity: [Link]

Some have no self respect or respect for anything. Those outside Greggs I'm talking about, doing the sweep and brush of pastry flakes off their clothes.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (18 May 2017 8.36pm)

COYP

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 18 May 17 8.18pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 I think there is a battle going on between the Hammond and May camps. Top Gear or GT? "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 18 May 17 8.18pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

I think there is a battle going on between the Hammond and May camps.

Top Gear or GT?

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 18 May 17 8.27pm
To be frank... rather than messing round the edges. basic income tax needs to be raised by as much as 200bps. Much going towards various ways of supporting the elderly, but also defence, NHS, etc. Oddly enough I would suggest not education. "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 18 May 17 8.27pm

To be frank... rather than messing round the edges. basic income tax needs to be raised by as much as 200bps.

Much going towards various ways of supporting the elderly, but also defence, NHS, etc. Oddly enough I would suggest not education.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

steeleye20 Croydon 18 May 17 8.48pm
Originally posted by pefwin To be frank... rather than messing round the edges. basic income tax needs to be raised by as much as 200bps. Much going towards various ways of supporting the elderly, but also defence, NHS, etc. Oddly enough I would suggest not education. Spot on it will come in the autumn statement I think unless there is an emergency before. Consequences...

steeleye20

Croydon 18 May 17 8.48pm

Originally posted by pefwin

To be frank... rather than messing round the edges. basic income tax needs to be raised by as much as 200bps.

Much going towards various ways of supporting the elderly, but also defence, NHS, etc. Oddly enough I would suggest not education.

Spot on it will come in the autumn statement I think unless there is an emergency before.

Consequences...

Hrolf The Ganger 18 May 17 8.52pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Yes it's not about the thousands thst bought their house thinking it could be left to their offspring. It's just about me. LBC has been full of disillusioned Tory voters today. So you want funding switched from A&E maybe to caring for the elderly? Or would you prefer a rise in income tax that can disappear down the black hole of NHS waste? This is not a perfect world. People with assets should pay for themselves and it's tough luck on their kids. I'd also like to inherit my share but that is now at risk for many.

Hrolf The Ganger

18 May 17 8.52pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Yes it's not about the thousands thst bought their house thinking it could be left to their offspring. It's just about me.

LBC has been full of disillusioned Tory voters today.

So you want funding switched from A&E maybe to caring for the elderly? Or would you prefer a rise in income tax that can disappear down the black hole of NHS waste?
This is not a perfect world. People with assets should pay for themselves and it's tough luck on their kids.
I'd also like to inherit my share but that is now at risk for many.

Hrolf The Ganger 18 May 17 8.57pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle No. It was an exaggeration. I would suggest IHT isn't fair though at it's current level and especially with the increase in the 0% band for property up to £1m, which will only benefit a small proportion in the south east. It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate. I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%. I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair. Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me. Your attitude makes no sense at all. Inheritance money has already been taxed. Why should people pay an extortionate amount of tax to get what should be theirs?

Hrolf The Ganger

18 May 17 8.57pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

It's unearned income so should be taxed at a much higher rate than income and taxed on the recipient not the estate.

I'd suggest some could be tax free (say £50k per recipient or 100% if given to charities) but the rest should be taxed at 60/70/80/90/100%.

I will receive some inheritance at some point and I will be grateful for it, but I still don't think the current system is fair.

Income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned wealth or capital gains. Just seems fair to me.

Your attitude makes no sense at all.

Inheritance money has already been taxed. Why should people pay an extortionate amount of tax to get what should be theirs?

Page 109 of 270 < 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map