Attachment 4671
this seems very fair
Printable View
Attachment 4671
this seems very fair
LIAR, CORRUPT JOHNSON at it again.
And don’t get me started on the clowns speech yesterday, all to detract from this.
The Tory’s never, ever change their spots. Wake up!
Thank god we live in Wales where we look to be at least trying to do thr opposite. If you voted for these tory crooks you are a fool.
An article on well worth reading on the growing care costs in Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51357547
There are thresholds and caps in Wales .
Before we get all excited one fact maybe worth considering in that Wales has an ageing population.
2008 : 18 per cent of the population was over 65
By 2033 this is expected to rise to almost 26 per cent.
A tax rise of between 1% to 3%
Gething suggests cost is predicted to grow between £30m and £300m by 2023.
The proposed system is vastly vastly superior than what currently exists or what existed under the last Labour govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninian opinian
Perfect, no? But you should be able to consider it rationally without such extreme conclusions
Comparisons with previous Governments become increasingly pointless as the years pass, the longer one party has been in power, the more irrelevant the previous Government becomes. A Tory MP trying to hold the last Labour Government to account in 1996 for a problem of that time would sound ridiculous because their party had been in power for seventeen years and the same applies the other way round when Labour had been in power for twelve years in 2009. After eleven years of the Conservatives in charge, we’re in the same position again - the world has changed a lot since 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
No one is ever rational when it comes to the matters of social care , health care , education, policing etc etc, nothing is ever going to be enough as it's a political point scoring exercise, if there was a balanced funding policy to all this funding surely a political party would be voted back in power over and over again ( hang on) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Equally if thier policies were dreadful they'd be voted out ??
Lol not when you have the entire UK media telling you they're good policies..Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I agree really, the world keeps turning, but the proposals represent a sea change, it's entirely positive and transformative for those with less wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The graph shown is fairly. Of course those who have a million in the bank will still be better off after spending the same amount on care than someone with less. You'd have to be a communist to think we should all leave this earth with the exact same sum in the bank.
As stated, these changes are positive and I'm increasingly tired of party political games over everything.
I think normal people in the street are not fully controlled by the media as some think , one would know if they were suffering and feeling injustices were applied to them , media control its an old favourite narrative but a dated one , political popularity and success is more to do with being in touch with the working / middle class thinking and tapping into that , even if we don't support or believe in it .Quote:
Originally Posted by Doucas
If you wanted a rational conversation about this you would have skimmed over that comment and replied to the OP. That graphic is pretty damning and I was interested that the BBC ran with something so honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
It's not damning at all. Care costs broadly the same. It's like saying that if a holiday costs £1000 and you only have a £5000 in the bank then the holiday uses up a fifth of your income but if you have £100,000 in the bank it uses up 1%Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Well no ****ing shit. That's not evil, that's not Tory scum stuff, that's the real world. You somehow want wealthier people to be charged £1000 a day for care instead of £100 so they all end up with nothing? What is it you want?
The fact is, before, poorer people could lose nearly everything, now they don't. Problem is the kind of people who produce this far-left guff are typically so bloody middle class nowadays, so absent from economic reality that they have no idea what happens on the ground and thus think graphics like that are damning.
Does my head in.
What else could explain why people would possibly have a different opinion to Doucus other than the fact that they are inherently stupid and unable to think for themselves and are totally controlled by the media though?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Obviously he is immune to it, but everyone else...completely controlled!
Not so sure about that. The amount of people who repeat verbatim slogans, headlines and sound bites when asked their opinion is not a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Typically rational and well thought out response.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Does a wealthy person pay more for their child's state education than a poorer person, does a wealthy person pay for more their NHS care than a poorer person, does a wealthy person pay more for policing in their area compared to a poorer person. Do I need to go on?
With this system we will have a progressive system of taxation for healthcare until you reach old age when effectively (for the vast majority) a flat tax kicks in. It is clear that governments of the UK are not keen to tax accumulated wealth in the way they do income, this is driven by lord knows what but isnt sustainable given current economic patterns and therefore is entirely irrational.
Sorry your response is flawed because the original graphic is flawedQuote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
The aim of the change to care costs is to create a sustainable means of caring for people in older age and ensure no one is left destitute. If you have no money or assets well below £100,000 you WILL pay far LESS than a wealthy person.
This graphic picks the figure of £100,000 precisely to enrage you. It's the political BBC at its worst. Why doesn't it show someone with £30,000 in assets? Or £1 in assets ? It is they who benefit most from this.
Or would you rather the person on £100,000 in assets pay nothing until the person with £500,000 has seen theirs reduced to the same amount? Let me tell you, you'll never see that money because no child will see their parents life work be spent on someone else for nothing.
Would you? A terraced house in North Cardiff can cost £350,000. You happy for your parent to give it all away so the person in a £100,000 house in Merthyr doesn't have to?
The money will disappear and the system will fail.
This new plan ensures care be paid for and people will be left with something to pass on to their kids. It's the best way of paying for elderly care in hundreds of years. Perfect no, but you come up with a better system.
Maybe you can answer in good faith for once and explain how my post is 'flawed'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I will answer your points so that this thread doesn't turn into two people barking their own monologues, you should probably do the same.
Somewhat fair point, but then again it doesn't show the higher end of the wealth bell curve either. Is it political for them not to show how millionaires fair under the system too? I'd imagine in 2021, the groups are actually pretty similar in size.Quote:
This graphic picks the figure of £100,000 precisely to enrage you. It's the political BBC at its worst. Why doesn't it show someone with £30,000 in assets? Or £1 in assets ? It is they who benefit most from this.
Could we possibly have protected the poorest without protecting millionaires at the same time? I can't see why not, maybe you can tell me why not.
In short yes (and your example describes my parents situation quite well in terms of their level of property wealth).Quote:
Would you? A terraced house in North Cardiff can cost £350,000. You happy for your parent to give it all away so the person in a £100,000 house in Merthyr doesn't have to?
What this policy effectively says is a person should pay a maximum of 86000 for their own care regardless of wealth and from then, other forms of taxation will be used to pay for it. I don't agree with the principle of an absolute cap/flat rate and I dont agree that working people who are struggling should prop up somebody who is well off by paying for their care so that they can pass their house on to their 50+ year old children when they die.
If your 'lifes work' is accruing property wealth then I feel sorry for you. The point doesn't really add up anyway. We live in a country where the majority of people are taxed quite heavily on earned income (even more so because of these reforms). We will pay for care somehow and shielding people with wealth from paying for their own, just means somebody else has to pay for it, it comes out of another pot.Quote:
Or would you rather the person on £100,000 in assets pay nothing until the person with £500,000 has seen theirs reduced to the same amount? Let me tell you, you'll never see that money because no child will see their parents life work be spent on someone else for nothing
You can talk about this proposal being sustainable but that depends on so many different factors that it is complete guess work at this point. What isnt guess work is that the property wealth amongst the old age groups is climbing and wages are mostly not rising in line with inflation. Unchecked, that itself puts pressures on our economic model, we probably need to find fair ways to access that wealth in order to ease the tax burden on working people.
Thanks for the response. I genuinely suspect that like a lot of activists you don't actually want a solution though, as it would prevent an opportunity for a political argument.
This isn't perfect but it is the best system for hundreds of years and vastly better for those with low levels of wealth. (Again, bafflingly that post now decides for the benefit of the graphic that the poorest are people with £100,000 in assets!)
Your starting point really should be more amicable towards the proposals in my opinion. It's just party politics that prevents you doing that. Free yourself of that burden!
Or at least outline properly an alternative, so people can pick holes in that.
This is a pretty good summary atm
https://order-order.com/2021/11/23/l...d-social-care/
Or indeed that the richest only have 500k??Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I don't even know where to start with your post but how about this, if you are going to denounce party politics, maybe don't back that up by posting a party political article from a well known biased internet shit rag. Plenty of conservative MPs couldn't bring themselves to vote for the bill, if you wanted to not be party political you could ask them why they chose that route.
Your assumptions about me are completely wrong, notice how I haven't made any assumptions about you or your motivations.
It's a verbatim video from Sky News. If you only watch news from sources you approve of you won't get the full picture. You should watch the video as it's wholly relevant. It's easy to nitpick but it's bloody hard to govern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Sorry for any assumptions, that was wrong of me, but that is how it comes across. This is a big step forward that is a big movement in the right direction. One can argue it doesnt go far enough but it is a sea change and a positive move and people really should see it like that (unless you approve of people losing almost all their savings?)
It really does read a lot that people supportive of the opposition do not want things to succeed or do not want to see progress made if it isnt under their terms.
James you are sort of missing the point. Many conservative MPs couldn't support this proposal despite almost always voting with the government on every other issue, don't you want to know why? I don't really care what Labour's proposal is until they have one and they probably won't have one until they are in government because you don't win elections by being honest. You think 'well what are Labour going to do??!' is some big gotcha because you have decided I am some politicised left wing activist, I am not and therefore it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
I disagree, I don't see it as a big step forward. I do not have much in way of savings, live in rented accommodation and will inherit more of my parents wealth as a result of this bill, but I still don't support it because it is prioritises preserving generational wealth over what is best for the country which is accessing it and distributing it via progressive taxation. I will make it really simple, I don't feel entitled to my parents accumulated wealth and I think it is counter intuitive to build our funding model around the premise that inherited wealth is a good thing for the nation as a whole.
My understanding is that somr Tory MPs, generally in working class areas, voted against due to a change in the legislation which made it less palatable, especially in terms of how the media and opposition framed it. They were, of course, safe in the knowledge the legislation would pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
I would also agree with you on progressive taxation etc. I am in favour it as opposed to regressive taxes such as VAT etc.
It doesnt change the basic principle here however. Social care needs paying for. It's a can that has been kicked down the road for years and causes emotional and financial heartache for thousands of families every year and is a massive contribution towards many elderly feeling they are a burden.
It is probably impossible to find a perfect solution to something as grossly imperfect and unjust as caring for the sick or old, but this is the closest we have come to it and it is a massive step forward and hopefully prevents the endless politicisation of it. Remember this ridiculousness? How many have had finances wiped out needlessly in the last four years because of that? https://www.theguardian.com/society/...tive-manifesto
My suspicion is that were the exact same policy put forward by a different party then you would be in favour, recognising, imperfect that it is, that it is a step forward and gives more security to the poorest in old age, which it manifestly does compared to the system that is currently in place and has been for years
'Less palatable' in what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
From what I heard, a lot of those who abstained rather than voted against did so because they were very confident the bill in its current form wouldn't make it past the next stage in the Lords. It won't be changed enough for me to support it but I think the new way of calculating the cap (that the gov tried to slip in without telling anybody) will be removed.
That probably says more about your approach to political discourse than mine. I supported May's policy as it created provision for people to access wealth held in their homes to pay for social care (i.e. what I have said in almost every post in this thread), unfortunately CCHQ wrecked it after she started nose-diving in the polls.Quote:
My suspicion is that were the exact same policy put forward by a different party then you would be in favour, recognising, imperfect that it is, that it is a step forward and gives more security to the poorest in old age, which it manifestly does compared to the system that is currently in place and has been for years
NHS , Social Care and immigration are political football and enjoyed by parties as weapons of argument to supplement ones political view , my guess is if your ran a business you'd find a different way to fund them that favours you .
Is that meant to be directed at me? I have already said I stand to benefit from the proposals and still do not agree with them so that doesn't really make any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
LOM not making sense? :yikes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
No not at all, just a at statement really for anyone ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Wherever I leave my at, that's my ome.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Hope you left food for your atQuote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie