Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
Sorry your response is flawed because the original graphic is flawed

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'.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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?
In short yes (and your example describes my parents situation quite well in terms of their level of property wealth).

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.

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
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.

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.