Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
Typically rational and well thought out response.

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 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.