To consider the Conservatives' manifesto pretty decent on the whole?

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Pretty decent in terms in principles, that is ... as so often with manifestos it's too thin on costings

Main points here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

Full version here: www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Make, that's all speculation at the moment - nothing has been announced other than that the less well off will be better off.

Hell that makes me more nervous!

People are bringing up valid concerns here about how this will actually pan out.

And as just mentioned on another thread, isn't this all really about the broken housing system?

Cost of care at present is £22 to £24 an hour on average for one carer. Work out the figures yourselves. The Tory businessmen in the insurance industry are going to make an absolute fortune out of everyone. Invest in them it will give you more assets to pay for your care.

Well if wealthy pensioners start to downsize in anticipation of having to spend the excess value of their house on future care costs & sell their buy-to-let nest eggs too then that will solve a great deal of the current housing crisis.

If they downsize earlier they can release the excess to give their kids their 'inheritance' pre death (or release the excess and spend it on cruises) either way, it's more money released into the economy than being purely conceptual (i.e. how much their house may or may not be worth).

makeourfuture
Complicated isn't it?
Why not what Beveridge said:
We each contribute and then when we need it, it is taken care of.
Social insurance.

Really? You don't see how this is exactly what has been happening up till now and how the massive and growing need is absolutely crippling the insufficient and competitively shrinking contributions?

I am astonished you think it is so simple and that you think you are the first person to think of it that way

Well if wanting a system where we all (bankers too) contribute and can age and die with dignity makes me a simpleton....

Call me a simpleton.

A carer discussing the new proposals

Sostenueto - are you really really not understanding that:

EVERYONE GETS £100K ALLOWANCE TO PASS TO ANYONE THAT THEY LIKE WHEN THEY DIE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR CARE COST

Why do you keep insisting that it is not correct!! Of course in the future the government might reduce that £100k. I suspect that is what you are getting at. But as of today that is NOT the case.

The bloody Government cannot afford care for all now. They will not be able to afford it in 5, 10 15 years etc. It has always been since the Tory Government came into power, to gradually withdraw funds from social care to allow its privatisation. It is not feasable in their minds to continue as it is. Their solution is not a universal one. There will be the lucky ones who will never need care and their children will get their inheritance. But the majority will not. The system set up by Bevan was meant to be a universal one. A system for all. That has never been the Tory intent and will never be their intent despite their rhetoric about targeting funds for the most needy. Soon we will be asked to take out an insurance in your 20s to cover your care costs in the future just as you will in the very near future under a Tory Government have to take out health insurance when the NHS is completely run down to AE being the only service given free. That is the real reality behind Tory policies.

"What's going to happen to me, Mrs May? Where are you Theresa May? What's going to happen to me?"

Dear lord, what have we become?

Make - don't fall into the cliche of "make the bankers pay". They do via PAYE. Had you said "simplify international tax rules in partnership with other countries for internet based corporates so that they pay their fair share of tax " I'd have agreed with you

Look at the evidence - the top 1% now pay 27% of all income tax
Top half of households pay 78% of tax receipts

The basic rate of income tax has been 20% since 2008 and the higher rate has been 40% for longer than that. There have been additional rates introduced but they do not affect middle and low earners.

In 2010, the income tax personal allowance, which is the amount you are allowed to earn before paying any income tax, was £6,475. This year it is £11,500. That has clearly risen considerably faster than inflation, so for people paying the basic rate of income tax there has been a tax cut, while a higher proportion of low earners are not paying income tax at all.

The level of income at which people start paying the higher rate of income tax has not been rising as fast as the personal allowance, in fact it has fallen in some years since 2010, but only about 15% of income taxpayers pay higher rate, so they probably do not count as being low or middle earners.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/26/barely-more-than-half-of-adults-pay-income-tax-says-report

The system set up by Bevan was meant to be a universal one.

Yes it was. That was however a very long time ago.

The countries demographics, medical treatment has now changed and people are living a lot longer.

It has over the years been miss managed by all parties.

I saw that link to LBC. Are we saying that a carer looking after an elderly mother is entitled to stay in that house after her mother passes away? What if the house is worth £500k, £1 m. Are they still entitled to stay in the house? Is that was is being suggested? They will have £100k though but I think what Dawn is stating is why should she need to move.

Unless I have missed the whole point of the call!

Two,

The top group's wealth has soared following the (not for them) crash.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/15/how-super-rich-got-richer-10-shocking-facts-inequality

cradle to grave NHS and pensions were setup when people died at about 68 after 3 years of retirement.

Some have retired in their 50s these days and could be retired for longer than they had a working life.

Make isn't going to understand anything except make everyone pay more tax!

Make isn't going to understand anything except make everyone pay more tax!

They have done very well out of this mess. I don't see why they wouldn't understand if we asked them to pitch in a little more. The rest of us have.

makeourfuture Well if wanting a system where we all (bankers too) contribute and can age and die with dignity makes me a simpleton....

Wanting it is one thing. We all want it to be lovely and funded and for everyone to have all the cradle to grave care we need till our cups runneth over.

But in reality, we can't afford it. That's the whole point.

I so agree with PP. NHS was set up for people to die much younger. We now need to review it. Older people haven't necessarily paid in all that is needed to cover their care. What they have been able to do is buy houses with little effort (compared to today!) and see the value of those house shoot up. My parents are two cases in point. DF brought his house for £6k in the 1960's It is now worth over £1 million. If he needs care he needs to tap into that equity.

I don't want/expect that money. Why is it something that I feel I should be entitled to? Its his to fund HIS care. He was lucky but we cannot expect the 'state' (as in the tax payers) to fund his care should he need it.

Are we saying that a carer looking after an elderly mother is entitled to stay in that house after her mother passes away?

If a 'child' is caring for their parent then the state isn't paying for that care and no charges are made against the house. Therefore the carer would still inherit the house. Also the carer would have many years of rent free living so can save up that money to buy their own home.

So much scare mongering around about a very fair way to fund care.

But in reality, we can't afford it. That's the whole point.

I think if we all pull together we can!

THAT is the point.

sos the NHS system was set up after 2 wars had brought the adult population crashing down. There was no ageing population to consider then. Things can't stagnate while the world and the people in it change. Somehow we have to adapt and I think that's a sad truth but one we need to accept nonetheless.

The top group's wealth has soared

This is due to the vast increase in the value of assets - such as property. Let's use this value to fund cash needs now, such as social care.

That's asking them to pitch in and reducing inequality by reducing the size of inheritance to their children. If I inherit the value of my parents house, I could use that to buy each of my children a flat, outright. The value hasn't been created by hard work....just by luck.

I agree the Govt needs to crack down on the super rich from abroad buying up houses and leaving them empty - no amount of stamp duty or other taxes that have been added seem to be stopping this. We should introduce residency criteria and charge a high annual fee in addition to higher purchase taxes for them.

So the carer in question gave up her job to care for her mum - very noble - but should in return be permitted to stay put?

If she's caring for her mum, then surely the point is that her mum doesn't need care costs

But we keep coming back to this house value question. Is it the real issue?