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

Hillingdon, do you think your df should also use his equity to pay if he needs cancer care or surgery on the NHS?

I know people keep making this point, but it is an interesting question. If this is a good policy, why do we think any pensioner (or indeed any person) with a property (minus mortgage) worth more than £100k, get any 'free stuff'?

I agree about the scare mongering. If that LBC caller wants to stay in the house and its worth in excess of whatever the inheritance tax threashold then quite rightly I am afraid she needs to consider her options.

It was rather a strange example to use tbh.

Avocado quite often the primary carer lives in the home (a relative), and this is supplemented by social care, including respite care. There will be things a relative may not be able to do (lifting for example).

That's asking them to pitch in and reducing inequality by reducing the size of inheritance to their children.

Have you looked at the amount of wealth we are talking about when we say the top 1%??

I think if we start to try and charge older people for prescriptions, cancer care etc because they have equity in their house where will it end. DF only has a small pension, he is also a hoarder. Don't want to go into too much detail but you literally cannot get through the front door. SS have said he is of sound mind and if he chooses to live like that its up to him.

So, although I have suggested he sell up and buy something smaller the task is just too big. So, he lives in one room and the rest is full of old newspapers and such like. He says he is clearing through it but he isn't. It will be left to the family to clear the house when the time comes.

So, this £100k care option is simple. You can stay in the house and so can your partner but when you both die the government will expect to charge you for the care you will have received (less the £100k limit)

Sympathies Hillingdon, that sounds very difficult (the hoarding). These things are not easy!

A sobering read about the challenge any government will face with respect to social care:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/performance-tracker-spring-2017/adult-social-care

makeourfuture
I think if we all pull together we can!
THAT is the point.

We ARE all pulling together. There STILL isn't enough money. The NHS STILL needs massive restructuring to even touch the sides.

This magical revolution hasn't happened because people are living far, far longer than they were ever expected to, and are surviving illnesses and injuries that would have killed them off until only very recently - all of that comes at a massive and completely unforeseeable cost from when the Service was born.

Just expecting a nebulous idea of "the rich" to pay [over and above what they already do] for it is fantasy. Your wishes are noble, for sure. But they aren't realistic.

Is everyone ok with the putting disabled people to work bit?

That should entirely depend on whether someone is genuinely capable of work or not. I absolutely appreciate there are cases where the assessors get it wrong and of course that should be challenged, but I don't disagree with the principle of helping the disabled into work

On a personal note I have a severely disabled son, which to some probably makes me almost insane for voting conservative this time. But down the years, my experience has been that every artificial barrier put up against us, every mulish refusal to help and every mindless cry of "it's the cuuuuuts" instead of a willingness to look at things more creatively has come from those appointed under Labour

Apologies for offering what will probably be an unpopular experience, but there it is

"it's the cuuuuuts"

Well....

Surprisingly enough, makeourfuture, the fact that someone whines doesn't necessarily mean that the circumstances are the result of so-called cuts

At least IME it can very often mean that they're just not doing their job properly and, rather than take any responsibility, are looking for someone else to blame

Their manifesto won't make me vote Tory (for all kinds of other reasons such as historical failures to produce growth-led economies, appalling foreign and Brexit politics etc etc etc) but personally believe May is to be applauded for proposing that wealthier individuals should make a greater contribution for the funding of their old age care In this way. What is profoundly depressing is that there is no acknowledgement of the differences in quality, the ginormous costs involved for paying for quality or that there should be any space for some choice - if you want to die at home and not in a care home or hospital, what options are available. Wealthier individuals have those choices anyway. And if you do want to die at home, and currently own a house (but are below the savings threshold), you do not have to pay for care, but in the new system you will? The changes don't just affect residential care costs (where a house is taken into account now anyway) or have I misunderstood?

Havent read the whole thread but...

On the "bashing the pensioners" thing - I am glad TM has grapsed the nettle on this one. There are very many pension age people who do not need heating allowance, bus pass etc including my parents who have 2 brand new cars and live on a gold plated guaranteed forces pension which put them in the 40% tax bracket. They spend the winter fuel allowance on nice wine FFS. And isn't it oronic that left leaning politicians who rail against inherited wealth suddenly start squealing about people potentially not being able to leave an inheritance greater than £100k to the next generation!

The social welfare system was created in a time when people only lived 10 years or so after retirement, now it can be 20-30 years. Something has to change, and the current working age population should not be required to subsidise their elders based only upon them being old - means testing is the only way to make things fairer

On the subject of care homes and inheritances, can I also just mention - in case it's of use to anyone - that passing over assets while you're still alive may be problematic, but doing it through a will is not

So if a senior couple live together and have children, it can be arranged for one spouse's assets to be left to the DC(s) on the first death and then kept in trust for the remaining parent until they too have passed, when it reverts to the beneficiaries. Because the "deprivation of assets" thing doesn't apply where they've been disposed of via a will, this effectively keeps them out of the hands of Social Services

Obviously the legislation around this could be changed in future, but anyway this is the case for now

YABU

1. Dementia Tax
2. Lunch snatcher 3 Brexit

I like Tim Farron

@homebythesea my dad has the same. My dad has a state, government, Forces and UN pension. Firmly does not need winter fuel allowance and ends up spending it on wine or pipe tobacco.

He earns more retired than Dh and I combined now!

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online

I really do not think its right that family carers could face homelessness when an elderly parent dies.

Carers are being treated like second class citezens.

So im guessing disabled people and carers can expect to be censored over speaking out about things like PIP Alec.

I really do not think its right that family carers could face homelessness when an elderly parent dies.

They will have 100k.

Please note that in the manifesto there was NO pledge not to put up taxes and National insurance. May will have to put these up to pay the deficit on care costs and to insure people get their £100000. So the taxpaper will foot the sky high care bills and the people getting their 100k. There is no cap now on how much care can cost so who the hell do you think will pay for it? The ordinary working class people of this country that's who.

Lol piglet x

puzzled mmmm....isn't the intention behind the setting up of trusts, instructions in wills etc, a very strong element in assessing deprivation of assets? How does anyone make the assumption that they won't need to pay care costs when they are old? Instead of a wealthy person trying to avoid them, why not accept responsibility for paying them!

Look on the bright side - with Antibiotics losing their efficacy the population may be vastly reduced over the next decade or so.........

I really do not think its right that family carers could face homelessness when an elderly parent dies

You're right of course, but then up to a point they're free to put things in place to make sure that doesn't happen

As in my example above - which incidentally was from the standpoint of arrangements made by my ex PILs - there are often options available to those who are prepared to take advice