9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?

[Vizsla]

sidicks said:

Vizsla said:

I can't remember any party having the slogan 'pay more tax for a better NHS' or for that matter anything else which even hinted at the need to pay more taxes. Spend more, certainly, but tax more to pay for it, political suicide. It might be a vote winner with the non-taxpayer minority, but it would scare the hell out of every taxpayer! Or are you suggesting that non-taxpayers are the majority of voters?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/16/poll-raise-taxes-nhs-funding

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-96659/Labo...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labo...

Etc

Well, that's what people say when asked in a poll, all very altruistic, but I suspect that may not be the case when it comes to the crunch at General Election time. If the poll is correct (and I would like to think it is), then maybe we will see 'pay more tax for a better NHS' slogans in the future, but somehow I doubt it.

Re the old Labour (?New Labour ) promises, fair enough, I obviously didn't pay enough attention to their witterings at the time (did anybody?).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jockman said:

Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Good. If you stand to inherit from your parents, that's great, but surely you can look after them. If you don't want to look after them, that's also fine, but then the money for someone else to do it comes out of your inheritance.

Why should the state pay for my care when I can pay for it myself, just so my grown up kids can come into hundreds of thousands of pounds? If they want the money, they can wipe my bottom and change my nappy.

[Jockman]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Jockman said:

Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Good. If you stand to inherit from your parents, that's great, but surely you can look after them. If you don't want to look after them, that's also fine, but then the money for someone else to do it comes out of your inheritance.

Why should the state pay for my care when I can pay for it myself, just so my grown up kids can come into hundreds of thousands of pounds? If they want the money, they can wipe my bottom and change my nappy.

My parents are already looked after. Thanks for your concern.

[sidicks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Good. If you stand to inherit from your parents, that's great, but surely you can look after them. If you don't want to look after them, that's also fine, but then the money for someone else to do it comes out of your inheritance.

Why should the state pay for my care when I can pay for it myself, just so my grown up kids can come into hundreds of thousands of pounds? If they want the money, they can wipe my bottom and change my nappy.

Why should the state pay for those that didn't bother to save for themselves?

[walm]

sidicks said:

Why should the state pay for those that didn't bother to save for themselves?

Because for some it isn't "didn't bother" but COULDN'T for perfectly valid reasons.
Sorting out one from the other is too hard and we don't really want old people dying on the streets.
So everyone has access to some form of help, if they need it.

No?

[sidicks]

walm said:

sidicks said:

Why should the state pay for those that didn't bother to save for themselves?

Because for some it isn't "didn't bother" but COULDN'T for perfectly valid reasons.

Indeed, and that's why I only referred to those who didn't bother and made no comment on those that couldn't..

walm said:

Sorting out one from the other is too hard and we don't really want old people dying on the streets.
So everyone has access to some form of help, if they need it.

No?

Is penalising the prudent the best way to achieve that?

[walm]

sidicks said:

Is penalising the prudent the best way to achieve that?

I know what you mean.
And if they were lovely cushy homes with 24-7 fluffy bunnies and a Victoria's Secret model for sponge baths, maybe.

As it is, I think you will be wanting to do some saving for old age!

[sidicks]

walm said:

I know what you mean.
And if they were lovely cushy homes with 24-7 fluffy bunnies and a Victoria's Secret model for sponge baths, maybe.

As it is, I think you will be wanting to do some saving for old age!

So if you don't bother to save for old age, the state will look after you.

But if you do bother to make prudent provision then the state won't help you (until your provision runs out) and if you're provision doesn't run out then the state will tax you afterwards..,

The incentivisation is all wrong (but I'm not sure what the most appropriate and affordable solution is!).

[walm]

sidicks said:

walm said:

I know what you mean.
And if they were lovely cushy homes with 24-7 fluffy bunnies and a Victoria's Secret model for sponge baths, maybe.

As it is, I think you will be wanting to do some saving for old age!

So if you don't bother to save for old age, the state will look after you.

But if you do bother to make prudent provision then the state won't help you (until your provision runs out) and if you're provision doesn't run out then the state will tax you afterwards..,

The incentivisation is all wrong (but I'm not sure what the most appropriate and affordable solution is!).

Good summary!

[Jockman]

walm said:

sidicks said:

walm said:

I know what you mean.
And if they were lovely cushy homes with 24-7 fluffy bunnies and a Victoria's Secret model for sponge baths, maybe.

As it is, I think you will be wanting to do some saving for old age!

So if you don't bother to save for old age, the state will look after you.

But if you do bother to make prudent provision then the state won't help you (until your provision runs out) and if you're provision doesn't run out then the state will tax you afterwards..,

The incentivisation is all wrong (but I'm not sure what the most appropriate and affordable solution is!).

Good summary!

Agreed. The incentivisation to many in that position is to NOT follow the rules.

[Welshbeef]

Vizsla said:

Welshbeef said:

Jockman said:

I don't know anyone with that size of liability who doesn't have a plan.

Remember the future is a moving object. Plans need to be reviewed regularly. Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Care homes £70k MIn a year for 2 then add on normal living costs above than and gobble gobble before you know it its all gone.

Yep, being alive costs! I know many people who are outraged that one has to pay Care Home costs out of ones assets ('it's not fair, why be prudent when wastrels get it for free' etc), but how many would be willing to pay higher income tax or hugely increased NI contributions during their working life so that Care Homes are 'free' to all?

No tax is ever popular and we're all selfish to varying degrees: 'pay more tax for a better NHS' is never going to be a vote winner as most people are not ill most of the time, but oh my, how it's suddenly a big issue when they need it.

It's not fair when one part of the U.K. (Scotland) gives it for free yet nowhere else does. They don't tax people more instead they run a much higher deficit than rUK so rUK pay for their own care home costs personally and then pay for the Scottish.


That's fair - partly explains why in the referendum vote for Scottish Independance the OAPs voted significantly to stay they know that they have a good deal which cannot be sustained on splitting.

[Mr Whippy]

Welshbeef said:

Jockman said:

I don't know anyone with that size of liability who doesn't have a plan.

Remember the future is a moving object. Plans need to be reviewed regularly. Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Care homes £70k MIn a year for 2 then add on normal living costs above than and gobble gobble before you know it its all gone.

£70k?

Jeez.

Sustainable. Not.

[ClaphamGT3]

I

Mr Whippy said:

Welshbeef said:

Jockman said:

I don't know anyone with that size of liability who doesn't have a plan.

Remember the future is a moving object. Plans need to be reviewed regularly. Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Care homes £70k MIn a year for 2 then add on normal living costs above than and gobble gobble before you know it its all gone.

£70k?

Jeez.

Sustainable. Not.

No different to sending two children to a decent boarding school

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

,
Why should the state pay for my care when I can pay for it myself, just so my grown up kids can come into hundreds of thousands of pounds? If they want the money, they can wipe my bottom and change my nappy.

Because I've already pre paid for it, several times over, through income and other taxes?

[sidicks]

ClaphamGT3 said:

No different to sending two children to a decent boarding school

But presumably with fewer games of 'soggy biscuit'...?

[ClaphamGT3]

I

Mr Whippy said:

Welshbeef said:

Jockman said:

I don't know anyone with that size of liability who doesn't have a plan.

Remember the future is a moving object. Plans need to be reviewed regularly. Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Care homes £70k MIn a year for 2 then add on normal living costs above than and gobble gobble before you know it its all gone.

£70k?

Jeez.

Sustainable. Not.

No different to sending two children to a decent boarding school

[TwigtheWonderkid]

REALIST123 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

,
Why should the state pay for my care when I can pay for it myself, just so my grown up kids can come into hundreds of thousands of pounds? If they want the money, they can wipe my bottom and change my nappy.

Because I've already pre paid for it, several times over, through income and other taxes?

Please don't tell me you actually believe that!

[turbobloke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

REALIST123 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

,
Why should the state pay for my care when I can pay for it myself, just so my grown up kids can come into hundreds of thousands of pounds? If they want the money, they can wipe my bottom and change my nappy.

Because I've already pre paid for it, several times over, through income and other taxes?

Please don't tell me you actually believe that!

ISWYM statistically but on an individual basis does it not depend on the total amount of tax paid over time, how can we on PH know the amount of tax others have handed over? Judging by some of the advertising on PH, there are more than a few Hinwis on here and some will be posting from the UK rather than Monaco.

[Mr Whippy]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I

Mr Whippy said:

Welshbeef said:

Jockman said:

I don't know anyone with that size of liability who doesn't have a plan.

Remember the future is a moving object. Plans need to be reviewed regularly. Care Home fees can wipe out many inheritances.

Care homes £70k MIn a year for 2 then add on normal living costs above than and gobble gobble before you know it its all gone.

£70k?

Jeez.

Sustainable. Not.

No different to sending two children to a decent boarding school

Well it's completely different.

The two kids get an education they use for the rest of their lives.

The old people get food and board while waiting to die.

It'd be cheaper to rent them a nice house at the coast where lots of other old people live, and pay a specialist nurse £35k a year *just* to look after your parents.


Jeez I bet it almost works out cheaper to go on 24/7 cruises!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mr Whippy said:

Jeez I bet it almost works out cheaper to go on 24/7 cruises!

There are people that do this, live on board all year long, even when in dock between cruises. Get a good discount too for booking multiple cruises in advance. And get treated like a customer, not a patient.

Although the ship will provide medical cover, they normally charge back for it so you need travel insurance too which adds to the price. But if you can afford it, why not?