Would you vote in favour of raising taxes?

[Moonhawk]

herewego said:

How does that relate to 16%?

Sorry you are right - brain fart moment - it's actually closer to 60%.

[MKnight702]

What I would like to know is, given the 71% rise in effective levels of funding, why services are so poor or have services expanded by 71% as well. If that's true then we should see 71% more busses/routes, 71% more teachers, 71% more refuse collections. Do I? Do I feck.

So, can someone please tell me where all this extra income, that ultimately we pay for, went??? My guess is effectively, efficiently and economically pee'd up the wall.

[PurpleMoonlight]

MKnight702 said:

What I would like to know is, given the 71% rise in effective levels of funding, why services are so poor or have services expanded by 71% as well. If that's true then we should see 71% more busses/routes, 71% more teachers, 71% more refuse collections. Do I? Do I feck.

So, can someone please tell me where all this extra income, that ultimately we pay for, went??? My guess is effectively, efficiently and economically pee'd up the wall.

It was likely spent on non-jobs and vanity projects.

[98elise]

markcoznottz said:

98elise said:

markcoznottz said:

Murph7355 said:

markcoznottz said:

Never enough for marxists though is it, even though you've paid as much if not more tax than the other guy, if he has pissed his savings against a pub wall, and lives in council housing, he gets everything paid for.

I'm torn on that one as I fully empathise with your argument...but then people sat on houses worth 100s of thousands and then needing state care and passing tha home on to kids instead of paying for themselves doesn't feel sensible.

Maybe it comes down to the safety net rather than blanket argument. State provided care should be more basic than Tesco Value. If you then want more, pay for it.

They have already payed for that care though, but as you say it should be basic, and if you want enhanced care then pay for it, like an upgrade. The size of someone's house is not the states business.

You already only get basic care. If your care home costs more than the basic cost, then you will have to pay one way or another. until recently we had both parents in law in care homes, and both required "Top Up" payments.

But would there be people sat alongside your PIL's , (say same age similar ailments/ physical condition etc), who ended up in the same home with no top up payments i.e. No means to pay at all?

I doubt it. You have to find a place, you apply, and you pay. If you can't pay you need to find one with no top ups. Care homes are under no obligation to take in people. MIL and FIL had nothing to their name, so social services expected us to pay, it was as simple as that.

At one stage the MIL went into hospital and her care home refused to have her back because she was prone to falls. It was then down to us to find a new home, and that proved very difficult. You have to find the space, and get the home to accept them. That includes how you pay.

All the time we couldn't get a care home to take her, she was in a hospital bed. We were having to apply for home 30-40 miles from us as we were getting desperate.

They have both since died, and we have bills in the 1000's to pay. That's people who lived in a council house and lived on state pension only.

[anonymous-user]

98elise said:

markcoznottz said:

98elise said:

markcoznottz said:

Murph7355 said:

markcoznottz said:

Never enough for marxists though is it, even though you've paid as much if not more tax than the other guy, if he has pissed his savings against a pub wall, and lives in council housing, he gets everything paid for.

I'm torn on that one as I fully empathise with your argument...but then people sat on houses worth 100s of thousands and then needing state care and passing tha home on to kids instead of paying for themselves doesn't feel sensible.

Maybe it comes down to the safety net rather than blanket argument. State provided care should be more basic than Tesco Value. If you then want more, pay for it.

They have already payed for that care though, but as you say it should be basic, and if you want enhanced care then pay for it, like an upgrade. The size of someone's house is not the states business.

You already only get basic care. If your care home costs more than the basic cost, then you will have to pay one way or another. until recently we had both parents in law in care homes, and both required "Top Up" payments.

But would there be people sat alongside your PIL's , (say same age similar ailments/ physical condition etc), who ended up in the same home with no top up payments i.e. No means to pay at all?

I doubt it. You have to find a place, you apply, and you pay. If you can't pay you need to find one with no top ups. Care homes are under no obligation to take in people. MIL and FIL had nothing to their name, so social services expected us to pay, it was as simple as that.

At one stage the MIL went into hospital and her care home refused to have her back because she was prone to falls. It was then down to us to find a new home, and that proved very difficult. You have to find the space, and get the home to accept them. That includes how you pay.

All the time we couldn't get a care home to take her, she was in a hospital bed. We were having to apply for home 30-40 miles from us as we were getting desperate.

They have both since died, and we have bills in the 1000's to pay. That's people who lived in a council house and lived on state pension only.

Seems odd that you 'were expected to pay'. If the 'patients' have no money I understood it was up to the authority to find them a place within the agreed amount, keep them in hospital or pay the top up themselves.

We've been looking at places for the MIL at between £800 and £1000 a week. The LA agreed figure is £480 odd. Of course until all the MIL's assets are gone they won't pay anything. Children paying the top up won't take long to run up a huge bill and it's not a sound move IMO, you may well need that money, and more, to look after yourself.

[98elise]

REALIST123 said:

98elise said:

markcoznottz said:

98elise said:

markcoznottz said:

Murph7355 said:

markcoznottz said:

Never enough for marxists though is it, even though you've paid as much if not more tax than the other guy, if he has pissed his savings against a pub wall, and lives in council housing, he gets everything paid for.

I'm torn on that one as I fully empathise with your argument...but then people sat on houses worth 100s of thousands and then needing state care and passing tha home on to kids instead of paying for themselves doesn't feel sensible.

Maybe it comes down to the safety net rather than blanket argument. State provided care should be more basic than Tesco Value. If you then want more, pay for it.

They have already payed for that care though, but as you say it should be basic, and if you want enhanced care then pay for it, like an upgrade. The size of someone's house is not the states business.

You already only get basic care. If your care home costs more than the basic cost, then you will have to pay one way or another. until recently we had both parents in law in care homes, and both required "Top Up" payments.

But would there be people sat alongside your PIL's , (say same age similar ailments/ physical condition etc), who ended up in the same home with no top up payments i.e. No means to pay at all?

I doubt it. You have to find a place, you apply, and you pay. If you can't pay you need to find one with no top ups. Care homes are under no obligation to take in people. MIL and FIL had nothing to their name, so social services expected us to pay, it was as simple as that.

At one stage the MIL went into hospital and her care home refused to have her back because she was prone to falls. It was then down to us to find a new home, and that proved very difficult. You have to find the space, and get the home to accept them. That includes how you pay.

All the time we couldn't get a care home to take her, she was in a hospital bed. We were having to apply for home 30-40 miles from us as we were getting desperate.

They have both since died, and we have bills in the 1000's to pay. That's people who lived in a council house and lived on state pension only.

Seems odd that you 'were expected to pay'. If the 'patients' have no money I understood it was up to the authority to find them a place within the agreed amount, keep them in hospital or pay the top up themselves.

We've been looking at places for the MIL at between £800 and £1000 a week. The LA agreed figure is £480 odd. Of course until all the MIL's assets are gone they won't pay anything. Children paying the top up won't take long to run up a huge bill and it's not a sound move IMO, you may well need that money, and more, to look after yourself.

The local council were not paying our top up, and we were the ones looking for a home, not the LA

We had to apply, sit on a waiting list, then wait for an assessment, which in most cases they said no as she needs too much care. It got to the point where I was about to fo to the papers or our MP.