John52 Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 Looks like another broken promise on the way https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/16/no-10-hammers-out-plan-to-fix-uk-social-care-system-with-tax-rise but we are asked to believe its to pay for social care *-) (which I thought would cost less after all the covid Hancock sent into care homes to polish them off) .. not the private jets and royal yacht, more Eton cronies appointed to the house of lords, public coffers raided for crony contracts & defending michael gove for awarding them etc Seems we aren't supposed to think who the money for that comes from *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 17, 2021 Author Share Posted July 17, 2021 Johnson said: “Now we have the majority we need, we are going to get on with this so people can get the care they need in their old age but don’t have to sell their home.” When they move home, people usually sell their old home and use the proceeds to pay for a new one. So when they move out of their old home into a care home, why do they expect me to pay for the new one, so they can keep the old one? Surely the least worst time to pay tax is when you die and don't need the money any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM Surely the least worst time to pay tax is when you die and don't need the money any more? Unless you have young people in your family who are unable to buy their own houses ? You could always pass your money to them. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 17, 2021 Author Share Posted July 17, 2021 malc d - 2021-07-17 12:44 PM John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM Surely the least worst time to pay tax is when you die and don't need the money any more? Unless you have young people in your family who are unable to buy their own houses ? You could always pass your money to them. :-| Which only increases inequality. But then Her Unelected Majesty The Queen stands as an example to us all THat however clever you are,and however hard you work, you will never be as well off as those who simply inherit their fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 17, 2021 Author Share Posted July 17, 2021 But the point I was trying to make is Tax rises are always presented as being for Social Care, Education, NHS or whatever. Never for appointing more of Johnson's Eton cronies to the House of Lords, World Beating Test & trace, or over priced useless PPE So I don't know where the money for that comes from *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 The wealthy need to start paying more tax.......a LOT more. How is it possible during this pandemic the only sector to have profited and gained more wealth is the wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 18, 2021 Author Share Posted July 18, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-07-17 8:25 PM How is it possible during this pandemic the only sector to have profited and gained more wealth is the wealthy? Because Brexit scuppered the chance of an EU wide tax treaty getting into Her Majesty's Tax Havens and making the £billionaire media owners pay tax. Why else would they con the likes of pelmet into voting leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM...................................... When they move home, people usually sell their old home and use the proceeds to pay for a new one. So when they move out of their old home into a care home, why do they expect me to pay for the new one, so they can keep the old one?......................................... And yet, if that same person becomes seriously ill, and is hospitalised, we all pay for their healthcare via taxation. Would you expect them to have to sell their home to meet the cost of their treatment? So why should those who, in old age, become frail and unable to cope for themselves be expected to fund their care? After all, many do not suffer these frailties and remain capable, but instead become ill, or suffer accidents, and end up dying in hospital. Others suffer no frailty, injury, nor illness, and die in their own beds. Is there some moral distinction between those who remain capable, those who become frail, or those who become ill or are injured, that some should have to pay for their care while the others do not? It seems to me that none of these has chosen their circumstances, so that just as with illness or serous injury, they are no more responsible for their condition in old age than any others. If the state is to shield the injured or ill from the cost of their treatment, why not those who suffer "frailties of age" at the ends of their lives? After all, those with no assets, who cannot therefore pay for their care, are cared for entirely at the state's expense. Their descendants, no matter how wealthy, are not sent the bill for their care, and there is no route for recovery of costs for those with no descendants. Much the same could be argued for the many with mental illness who do not receive state funded care. So, free at the point of need - but only to those for whom fate dealt the right hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 18, 2021 Author Share Posted July 18, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-07-18 8:35 AM John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM...................................... When they move home, people usually sell their old home and use the proceeds to pay for a new one. So when they move out of their old home into a care home, why do they expect me to pay for the new one, so they can keep the old one?......................................... And yet, if that same person becomes seriously ill, and is hospitalised, we all pay for their healthcare via taxation. Would you expect them to have to sell their home to meet the cost of their treatment? No because I would expect them to get better and go back into their home. Thats the difference. Is is fair that the taxpayer, most of whom cannot afford one home, should pay so someone else can inherit a property they have not earned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 John52 - 2021-07-18 10:26 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-07-18 8:35 AM John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM...................................... When they move home, people usually sell their old home and use the proceeds to pay for a new one. So when they move out of their old home into a care home, why do they expect me to pay for the new one, so they can keep the old one?......................................... And yet, if that same person becomes seriously ill, and is hospitalised, we all pay for their healthcare via taxation. Would you expect them to have to sell their home to meet the cost of their treatment? Is is fair that the taxpayer, most of whom cannot afford one home, should pay so someone else can inherit a property they have not earned? " Is it fair that the taxpayer, most of whom cannot afford "a home - cannot be given one, or helped to get one, by their parents ? (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 John52 - 2021-07-18 10:26 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-07-18 8:35 AM John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM...................................... When they move home, people usually sell their old home and use the proceeds to pay for a new one. So when they move out of their old home into a care home, why do they expect me to pay for the new one, so they can keep the old one?......................................... And yet, if that same person becomes seriously ill, and is hospitalised, we all pay for their healthcare via taxation. Would you expect them to have to sell their home to meet the cost of their treatment? No because I would expect them to get better and go back into their home. Thats the difference. Is is fair that the taxpayer, most of whom cannot afford one home, should pay so someone else can inherit a property they have not earned? Which begs the question of who should pay for the treatment of those who do not get better? We are all born into differing circumstances, and we arrive with differing abilities, and so with potentially different earnings capabilities. As we proceed through our lives we make various decisions, some of which, if we are lucky, benefit us, others which do not. Is any of that fair? Is there, could there be, such a thing as perfect fairness for all? In the case of housing, years of careful control of supply, with periodic stokings of demand, have resulted in a level of house price inflation that has outstripped peoples' ability to buy. Underlying that is a similar level of inflation in the price of land. I think the answer, in both cases, would be the re-introduction of new towns, where land was selected for suitability, was compulsorily purchased (at fair (ish!) market prices), and was then developed with all commercial facilities to make property available at affordable prices. All we have now is a few (usually large) houses being bolted to every small town and village in the country, with little to no enhancement of local services, and the pretence that we are going to make transport green. None of it makes sense, none of it is fair to everyone. What people need is well paid jobs, so that they can afford decent housing, not denial of the very inheritance that may enable some to get decent housing in the interests of what? fairness? Where is the inherent fairness in that? Everyone loses? But is that "fair"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted July 18, 2021 Author Share Posted July 18, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-07-18 1:20 PM Is there, could there be, such a thing as perfect fairness for all? No. But should we do what we can to make it fairer Or should we make it worse by making home ownership dependent on parentage If people are denied opportunity because they weren't born of wealthy parents, that is not only unfair to them. Its bad for the country as a whole because their talents are wasted, and we get the old Etonian private school network running the country instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 John52 - 2021-07-18 2:36 PM .................. we get the old Etonian private school network running the country instead That has been decided by our system of democracy - it's the decision of the voters ( and those who can't be bothered to vote ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 John52 - 2021-07-18 10:26 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-07-18 8:35 AM John52 - 2021-07-17 10:17 AM...................................... When they move home, people usually sell their old home and use the proceeds to pay for a new one. So when they move out of their old home into a care home, why do they expect me to pay for the new one, so they can keep the old one?......................................... And yet, if that same person becomes seriously ill, and is hospitalised, we all pay for their healthcare via taxation. Would you expect them to have to sell their home to meet the cost of their treatment? No because I would expect them to get better and go back into their home. Thats the difference. Is is fair that the taxpayer, most of whom cannot afford one home, should pay so someone else can inherit a property they have not earned? The majority will return to their own home. Whether their health improves is quite another matter. My 87 year old cousin who was in ailing health prior to being hospitalised before Christmas went rapidly downhill after being discharged to the point of being bed ridden. His sons and daughters took turns in helping out until they couldn't cope and had to contact social services for help with nursing visits four times daily. He's passed away now and his children (all adults over 50) will inherit from the sale of his house. All four are tax payers so all the years prior to their father being seriously ill, they were paying for other peoples parents in the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. This is a forum debate for adults which explains why you've been unable to contribute. Just stick to your safe space in Barrys play skool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 malc d - 2021-07-18 3:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) You have a point Malc ;-) ........... Being a Positive Brexiteer means I'm naturally immune to the Whinging syndrome that appears to affect LOSER Remoaners B-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-07-19 7:36 AM malc d - 2021-07-18 3:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) You have a point Malc ;-) ........... Being a Positive Brexiteer means I'm naturally immune to the Whinging syndrome that appears to affect LOSER Remoaners B-) ........ Dave, the string is about whether people think the present financial arrangements for those in care homes, where they become wholly responsible for the costs of their care (as opposed to the state bearing the cost were they, instead hospitalised) is equitable, and whether the state should assume financial responsibility for the social care element of the Department of Health and Social Care's remit. It seems you think this is a Brexit related issue. Can you explain how you reached that conclusion, and perhaps what you would think of the state assuming financial responsibility for social care, including the costs of care homes? Just askin', of course. The floor is yours! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-07-19 1:19 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-19 7:36 AM malc d - 2021-07-18 3:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) You have a point Malc ;-) ........... Being a Positive Brexiteer means I'm naturally immune to the Whinging syndrome that appears to affect LOSER Remoaners B-) ........ Dave, the string is about whether people think the present financial arrangements for those in care homes, where they become wholly responsible for the costs of their care (as opposed to the state bearing the cost were they, instead hospitalised) is equitable, and whether the state should assume financial responsibility for the social care element of the Department of Health and Social Care's remit. It seems you think this is a Brexit related issue. Can you explain how you reached that conclusion, and perhaps what you would think of the state assuming financial responsibility for social care, including the costs of care homes? Just askin', of course. The floor is yours! :-D Give over Brian *-) ......... JOKE52 started this thread for no other reason than to have Yet another bitch about Boris :-| ........... Sensible debate in CB died on the 24th of June 2016 ;-) .............. It's unlikely to ever return unless the Loser Brigade accept that they LOST (lol) (lol) (lol) .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-07-19 1:29 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-07-19 1:19 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-19 7:36 AM malc d - 2021-07-18 3:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) You have a point Malc ;-) ........... Being a Positive Brexiteer means I'm naturally immune to the Whinging syndrome that appears to affect LOSER Remoaners B-) ........ Dave, the string is about whether people think the present financial arrangements for those in care homes, where they become wholly responsible for the costs of their care (as opposed to the state bearing the cost were they, instead hospitalised) is equitable, and whether the state should assume financial responsibility for the social care element of the Department of Health and Social Care's remit. It seems you think this is a Brexit related issue. Can you explain how you reached that conclusion, and perhaps what you would think of the state assuming financial responsibility for social care, including the costs of care homes? Just askin', of course. The floor is yours! :-D Give over Brian *-) ......... JOKE52 started this thread for no other reason than to have Yet another bitch about Boris :-| ........... . As you say Dave " JOKE52 started this thread for no other reason than to have yet another bitch about Boris " So " for no other reason " confirms it's NOT a Brexit related issue. It's just about Boris ( 'cos he appears to be in charge ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-07-19 1:19 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-19 7:36 AM malc d - 2021-07-18 3:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) You have a point Malc ;-) ........... Being a Positive Brexiteer means I'm naturally immune to the Whinging syndrome that appears to affect LOSER Remoaners B-) ........ Dave, the string is about whether people think the present financial arrangements for those in care homes, where they become wholly responsible for the costs of their care (as opposed to the state bearing the cost were they, instead hospitalised) is equitable, and whether the state should assume financial responsibility for the social care element of the Department of Health and Social Care's remit. The subject has proved far too complicated for him. It seems you think this is a Brexit related issue. Can you explain how you reached that conclusion, and perhaps what you would think of the state assuming financial responsibility for social care, including the costs of care homes? Just askin', of course. The floor is yours! :-D He wants it to be a Brexit thread so he can make SHOUTY SHOUTY posts about LOSERS and lefty liberals.......but then gets all snowflakery and cries when his hero Johnson is called out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-07-19 1:29 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-07-19 1:19 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-19 7:36 AM malc d - 2021-07-18 3:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-07-18 2:29 PM Moan Moan.....Drip Drip *-) ........... Fancy waking up every morning with just whinging and whining to look forward too 8-) .......... (lol) (lol) (lol) ................. You have a point Dave. A policy of "ignorance is bliss / I'm alright jack " is by far the best one for anyone who really wants to enjoy our sunlit uplands with a minimum of worries. ;-) You have a point Malc ;-) ........... Being a Positive Brexiteer means I'm naturally immune to the Whinging syndrome that appears to affect LOSER Remoaners B-) ........ Dave, the string is about whether people think the present financial arrangements for those in care homes, where they become wholly responsible for the costs of their care (as opposed to the state bearing the cost were they, instead hospitalised) is equitable, and whether the state should assume financial responsibility for the social care element of the Department of Health and Social Care's remit. It seems you think this is a Brexit related issue. Can you explain how you reached that conclusion, and perhaps what you would think of the state assuming financial responsibility for social care, including the costs of care homes? Just askin', of course. The floor is yours! :-D Give over Brian *-) ......... JOKE52 started this thread for no other reason than to have Yet another bitch about Boris :-| ........... Sensible debate in CB died on the 24th of June 2016 ;-) .............. It's unlikely to ever return unless the Loser Brigade accept that they LOST (lol) (lol) (lol) .............. So, in your mind, the only possible reason for anyone to disagree with any of Boris' policies (if they can identify them) is because Boris (eventually) championed Brexit. An you think it's others who are obsessed by Brexit! Specsavers?? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 As a matter of interest, (or not ), I don't blame Boris Johnson for Brexit - I blame David Cameron, who seems to have escaped the responsibility with very little flak. My opposition to Boris Johnson is because he's a clown, who shows no respect for voters ( or anyone else ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 malc d - 2021-07-19 5:38 PM As a matter of interest, (or not ), I don't blame Boris Johnson for Brexit - I blame David Cameron, who seems to have escaped the responsibility with very little flak. My opposition to Boris Johnson is because he's a clown, who shows no respect for voters ( or anyone else ). :-| Oh well, if you're going back that far, I think the real blame lies with the so called European Research Group (whose only research was into things they could claim the EU might do, had failed to do, or had done poorly, that they could then promote as reasons for leaving, and no research whatever into things the EU had done well, because that would contradict their purpose). Next up UKIP and Farage, who began taking votes from the Conservatives by appealing, through exaggeration and fabrication, to the xenophobic instincts of many, plus the UKIP party who did the same only more so, and those within Cameron's cabinet who also lacked backbone. Cameron, who declared himself a winner, had a background in PR, which is little more than marketing with knobs on, had little vision but, like Boris loved a good slogan. Superficial to the end, his approach was a kind of "look here, I'll tell you what's right" with the blind assumption that was all he had to do. I think the most sensible thing he ever said, was "I agree with Nick!" :-D And look where that got us! 8-) But then, the Conservative party selected them all as parliamentary candidates, then selected first Cameron, then May - and finally Johnson, as their leader, so whose fault is that? There were others, more suitable and able. They need to look at their membership and decide whether the calibre of people involved at grass roots level are of the right calibre, and have sufficient vision and ambition. Root and branch overhaul needed! We need much better politics. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.