General election

[morley pie eater]

Let me make it very simple for you, as you do seem to have problems with anything else.

We are talking about SOCIAL CARE in this thread.

Social care costs money. Not percentages, absolute money.

In the example above, person A would pay £180k, person B £500k.

Person B has FUNDED MORE.

What the hell Amazon or Google have to do with this is known only to you.

:eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2:

[nellywelly]

Let me make it very simple for you, as you do seem to have problems with anything else.

We are talking about SOCIAL CARE in this thread.

Social care costs money. Not percentages, absolute money.

In the example above, person A would pay £180k, person B £500k.

Person B has FUNDED MORE.

What the hell Amazon or Google have to do with this is known only to you.

I think it is you who misses the point, all tax be it income,business, national insurance and local are based on percentage terms or to put it simply your ability to pay. This new tax does not, just like the pole tax Thatcher tried to dump on us.The new tax will hit the people who have worked all their life and have a little savings put by and own their homes. They will lose all their savings plus if their homes cost more than £100,000 the prospect of their homes being being sold on their deaths, this to me is not fair and correct

:eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2:

[Wiganer Ted]

Your problem with Nand is maybe that she has a 20k+ majority in her constituancy.
Makes a hell of a difference when you are in a constituancy like this, Wirral West. Our Labour MP has a majority of 400-500. She won it from the Con MP who had a majority of 1200+. The Labour MP before her had a maj of 2400.
Are they responsive to constituants requests? You bet they are.
No complaints from me from any of them. All three have been good.

[i'm spartacus]

Let's examine May's clarification/ U-turn or whatever.

There will be a cap on how much anyone can pay for care in their old age. We're not yet being told what the cap will be, but let's take an example: suppose it's half a million quid.

So Joe Blogs has a house worth £200,000 and savings of £80,000, total £280,000. Take away the £100,00 he's allowed to keep, this means he pays £180,000 for his care, or 65% of his wealth/savings.

Fred Smith has a house worth £2 million and savings/investments worth another £1.5 million. He's also allowed to keep £100,000 from his total of £3.5m, leaving £3.4m. Out if this, the amount for care is capped at £0.5m so he ends up leaving £3m to his kids. His contribution, whilst more, is 14.3% compared with Joe's 65% of total wealth

Apart from the fact that Fred Smith's estate would pay over £1 million in inheritance tax of course.


That apart, what you seem to be suggesting is that a man with greater assets should pay more, for exactly the same service provision simply because of the fact that he has amassed greater wealth.

So in a comparison then, and let's suppose it's me and you. You've worked hard all your life, and been successful. I on the other hand have been less so. We are both old and need care in our respective homes. Do you want to pay more than me just so your kids can inherit the same as mine?

Working hard and being successful in your world appears to make you some sort of pariah

[morley pie eater]

Let's examine May's clarification/ U-turn or whatever.

There will be a cap on how much anyone can pay for care in their old age. We're not yet being told what the cap will be, but let's take an example: suppose it's half a million quid.

So Joe Blogs has a house worth £200,000 and savings of £80,000, total £280,000. Take away the £100,00 he's allowed to keep, this means he pays £180,000 for his care, or 65% of his wealth/savings.

Fred Smith has a house worth £2 million and savings/investments worth another £1.5 million. He's also allowed to keep £100,000 from his total of £3.5m, leaving £3.4m. Out if this, the amount for care is capped at £0.5m so he ends up leaving £3m to his kids. His contribution, whilst more, is 14.3% compared with Joe's 65% of total wealth

Apart from the fact that Fred Smith's estate would pay over £1 million in inheritance tax of course.


That apart, what you seem to be suggesting is that a man with greater assets should pay more, for exactly the same service provision simply because of the fact that he has amassed greater wealth.

So in a comparison then, and let's suppose it's me and you. You've worked hard all your life, and been successful. I on the other hand have been less so. We are both old and need care in our respective homes. Do you want to pay more than me just so your kids can inherit the same as mine?

Working hard and being successful in your world appears to make you some sort of pariah

Not sure how you worked out the last bit? It appears that you just label anyone who doesn't share your opinion. I'm always willing to try to explain my pov to anyone who's engaging in a genuine discussion, but try to avoid primary school name-calling.

[DaveO]

Your problem with Nand is maybe that she has a 20k+ majority in her constituancy.
Makes a hell of a difference when you are in a constituancy like this, Wirral West. Our Labour MP has a majority of 400-500. She won it from the Con MP who had a majority of 1200+. The Labour MP before her had a maj of 2400.
Are they responsive to constituants requests? You bet they are.
No complaints from me from any of them. All three have been good.

In Chester Labour took it from the Tories in 2015 and our MP,Chris Matherson, has worked his socks off. The previous Tory MP was useless and we had direct dealings with him over issues with transport for special needs kids.

All he did was make a few sympathetic noises and point out what we already knew. Did he try to intervene with the then Tory run council or even support our position? Did he hell.

[DaveO]

Let's examine May's clarification/ U-turn or whatever.

There will be a cap on how much anyone can pay for care in their old age. We're not yet being told what the cap will be, but let's take an example: suppose it's half a million quid.

So Joe Blogs has a house worth £200,000 and savings of £80,000, total £280,000. Take away the £100,00 he's allowed to keep, this means he pays £180,000 for his care, or 65% of his wealth/savings.

Fred Smith has a house worth £2 million and savings/investments worth another £1.5 million. He's also allowed to keep £100,000 from his total of £3.5m, leaving £3.4m. Out if this, the amount for care is capped at £0.5m so he ends up leaving £3m to his kids. His contribution, whilst more, is 14.3% compared with Joe's 65% of total wealth

Apart from the fact that Fred Smith's estate would pay over £1 million in inheritance tax of course.


That apart, what you seem to be suggesting is that a man with greater assets should pay more, for exactly the same service provision simply because of the fact that he has amassed greater wealth.

So in a comparison then, and let's suppose it's me and you. You've worked hard all your life, and been successful. I on the other hand have been less so. We are both old and need care in our respective homes. Do you want to pay more than me just so your kids can inherit the same as mine?

Working hard and being successful in your world appears to make you some sort of pariah

Yet in your world you think it's OK for the less well off to lose virtually all their wealth to tax but the rich keep most of theirs.

You ignore the fact that progressive taxation DOES NOT take your entire income when you enter the next tax bracket. Rich people are still left very rich. Why is it you seem to think they should be even richer and the less well off poorer? Pure greed?

[DaveO]

I have attempted to contact Lisa Nandy on several occasions. She has failed every single time to get back in touch with me (except for a token "reply" from her secretary).

Well how hard did you try? If what you wanted to contact her about was that important why didn't you go to one of her surgeries?

Should she have responded to emails? I think so (my MP does) but if you don't get a response and you really need one it's no use sitting there fuming. Sometimes you have to get up and go and put your face in front of theirs.

If you can't be bothered then it can't have been that important.

[Wintergreen]

Let's examine May's clarification/ U-turn or whatever.

There will be a cap on how much anyone can pay for care in their old age. We're not yet being told what the cap will be, but let's take an example: suppose it's half a million quid.

So Joe Blogs has a house worth £200,000 and savings of £80,000, total £280,000. Take away the £100,00 he's allowed to keep, this means he pays £180,000 for his care, or 65% of his wealth/savings.

Fred Smith has a house worth £2 million and savings/investments worth another £1.5 million. He's also allowed to keep £100,000 from his total of £3.5m, leaving £3.4m. Out if this, the amount for care is capped at £0.5m so he ends up leaving £3m to his kids. His contribution, whilst more, is 14.3% compared with Joe's 65% of total wealth

Apart from the fact that Fred Smith's estate would pay over £1 million in inheritance tax of course.


That apart, what you seem to be suggesting is that a man with greater assets should pay more, for exactly the same service provision simply because of the fact that he has amassed greater wealth.

So in a comparison then, and let's suppose it's me and you. You've worked hard all your life, and been successful. I on the other hand have been less so. We are both old and need care in our respective homes. Do you want to pay more than me just so your kids can inherit the same as mine?

Working hard and being successful in your world appears to make you some sort of pariah

Yet in your world you think it's OK for the less well off to lose virtually all their wealth to tax but the rich keep most of theirs.

You ignore the fact that progressive taxation DOES NOT take your entire income when you enter the next tax bracket. Rich people are still left very rich. Why is it you seem to think they should be even richer and the less well off poorer? Pure greed?

How much tax do you want people to pay?

The "well off" are taxed on their income,when they buy their investments, when they sell their investments, oh and when they die. That's quite a lot of tax.

A family on very low pay, or benefits likely pay zero tax of this kind, yet they enjoy all the benefits that it grants (free education, healthcare, public amenities).


I have never understood the argument that people should they pay proportionately MORE tax when they earn over a certain amount,as in the current system.

A flat rate of tax would mean they contribute more in absolute terms the more they earn.

[i'm spartacus]

Let's examine May's clarification/ U-turn or whatever.

There will be a cap on how much anyone can pay for care in their old age. We're not yet being told what the cap will be, but let's take an example: suppose it's half a million quid.

So Joe Blogs has a house worth £200,000 and savings of £80,000, total £280,000. Take away the £100,00 he's allowed to keep, this means he pays £180,000 for his care, or 65% of his wealth/savings.

Fred Smith has a house worth £2 million and savings/investments worth another £1.5 million. He's also allowed to keep £100,000 from his total of £3.5m, leaving £3.4m. Out if this, the amount for care is capped at £0.5m so he ends up leaving £3m to his kids. His contribution, whilst more, is 14.3% compared with Joe's 65% of total wealth

Apart from the fact that Fred Smith's estate would pay over £1 million in inheritance tax of course.


That apart, what you seem to be suggesting is that a man with greater assets should pay more, for exactly the same service provision simply because of the fact that he has amassed greater wealth.

So in a comparison then, and let's suppose it's me and you. You've worked hard all your life, and been successful. I on the other hand have been less so. We are both old and need care in our respective homes. Do you want to pay more than me just so your kids can inherit the same as mine?

Working hard and being successful in your world appears to make you some sort of pariah

Not sure how you worked out the last bit? It appears that you just label anyone who doesn't share your opinion. I'm always willing to try to explain my pov to anyone who's engaging in a genuine discussion, but try to avoid primary school name-calling.

I worked it out because that is what your post implied - it isn't hard to work out.

I also fail to see where there was any name calling at all. Nice diversion though - claim that someone is doing something they are not, to avoid answering the question