General election

[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

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?

I really wish I knew what you were talking about. That response has no correlation to anything I wrote

[morley pie eater]

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

I'm always more than happy to debate about matters of substance, and accept there are different opinions. What I won't do is return to the primary school playground.

If you can explain where I implied that anyone was a pariah, then I'll answer you.

I also suggest you look up the difference between a flat rate of tax (i.e. a fixed percentage) and paying the same tax in absolute terms.

The Equality Trust, which campaigns to reduce economic inequality, said its analysis showed the richest 10% of households pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than the poorest 10% of households.

“When the super-rich are paying less in taxes than their cleaners, you know something has gone disastrously wrong with our broken, regressive tax system,” said Wanda Wyporska, the Trust's executive director.

[morley pie eater]

Spartacus,

Pariah: outcast, persona non grata, leper, untouchable, undesirable.

My view is that's it's reasonable that a millionaire should contribute more to their own care before the state pays, than someone of modest/average means.

Your claim is that, in saying this I'm implying that "Working hard and being successful ... appears to make you some sort of pariah"?

[morley pie eater]

Extract from July 2016 article in Daily Telegraph re Theresa May's record as Home Sec:

"...despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down."

For some reason the Torygraph have deleted the article from their archive, but it's preserved here:

http://www.rogercee.com/theresa-may-art ... nificance/

[ian b]

Extract from July 2016 article in Daily Telegraph re Theresa May's record as Home Sec:

"...despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down."

For some reason the Torygraph have deleted the article from their archive, but it's preserved here:

http://www.rogercee.com/theresa-may-art ... nificance/

All politicians lie pal for their own gain. Can not see me voting this time because their is nothing between any of them in my opinion

[Wiganer Ted]

Agreed IB, during election time we have a double dose of telling lies. They tell lies about what they will do and then lie again about what their opposition will do.
All good fun and that's why I'll vote. Too true I will!

[fozzieskem]

Trouble is in these modern times no one holds these weasels to account,it seems the news is totally reliant on fecking twitter and other such frippery,no journalism seems to happen,to haul them over the coals.

Any interview no question of policies really happens,just nonsense such as why you gave no kids,your hairstyle in the 1970s,who the hell cares?

[Wandering Warrior]

May is ballooning on about bad brexit and no deal is better than that. Can anybody define bad brexit?
Or does the mother of u turns not know herself?
The only people who'll get a bad brexit are the workers. Wait a minute that's who she claims to represent?
I'll vote Tory then! We'll be ok, the question is when can one's head come out of one's bucket of sand?
Another ?. Do I need health insurance and would it be advantageous to win the lottery?

[fozzieskem]

As the days go on,the more it looks like May has made a huge error in calling for an election,Corbyn comes across well even if the rest of them dont,May is simply terrible flapping round without a clue.

Will the tories lose? i doubt it but her position is surely weakened even firther than it was.

[Wandering Warrior]

May as well stay in the EU and forever be ruled by Germany and France, eh?

So have I found somebody who can define a bad deal? Go on I'm all ears.
Or is it a case of xenophobia and never mind the consequences, which, I might add, look increasingly difficult?
May and her gang haven't got a clue but at the end of the day the majority of those that voted have given her all the support she needs to cover her back!