WiganWarriorsFans.com

DaveO wrote:

Rochdale Warrior wrote:After tonight's events in M/cr think this should be locked , my thoughts are with all those affected by tonight's events

Well permanently suspending our own little bit of democratic debate by locking this thread would be admitting defeat in our own small way. It's exactly what those tossers want.

Suspending debate temporarily as the political parties have done as a mark of respect today is absolutely fine but as WW said, the election isn't going away so I am sure there will be plenty to discuss going forward when its appropriate to do so again.

Agreed , locked was the wrong reaction , perhaps suspend until the parties go back on the election trail

morley pie eater wrote: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.

This is a typical Tory tax system.

Much as I hate the policy, in fact it's the reason I won't be voting Conservative, your logic is flawed.

Assuming the care costs are the same, person A has contributed £180k , person B £500k but you think it's unfair on person A?!!!

Percentages don't pay for nurses. Absolute money does.

Person B has probably paid more "into the system" over his life too.

Typical Socialist nonsense.

Perhaps person B had a "smart accountant"?

Wintergreen wrote:

morley pie eater wrote: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.

This is a typical Tory tax system.

Much as I hate the policy, in fact it's the reason I won't be voting Conservative, your logic is flawed.

Assuming the care costs are the same, person A has contributed £180k , person B £500k but you think it's unfair on person A?!!!

Percentages don't pay for nurses. Absolute money does.

Person B has probably paid more "into the system" over his life too.

Typical Socialist nonsense.

I said he paid more, so don't see the flawed logic.

On the other hand, you seem to suggest reckoning should be in "absolute terms".
So a company that makes £3 billion profit should pay the same tax as a corner shop? This is Tory neo-liberalism in a nutshell.

Hoisted by your own petard, I'd say

Health care and social care are very expensive and free at the point of use means it will be used to the full.
We have to find funds and I thought Frank Field's plan was the best so far.

morley pie eater wrote:

Wintergreen wrote:

morley pie eater wrote: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.

This is a typical Tory tax system.

Much as I hate the policy, in fact it's the reason I won't be voting Conservative, your logic is flawed.

Assuming the care costs are the same, person A has contributed £180k , person B £500k but you think it's unfair on person A?!!!

Percentages don't pay for nurses. Absolute money does.

Person B has probably paid more "into the system" over his life too.

Typical Socialist nonsense.

I said he paid more, so don't see the flawed logic.

On the other hand, you seem to suggest reckoning should be in "absolute terms".
So a company that makes £3 billion profit should pay the same tax as a corner shop? This is Tory neo-liberalism in a nutshell.

Hoisted by your own petard, I'd say

You might. But your logic would be flawed in doing so.

In absolute terms person B has paid more, yet you seek to explain it away in percentage terms (which are irrelevant).

Wintergreen, I love your idea of logic! You really do believe that Google, Amazon etc should pay the same tax as a corner shop!

Here's an application of your (neo-liberalist) "logic":

Tax should be measured in absolute terms, so we all pay the same. Someone on a zero hours contract on minimum wage gets, for the sake of example, £7.50 an hour for an average 30 hours a week for 50 weeks a year. Annual earnings £11250.

You are the Chancellor and decide they should pay £1000 in tax and NI. Now following your "absolute terms" rule, everybody has to pay £1000.

Richard Branson is delighted and rushes off to buy another Caribbean Island. Meanwhile, you (as Chancellor) have discovered a slight "flaw in your logic". Government income from income tax has just fallen from £300 billion to £30 billion.

In my logic, this equates to a loss of £270 billion. To make up the shortfall, you'd need to charge everybody £10,000, leaving the worker just £1120 a year (£21.50 a week) to live on.

[Figures are simplified examples, but checked against latest government data I could find.]

morley pie eater wrote:Wintergreen, I love your idea of logic! You really do believe that Google, Amazon etc should pay the same tax as a corner shop!

Here's an application of your (neo-liberalist) "logic":

Tax should be measured in absolute terms, so we all pay the same. Someone on a zero hours contract on minimum wage gets, for the sake of example, £7.50 an hour for an average 30 hours a week for 50 weeks a year. Annual earnings £11250.

You are the Chancellor and decide they should pay £1000 in tax and NI. Now following you "absolute terms" rule, everybody has to pay £1000.

Richard Brandon is delighted and rushes off to buy another Caribbean Island. Meanwhile, you (as Chancellor) have discovered a slight "flaw in your logic". Government income from income tax has just fallen from £300 billion to £30 billion.

In my logic, this equates to a loss of £270 billion. To make up the shortfall, you'd need to charge everybody £10,000, leaving the worker just £1120 a year (£21.50 a week) to live on.

[figures are simplified examples, but checked against latest government data I could find.]

morley pie eater wrote:Wintergreen, I love your idea of logic! You really do believe that Google, Amazon etc should pay the same tax as a corner shop!

Here's an application of your (neo-liberalist) "logic":

Tax should be measured in absolute terms, so we all pay the same. Someone on a zero hours contract on minimum wage gets, for the sake of example, £7.50 an hour for an average 30 hours a week for 50 weeks a year. Annual earnings £11250.

You are the Chancellor and decide they should pay £1000 in tax and NI. Now following your "absolute terms" rule, everybody has to pay £1000.

Richard Branson is delighted and rushes off to buy another Caribbean Island. Meanwhile, you (as Chancellor) have discovered a slight "flaw in your logic". Government income from income tax has just fallen from £300 billion to £30 billion.

In my logic, this equates to a loss of £270 billion. To make up the shortfall, you'd need to charge everybody £10,000, leaving the worker just £1120 a year (£21.50 a week) to live on.

[Figures are simplified examples, but checked against latest government data I could find.]

What on earth are you babbling on about? You really don't get this do you?

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.