This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure. So by about 2050 will the housing market the way it is, children today could face never getting on the property ladder and then if they might be in a position to inherit a property, have it pulled from underneath them if one or both of their parents suffer from dementia
So we're cultivating a future where students leave with £30k of debt from uni, ai and machine learning possibly reducing the amount of jobs in the marketplace, companies like Deliveroo commoditising people like Karl Robinson's excessive blinking, a housing market (certainly london) where you need a £50k deposit to get on the ladder, and if you haven't got it by the time you're in your 30s it's unlikely you can pay off your mortgage anyway so don't bother.
On top of this you've got to save for a pension, get some private healthcare because the NHS is on its knees. And at the end of it, if your parents get dementia, you give it all back but you keep £100k.
And to top it all off we'll still be hearing 'we've learned from our mistakes'
If I am understanding correctly, may is a shameful coward for not turning up, hiding from public scrutiny, unable to defend her record or her policies. But Corbyn was right not to show up
I'd rather both showed up. May would be taken apart.
I see a lot of labour people saying this, but have never once seen Corbyn take May apart, in fact in PMQ's she usually absolutely mullers him from what I've seen
My issue is that you use the term but despite a desperate and fruitless search around, you still aren't able to admit that the phrase 'nurses using foodbanks' is inaccurate.
As for fabricated evidence - only you have done that.
I first referenced and quoted from that link you have repeated above but clearly not read properly.
HCA's and students are not nurses. Borrowing money isn't using a foodbank and the RCN as I also again referenced via Nursing Times has but one real case.
I have since shown that this was of a single mother with 4 children who used a foodbank recently after she went part time with a resultant £8oo per month pay cut.
Sometimes its best to acknowledge a point that's being made. I have several times commented on the utter clusterfuck that is the very existence of foodbanks and their rapid rise. So I dont know what your issue is.
Further to my last post, I have to say that it's not so much that Corbyn is clever while May should be ashamed of hiding. Both parties have made the tactically correct decision not to show. Last time, Labour made the wrong decision when they turned up and as a Labour supporter, it's good to see that the right decision was made this time around.
If I am understanding correctly, may is a shameful coward for not turning up, hiding from public scrutiny, unable to defend her record or her policies. But Corbyn was right not to show up
I'd rather both showed up. May would be taken apart.
I see a lot of labour people saying this, but have never once seen Corbyn take May apart, in fact in PMQ's she usually absolutely mullers him from what I've seen
They're two completely different environments. In PMQs, May has no problem when sticking to her script. In front of a live studio audience, those kind of things wouldn't wash. She'd have to think on her feet for once and I suspect she'd buckle where Corbyn shines (using the Labour leadership TV debates as a yardstick).
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure.
Keep up, it's currently £23,250, this is a 4 fold improvement!
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure.
Keep up, it's currently £23,250, this is a 4 fold improvement!
Erm... before, it didn't include the value of your house. After the change it will. Many people will be worse off.
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure. So by about 2050 will the housing market the way it is, children today could face never getting on the property ladder and then if they might be in a position to inherit a property, have it pulled from underneath them if one or both of their parents suffer from dementia
So we're cultivating a future where students leave with £30k of debt from uni, ai and machine learning possibly reducing the amount of jobs in the marketplace, companies like Deliveroo commoditising people like Karl Robinson's excessive blinking, a housing market (certainly london) where you need a £50k deposit to get on the ladder, and if you haven't got it by the time you're in your 30s it's unlikely you can pay off your mortgage anyway so don't bother.
On top of this you've got to save for a pension, get some private healthcare because the NHS is on its knees. And at the end of it, if your parents get dementia, you give it all back but you keep £100k.
And to top it all off we'll still be hearing 'we've learned from our mistakes'
It hardly seems worth it. No wonder so many in this country have stress related illnesses.
It would be better for your kids for you to die, rather than fade away over six or seven years in an expensive care home. If this policy is enacted don't be all that surprised if that is what people choose to do.
Really enjoyed the scenes of those in Yorkshire telling May she wasn't welcome up there.
Did you? I had a different view. I wondered what they were doing there. They looked like a nasty strident rent-a-mob. Would it leave the majority of viewers watching the news after they had got home from a hard day's work speculating about whether they would want to be associated with a party whose members were acting like the political equivalent of Milwall supporters? I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
My issue is that you use the term but despite a desperate and fruitless search around, you still aren't able to admit that the phrase 'nurses using foodbanks' is inaccurate.
As for fabricated evidence - only you have done that.
I first referenced and quoted from that link you have repeated above but clearly not read properly.
HCA's and students are not nurses. Borrowing money isn't using a foodbank and the RCN as I also again referenced via Nursing Times has but one real case.
I have since shown that this was of a single mother with 4 children who used a foodbank recently after she went part time with a resultant £8oo per month pay cut.
Sometimes its best to acknowledge a point that's being made. I have several times commented on the utter clusterfuck that is the very existence of foodbanks and their rapid rise. So I dont know what your issue is.
"Nurses have been plunged into financial peril and forced to attend food banks amid a ‘perfect storm’ in the profession, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has said.
Spiralling debt, a fall in wages and poor employment prospects combined with an ageing workforce present a real threat to the NHS.
Josie Irwin, head of employment relations at the RCN told The HuffPost UK: “It’s shocking that in this day and age in 2016 in a so-called civilised society, nurses who are highly regarded, highly trained individuals are paying visits to food banks in order to feed their families.
“About one third of nurses are struggling to pay their gas and electricity bills. Some are skipping meals, some 14% are struggling. 53% are working extra hours just to help pay their bills.”
Really enjoyed the scenes of those in Yorkshire telling May she wasn't welcome up there.
Did you? I had a different view. I wondered what they were doing there. They looked like a nasty strident rent-a-mob. Would it leave the majority of viewers watching the news after they had got home from a hard day's work speculating about whether they would want to be associated with a party whose members were acting like the political equivalent of Milwall supporters? I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
Really enjoyed the scenes of those in Yorkshire telling May she wasn't welcome up there.
Did you? I had a different view. I wondered what they were doing there. They looked like a nasty strident rent-a-mob. Would it leave the majority of viewers watching the news after they had got home from a hard day's work speculating about whether they would want to be associated with a party whose members were acting like the political equivalent of Milwall supporters? I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
I didn't think they came across as too aggressive (I'm talking about the ones on the BBC news). They feel strongly and passionate enough to come out and voice their opinion, and it looked quite orderly
I looked at the press conference of those in the room where May delivered her speech, the crowd looked dead.
I think on the whole Corbyn has a more passionate support, but we all know he's miles away from ever leading this country.
Really enjoyed the scenes of those in Yorkshire telling May she wasn't welcome up there.
Did you? I had a different view. I wondered what they were doing there. They looked like a nasty strident rent-a-mob. Would it leave the majority of viewers watching the news after they had got home from a hard day's work speculating about whether they would want to be associated with a party whose members were acting like the political equivalent of Milwall supporters? I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
It would be better for your kids for you to die, rather than fade away over six or seven years in an expensive care home. If this policy is enacted don't be all that surprised if that is what people choose to do.
Are future governments now going to have to offer advice on how children should have conversations with their parents about committing suicides.
If I'm ever lucky enough to have children, have an estate to pass on, but unlucky to need social care through dementia, I'd probably do what you suggest Seth
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure.
Keep up, it's currently £23,250, this is a 4 fold improvement!
Erm... before, it didn't include the value of your house. After the change it will. Many people will be worse off.
Working on the basis Cabbles was talking about getting dementia the above is correct IF you go into a home, currently you pay until you only have £23k left, under the proposal you'd pay until you have £100k left.
But yes at the moment if you receive care in your own home they don't take that home value into account currently. But it's fairly safe to say no one with dementia will remain in their own home unless 24hr live in care which unless it's a family member etc doing it for free is at least double the cost of care in a home.
It's a bit bonkers at the moment, If I have a £3m house but only £20k in the bank, any care I receive at home the council have to pay for. If I have a £100k house but have £50k in the bank I have to pay....... thats not fair is it?
I know Labour are throwing a fit about this, Corbyn's tweeting about it, but he has no issues taxing a further £175k of someone's wealth when they die.
I'm starting to really detest almost all politicians!
For someone who has been living through this the past 10 years believe me by far and away the most important thing is we have a system that can deal with it, paying for it is secondary.
My issue is that you use the term but despite a desperate and fruitless search around, you still aren't able to admit that the phrase 'nurses using foodbanks' is inaccurate.
As for fabricated evidence - only you have done that.
I first referenced and quoted from that link you have repeated above but clearly not read properly.
HCA's and students are not nurses. Borrowing money isn't using a foodbank and the RCN as I also again referenced via Nursing Times has but one real case.
I have since shown that this was of a single mother with 4 children who used a foodbank recently after she went part time with a resultant £8oo per month pay cut.
Sometimes its best to acknowledge a point that's being made. I have several times commented on the utter clusterfuck that is the very existence of foodbanks and their rapid rise. So I dont know what your issue is.
"Nurses have been plunged into financial peril and forced to attend food banks amid a ‘perfect storm’ in the profession, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has said.
Spiralling debt, a fall in wages and poor employment prospects combined with an ageing workforce present a real threat to the NHS.
Josie Irwin, head of employment relations at the RCN told The HuffPost UK: “It’s shocking that in this day and age in 2016 in a so-called civilised society, nurses who are highly regarded, highly trained individuals are paying visits to food banks in order to feed their families.
“About one third of nurses are struggling to pay their gas and electricity bills. Some are skipping meals, some 14% are struggling. 53% are working extra hours just to help pay their bills.”
Take it up with the RCN not me eh?
Still no evidence. Not even from Huffington Post.
I might as well use your use of the phrase as evidence.
From NHS site. Guess where qualified Nurses start?
Pay rates from April 2017. You should always check with the employer to confirm the pay rate for any post for which you are applying.
This pay system covers all staff except doctors, dentists and very senior managers. Each of the nine pay bands has a number of pay points. Staff will normally progress to the next pay point annually until they reach the top of the pay band. In addition to basic pay, there is also extra pay for staff who work in high cost areas such as around London.
Band 1
Point 2 £15,404 Point 3 £15,671
Possible roles at band 1 - domestic support worker, housekeeping assistant, driver and nursery assistant.
Band 2
Point 2 £15,404 Point 3 £15,671 Point 4 £16,104 Point 5 £16,536 Point 6 £16,968 Point 7 £17,524 Point 8 £18,157
Possible roles at band 2 - domestic team leader, security officer, secretary/typist and healthcare assistant.
Band 3
Point 6 £16,968 Point 7 £17,524 Point 8 £18,157 Point 9 £18,333 Point 10 £18,839 Point 11 £19,409 Point 12 £19,852
Possible roles at band 3- emergency care assistant, clinical coding officer, support, time and recovery worker, estates officer and occupational therapy assistant.
Band 4
Point 11 £19,409 Point 12 £19,852 Point 13 £20,551 Point 14 £21,263 Point 15 £21,909 Point 16 £22,128 Point 17 £22,683
"My nursing qualifications and experience mean I’m already in a good place on the pay scale (band 7), and the London weighting is a bonus."
Possible roles at band 4 - assistant practitioner, audio visual technician, pharmacy technician, dental nurse and theatre support worker.
Band 5
Point 16 £22,128 Point 17 £22,683 Point 18 £23,597 Point 19 £24,547 Point 20 £25,551 Point 21 £26,565 Point 22 £27,635 Point 23 £28,746
Possible roles at band 5 (includes newly qualified professionals) - operating department practitioner (ODP), midwife, podiatrist, adult nurse, diagnostic radiographer, practice manager and ICT test analyst)
Christ's sake @A-R-T-H-U-R I've just put up a direct quote (one of several available) from an RCN spokesperson stating that some nurses (plural) have told them they have used food banks. You seem to want to hold me personally responsible for what you appear to believe are widely reported lies being made by them! Short of standing outside my local food bank conducting my own survey I'm not sure what you expect me to do!
The Tory Manifesto shows that the Conservative Party thinks the normal rules of politics that apply to others don't apply to them. It is completely lacking any macroeconomic policy. Either their plans don't exist or they don't want you to know them. Costings are a mix of shambolic & non-existent. Nothing on the multi-billion price tag for the NHS, social care, migration cuts & Brexit. Their long-term care policy asks those who need more to pay more. It boasts of a new Conservatism rejecting harsh individualism, then penalises dementia sufferers & poorer kids on free school meals. Is anyone surprised?
Uboat, picking up the bold bit in reverse order.
Unless I misunderstood, we recently changed to a system where previously the 'poorer kids' as you put it received free school meals, the 'richer kids' paid for themselves to all infant children getting free school meals (I believe Junior & secondary is still on the old sort of 'means tested' system).
In the times we find ourselves in, why should the 'richer children' who's parents can well afford to pay for their school lunch not do so? I find it ludicrous that a child whose parent is say someone on £200k a year gets a free meal at school, there must be better ways to spend that money for the good of all children?
The 'dementia suffers' are actually better off under the proposed system. On the basis that almost all dementia sufferers will be in residential care at some point they will be left with a minimum of £100k to pass on rather than circa £23k, although I appreciate that is worse than the proposed system that was due to come in 2020 (although it wouldn't have helped everyone anyway).
I'm guessing that primary school children all get the same lunch so it doesn't cost a great deal more to increase the quantities required to provide for all children. The cost difference might also be worth it to avoid the stigma that kids on "free lunches" might face at such a young age.
Once the kids get to secondary it's more of a pick and chose cafeteria system so wouldn't be viable.
If I am understanding correctly, may is a shameful coward for not turning up, hiding from public scrutiny, unable to defend her record or her policies. But Corbyn was right not to show up
Yep. They should both have been there. But if the PM doesn't bother to show, then the leader of the opposition is on a hiding to nothing.
If she was able to call an election, she should be made to take part in a live debate. The excuse of arguing in public is bollox, thats all they do at PMQs every week with her cronies behind her !. Plus hustings are taking place all over the country... so its good enough for everyone else but the leader !!
The Tory Manifesto shows that the Conservative Party thinks the normal rules of politics that apply to others don't apply to them. It is completely lacking any macroeconomic policy. Either their plans don't exist or they don't want you to know them. Costings are a mix of shambolic & non-existent. Nothing on the multi-billion price tag for the NHS, social care, migration cuts & Brexit. Their long-term care policy asks those who need more to pay more. It boasts of a new Conservatism rejecting harsh individualism, then penalises dementia sufferers & poorer kids on free school meals. Is anyone surprised?
Uboat, picking up the bold bit in reverse order.
Unless I misunderstood, we recently changed to a system where previously the 'poorer kids' as you put it received free school meals, the 'richer kids' paid for themselves to all infant children getting free school meals (I believe Junior & secondary is still on the old sort of 'means tested' system).
In the times we find ourselves in, why should the 'richer children' who's parents can well afford to pay for their school lunch not do so? I find it ludicrous that a child whose parent is say someone on £200k a year gets a free meal at school, there must be better ways to spend that money for the good of all children?
The 'dementia suffers' are actually better off under the proposed system. On the basis that almost all dementia sufferers will be in residential care at some point they will be left with a minimum of £100k to pass on rather than circa £23k, although I appreciate that is worse than the proposed system that was due to come in 2020 (although it wouldn't have helped everyone anyway).
I'm guessing that primary school children all get the same lunch so it doesn't cost a great deal more to increase the quantities required to provide for all children. The cost difference might also be worth it to avoid the stigma that kids on "free lunches" might face at such a young age.
Once the kids get to secondary it's more of a pick and chose cafeteria system so wouldn't be viable.
The cost is apparently over £600m, from my own first hand experience there's zero stigma as 99.9% of these children wouldn't even know. Remember we're talking of 5-7 year olds....
The stigma comes in with age and we don't seem to worry about it for the kids who get free school meals at ages 8-16 who get free school meals?
So. The Tory manifesto. I leave care with nothing, and finally pay off my mortgage a month ago. I am getting on towards the years of dementia and such like, and the home I've spent all my life getting will be used to pay for my (probably inevitable) years of care. On the surface it seems reasonable enough until you realise that assisted suicide is illegal.
Care is a really tough one, if i've read it right, everyone will have to pay for care until they are down to £100k of total asset. Its currently something like £26k, but different if you are having care in your own home as the house isn't included. It's better for some (those in care homes) worse for others (those getting care in their own homes) and worse for all compared to what was coming in in 2020 but at least seems a little fairer.
The only people who will be effected really will be those who were to inherit a larger sum than £100k (or I assume £200k if it effected both people of a couple).
I don't think Labour had said the limits as to when you pay/when you stop paying and had referred to a cross party discussion on how it should be funded (wealth tax, employer contribution or a new social care levy). Sounds good in principal but with such opposing views between parties I think Labour would have been better simply setting out their stall.
At least the conservatives is a little clearer, if by no means perfect and certainly doesn't promote good financial planning.
You are almost saying to people, just make sure you have enough live on if you remain healthy. Why should anyone build up a nest egg to hopefully pass onto their children when most will either go in inheritance tax or care costs.........
I completely disagree. Social care is such an important issue and in fairness, that is recognised by the Conservatives as well as Labour. There is an awareness it needs fixing and the reason it hasn't been addressed is any solution requires taking medicine. The best solution is to make it a non -political decision and gain consensus so difficult calls that need to be made can be made. Do we fix Social Care or make the unfairness just a little bit fairer?
What was notable with the launch of the manifestos was the clamour from opponents to rubbish the costings. Predicatble yes but completely unfair in the case of Labour who provided far more detailed costings than the Tories. An example was Labour stating that the winter fuel payment cut put out by the tories will effect 10 million pensioners based on what the manifesto said. The retort from the Tories. How can they know how many will be affected when we haven't costed it?
So. The Tory manifesto. I leave care with nothing, and finally pay off my mortgage a month ago. I am getting on towards the years of dementia and such like, and the home I've spent all my life getting will be used to pay for my (probably inevitable) years of care.
It's at this point I think May has completely lost my vote. I want to leave a home to my daughter. Not just x% of what's left of it's value.
Now it's Lab vs Lib... A lot to think about, either are protest votes IMO.
So. The Tory manifesto. I leave care with nothing, and finally pay off my mortgage a month ago. I am getting on towards the years of dementia and such like, and the home I've spent all my life getting will be used to pay for my (probably inevitable) years of care.
It's at this point I think May has completely lost my vote. I want to leave a home to my daughter. Not just x% of what's left of it's value.
Now it's Lab vs Lib... A lot to think about, either are protest votes IMO.
That's fair enough that you want to leave a home to your daughter. And understandable.
What the Tories are saying is a compromise between protecting an inheritance to your kids and also protecting the taxpayer (ie you) whilst you are working and providing a living to your kids.
It's sensible - once again people can't have it both ways.
For me it's a fair way towards ensuring something goes towards your kids and balancing the taxpayer impact when people like you are supporting you as they grow up.
If I am understanding correctly, may is a shameful coward for not turning up, hiding from public scrutiny, unable to defend her record or her policies. But Corbyn was right not to show up
I think Corbyn was willing to show up if May did. He is calling for a debate with her. I do think he should have turned up - there would have been a risk that they would gang together to sticth him up, but he needs to take risks at this point.
But pure objective analysis shows there is a difference in the position of May and Corbyn on this. TV debates are a relatively new thing in this country and some may argue there is little point to them. I think they are useful personally.
Really enjoyed the scenes of those in Yorkshire telling May she wasn't welcome up there.
Did you? I had a different view. I wondered what they were doing there. They looked like a nasty strident rent-a-mob. Would it leave the majority of viewers watching the news after they had got home from a hard day's work speculating about whether they would want to be associated with a party whose members were acting like the political equivalent of Milwall supporters? I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
Commoners eh?
More like professional agitators I thought.
I think you are starting to look a little ridiculous on this one @cafcfan.
So. The Tory manifesto. I leave care with nothing, and finally pay off my mortgage a month ago. I am getting on towards the years of dementia and such like, and the home I've spent all my life getting will be used to pay for my (probably inevitable) years of care.
It's at this point I think May has completely lost my vote. I want to leave a home to my daughter. Not just x% of what's left of it's value.
Now it's Lab vs Lib... A lot to think about, either are protest votes IMO.
An understandable concern. It obviously depends upon your personal circumstances. But it is possible that if the care home costs don't get you, the inheritance tax bill could. (As they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes.)
You maybe need to consider whether your circumstances mean it would be a good idea to speak with an expert but as soon as you've paid off your mortgage (if you have one) it might be worth your (daughter's) while to put the house in trust? But it seems that it's better to do that sooner rather than later because otherwise your local council's investigators may well deem the transfer to be a care home costs avoidance scheme.
So. The Tory manifesto. I leave care with nothing, and finally pay off my mortgage a month ago. I am getting on towards the years of dementia and such like, and the home I've spent all my life getting will be used to pay for my (probably inevitable) years of care. On the surface it seems reasonable enough until you realise that assisted suicide is illegal.
Care is a really tough one, if i've read it right, everyone will have to pay for care until they are down to £100k of total asset. Its currently something like £26k, but different if you are having care in your own home as the house isn't included. It's better for some (those in care homes) worse for others (those getting care in their own homes) and worse for all compared to what was coming in in 2020 but at least seems a little fairer.
The only people who will be effected really will be those who were to inherit a larger sum than £100k (or I assume £200k if it effected both people of a couple).
I don't think Labour had said the limits as to when you pay/when you stop paying and had referred to a cross party discussion on how it should be funded (wealth tax, employer contribution or a new social care levy). Sounds good in principal but with such opposing views between parties I think Labour would have been better simply setting out their stall.
At least the conservatives is a little clearer, if by no means perfect and certainly doesn't promote good financial planning.
You are almost saying to people, just make sure you have enough live on if you remain healthy. Why should anyone build up a nest egg to hopefully pass onto their children when most will either go in inheritance tax or care costs.........
I completely disagree. Social care is such an important issue and in fairness, that is recognised by the Conservatives as well as Labour. There is an awareness it needs fixing and the reason it hasn't been addressed is any solution requires taking medicine. The best solution is to make it a non -political decision and gain consensus so difficult calls that need to be made can be made. Do we fix Social Care or make the unfairness just a little bit fairer?
What was notable with the launch of the manifestos was the clamour from opponents to rubbish the costings. Predicatble yes but completely unfair in the case of Labour who provided far more detailed costings than the Tories. An example was Labour stating that the winter fuel payment cut put out by the tories will effect 10 million pensioners based on what the manifesto said. The retort from the Tories. How can they know how many will be affected when we haven't costed it?
So outside of labours 'let's talk about it' what's their plan for paying for this care? I totally agree it's a hugely important issue but call me suspicious but their staying quiet on such an important issue is because they realise it's not possible to get the state to pay for everyone?
THe cost to keep someone in residential care is anywhere from £35k - £100k per annum. We can argue to get it free so we can leave money to our children but there'll simply lose a lot of that in additional income tax. Doing so will hit the poorest hardest as those who aren't due to inherit will also need to pay considerably more tax.
I don't know what the current split is between those who pay and those who don't. However the total cost is in the region of £400m a week. Using where my father is purely as an example 65 out of the 82 residents pay, so 80%.....and the expectation is more people will need that care in the future. If that's a number seen across the country we need to tax for a further £320m a week and increasing.
That's just residential care, many more I believe receive care in their own home (although the cost per person will will be less). But let's assume that's £80m a week.
You simply wouldn't be able to tax enough to let the state pay a further £400m a week or 21bn a year, we only collect in tax about 160bn as it is. That's everyone paying 15% more tax.
Not perfect but this is a reasonable compromise in my view and that's from someone directly effected.
Ps the cost is set to increase but a fair margin with the increase to the minimum wage.
Comments
So we're cultivating a future where students leave with £30k of debt from uni, ai and machine learning possibly reducing the amount of jobs in the marketplace, companies like Deliveroo commoditising people like Karl Robinson's excessive blinking, a housing market (certainly london) where you need a £50k deposit to get on the ladder, and if you haven't got it by the time you're in your 30s it's unlikely you can pay off your mortgage anyway so don't bother.
On top of this you've got to save for a pension, get some private healthcare because the NHS is on its knees. And at the end of it, if your parents get dementia, you give it all back but you keep £100k.
And to top it all off we'll still be hearing 'we've learned from our mistakes'
http://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-accuses-pm-of-cutting-sweetheart-deal-with-surrey-council-over-social-care-10760348
As for fabricated evidence - only you have done that.
I first referenced and quoted from that link you have repeated above but clearly not read properly.
HCA's and students are not nurses.
Borrowing money isn't using a foodbank and the RCN as I also again referenced via Nursing Times has but one real case.
I have since shown that this was of a single mother with 4 children who used a foodbank recently after she went part time with a resultant £8oo per month pay cut.
Sometimes its best to acknowledge a point that's being made.
I have several times commented on the utter clusterfuck that is the very existence of foodbanks and their rapid rise. So I dont know what your issue is.
If this policy is enacted don't be all that surprised if that is what people choose to do.
I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
"Nurses have been plunged into financial peril and forced to attend food banks amid a ‘perfect storm’ in the profession, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has said.
Spiralling debt, a fall in wages and poor employment prospects combined with an ageing workforce present a real threat to the NHS.
Josie Irwin, head of employment relations at the RCN told The HuffPost UK: “It’s shocking that in this day and age in 2016 in a so-called civilised society, nurses who are highly regarded, highly trained individuals are paying visits to food banks in order to feed their families.
“About one third of nurses are struggling to pay their gas and electricity bills. Some are skipping meals, some 14% are struggling. 53% are working extra hours just to help pay their bills.”
Take it up with the RCN not me eh?
I looked at the press conference of those in the room where May delivered her speech, the crowd looked dead.
I think on the whole Corbyn has a more passionate support, but we all know he's miles away from ever leading this country.
If I'm ever lucky enough to have children, have an estate to pass on, but unlucky to need social care through dementia, I'd probably do what you suggest Seth
But yes at the moment if you receive care in your own home they don't take that home value into account currently. But it's fairly safe to say no one with dementia will remain in their own home unless 24hr live in care which unless it's a family member etc doing it for free is at least double the cost of care in a home.
It's a bit bonkers at the moment, If I have a £3m house but only £20k in the bank, any care I receive at home the council have to pay for. If I have a £100k house but have £50k in the bank I have to pay....... thats not fair is it?
I know Labour are throwing a fit about this, Corbyn's tweeting about it, but he has no issues taxing a further £175k of someone's wealth when they die.
I'm starting to really detest almost all politicians!
For someone who has been living through this the past 10 years believe me by far and away the most important thing is we have a system that can deal with it, paying for it is secondary.
I might as well use your use of the phrase as evidence.
From NHS site. Guess where qualified Nurses start?
Pay rates from April 2017. You should always check with the employer to confirm the pay rate for any post for which you are applying.
This pay system covers all staff except doctors, dentists and very senior managers. Each of the nine pay bands has a number of pay points. Staff will normally progress to the next pay point annually until they reach the top of the pay band. In addition to basic pay, there is also extra pay for staff who work in high cost areas such as around London.
Band 1
Point 2 £15,404
Point 3 £15,671
Possible roles at band 1 - domestic support worker, housekeeping assistant, driver and nursery assistant.
Band 2
Point 2 £15,404
Point 3 £15,671
Point 4 £16,104
Point 5 £16,536
Point 6 £16,968
Point 7 £17,524
Point 8 £18,157
Possible roles at band 2 - domestic team leader, security officer, secretary/typist and healthcare assistant.
Band 3
Point 6 £16,968
Point 7 £17,524
Point 8 £18,157
Point 9 £18,333
Point 10 £18,839
Point 11 £19,409
Point 12 £19,852
Possible roles at band 3- emergency care assistant, clinical coding officer, support, time and recovery worker, estates officer and occupational therapy assistant.
Band 4
Point 11 £19,409
Point 12 £19,852
Point 13 £20,551
Point 14 £21,263
Point 15 £21,909
Point 16 £22,128
Point 17 £22,683
"My nursing qualifications and experience mean I’m already in a good place on the pay scale (band 7), and the London weighting is a bonus."
Possible roles at band 4 - assistant practitioner, audio visual technician, pharmacy technician, dental nurse and theatre support worker.
Band 5
Point 16 £22,128
Point 17 £22,683
Point 18 £23,597
Point 19 £24,547
Point 20 £25,551
Point 21 £26,565
Point 22 £27,635
Point 23 £28,746
Possible roles at band 5 (includes newly qualified professionals) - operating department practitioner (ODP), midwife, podiatrist, adult nurse, diagnostic radiographer, practice manager and ICT test analyst)
Let's just leave it eh.
Once the kids get to secondary it's more of a pick and chose cafeteria system so wouldn't be viable.
The stigma comes in with age and we don't seem to worry about it for the kids who get free school meals at ages 8-16 who get free school meals?
What was notable with the launch of the manifestos was the clamour from opponents to rubbish the costings. Predicatble yes but completely unfair in the case of Labour who provided far more detailed costings than the Tories. An example was Labour stating that the winter fuel payment cut put out by the tories will effect 10 million pensioners based on what the manifesto said. The retort from the Tories. How can they know how many will be affected when we haven't costed it?
Now it's Lab vs Lib... A lot to think about, either are protest votes IMO.
What the Tories are saying is a compromise between protecting an inheritance to your kids and also protecting the taxpayer (ie you) whilst you are working and providing a living to your kids.
It's sensible - once again people can't have it both ways.
For me it's a fair way towards ensuring something goes towards your kids and balancing the taxpayer impact when people like you are supporting you as they grow up.
But pure objective analysis shows there is a difference in the position of May and Corbyn on this. TV debates are a relatively new thing in this country and some may argue there is little point to them. I think they are useful personally.
You maybe need to consider whether your circumstances mean it would be a good idea to speak with an expert but as soon as you've paid off your mortgage (if you have one) it might be worth your (daughter's) while to put the house in trust?
But it seems that it's better to do that sooner rather than later because otherwise your local council's investigators may well deem the transfer to be a care home costs avoidance scheme.
THe cost to keep someone in residential care is anywhere from £35k - £100k per annum. We can argue to get it free so we can leave money to our children but there'll simply lose a lot of that in additional income tax. Doing so will hit the poorest hardest as those who aren't due to inherit will also need to pay considerably more tax.
I don't know what the current split is between those who pay and those who don't. However the total cost is in the region of £400m a week. Using where my father is purely as an example 65 out of the 82 residents pay, so 80%.....and the expectation is more people will need that care in the future. If that's a number seen across the country we need to tax for a further £320m a week and increasing.
That's just residential care, many more I believe receive care in their own home (although the cost per person will will be less). But let's assume that's £80m a week.
You simply wouldn't be able to tax enough to let the state pay a further £400m a week or 21bn a year, we only collect in tax about 160bn as it is. That's everyone paying 15% more tax.
Not perfect but this is a reasonable compromise in my view and that's from someone directly effected.
Ps the cost is set to increase but a fair margin with the increase to the minimum wage.