It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
You are not the sort of rich that people mean! Like you said - you would be better off with a Labour government!
You don't understand that the introduction of homes counting as savings to to those being cared for at home was the big change - your views seem to be based on a limited analysis of the policies apart from where they impact on you. But Dilnot advocated a system which was fair for those being cared for at home and in care. It seems the Tories are the only party unable to sign up to this despite agreeing to and welcoming the government commissioned Dilnot inquiry at the time. Yes it is a dementia tax - 100%. If you don't get dementia you don't pay it!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
You are not the sort of rich that people mean! Like you said - you would be better off with a Labour government!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
Like it!! You doing one 'for the many not the few' My Arse! As well?
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
You are not the sort of rich that people mean! Like you said - you would be better off with a Labour government!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
Like it!! You doing one 'for the many not the few' My Arse! As well?
Well they can have it - I am not one for joining things - my only real alliegiance is to Charlton, but I feel inspired by Corbyn. I can't quite reconcile the fact I was slagging the bloke off not long ago. I think I was wrong about him having no charisma also - not that it should matter - but his speech at the Libertines concert was as charismatic as they come!
National Insurance for self-employed workers - scrapped shortly after being announced in the Budget "Taking in refugee children" - back and forth on the Dubs amendment commitment. Energy price cap - after denouncing Ed Miliband's idea for one, she announced "a near identical policy" and the election itself - having "promised SEVEN times that she wouldn’t be calling an election until 2020 and this lates debacle over social care.
Margaret Thatcher may not have been one for turning but this strong and stable leader turns so much she must have one leg much longer than the other!
The U turn, the indecisiveness and the lack of explaining costs in their manifesto, now means that the Tories have lost my vote.
Therefore I'll be abstaining, I don't believe in Labours capabilities to carry out their pledges, I believe that their tax ideas will be awful for the economy. I won't vote for UKIP as they're a joke, as are Lib Dem and there's not much I agree with the Green Party on, particularly the 4 day week.
There's not one political party out there at the moment that's deserving my vote and that I trust in. Shame really as my right to vote was hard faught, but I can't vote for something I don't fully believe in.
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
Tax planning is not cheating. It is playing within the rules that have been set. Neither it is the preserve of rich people. Tax evasion is something different and should be cracked down on whether it be rich people or anyone else. Low tax rates lessen the need for tax planning or tax evasion.
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
You are not the sort of rich that people mean! Like you said - you would be better off with a Labour government!
You don't understand that the introduction of homes counting as savings to to those being cared for at home was the big change - your views seem to be based on a limited analysis of the policies apart from where they impact on you. But Dilnot advocated a system which was fair for those being cared for at home and in care. It seems the Tories are the only party unable to sign up to this despite agreeing to and welcoming the government commissioned Dilnot inquiry at the time. Yes it is a dementia tax - 100%. If you don't get dementia you don't pay it!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
Sorry, but am I being thick here ? You're saying if you don't get dementia you don't pay it !!!!
So if you've had a stroke and need care or if you're simply 90 years old and need care, with no dementia, you're saying it's free ?
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
You are not the sort of rich that people mean! Like you said - you would be better off with a Labour government!
You don't understand that the introduction of homes counting as savings to to those being cared for at home was the big change - your views seem to be based on a limited analysis of the policies apart from where they impact on you. But Dilnot advocated a system which was fair for those being cared for at home and in care. It seems the Tories are the only party unable to sign up to this despite agreeing to and welcoming the government commissioned Dilnot inquiry at the time. Yes it is a dementia tax - 100%. If you don't get dementia you don't pay it!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
I totally understand that, hence why calling the new proposal a dementia tax is silly. If you get dementia almost certainly you will go into care and therefore the new proposal is better not worse for people with dementia. It would be fairer to call it a non dementia but other illness tax!!
The care at home in its current guise is bonkers. So if I have a £3m pound house but £20k in the bank I don't pay, but if I have an £80k house and £50k in the bank I do? That's just ludicrous. not saying the new proposal is much better but it's probably fairer treating everyone the same.
I don't even think care should be 100% paid for anyway. We're my dad at home still and well he'd have to provide his own food, heating, pay his council tax etc etc. I don't think that should stop just because he needs care?
It was part of the £48bn sub total - your homework is to read it again. What has been betaryed is the fact that you haven't read it - and you are lecturing people who have! Read it, then your position carries more weight.
The Tory party manifesto is a load of tosh, even tory party members are saying so. But the Labour manifesto has been lauded by independant economists - I find it amazing they produced this comprehensive document with full costings on one side of the balance sheet and full costings on the other and the Tories who called the snap election seemed to have wrote theirs on the back of a fag packet!
Rob7Lee - it is clearly going to cost you smome money if Labour get it - it may cost me - but it won't cost most people and when you consider the dementia tax and if you have a son or daughter who may have aspirations of further education, you will get some if not all of it back. And you will be living in a better Britain. If more people have more money, I know my business will thrive.
I'm not concerned what it would cost me if Labour got in (ive always said happy to pay more tax) but as net effect is I'd be substantially better off if they could really afford all they say, hence why in the main I don't think it's remotely possible. The dementia tax is debatable as Labour haven't said what they'd do.
My daughters (1st one Sep 18) would save me £30k each in uni fee's alone. On the broad assumption that my father wouldn't have to pay for his care that's over £40k per annum. My tax in reality would be £2k more.....
And there-in lies the problem. You said earlier that Labour's proposals would increase your tax bill by £10k, but you'd then rearrange you finances so you only paid £2k. Yet you're more than happy to take the potential £40k in saving. Can you not see the massive moral problem with that stance? You are offered up to £30k per year (40-10), but your greed drives you to say "no, I want £38k, and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure I don't get just £30k".
You'll reply that the £40k is all potential that may not happen, whilst the £8k tax saving you'd make is very real. And you're right to a certain extent, but it is that attitude that will guarantee the money to make those saving happen isn't paid.
Truly the tragedy of the commons, everybody worse off because they can't see beyond the end of their nose.
If I was only in it for myself and only voted based on the monetary effect it would have on me and my family I'd be queuing up right now to vote Labour. Your argument on my morality doesn't really fit with someone who is unlikely to vote Labour this time around and therefore won't be the 30k better off if they did, surely I wouldn't vote Conservative if I'm going to be massively worse off under them compared to Labour would I?
I'm quite entitled to start paying money into a pension again, all be it limited to £10k before they double tax me (tax going in and again coming out) which would reduce my tax (on that £10k) by 52%. My wife is also entitled to pay more into a pension up to £3,600 or her annual salary, as is everyone in this country.
I don't make the rules, simply have to abide by them! Just like my wife had to when they stopped her £1750 a year in child benefit because I earned more than £60k, just like I had to when the Tories took away my personal allowance meaning my marginal rate became 60%, Also when effectively they have reduced where the higher rate of tax comes in, or when they reduced the amount I can pay into pension and receive tax relief......
Despite the rhetoric of conservatives being the party of low taxation and 'mates' of the well off in respect of tax, my personal experience the past 20 years is the complete opposite, my personal tax was much much lower under Labour.
I disbelieve hugely that Labour will raise even a 1/4 of what they believe they will in tax (Corp and personal), which if they don't who is going to be effected the most? ........It won't be the rich, I'd envisage it will be the poorer in society.......
And as much as the conservatives are idiots at times, I don't get the hoo hah and the nick name regarding 'dementia tax' .... has no one worked out yet that those who sadly do and will suffer from dementia - they are some of the few who will be better off under the 'dementia tax' £100k cap...... it's currently circa £23k!
You are not the sort of rich that people mean! Like you said - you would be better off with a Labour government!
You don't understand that the introduction of homes counting as savings to to those being cared for at home was the big change - your views seem to be based on a limited analysis of the policies apart from where they impact on you. But Dilnot advocated a system which was fair for those being cared for at home and in care. It seems the Tories are the only party unable to sign up to this despite agreeing to and welcoming the government commissioned Dilnot inquiry at the time. Yes it is a dementia tax - 100%. If you don't get dementia you don't pay it!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
Sorry, but am I being thick here ? You're saying if you don't get dementia you don't pay it !!!!
So if you've had a stroke and need care or if you're simply 90 years old and need care, with no dementia, you're saying it's free ?
It all comes down to the definition of continuing care, it's far from straightforward and there are a number of elements to it, some dementia patients are fully funded regardless of their financial position.
Well unless I'm talking at cross purposes here. My mother in law aged 89 had a stroke 2 years ago and was given temporary help in her home (something like 3 months). After that she would have had to pay, as she had more than something like £23K. She owns her house.
Under the proposal yesterday ( before a cap was mentioned), surely she would have to pay for care ?
She hasn't got dementia.
What about people in similar scenarios that are just too old to cope, but no dementia ?
Surely they would have to pay ?
It is not a dementia tax is it ? Surely, it just a label, that's been attached ?
Well unless I'm talking at cross purposes here. My mother in law aged 89 had a stroke 2 years ago and was given temporary help in her home (something like 3 months). After that she would have had to pay, as she had more than something like £23K. She owns her house.
Under the proposal yesterday ( before a cap was mentioned), surely she would have to pay for care ?
She hasn't got dementia.
What about people in similar scenarios that are just too old to cope, but no dementia ?
Surely they would have to pay ?
It is not a dementia tax is it ? Surely, it just a label, that's been attached ?
Well unless I'm talking at cross purposes here. My mother in law aged 89 had a stroke 2 years ago and was given temporary help in her home (something like 3 months). After that she would have had to pay, as she had more than something like £23K. She owns her house.
Under the proposal yesterday ( before a cap was mentioned), surely she would have to pay for care ?
She hasn't got dementia.
What about people in similar scenarios that are just too old to cope, but no dementia ?
Surely they would have to pay ?
It is not a dementia tax is it ? Surely, it just a label, that's been attached ?
Agreed, just a label - bit like the pastie tax was a label referring to all hot takeaways.
Blessed are the cheese makers - obviously we all know it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
dementia tax & bedroom tax. THEY ARE NOT TAXES. I don't particularly like the new "care" rules the Torys are proposing, and think that the "untouched" amount should be more like £250k, not £100k, but these things have to be paid for. We cant live in a Utopia land (however much Labour think you can) where this is free and that is free - the NHS and associated care costs money - lots of it- and taxing those earning above £133k isn't going to raise the money needed, especially if the money is also being paid to hundreds of thousands of 18-21 year olds to p**s up the wall at the subsidised union bar, and to renationalise the water companies, electric companies, the royal mail & the railways.
While we are at it, why should my hard earned tax pay for lots of students to waste 3 years of their lives taking worthless exams which they wont use. Its fine if they are studying something useful to become doctors, teachers, lawyers or engineers, but media studies & humanities ???
Well if somebody can't care for themselves due to dementia and they have to go in a home, they have to pay unless they have a health problem outside of dementia that means they have to go into residential home - that is a dementia tax. If they have to go into residential care due to other health conditions the cost is covered by teh NHS. But the home care is technically a tax on being ill as other illnesses come into play. But many people need care at home due to dementia - so it is a dementia tax too unless you are a pedant. The bottom line is that it has got into such a state due to council cuts that sick people with dementia and other conditions are paying 40% more (Daily Mail figure) for their care. If any of you lot want to defend that - well you have to look in the mirror - but it is something we all should contribute towards rather than nick it off sick people because we can't afford to pay for it whilst we can afford tax breaks for the very wealthy.
It is all a complete mess really and I'm glad the Tories have performed a U-turn - if anybody wants to claim it is anything else they are delusional in the extreme. And if you want to get picky with definitions rather than want to bring some fairness in, it says a lot about you. Anybody who has seen my posts know I have been going on about this injustice for years. When I found out about it, I was ashamed!
This is one thing I will praise the daily mail for -they have campaigned against this injustice for the past few years. It makes them sick like it makes me - we have that in common.
Comments
She's just a nasty piece of work with, I have to say, limited intellect. She will still be elected PM in a couple of weeks.
Are these really the best f*cking politicians we have?
You don't understand that the introduction of homes counting as savings to to those being cared for at home was the big change - your views seem to be based on a limited analysis of the policies apart from where they impact on you. But Dilnot advocated a system which was fair for those being cared for at home and in care. It seems the Tories are the only party unable to sign up to this despite agreeing to and welcoming the government commissioned Dilnot inquiry at the time. Yes it is a dementia tax - 100%. If you don't get dementia you don't pay it!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I have made attached simple poster, similar have been springing up all over London. Please feel free to print off and use as many as you like. Set up for A4 printing.
Margaret Thatcher may not have been one for turning but this strong and stable leader turns so much she must have one leg much longer than the other!
Therefore I'll be abstaining, I don't believe in Labours capabilities to carry out their pledges, I believe that their tax ideas will be awful for the economy. I won't vote for UKIP as they're a joke, as are Lib Dem and there's not much I agree with the Green Party on, particularly the 4 day week.
There's not one political party out there at the moment that's deserving my vote and that I trust in. Shame really as my right to vote was hard faught, but I can't vote for something I don't fully believe in.
Tax evasion is something different and should be cracked down on whether it be rich people or anyone else.
Low tax rates lessen the need for tax planning or tax evasion.
So if you've had a stroke and need care or if you're simply 90 years old and need care, with no dementia, you're saying it's free ?
The care at home in its current guise is bonkers. So if I have a £3m pound house but £20k in the bank I don't pay, but if I have an £80k house and £50k in the bank I do? That's just ludicrous. not saying the new proposal is much better but it's probably fairer treating everyone the same.
I don't even think care should be 100% paid for anyway. We're my dad at home still and well he'd have to provide his own food, heating, pay his council tax etc etc. I don't think that should stop just because he needs care?
Under the proposal yesterday ( before a cap was mentioned), surely she would have to pay for care ?
She hasn't got dementia.
What about people in similar scenarios that are just too old to cope, but no dementia ?
Surely they would have to pay ?
It is not a dementia tax is it ? Surely, it just a label, that's been attached ?
Blessed are the cheese makers - obviously we all know it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
While we are at it, why should my hard earned tax pay for lots of students to waste 3 years of their lives taking worthless exams which they wont use. Its fine if they are studying something useful to become doctors, teachers, lawyers or engineers, but media studies & humanities ???
It is all a complete mess really and I'm glad the Tories have performed a U-turn - if anybody wants to claim it is anything else they are delusional in the extreme. And if you want to get picky with definitions rather than want to bring some fairness in, it says a lot about you. Anybody who has seen my posts know I have been going on about this injustice for years. When I found out about it, I was ashamed!
This is one thing I will praise the daily mail for -they have campaigned against this injustice for the past few years. It makes them sick like it makes me - we have that in common.