Do you want to discuss boring politics? (33 Viewers)

chiefdave · Nov 19, 2021

Marr joins Neil & Kuenssberg in leaving the BBC. He's off to LBC. To be honest he's sadly not been his best since his illness.

Opportunity now for the beeb to revamp their political coverage, be interesting to see who they bring in or promote. Not sure there's any glaringly obvious candidates for internal promotion.

PVA · Nov 19, 2021

They'll bring in whoever the government tell them to bring in, sadly.

clint van damme · Nov 19, 2021

chiefdave said:
Marr joins Neil & Kuenssberg in leaving the BBC. He's off to LBC. To be honest he's sadly not been his best since his illness.

Opportunity now for the beeb to revamp their political coverage, be interesting to see who they bring in or promote. Not sure there's any glaringly obvious candidates for internal promotion.

He's a tory lackey. Be glad to see the back of the fucking drip.

skybluetony176 · Nov 19, 2021

This is quite bizarre

Apparently Boris has buyers regret over marrying Carrie.

PM Boris Johnson to sue The New European over "buyer's remorse" article... Not.

UPDATED 13.30: Apparently they've changed their minds now.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 19, 2021

skybluetony176 said:
This is quite bizarre

Apparently Boris has buyers regret over marrying Carrie.

PM Boris Johnson to sue The New European over "buyer's remorse" article... Not.

UPDATED 13.30: Apparently they've changed their minds now.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk

Seems pretty standard think for Johnson and his like to do. Considering his mate Guppy wanted to beat up a journalist and Johnson didn't seemed too bothered about stopping him a few anonymous threats of legal action should be considered quite tame,

And of course he regrets marrying Carrie. The man has no concept of consequences. He wanted to dip his wick and thoughts of what might happen later on don't concern him. He's alledgedly already cheated on her with Acuri before marriage and he doesn't seem the type that would let something as pesky as marriage vows get in the way of getting his end away. Although it would be funny if they did end up in divorce proceedings so we can see her fighting him in court for her share of Sweet FA.

PVA · Nov 20, 2021

"Ex-MP Charlie Elphicke jailed for sexual assault now claiming universal credit
Former Tory member for Dover tells court he is in ‘very difficult position’ and unable to pay £35,000 of costs"

Anyone got a tiny violin I could borrow?

skybluetony176 · Nov 20, 2021

PVA said:
"Ex-MP Charlie Elphicke jailed for sexual assault now claiming universal credit
Former Tory member for Dover tells court he is in ‘very difficult position’ and unable to pay £35,000 of costs"

Anyone got a tiny violin I could borrow?

Not on there but I think he also voted to reduce legal aid. Hopefully he’s breaking his release conditions by not paying his debt and gets a recall.

Skybluefaz · Nov 22, 2021

BBC News - Social care: MPs to debate plan for cap on care costs

Social care: MPs back change to funding cost cap in England

Critics say altering the way the cap will be calculated could disproportionately hit poorer people.

www.bbc.co.uk

More levelling down.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 22, 2021

Skybluefaz said:
BBC News - Social care: MPs to debate plan for cap on care costs

Social care: MPs back change to funding cost cap in England

Critics say altering the way the cap will be calculated could disproportionately hit poorer people.

www.bbc.co.uk

More levelling down.

It's a complete con to protect the assets of the rich. If you own a multi-million pound house then that counts towards the cap. If you get a misely sum from the council it doesn't. Utter joke of a proposal.

Grendel · Nov 22, 2021

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It's a complete con to protect the assets of the rich. If you own a multi-million pound house then that counts towards the cap. If you get a misely sum from the council it doesn't. Utter joke of a proposal.

Why? Many have worked hard to own said house. It’s theirs they earned it - earned.

jimmyhillsfanclub · Nov 22, 2021

The care system has been a fucking bad joke & a total lottery for years....

My poor old dad got early onset alzheimers & was kept alive (against his wishes) for years, slowly rotting in a wheelchair at the cost of all of his annual pension & half his house....my ma had to become "tenants in common" with him just to ensure they couldn't take all the value.....

Meanwhile, another resident in the care home with alzheimers was fully funded due to some bizarre rule regarding other health conditons at point of admittance......

I recently lost my old dog, and he was afforded more dignity & far less suffering at his end of life for £500 than my old man got for a few hundred grand.

Disgraceful.

CCFCSteve · Nov 22, 2021

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It's a complete con to protect the assets of the rich. If you own a multi-million pound house then that counts towards the cap. If you get a misely sum from the council it doesn't. Utter joke of a proposal.

It’s an imperfect solution, however, Im not sure anyone with a house valued at 200k-300k house could be classed as rich ?! I think they will benefit from the new proposals compared to the current system

I would’ve preferred some kind of additional contribution from those with assets of say over £1m or £2m, however, this would be just a political gesture (it would raise little). Do you really think someone with a multi million pound house will be using standard social care or that their main assets won’t be in trusts etc ?! ie I might be wrong however I’d imagine they’re out of the system to start with

Skybluefaz · Nov 22, 2021

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 22, 2021

Grendel said:
Why? Many have worked hard to own said house. It’s theirs they earned it - earned.

You're assuming they've earned it. While many will what about those that have inherited said wealth from rich parents? Are you suggesting those that don't have big, expensive houses haven't worked hard?

You seem to be pretty happy with individuals with large resources accessing better medical care if they can afford it but when it comes to paying for their own care you're asking why should they have to fork out.

What is fairer is saying every person gets to retain a certain amount of their assets. You still have enough to meet your needs but enables a higher standard of care and dignity for more people.

This proposal (probably deliberately) is much harsher on the poor, who stand to lose far more proportionally than those who have a lot. It's yet another regressive proposal put forward to protect the rich and it stinks.

Deleted member 9744 · Nov 22, 2021

Skybluefaz said:

I just feel so in awe of the brilliance and extreme competence of this man.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 22, 2021

CCFCSteve said:
It’s an imperfect solution, however, Im not sure anyone with a house valued at 200k-300k house could be classed as rich ?! I think they will benefit from the new proposals compared to the current system

I would’ve preferred some kind of additional contribution from those with assets of say over £1m or £2m, however, this would be just a political gesture (it would raise little). Do you really think someone with a multi million pound house will be using standard social care or that their main assets won’t be in trusts etc ?! ie I might be wrong however I’d imagine they’re out of the system to start with

People who own houses of that value aren't rich (they just aren't poor) but that is an argument over what the limit should be, which isn't really what I'm focusing on - it's more the way the system works.

You are correct about rich people protecting their assets in trust etc and not paying anyway but the fact is they could get hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of NHS care for £89k rather than having to pay full whack in the private market. They can then use the money saved to buy the extra care.

Meanwhile many poorer people will have no choice but to do so if they want care. They may end up receiving more value in care than they contribute but poorer people are more likely to die at a younger age and so are more likely to receive less overall value.

A less well off person could die in their early 70's having had to sell all their assets and pay for all of their care as they have not yet reached the £89k. Meanwhile a rich person could live into their 90's and pay only a tiny fraction of the cost of their care from their own assets, which they still have the vast majority of because of the cap.

Richer people are far more likely to get value for money from this than the poor.

Skybluefaz · Nov 22, 2021

Deleted member 9744 said:
I just feel so in awe of the brilliance and extreme competence of this man.

He is a good performer, this isn't great for that image.

chiefdave · Nov 22, 2021

It seems badly thought out with lots of loopholes. That normally means that those that can afford accountants can exploit the loopholes for their own benefit while the rest of us have to pay.

Its not an easy problem to solve but according to the chap from Age UK this morning the average cost of care in the UK is higher than the rest of Europe and the proportion of costs the individual is expected to cover is also the highest. Have the most expensive costs with the least funding doesn't seem great.

CCFCSteve · Nov 22, 2021

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
People who own houses of that value aren't rich (they just aren't poor) but that is an argument over what the limit should be, which isn't really what I'm focusing on - it's more the way the system works.

You are correct about rich people protecting their assets in trust etc and not paying anyway but the fact is they could get hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of NHS care for £89k rather than having to pay full whack in the private market. They can then use the money saved to buy the extra care.

Meanwhile many poorer people will have no choice but to do so if they want care. They may end up receiving more value in care than they contribute but poorer people are more likely to die at a younger age and so are more likely to receive less overall value.

A less well off person could die in their early 70's having had to sell all their assets and pay for all of their care as they have not yet reached the £89k. Meanwhile a rich person could live into their 90's and pay only a tiny fraction of the cost of their care from their own assets, which they still have the vast majority of because of the cap.

Richer people are far more likely to get value for money from this than the poor.

At the moment everyone pays the total value of care barring a tiny sum and many still receive shit care. Nearly everyone benefits from the proposals. One of the main beneficiaries will be younger people who will at least receive some kind of inheritance now (even from average house price) and could use it to get on the ladder. The richer, assuming their assets remain in their estate, will have a bigger inheritance tax bill which comes back into the pot anyway

A higher proportion of the additional NIC which will be used to fund better care for all, will be paid for by bigger businesses and higher paid employees.

As I mentioned it’s an imperfect solution and I’d rather the very rich make an additional contribution but as discussed these people are out of the system anyway even though many probably would’ve contributed a lot towards it. The poorest in society should hopefully get better free care in future...if nhs doesn’t swallow the additional cash

Skybluefaz · Nov 22, 2021

CCFCSteve said:
It’s an imperfect solution, however, Im not sure anyone with a house valued at 200k-300k house could be classed as rich ?! I think they will benefit from the new proposals compared to the current system

I would’ve preferred some kind of additional contribution from those with assets of say over £1m or £2m, however, this would be just a political gesture (it would raise little). Do you really think someone with a multi million pound house will be using standard social care or that their main assets won’t be in trusts etc ?! ie I might be wrong however I’d imagine they’re out of the system to start with

It isn't easy. The fact that the wealthier are in a position to utilise trusts etc to protect wealth is a privilege in itself. Its sad that people can work really hard to earn an asset such as a modest home but then that little leg up they might hope to pass on to children or grandchildren will be wiped out.
I think there must be a fairer alternative.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 22, 2021

CCFCSteve said:
The richer, assuming their assets remain in their estate will have a bigger inheritance tax bill which comes back into the pot anyway

It's how I'd rectify it, make inheritance tax more progressive.

It's a difficult thing, inheritance. It seems fundamentally unfair to get a leg up because your parents, not you, have worked hard... and I think back to somebody I knew who died, who had no children or surviving siblings, so a random great neice they'd never met got the entire £1mil+ estate!

But at the same time, I'm not going to refuse anything my parents are able to leave me, out of principle!

TomRad85 · Nov 22, 2021

I'll be signing over everything I own to my son long before I'm dead so the government don't get their grubby mits on a single penny. I've earned it, I've paid tax on it, I want my son to have it. Inheritance tax my arse.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

CCFCSteve · Nov 22, 2021

Deleted member 5849 said:
It's how I'd rectify it, make inheritance tax more progressive.

It's a difficult thing, inheritance. It seems fundamentally unfair to get a leg up because your parents, not you, have worked hard... and I think back to somebody I knew who died, who had no children or surviving siblings, so a random great neice they'd never met got the entire £1mil+ estate!

But at the same time, I'm not going to refuse anything my parents are able to leave me, out of principle!

Lucky great niece !!! To be fair I’d imagine out of a £1m estate the government would’ve still got £270k on (I’m guessing) already taxed income. Not a bad slice...although not as good as the lucky great niece (if you’ve got her number feel free to pass it on )

Skybluefaz · Nov 22, 2021

TomRad85 said:
I'll be signing over everything I own to my son long before I'm dead so the government don't get their grubby mits on a single penny. I've earned it, I've paid tax on it, I want my son to have it. Inheritance tax my arse.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

When are you going to die Tom?
You been on that website like Martin Goodman? Do you get to go to space?

CCFCSteve · Nov 22, 2021

TomRad85 said:
I'll be signing over everything I own to my son long before I'm dead so the government don't get their grubby mits on a single penny. I've earned it, I've paid tax on it, I want my son to have it. Inheritance tax my arse.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

And that’s the point, you make tax/inheritance tax to punitive in normal people’s eyes and many who are ordinarily happy to contribute into the system will do what they can to make sure government doesn’t get their hands on most/any of it

chiefdave · Nov 22, 2021

I know we live in a clickbait world but you can't not click on something like this. The speech was 'interesting'.

shmmeee · Nov 22, 2021

CCFCSteve said:
Lucky great niece !!! To be fair I’d imagine out of a £1m estate the government would’ve still got £270k on (I’m guessing) already taxed income. Not a bad slice...although not as good as the lucky great niece (if you’ve got her number feel free to pass it on )

Never got this “already taxed income” line. All money has been taxed before. I don’t not pay VAT on my shopping because I paid income tax on my wages. And Aldi will take that income and use some to pay business rates. You don’t tax money you tax transfers of money.

TomRad85 · Nov 22, 2021

Skybluefaz said:
When are you going to die Tom?
You been on that website like Martin Goodman? Do you get to go to space?

Well unless there are major medical advancements in the next couple of decades, I'd consider 85 a good innings.
Not too bothered about space, not even been to America yet, that will likely be alien enough for me.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Skybluefaz · Nov 22, 2021

TomRad85 said:
Well unless there are major medical advancements in the next couple of decades, I'd consider 85 a good innings.
Not too bothered about space, not even been to America yet, that will likely be alien enough for me.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I wasn't being funny it just reminded me of this scene from Friday Night Dinner.

Just gift your shit 7 years before you're brown bread and you're golden.

I know people in the tax game who would ask you what Saturday's lottery numbers are though.

jimmyhillsfanclub · Nov 22, 2021

TomRad85 said:
I'll be signing over everything I own to my son long before I'm dead so the government don't get their grubby mits on a single penny. I've earned it, I've paid tax on it, I want my son to have it. Inheritance tax my arse.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Fundamentally disagree with this.

Inheritance tax is about the only tax that even attempts to inject a tiny bit of rebalance between the fortunate & no so fortunate.

Your son would still get a load of money for nothing.....even if he had to pay inheritance tax....they only start taking it after the initial 325K (or 500K) if you include your house....

So that would be half a million, tax free, plus a further 60% of anything over 500K for doing absolutely nothing other than being lucky enough to be your son.

I'm happy with the idea that my sons will pay inheritace tax (assuming it don't all get swallowed up by care costs) as they'll still get a big chuck of tax-free cash for fuck all other than being born lucky.

TomRad85 · Nov 22, 2021

Skybluefaz said:
I wasn't being funny it just reminded me of this scene from Friday Night Dinner.

Just gift your shit 7 years before you're brown bread and you're golden.

I know people in the tax game who would ask you what Saturday's lottery numbers are though.

Apologies I've never seen it, I've heard its fairly decent for a modern comedy so maybe I'll try it.

Don't worry, I'm fully aware of the 7 year rule, I figure if me and my wife are still going strong mid 60s that's probably about right.... jinxed it now, we'll blow up on a rocket into space.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

skybluetony176 · Nov 22, 2021

Grendel said:
Why? Many have worked hard to own said house. It’s theirs they earned it - earned.

So a nurse hasn’t “worked” hard enough to buy a house that’s valuable enough that they don’t have to cash in 100% of the value for social care later in life. Morally bankrupt again.

CCFCSteve · Nov 22, 2021

shmmeee said:
Never got this “already taxed income” line. All money has been taxed before. I don’t not pay VAT on my shopping because I paid income tax on my wages. And Aldi will take that income and use some to pay business rates. You don’t tax money you tax transfers of money.

Understand the point but VAT is at least when you choose to buy something. Inheritance tax is just another tax that if you/your family are good citizens you just pay for no direct benefit

*I agree with IHT by the way, my earlier comment was just saying to NW that the government would’ve taken a decent slice out of that estate

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 22, 2021

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
Fundamentally disagree with this.

Inheritance tax is about the only tax that even attempts to inject a tiny bit of rebalance between the fortunate & no so fortunate.

Your son would still get a load of money for nothing.....even if he had to pay inheritance tax....they only start taking it after the initial 325K (or 500K) if you include your house....

So that would be half a million, tax free, plus a further 60% of anything over 500K for doing absolutely nothing other than being lucky enough to be your son.

I'm happy with the idea that my sons will pay inheritace tax (assuming it don't all get swallowed up by care costs) as they'll still get a big chuck of tax-free cash for fuck all other than being born lucky.

Of course if he does gift it early and his son turns out to be a crack addict with a taste for high class hookers (no reflection on Tom's parenting!) then he's completely shafted, and on the streets... with nobody to support him as no bugger's paid their tax.

TomRad85 · Nov 22, 2021

Deleted member 5849 said:
Of course if he does gift it early and his son turns out to be a crack addict with a taste for high class hookers (no reflection on Tom's parenting!) then he's completely shafted, and on the streets... with nobody to support him as no bugger's paid their tax.

Don't worry mate, we'll keep an emergency flat in Cyprus just incase my son goes rogue.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (33 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 9744

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency