piledriver64 wrote:Steve Zodiak wrote:piledriver64 wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.
Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)
I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together So much for their so called economic competence.
Spot on !!
We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!
I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!
The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.
Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.
By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!
Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.
Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.
I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May
May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.
Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.
The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.
Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok