The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Voting open today from 7am - 10pm

[BID0]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

There isn't one.

TV is subject ot ofcom and must be balanced and give time to each party relative to public opinions etc.

Newspapers have no such rule, there was going to be one but the Tories have said the plans will be scrapped in their manifesto.

twitter.com/hrtbps/status/865528902289981442

to be fair, it's probably just coincidence.

[Hexx]

The amount of vitriol over the laughably named "dementia tax" is staggering.

It's the IHT whinge fest x10.

People who would consider themselves on "the left" aghast that those (i.e. "hard working family member who wants to leave it to me") with substantial assets should contribute to society's costs.

[Moggy]

More lies from the Daily Mail as they have gone with the headline "CORBYN'S KICK IN TEETH FOR IRA VICTIMS" and then accuses Corbyn of refusing to condemn the IRA. This is based purely on this Sky interview where he literally says "I condemn all those that do bombing including the IRA".

If you vote for Corbyn then you'll end up with a member of the IRA as deputy first minister of N Ireland.

Oh wait....

[captain red dog]

Well these tuition fee plans from Labour are really good. You have to hand it to Corbyn, he has gone aggressive with the manifesto and it generally seems well recieved. It's certainly a manifesto that would have my backing despite the considerations over Brexit.

The Tory manifesto in comparison looks like a working class nightmare in my opinion.

[Grumpy David]

The amount of vitriol over the laughably named "dementia tax" is staggering.

It's the IHT whinge fest x10.

People who would consider themselves on "the left" aghast that those (i.e. "hard working family member who wants to leave it to me") with substantial assets should contribute to society's costs.

Isn't it effectively a 100% tax rate on assets over £100,000?

Whilst I expect to have no inheritance whatsoever from parents, I am generally opposed to the concept of a harsh inheritance tax. This seems very harsh on those with long term health care needs.

[Moggy]

Let's have another 5 page discussion on IHT.

[Hexx]

The amount of vitriol over the laughably named "dementia tax" is staggering.

It's the IHT whinge fest x10.

People who would consider themselves on "the left" aghast that those (i.e. "hard working family member who wants to leave it to me") with substantial assets should contribute to society's costs.

Isn't it effectively a 100% tax rate on assets over £100,000?

Whilst I expect to have no inheritance whatsoever from parents, I am generally opposed to the concept of a harsh inheritance tax. This seems very harsh on those with long term health care needs.

Potentially - yeah.

It's a bad idea in that it mixes the idea of pooled social contributions.

E.g. You and I both have £300k assets.

You need care and have to pay £200k before the state helps.

I don't need care an need to pay nothing.

Only you pay for your costs at the start (and vice versa)

In a "pooled" situation we might both contribute even though neither of us might need it, or both will.

It's simply "From each, according to need [and ability to pay]" which is a huge change from how most social security costs are funded.

If people want to object on that basis I'd agree - I'm just frustrated with the "hand's off my money" style response from lots of people. How dare people with near above average assets (IIRC it's about £130k, but that's not adjusted for ages) be expected to pay more! Shocking!

Edit - it's interesting to note the change the plan suggests.

Effectively the policy was to be a cap on everyone "You wont pay more than £70k towards care costs", now it's a floor "Your assets wont fall below £100k".

The former massively benefited high value individuals more, and could wipe out smaller asset holders.

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

[satriales]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

[captain red dog]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

Yep and it wouldn't be so controversial if the care was actually any good, but it is a national scandal at present that nobody genuinely wants to tackle.

[Hexx]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

[BID0]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

It sounds silly but the "high" earners (and people who get private healthcare from work) pay for private healthcare already and benefit from not paying for the NHS in this scenario - so yes they pay for it (private) but won't pay for it (a second time/NHS).

[Hexx]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

It sounds silly but the "high" earners (and people who get private healthcare from work) pay for private healthcare already and benefit from not paying for the NHS in this scenario - so yes they pay for it (private) but won't pay for it (a second time/NHS).

Does private healthcare normally cover domicile care as well? (Can tell I don't have it )

They already do pay for the NHS though (and then don't use if they have PMI ) through other taxes. [Same as people that pay taxes, then send kids to private schools, paying twice for stuff and the public stuff they don't use...that's another issue though).

They won't pay this "top up" cost for care now...but they they're already in the "pay for what you use" camp...

So what "lottery" are they missing? I'm confused.

[satriales]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

So you're suggesting the rich should be able to avoid taxes for anything they don't directly benefit from?
I don't use railways but some of my taxes are used to prop up the private companies that run the trains. Should I apply for a tax refund?

[Hexx]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

So you're suggesting the rich should be able to avoid taxes for anything they don't directly benefit from?
I don't use railways but some of my taxes are used to prop up the private companies that run the trains. Should I apply for a tax refund?

Ahhhh is that Bido's point. I suspected I was missing something,.

[BID0]

I was just clarifying your "paying but not paying" question.

If somebody already pays for carers/private healthcare/butlers then this new system that the Conservative government propose benefits them as they won't be using the NHS for elderly care and can avoid paying the state to support those who can't afford it by selling their estates.

So as satriales pointed out, it's the middle class that pay for it because they become the rich people that can.

I shouldn't have jumped in to the discussion sorry!

[Hexx]

I was just clarifying your "paying but not paying" question.

If somebody already pays for carers/private healthcare/butlers then this new system that the Conservative government propose benefits them as they won't be using the NHS for elderly care and can avoid paying the state to support those who can't afford it by selling their estates.

So as satriales pointed out, it's the middle class that pay for it because they become the rich people that can.

Yeah but the middle class are paying for what they use. Same as low, Same a high (affected by Tory plan)

That was my point - the plan entirely misses out the cross subsidy - everyone ends up on a "pay as you go" style approach (until they hit the £100k floor)

So you seemed to be saying "they won't pay into a system that missus out the cross subsidy, because they already pay in a sway that misses out the cross subsidy"

I shouldn't have jumped in to the discussion sorry!

What? Why?

[Errkal]

As I see it, it pans out like this.

Those with under 100k stay as now and get care
Those over 100k pay for there own care until they hit 100k

This means the middle rung that has a bit over but don't have private care now have to foot the bill blowing their inheritance until they hit 100k

The really rich are untouched by this as they would have had private care anyway so it is irrelevant to them.

Effectively this is a "sorry your ill" tax on the middle classes, yeah they have over 100k in assets but that's not reason to make them spend it on something the NHS is meant for, it is a lazy way to fill a gap the tories want to not bother with in a way that doesn't impact their super-rich buddies.

It is especially cruel to make people sell houses and gooseberry fool to fund their care, they have paid into the NHS all their life it should be for them when they need it thats how it works, if you dont want to use and want to have private care fine, don't but you still pay in for those who aren't as fortunate.

[Grumpy David]

It's looking like they'll have a ceiling too now, not just a floor.

No figure known for the ceiling but I'd expect somewhere around 70k.

[Hexx]

Effectively this is a "sorry your ill" tax on the middle classes, yeah they have over 100k in assets but that's not reason to make them spend it on something the NHS is meant for, it is a lazy way to fill a gap the tories want to not bother with in a way that doesn't impact their super-rich buddies.

It is especially cruel to make people sell houses and gooseberry fool to fund their care, they have paid into the NHS all their life it should be for them when they need it thats how it works, if you dont want to use and want to have private care fine, don't but you still pay in for those who aren't as fortunate.

The problem is costs are skyrocketing. An ageing population is a huge financial burden we are in no means prepared for - and no one seemingly wants to pay for. (Not a criticism of you - but the "I've paid in for all my life, why should I pay more now it turns out I'm going to live 30 years longer" is a common response)

It is time for Britain to talk about raising taxes

The pressure to increase spending on health and pensions will become inexorable

May 18, 2017
© Getty

The UK confronts huge challenges. Brexit threatens its position in the world. The stagnation of productivity threatens its economic future. But there is another challenge: the sustainability of public finances.

Will the UK public sector be able to provide the benefits the public expects in return for the taxes it is willing to pay? The answer to that question seems to be “no”. If so, will the promise to provide some universal services be abandoned? Will taxes be raised? Or will debt be allowed to grow until it has to stop?

In January, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an interesting analysis of the long-run pressures on the public finances. Its central projection was that UK public sector net debt would rise from 87 per cent of gross domestic product in 2016-17 to 234 per cent 50 years later.

Non-interest spending is forecast to rise from close to 38 per cent of GDP in 2016-17 to 44 per cent by 2066-67. Meanwhile, revenue would, on current policies, remain between 36 and 37 per cent of GDP. The consequence of the persistent gap between tax and non-interest government spending is that borrowing and debt grow explosively.

Assume, instead, that a responsible government desired to lower net debt to 40 per cent of GDP, which is roughly where it was before the financial crisis, so giving itself the room to manage the next shock. It would need to impose a permanent annual increase in taxes or cut in spending equal to 4.3 per cent of GDP (£84bn in today’s money) in 2022-23.

Alternatively, the government could achieve the same result by adjustments of 1.5 per cent of GDP in each decade. If these adjustments were to be via taxes alone, the latter would have to rise to 44 per cent of GDP five decades hence. The needed extra revenue would be 80 per cent of the total generated by the income tax.

Close to 90 per cent of the overall increase is driven by the rise in health spending, which is forecast to grow from 7.3 per cent of GDP in 2016-17 to 12.6 per cent by 2066-67. The other significant sources of increased spending are pensions (forecast to rise by 1.8 percentage points) and long-term care (up by 1.1 percentage points). These three items account for more than the total increases in non-interest spending — 140 per cent of it, to be precise.
The UK is an ageing country. Since its people have rejected large-scale immigration and presumably do not intend to choose a collapse in life expectancy, they must accept the implications. These are that taxes will have to rise.

In forecasting health spending, the OBR made the assumption, in line with best international practice, that “non-demographic cost pressures . . . add 1 percentage point a year to health spending growth in the long term”. Forecasts for health spending are highly uncertain, particularly over such long periods. Yet these are plausible.

As the OBR noted in an earlier study, UK health spending has tended to rise over time, relative to GDP.

This is perfectly normal: real spending on health rose faster than real GDP per head across the OECD, the group of mostly rich nations, between 2000 and 2015.
Moreover, the level of UK spending is far from excessive by the standards of its peers. In 2015, according to OECD data, aggregate UK health spending was 9.8 per cent of GDP, against 11 per cent in France, 11.1 per cent in Germany, 11.2 per cent in Japan and a mind-boggling 16.9 per cent in the US.

There may be some fat in the UK. But it cannot be all that large. Moreover, if we measure efficiency by the relationship between the amount spent on health and outcomes, the UK is in the middle of the pack among OECD members. The outlier is the US, with its poor outcomes and extremely high costs.

In the decades ahead, the pressure to increase spending on health, pensions and long-term care, relative to national incomes, will be inexorable. The UK has a strong and justified consensus that everybody ought to be protected against the risks of illness, disability and longevity. Such protection is, it is agreed, not only right but brings huge social benefits. The costs must also be divided according to people’s means: otherwise too many would be in penury. The possible means of payment then are taxation or compulsory (means-adjusted) insurance premiums. But these are just different labels for the same thing.

The implication is clear. With current commitments, revenue must rise relative to GDP. It would then be close to the ratio of revenue to GDP of today’s Germany or the Netherlands. The alternative is to abandon pillars of the welfare state. This is a debate the country must have. It should start now.

https://www.ft.com/content/8dc89816-3b1 ... 1cc67cfeec

There's going to have to be massive tax rises in the future - likely across a large tax base.

The Tories have tried to make it more palatable by going "Only those that use will pay!" as they introduced a baby step of fund raising - it hasn't worked, but the message of a lot more money has to come from somewhere

[KK]

So what happens if you sign your house over to a family member(s) before you get ill, then what? There is no inheritance to deplete or sell when they pass away.