|
Pochoclo posted:Net worth does not equal liquid wealth.
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Looke posted:wouldn't it be cheaper to pump the money into the current infrastructure, rather than having to buy out/build new buildings, facilities, staff etc? The situation's hosed enough that to fix it you'd need to re-open quite a few homes now so any solution is going to result in them footing the bill for new establishments. Why lets private industry take any benefit from it? quote:as with most things brought into public ownership, won't we eventually see centralisation of resources, and nursing homes turned into little more than large end of life farms? No. Anyway the main point of ire over this is the random subjectivity of this. If you suddenly are stricken with the need for expensive care AND have managed to acquire over £100k AND didn't acquire enough of a vast fortune to be able to cover the costs anyway, you'll end up losing a hell of a lot of things that you didn't expect to. The wealthy rarely need defending but this is a crappy policy which penalises a generally innocent group simply because the alternative is a properly and fairly funded government program and the Tories can't ever do that. namesake fucked around with this message at 22:08 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"From the left" Except you're dead when you pay, and you don't pay, your inheritors do. Also the guy on the bottom doesn't pay anything. Close enough though!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Looke posted:wouldn't it be cheaper to pump the money into the current infrastructure, rather than having to buy out/build new buildings, facilities, staff etc? We are not going to be in the EU any more so why bother buying them? Expropriation. I mean if we're going to fantasise about what Labour would do in the unlikely event they win the election we may as well go hog wild. Also gently caress off with that utter horseshit description of public services. "End of life farms"? There is no way that the care industry being run by the state instead of for profit could be worse than it currently is. Capital has entirely failed those in care, because of course it has. It's only job is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders while not getting caught cutting corners to save costs & neglecting those in care.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The measure only applies to people who are dead, and are thus well past subsisting. If wealth is intergenerational then their inheritors are also probably not much better than subsisting, and the cut is taken from them. The problem with inheritance is that it accumulates wealth and perpetuates massive wealth inequality but you tackle both of those by universal inheritance tax, not "inheritance tax if you're too poor to afford care out of pocket and are sick"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The measure only applies to people who are dead, and are thus well past subsisting. Their family might be barely subsisting, and living there, and need the house to be able to survive, and when the person dies, and the house is reclaimed through debt, then the family is evicted, and they are poor and starving and on the streets.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Noxville posted:No, they are people who own a home who would guarantee that their children will receive a home. With the way the housing market is going, inheritance is looking like the only way a large proportion of the population will ever 'own' a home. This is why i'm so baffled by any policy that would take that chance away. Especially since it would hit some of the tories core supporters, those people who have 'aspired' to own their home by 'working hard'.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Their family might be barely subsisting, and living there, and need the house to be able to survive, and when the person dies, and the house is reclaimed through debt, then the family is evicted, and they are poor and starving and on the streets. Well, unless they immediately blow the inheritance on a private submersible, that is.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Their family might be barely subsisting, and living there, and need the house to be able to survive, and when the person dies, and the house is reclaimed through debt, then the family is evicted, and they are poor and starving and on the streets. Precisely, practically inheritance is the only way most people are going to have a crack at owning a house, and shelter security is a loving moral right. Until you get a better policy to provide secure homes to people it's loving stupid to set up one that by the next parliament probably won't even cover the cost of a new house anywhere in the country. "oh well owning your home is too posh better make everyone private renters that's much better for society"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The family is guaranteed to receive a minimum of £100k from the estate of the deceased if this measure has applied, so they're unlikely to be poor, starving, and on the streets. So a family of 5 kids get £20,000 each and no sniff of the home some of them may still be living in? Rich beyond the dreams of avarice!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The family is guaranteed to receive a minimum of £100k from the estate of the deceased if this measure has applied, so they're unlikely to be poor, starving, and on the streets. Oh I guess it's alright then! We just take away their home and force them to rent! Nothing can go wrong! Better stretch that £100k (sorry, that's before some more obscure taxes we'll apply!) eh! I have an idea, how about we don't, and we implement a proper inheritance tax that doesn't affect the poor disproportionately more than the rich.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:With the way the housing market is going, inheritance is looking like the only way a large proportion of the population will ever 'own' a home. Owning a home is probably the only way the majority of the country ends up with an 'estate' over 100K, and it pretty much guarantees that a lot of those family homes will have to be sold off to pay those medical bills
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Even slightly wealthy people will hide their assets in trusts and other avoidance vehicles and this will only effect lowly workers. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Old people should be euthanized humanely at a hospital so we don't have to pay for care for them imo
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Old people should be euthanized humanely at a hospital so we don't have to pay for care for them imo How old? 18?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:How old? 18? 60
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:Even slightly wealthy people will hide their assets in trusts and other avoidance vehicles and this will only effect lowly workers. Hope this helps. Good to see pissflaps's's friends coming over to the hard left Pissflaps's's was in my autocorrect history so I went with it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:How old? 18?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd go by NHS guidelines and say ideally within the first 24 weeks after conception. That way they're spared the ignominy of old age, middle age, working age, school, childhood, infancy, etc. etc. yeah but they also miss out on Pink Panther Wafers and New Tricks repeats
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Finally I can go public with S.P.I.R.E.*! *Society for the Promotion of Involuntary Random Euthanasia
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Good to see pissflaps's's friends coming over to the hard left I think I'm centralist af actually.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:Finally I can go public with S.P.I.R.E.*! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd go by NHS guidelines and say ideally within the first 24 weeks after conception. That way they're spared the ignominy of old age, middle age, working age, school, childhood, infancy, etc. etc. Good plan
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The concept is sound, just need to work on the mechanism of delivery. Letterbomb Lottery?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Old people should be shot at birth, s'what my da used to say. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
jabby posted:It's also noteworthy that none of the Tory spending pledges, like £8 billion for the NHS, are costed in any way. I would expect to see the 'uncosted spending' attack line on Labour evaporate as a result. ...doesn't £8 billion extra for the NHS cost £8 billion?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Old people should be shot at birth, s'what my da used to say. Shot? Luxury. Back my pappy's day you were lucky if you got left to the elements on a rock in t'woods.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:...doesn't £8 billion extra for the NHS cost £8 billion? I believe he's saying that the tories aren't saying where that 8 billion will come from, whereas the labour manifesto has rather detailed attempts to explain that they'll use x to pay for y.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6idesf67Nw
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:How old? 18? I have a better suggestion. Kill all Tories.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I have a better suggestion. Kill all Tories. Are you advocating political violence against people who different views to you?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
 Someone's clearly mistaken Pontefract with Pontypridd.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I believe he's saying that the tories aren't saying where that 8 billion will come from, whereas the labour manifesto has rather detailed attempts to explain that they'll use x to pay for y. The £8b for the NHS will be paid for by not putting £8b into the NHS
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
That's quite a youtube channel there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
There was a scholar on National Public Radio over here yesterday who had just written a book about the racist housing policies in mid-century America that kept African Americans from buying into suburbs and other affordable housing. The main topic of their piece was about how this had lead to the de facto segregation of schools and neighborhoods long after de jure segregation was outlawed. What caught my attention though was a discussion of another of the effects today. On average, African Americans have like 1/10th to 1/20th the wealth of white Americans, with a huge factor being that white families have been buying/paying off/owning homes since the 40s or 50s while African Americans have been mostly paying rent. After the war African Americans were excluded by law from buying suburban homes that cost something like 100,000 dollars in today's money, but are all worth 3 or 4 times that much now. The Tory plans to expropriate homes from people who need medical care in old age reminded me of this right away. Anyway if you want read an interesting, depressing book about the US, try https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853 hakimashou fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I might have missed it, but this delightful proposal to mortgage old peoples lives, what happens when I go doolally if i am renting? Do they put you out with the bins?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Yeah, the
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Honestly I think the Tories just hosed up a bit, maybe they didn't put enough effort into thinking about how some of these policies would go down. The manifesto is clearly intended to be a move to the left to try and grab Labour voters, but doing that at the same time as lunch snatching and home stealing makes it difficult to believe that they're serious.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
The Tories can afford to gently caress up a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
TinTower posted:
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 23:13
|
|