Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:37 pm  

The cost of social care is the biggest single issue this country faces - far greater than the environment.

I cannot see any other way than an increase in taxation to fund it if it is to be equitable to everyone. Yes it can be argued that if you own a house you should lose any equity in it but surely those people will most likely have been the biggest contributors through earning taxation over their working lives. It simply cannot justified on an equitable basis.

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:52 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The cost of social care is the biggest single issue this country faces - far greater than the environment.

I cannot see any other way than an increase in taxation to fund it if it is to be equitable to everyone. Yes it can be argued that if you own a house you should lose any equity in it but surely those people will most likely have been the biggest contributors through earning taxation over their working lives. It simply cannot justified on an equitable basis.

I disagree with your summary.
If you and I both earn £100k per annum but, I spend every penny that I have on goods, services and rent (rather than mortgage), the exchequer will have received substantially more form me than they would from someone who has bought their house.
However, you would then like to keep hold of your asset and get me to pay for your old age.
Granted, you would also be contributing to my care but, you would have retained the value of your property ?

The current system is a means to protect the wealthy, absolutely no question about it.

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:13 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I disagree with your summary.
If you and I both earn £100k per annum but, I spend every penny that I have on goods, services and rent (rather than mortgage), the exchequer will have received substantially more form me than they would from someone who has bought their house.
However, you would then like to keep hold of your asset and get me to pay for your old age.
Granted, you would also be contributing to my care but, you would have retained the value of your property ?

The current system is a means to protect the wealthy, absolutely no question about it.

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:24 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I disagree with your summary.
If you and I both earn £100k per annum but, I spend every penny that I have on goods, services and rent (rather than mortgage), the exchequer will have received substantially more form me than they would from someone who has bought their house.
However, you would then like to keep hold of your asset and get me to pay for your old age.
Granted, you would also be contributing to my care but, you would have retained the value of your property ?

The current system is a means to protect the wealthy, absolutely no question about it.

yayyyyy, envy and jealousy.. the left want the right to make money, and then hand it over, and be grateful for the facility to do so.

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable