"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 31/05/17 10:49, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 30/05/17 20:36, bert wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any
but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary,
Really? He is a Marxist and his Shadow Chancellor is a Trotskyist who
says his life's ambition is to destroy the capitalist system. Nether
creeds believe in social democracy.
just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

At the moment your home is only included in your assets if you go into
residential care. The new proposal is to include it for assessment if
you need care at home but payment is deferred until your estate is
realised i.e. on death. So to call it a dementia tax is silly and in
fact wrong.
As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

There has been talk of 75% but the point is that when the top rate
dropped back to 45% actual revenue went up. Hollande tried 75% in
France and many of the high French earners left and came to London

the age of the corporate perk

Have a company fat, rolls, butler, Mediterranean yacht and stuff em all
on expenses....


you might have got away with that in the 60's

you won't today


That was my point.

no it wasn't

All extortionate income tax did was to make everyone's income smaller, so
they got paid in other ways. Shares. Perks. Dividends.

but the current system is that these items are now charged as income. they
are not longer tax efficient ways to beat the system

Or they simply moved abroad.

This is still true

but for the majority of people, (Philip Green excepted) it's cutting off
your nose to spite your face.

Very few people can move offshore and still retain the earning capacity,.

If you are simply going to avoid the 90% tax by earning less there's no
reason to move

tim

tim... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 30/05/17 20:36, bert wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary,
Really? He is a Marxist and his Shadow Chancellor is a Trotskyist who
says his life's ambition is to destroy the capitalist system. Nether
creeds believe in social democracy.
just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

At the moment your home is only included in your assets if you go into
residential care. The new proposal is to include it for assessment if you
need care at home but payment is deferred until your estate is realised
i.e. on death. So to call it a dementia tax is silly and in fact wrong.
As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

There has been talk of 75% but the point is that when the top rate
dropped back to 45% actual revenue went up. Hollande tried 75% in France
and many of the high French earners left and came to London

the age of the corporate perk

Have a company fat, rolls, butler, Mediterranean yacht and stuff em all on
expenses....


you might have got away with that in the 60's

you won't today

tim


No, now that all payments in kind, even some perks that noone had
thought of as payments of any kind in the 60s, are taxed at full value
as income.

--

Roger Hayter

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/05/17 20:36, bert wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary,
Really? He is a Marxist and his Shadow Chancellor is a Trotskyist who
says his life's ambition is to destroy the capitalist system. Nether
creeds believe in social democracy.
just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

At the moment your home is only included in your assets if you go
into residential care. The new proposal is to include it for
assessment if you need care at home but payment is deferred until
your estate is realised i.e. on death. So to call it a dementia tax
is silly and in fact wrong.
As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

There has been talk of 75% but the point is that when the top rate
dropped back to 45% actual revenue went up. Hollande tried 75% in
France and many of the high French earners left and came to London

the age of the corporate perk

Have a company fat, rolls, butler, Mediterranean yacht and stuff em all
on expenses....

Cloud cuckoo land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
* in fact I see from Wikipedia that during the war, it was 99.25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...nited_Kingdom#
Income_tax

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at
99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the
1950s and 60s"






--
bert

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:44:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

* in fact I see from Wikipedia that during the war, it was 99.25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...m#Income_t ax

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at
99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the
1950s and 60s"

The problem at the moment is that people who are paid via PAYE pay a
very large percentage in tax if they are in the higher rate. And the
highest rate is actually between 100k and 150k; which is high, but not
in the super-rich league.

The company pays Employer's NI at 13.8% (the employee doesn't see that
on their payslip, but it's a cost of employment for the company)

The employee then pays Employees NI (which thankfully goes down to 2%
after around 45k p.a.)

The employee then pays 40% income tax on anything above 45k, and 45%
on anything above 150k.

But when the salary exceeds 100k, the personal allowance is reduced,
meaning that the marginal tax rate for someone just over 100k is
something like 60%; and higher when you factor in employer's NI.

I'm "lucky enough" not to be earning that much, as I'm sure are many
others, but the "income tax rate" is just one part of the equation:
Employer's NI, Employee's NI, and the reduction of personal allowance
over 100k all play a part.

There are many measures, but an interesting one is "Tax Freedom Day",
which is an average. In 2016, it was June 3rd; so on average the
first 154 days of everyone's pay was taken as tax:

https://www.adamsmith.org/taxfreedomday/

On 30/05/2017 18:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Simple answer: borrowing & then leave future government(s) to clean up
the mess. This is exactly what the last Labour government did, and the
economy was booming then - it certainly isn't now, and will be hit very
hard once Brexit is beginning to take effect. They admitted it
themselves
(https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ationalisation)

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/05/2017 18:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Simple answer: borrowing & then leave future government(s) to clean up the
mess. This is exactly what the last Labour government did, and the economy
was booming then - it certainly isn't now, and will be hit very hard once
Brexit is beginning to take effect.

Bet it doesnt.

They admitted it themselves
(https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ationalisation)

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/05/2017 18:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Simple answer: borrowing & then leave future government(s) to clean up the
mess. This is exactly what the last Labour government did,

and the two before it

in my lifetime the Labour party has a three out of three record of leaving
the county in the **** when they lose office

That's the reason I can't vote for them, no matter how attractive their
policies

tim

On 31/05/2017 10:52, tim... wrote:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/05/2017 18:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Simple answer: borrowing & then leave future government(s) to clean up
the mess. This is exactly what the last Labour government did,

and the two before it

in my lifetime the Labour party has a three out of three record of
leaving the county in the **** when they lose office

That's the reason I can't vote for them, no matter how attractive their
policies

Same here. ...not very smart to have attractive policies that you cannot
pay for (although it may win you an election)

tim... wrote:

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/05/2017 18:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for.

Simple answer: borrowing & then leave future government(s) to clean up the
mess. This is exactly what the last Labour government did,

and the two before it

in my lifetime the Labour party has a three out of three record of leaving
the county in the **** when they lose office

That's the reason I can't vote for them, no matter how attractive their
policies

tim


If you look at the conservative record, you may wonder which is cause
and which effect. The government tends to change at economic crisis
points whether they played a part in their genesis or not.


--

Roger Hayter

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at
99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the
1950s and 60s"


No chance of anything like that happening any time soon. Accountants and
wealthy people are way too smart nowadays (and Monaco is very close and
accessible).

Holland tried something similar in France and failed miserably -
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax.

It is quite interesting that none of the current Labour leadership top 3
has ever done any sort of work apart from being in parliament/council or
working for a trade union.

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:44:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000, but
May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the policy
coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got something wrong
somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me right.

One thing is that if you stay in your home but need carers coming in, you
will in future pay for that (and put the house in hock for it if
necessary). At present that is 'free'.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

that's because they are no costs

only cuts and each of the cuts are vote losers, so they are trying to hide
them.

One area where I do agree with Corbyn (and the Greens and LibDems) is that
austerity has gone far enough and needs to be stopped, right now

what we need are increased tax receipts, and if that can't be achieved by
growth in the economy (which it probably can't because Europe still hasn't
fully recovered from the last recession), that means tax increases.

And unfortunately, only tax increases on the masses can fill the gap,
increases on only the wealthy just don't work.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

because a load of baby boomers are seeing their inheritance disappear.

As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

I agree. I don't see what the problem with 50% is

tim

In article , tim...
writes


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

that's because they are no costs

only cuts and each of the cuts are vote losers, so they are trying to
hide them.

One area where I do agree with Corbyn (and the Greens and LibDems) is
that austerity has gone far enough and needs to be stopped, right now

what we need are increased tax receipts, and if that can't be achieved
by growth in the economy (which it probably can't because Europe still
hasn't fully recovered from the last recession), that means tax
increases.

And unfortunately, only tax increases on the masses can fill the gap,
increases on only the wealthy just don't work.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.
In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

because a load of baby boomers are seeing their inheritance disappear.

Its the children of baby boomers.
As for income tax, I recall in the 1950's the highest rate of tax, for
top earners, was something like 19/6 in the £, i.e.97.5%*, yet now
there's a huge fuss when it's suggested it goes up to 50p/£, i.e. 50%,
which is generous by comparison, so why all the fuss?

I agree. I don't see what the problem with 50% is

tim


--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any
but May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.
The point is - something needs to be done about social care costs.

Agreed. Dilnot was a complete an utter waste of time but then he was an
economist no an accountant
Funny how Labour is against it. The proposal is that rich people will
pay their own costs and instead Labour wants the poor to contribute to
rich peoples's social care costs.

Agreed
--
bert

In article ,
bert writes:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

No - it included a mandatory loan to pay councils immediately, which
is repaid with interest by the estate when the home is eventually
sold.

The loan interest and cost of sale are not included in the 100k cut-off,
and in some cases could take quite a chunk off that. They didn't go in
to detail like what happens if spouse lives another 25 years in the house
after the death of the dementia sufferer, but the interest charge could
be over 100k in that case.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
news
In article ,
bert writes:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

No - it included a mandatory loan to pay councils immediately, which
is repaid with interest by the estate when the home is eventually
sold.

The loan interest and cost of sale are not included in the 100k cut-off,
and in some cases could take quite a chunk off that. They didn't go in
to detail like what happens if spouse lives another 25 years in the house
after the death of the dementia sufferer, but the interest charge could
be over 100k in that case.

That's just fundamentally wrong

If the individual lives longer then the absolute value of the property will
have increased so the pot of money that the council can claim from will be
larger

there is absolutely no justification at all for the interest charge to come
out of the 100K that the owner gets to keep (nor is there any reasonable
justification that all of the selling costs should, at worst they should be
apportioned pro-rata)

tim

Andrew Gabriel posted
In article ,
bert writes:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

No - it included a mandatory loan to pay councils immediately, which
is repaid with interest by the estate when the home is eventually
sold.

The loan interest and cost of sale are not included in the 100k cut-off,
and in some cases could take quite a chunk off that.

I don't know where you get all that from. It's not in the manifesto nor
in May's later 'clarification' of it.

They didn't go in
to detail like what happens if spouse lives another 25 years in the house
after the death of the dementia sufferer, but the interest charge could
be over 100k in that case.

--
Jack

In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
bert writes:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

No - it included a mandatory loan to pay councils immediately, which
is repaid with interest by the estate when the home is eventually
sold.

Where does the loan come from?
The loan interest and cost of sale are not included in the 100k cut-off,
and in some cases could take quite a chunk off that. They didn't go in
to detail like what happens if spouse lives another 25 years in the house
after the death of the dementia sufferer, but the interest charge could
be over 100k in that case.


--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in their
lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so persuaded by the
lie that they do)

tim

On 31/05/2017 10:42, tim... wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the
pocket. Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering
me enough to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced
that any but May might have the gumption to see us through the
Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in
their lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so
persuaded by the lie that they do)

tim



Can you substantiate that myth claim.

I have several relatives who were forced by the local authority to sell
their homes after going into care, in order to pay the care home fees.
Furthermore they were told if they did not sell the council would have
the property sold on their behalf.

"Ash Burton" wrote in message
news
On 31/05/2017 10:42, tim... wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any
but May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in their
lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so persuaded by
the lie that they do)

tim



Can you substantiate that myth claim.

http://caretobedifferent.co.uk/sell-...-pay-for-care/

I have several relatives who were forced by the local authority to sell
their homes after going into care, in order to pay the care home fees.

just because they exaggerated their rights does not make them so

Furthermore they were told if they did not sell the council would have the
property sold on their behalf.

a threat that they cannot carry out whilst the owner is still alive

tim

In article ,
"tim..." writes:


"Ash Burton" wrote in message
news
I have several relatives who were forced by the local authority to sell
their homes after going into care, in order to pay the care home fees.

just because they exaggerated their rights does not make them so

Furthermore they were told if they did not sell the council would have the
property sold on their behalf.

a threat that they cannot carry out whilst the owner is still alive

There was a detailed description of how Reading Bororugh Council
handles this on the radio. When a person goes into care, the
council will fund the first 12 weeks from a loan, for which they
take a charge on the property. Those 12 weeks are to allow the
relatives time to prepare the property to generate revenue (e.g.
to get it ready to rent out). The council then takes the rental
income, minus a small amount to cover rates, insurance, etc. to
cover residential home fees, although it will be very unlikely to
cover more than half the fees. Note these fees are paid at
private residential care home rates, not council rates which are
usually 30% less. (Council rates only apply when the council is
funding the care directly and there are no assets to use towards
it.)

When the relative dies, the council then exercises its charge
over the property to repay the rest of the home fees which were
not covered by the rental income. The estate then gets any value
left after subtracting the the outstanding home fees.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

tim... wrote:

"Ash Burton" wrote in message
news
On 31/05/2017 10:42, tim... wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any
but May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in their
lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so persuaded by
the lie that they do)

tim



Can you substantiate that myth claim.

http://caretobedifferent.co.uk/sell-...-pay-for-care/

I have several relatives who were forced by the local authority to sell
their homes after going into care, in order to pay the care home fees.

just because they exaggerated their rights does not make them so

Furthermore they were told if they did not sell the council would have the
property sold on their behalf.

a threat that they cannot carry out whilst the owner is still alive

tim


It is a threat that they can carry out, but probably won't if the client
has capacity and refuses to cooperate. If the patient is quite young
they may well go to court, but most of the elderly ones won't live very
long in nursing homes so they just wait.

People who have lost capacity due to dementia may well have a longer
life expectancy and the council can and will force the sale of the
house. Apart from anything else, it is easy to demonstrate that an
unoccupied house is a wasting asset. If the relatives are
administering it the council may satisfy themselves with a charge on the
house, but they don't have to if the fees are not being paid.




--

Roger Hayter

tim... wrote:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in their
lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so persuaded by the
lie that they do)

tim


Currently people do have to sell their houses in their lifetime, unless
they have a foreseeable chance of going back there, or a dependent or
elderly spouse living there, or enough money to pay without selling.
That is if they go into a home, obviously not if they have home care.
They can possibly fail to cooperate for a time but ultimately a court
will order the sale.

--

Roger Hayter

In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim
Streater writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the
pocket. Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering
me enough to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced
that any but May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in
their lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so
persuaded by the lie that they do)

tim


I wasn't aware of such a myth. The current system applies to residential
care only. The new system will apply to domiciliary care.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in their
lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so persuaded by
the lie that they do)

tim


I wasn't aware of such a myth. The current system applies to residential
care only. The new system will apply to domiciliary care.

well it would be illogical to force a sale of a house owned by someone in
receipt of domiciliary care wouldn't it? (on the reasonable assumption that
the costs of providing such domiciliary care are always going to be
significantly less than residential care)

tim


--
bert

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:24:32 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket.
Now I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough
to convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but
May might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

In the former case, it's my understanding that ATM if you have to go
into care you pay for it all until your assets get down to £25,000,
but May's proposing you keep everything below £100,000 so why is the
policy coming in for so much criticism? I'm sure I've just got
something wrong somewhere and that some kind soul here will put me
right.

No, this is correct. And the state will pay the up-front costs, which
will be met by realising your assets after you die (how this works in
regard to a surviving spouse I don't know. That may be something that
the promised consultation will go into.)

Yes it could introduce significant cash flow problems for the local
councils.

It is as it is now

This idea that people *have* to sell their house to pay for care in their
lifetime, is a myth (that's not to say that some aren't so persuaded by
the lie that they do)

tim


I wasn't aware of such a myth. The current system applies to residential
care only. The new system will apply to domiciliary care.

well it would be illogical to force a sale of a house owned by someone in
receipt of domiciliary care wouldn't it? (on the reasonable assumption that
the costs of providing such domiciliary care are always going to be
significantly less than residential care)

Good point.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
well it would be illogical to force a sale of a house owned by someone
in receipt of domiciliary care wouldn't it? (on the reasonable
assumption that the costs of providing such domiciliary care are always
going to be significantly less than residential care)

I wouldn't be too sure of that. If someone needs a lot of care. A carer
travelling isn't doing productive work. And in a residential home, one
carer can keep an eye on several people.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater writes:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:
Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down, just as it did when Brown did it,
and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

Corporation tax works even more strongly that way.
We reduced it from 30% to 20% since the recession, but this
hasn't changed the corporation tax revenue, because companies
adjust where they do business which exactly cancels out changes
in corporation tax. Yet somehow Corbyn thinks that raising it
will bring in £19.4B, which is nearly half Labour's extra
spending - history shows it won't. Actually, it's much worse
than this...

Corporation tax is a tax on creating jobs. That's why we
dramatically reduced it following the recession, and it's one
of the key reasons we continued creating more jobs during the
recession - more than in the whole of the rest of the EU,
and didn't see the mass unemployment and loss of homes which
other countries hit by the recession did.

The 3 biggest tax revenues accounting for half of all tax
revenue are Income tax, NI and VAT, and these all heavily
depend on jobs. Changes in numbers of jobs cause a change in
IT, NI and VAT, (and opposite change in welfare expenditure)
and therefore changing corporation tax has the opposite effect
on total tax revenue - this is why corporation tax is known as
a tax inversion. Increasing corporation tax will result in a
massive loss of tax revenue, and an increase in welfare
expenditure due to increasing unemployment and loss of homes.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:13:50 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

May had my vote until she threatened to hit pensioners in the pocket. Now
I'm a floating voter, with none of the parties offering me enough to
convince me to vote for them. I am even less convinced that any but May
might have the gumption to see us through the Brexit process.

I agree with you about May and Brexit. The EU will just walk all over
Corbyn. Corbyn's policies are OK, nothing revolutionary, just far-left
wing, if you like that sort of thing. But my main concern is how
they'll be paid for. In neither Abbot's nor Corbyn's media
performances do they seem to have the faintest clue about numbers,
which is truly alarming and totally unacceptable in politicians who
aspire to high office. OTOH the Conservatives are keeping very coy
about the cost and savings of their programme.

Two things I don't understand: the pejoratively named 'dementia tax',
and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down,

will it?

just as it did when Brown did it,

that was caused by the effect of the rate only being in operation for a
couple of years and the possibility of people income shifting from one year
to another across the change over (and FWIW also coincided with a large
number of the target market losing their jobs.)

There is no statistical evidence that supports the amount that a 50% tax
rate collects on a sustained basis

Of course it suits the people who want to show that it collects less to
claim that there is

and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

ITYF his rate was far in excess of 50%

It is hardly an appropriate argument for 50% being on the downside of the
laffer curve

tim

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:40:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

and why it's so awful to suggest a 50p/£ income tax for top earners.

Because the tax take will go down,

will it?

just as it did when Brown did it,

that was caused by the effect of the rate only being in operation for a
couple of years and the possibility of people income shifting from one
year
to another across the change over (and FWIW also coincided with a large
number of the target market losing their jobs.)

There is no statistical evidence that supports the amount that a 50% tax
rate collects on a sustained basis

Of course it suits the people who want to show that it collects less to
claim that there is

and when Monsewer Hollande did it.

ITYF his rate was far in excess of 50%

75% in fact

It is hardly an appropriate argument for 50% being on the downside of the
laffer curve

tim


AIUI the Laffer curve is a bit hypothetical.

it's entirely hypothetical

No-one has done a definitive study that fairly ignores all other factors as
to where the top of the curve is

all they know is that 90% collects less than 40%,

this in no way predicts that 40% is the top

The position of the
maximum will depend on many factors relating to the overall economy of
each individual country: direct taxation, indirect taxation etc.

I don't see how indirect taxation makes any difference

Few people are going to change their de-motivation to work harder by 80%
taxes because VAT rate are 15% instead of 25%

Sometimes upping the tax rate results in an increase in revenue,
sometimes the opposite occurs. The same with lowering the tax rate -
things don't always go according to expectations. It's like a lot of
economic models and forecasting: they're great for economists to play
with and develop mathematical models for their mainframes to crunch
away on, but in reality a lot of it is founded on uncertainty and
speculation.

a lot also depends upon the type of employee that is hit by the extra taxes.

Are they doing a job which only one person can do and which, if they work
harder creates more employment for others, and therefore if they are
de-motivated to work harder less tax will be collected from co-workers.

or are they doping a "piece" job which, if they are de-motivated to work
harder and do twice as much, that slack will be picked up by someone else
who will then pay tax instead.

The first is the corporate exec, where if he works less hard will likely
result in an overall hit to the company's headcount, and the second the city
trader, where if he decides that at 500K this year he can head off home and
put his feat up for a month, someone else will be sitting at his desk
instead.

tim