Tory Social Care Plan - Why did I bother buying a house?

[Ootohere]

Sorry yes, my brain fart.

My mum was born 1925. 

My mum and dad bought their first house for £300.

 

So even more so with 70 year olds being only 30 in 1977. so why do people make them out as out of touch.

Or those in their 80's as some poor old tritters without a clue..

Plenty in their 50's and sixties are less switched on, and in more hardship.

[StevesTruck]

8 hours ago, The Zee said:

I hear what you say but the paper value affects all property, not just mine, yours as well.

 

 

 

Lets say you bought your house for 100k and it is now worth 150k (all other properties around you will probably have gone up by the same percentage, approximately) and you now want to buy something bigger as your family is growing. So you are effectively, because of circumstances, being forced to move and have 150k available to facilitate a move. Then the government says to you “we are going to take the 50k paper profit because it never existed and you have not earned it”, thus reducing the value of your property back down to 100k but not reduce the price of property around you by the same amount. You are then back to having 100k instead of 150k and have a gap you cannot fill, so you can’t move.

 

 

 

That is effectively what they are proposing to do to the ageing population.

 

 

 

 

 

What people can't comprehend is that even if they sell the house for what it cost them, they've still won, because they've had the use of it, rather than paying rent. If you bought a car in 1986 for £10,000, drove it everyday, and sold it today for £10,000, you'd be over the moon wouldn't you? But if it was a house, you'd be crying your eyes out that it wasn't worth £100k.

[lol-lol]

 

How about what has happened in the last month or so now that house price inflation is now less than real inflation ie house are losing money relative to the value of other things?

 

Will the Con ring fencing of £100K be indexed linked?  With parents having several kids it will mean them only being passed a few tens of thousands of pounds in inheritance.

 

Clearly parents will need to transfer these sorts of assets in to trusts or to their kids 7 years or more before they die (so soon after retirement perhaps to be safe) and hope their kids do not chuck them out.  Well thought out policy. 

[moley]

We're living longer and nursing homes are expensive, if you want decent one. We all hope that we won't need one, but you don't know what is around the corner. I agree that those of us who have been sensible with our money and have assets don't want to see them swallowed up to pay for care homes when we've paid plenty in tax over the years. Those that have paid tax and peed the rest up against the wall and have no assets will get everything paid for.

So what is the answer? perhaps we should all pay extra NI contributions to cover for possible future costs.

[lol-lol]

2 hours ago, moley said:

We're living longer and nursing homes are expensive, if you want decent one. We all hope that we won't need one, but you don't know what is around the corner. I agree that those of us who have been sensible with our money and have assets don't want to see them swallowed up to pay for care homes when we've paid plenty in tax over the years. Those that have paid tax and peed the rest up against the wall and have no assets will get everything paid for.

So what is the answer? perhaps we should all pay extra NI contributions to cover for possible future costs.

 

Agreed more National Insurance should be collected but it should be mainly from those of use who are paid more than £45K per year rather than those who earn as little £10k or even the £15k to £25K area where over recent past the the starting income tax threshold was raised, now to £11.5k, but the NI was not raised anywhere near as much ie it is only £157 pw.

 

Over £45k one only pays NI at a rate of 2% and not the full rate and with the Cons having just given those on over £45K a £500 bung, compared to £100 for those less than £43K, the NI contribution for the higher raters should be increase to 3% I think at least to save our NHS. 

[StevesTruck]

There is another option of course. If you don't like what's in the manifesto, you could, and I know it's a bit extreme, vote for a different one. 

[The Zee]

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

Agreed more National Insurance should be collected but it should be mainly from those of use who are paid more than £45K per year rather than those who earn as little £10k or even the £15k to £25K area where over recent past the the starting income tax threshold was raised, now to £11.5k, but the NI was not raised anywhere near as much ie it is only £157 pw.

 

Over £45k one only pays NI at a rate of 2% and not the full rate and with the Cons having just given those on over £45K a £500 bung, compared to £100 for those less than £43K, the NI contribution for the higher raters should be increase to 3% I think at least to save our NHS. 

I think what you mean is over £45k pays 2% more, making a total of 14%. Don't know for sure as it doesn't affect me.

[The Zee]

7 minutes ago, StevesTruck said:

There is another option of course. If you don't like what's in the manifesto, you could, and I know it's a bit extreme, vote for a different one. 

I have always voted Tory and although another party may get my vote to me it's seems to me that none of them have their fingers on the pulse anymore. We are in such a state and with so much ahead to be sorted out I am not sure any single party knows the answers. Maybe we need a coalition of all parties to work together for the benefit of the country rather than the benefit of the politicans.

[StevesTruck]

Yep, but that's never going to happen in our life time. 

 

So you need to vote with what and who you feel to be the worst case scenario, or spoil your ballot. 

 

Or be a proud, lifelong tory supporter. 

 

The problem with this country is people don't think for themselves, because nobody told them to. 

[skomaz]

39 minutes ago, The Zee said:

...to me it's seems to me that none of them have their fingers on the pulse anymore. We are in such a state and with so much ahead to be sorted out I am not sure any single party knows the answers. Maybe we need a coalition of all parties to work together for the benefit of the country rather than the benefit of the politicans.

 

Yep that's bang on that...   they are all very distant from reality unfortunately and the consistent point scoring mentality doesn't help.  I watched some of the TV leaders debate the other day and it really was shameful...   from ALL sides!

[Clunkclick]

What is certain is that another Tory Government will finish the NHS - with my recent experience (MI in 2011, Lymphoma 2015) I can attest to a system under progressively increasing strain over this period.

 

At least, at the moment, all those Ex-pats in Provence, have access to a greater variety of health care treatments  via use of their EHIC cards and minimal waiting when compared to over here. Bearing in mind most of them left the UK in the early 1990s to early 2000's, they're going to have a real culture shock when they attempt to use the facilities of the contemporary NHS.

 

Government of the time (1980s-1990s)  were to blame in no small part for what's happened on Health care and social care fronts.

They were more than well aware of the oncoming consequences of the 1950s population bulge. In fact, that was used as the justification for the "Big-Bang" "Liberalisation" of private pension arrangements in the late 1980s i.e. the change from Final Salary to Money Purchase schemes. But of course, most of the savings from that went straight into the pockets of Corporations and were paid out as increased dividends and loan repayments to City financiers and shareholders.

 

Equally, the take-up of money purchase schemes wasn't in direct proportion to the loss of final salary scheme members - some members of the population decided to divert disposable income that previously went into pension contributions into larger houses, cars, holidays and the government legislation to correct this deficit and enforce private pension contributions at a minimum level was 20 years in the coming. Houses are the only residue with an asset value that is now left.

 

If early action had been taken, at the end of the '80's to mitigate the financial effects of the demographic bulge, i.e. by a combination of increased NI contributions, perhaps a special tax, plus a certain amount of deficit financing by government and a scheme for increased personal contributions this "Crisis" could have been avoided. After all,in economic effect,  isn't the demographic bulge, the same as an economic slump and what do we do there ? Fill-in the slumps with deficit financing - witness, most recently, Quantative Easing 2008 -2015

 

The 40 year con -

 

UK average long-term rate of economic growth 1945 -1979, 2% per annum.

 

UK average long-term rate of economic  growth 1979 to date, 2% per annum.

 

In equality of wealth and Income, off the scale since 1979.

 

End of.

 

N.

 

 

Edited 2 June, 2017 by Clunkclick

[lol-lol]

4 hours ago, The Zee said:

I think what you mean is over £45k pays 2% more, making a total of 14%. Don't know for sure as it doesn't affect me.

 

Nope.

 

You only pay at 2% over the £45k ie £3750 a month......

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay

 

So somebody being paid £45k pa would pay around £365 NI per month which works out around 9.75% of their wages which is the highest percentage someone can pay.

 

Beyond £45K pa, because you only pay NI at the 2% rate, your actual NI as a percentage of total wages goes down ie I only pay about 7% of my salary as NI due to about a third of it only being NI'd at 2%.

 

There is lots of scope to collect a lot more NI from people being paid more than £45K whilst relieving those being paid a tiny £157 pw ie £8.2k pa paying NI.  I would like to see that starting NI raised to £11.5k pa at least and the upper NI rate raised to 3% at least if not 5% eventually.

 

That said much of on higher salaries have private health care, a good thing when the NHS is so undermanned ie 1 in 9 vacancies unfilled and we pay tax on the private health care fees but then we all might need emergency services sometime!   

 

 

 

 

 

[T2000]

16 hours ago, StevesTruck said:

 

What people can't comprehend is that even if they sell the house for what it cost them, they've still won, because they've had the use of it, rather than paying rent. If you bought a car in 1986 for £10,000, drove it everyday, and sold it today for £10,000, you'd be over the moon wouldn't you? But if it was a house, you'd be crying your eyes out that it wasn't worth £100k.

Not strictly true, the upkeep of a property costs a lot for maintenance, I have owned my house for 10 years and spent 20k on it and that is not improvements but upkeep. it would be quite feasible to spend 100k over 50 years on a house so your analogy doesn't work, also if I sold my house now I wouldn't get back what I have invested in it due to the price crash.

 

People that buy a HOME don't do it for money they do it for security knowing that it will be theirs, the value it gains is paper money if you never sell it, it is irrelevant, seems now we own nothing!!

 

People that make money on houses probably never live in them and own multiple ones that get rented, it actually makes more sense to put your money into an offshore account and rent somewhere now, have no attainable assets when you get to care age.

 

The only way you can make money on one house is to sell it and downsize or move to a cheaper area.

 

 

[Ootohere]

People that buy Houses or Property with their money are doing rather well.

Many if not most have a Mortgage, so borrowed money, for 20, 25 years or what ever.

So forget the purchase price, that is how much you are borrowing, and the you might of had a deposit.

 

But there is 20 years of interest to pay as well as maintenance and fees, insurance on the building etc.

So maybe the Interest is much what Rent would have been over 20 years and the property is yours and the value did rise.

 

But then there was the High Interest Rates that some of us borrowed at, and the Tax Relief and Low Cost Endownment Insurance so we were only paying Insurance on your lives, and Interest and not repaying the Capital until the Insurance Policy Matured.

For those that did it at the right time they did get enough to pay the Money Borrowed back and still have money left.

Sadly many were stung and never did get enough from the endowment to cover the property let alone the extras they borrowed for, 

Kitchens, Extensions and the likes.

 

Loved the 1980's. High Interest and some with 'Loads of money'.

[lol-lol]

1 hour ago, Awayoffski said:

People that buy Houses or Property with their money are doing rather well.

Many if not most have a Mortgage, so borrowed money, for 20, 25 years or what ever.

So forget the purchase price, that is how much you are borrowing, and the you might of had a deposit.

But there is 20 years of interest to pay as well as maintenance and fees, insurance on the building etc.

So maybe the Interest is much what Rent would have been over 20 years and the property is yours and the value did rise.

But then there was the High Interest Rates that some of us borrowed at, and the Tax Relief and Low Cost Endownment Insurance so we were only paying Insurance on your lives, and Interest and not repaying the Capital until the Insurance Policy Matured.

For those that did it at the right time they did get enough to pay the Money Borrowed back and still have money left.

Sadly many were stung and never did get enough from the endowment to cover the property let alone the extras they borrowed for, 

Kitchens, Extensions and the likes.

Loved the 1980's. High Interest and some with 'Loads of money'.

 

Then followed in the nineties with the last full terms of a sole Con government with millions experiencing negative housing equity and house prices falling by between a quarter and a third depending on where you lived.

 

Bad times for those who put down their hosuing deposit to see it disappear and then the debt exceed their home value.  Might those times return with a Hard BREXIT? 

 

 

[T2000]

I was 19 when I bought my first house and I had a quote of interest in 89 for around 9% by the time I got the mortgage the interest was over 12% within 6 months and they sold me a crappy endowment policy as I knew no better, only kept the house for 18months and sold it for a profit but spent the money, the endowment was worth pennies, I wanted a life and car and all the other stuff that 19/20 yo wanted, it was hard back then believe me, imagine if you were paying that interest now, the interest now is a pittance on a mortgage but property prices are stupid so it's swings and roundabouts.

 

I couldn't afford to buy another house until I was 30 and then it crippled me but by buying one moving to another area that hadn't risen and buying another and then selling that I bought the one I have now for cash and now in my late forties I am mortgage free, but I still have no money lol.

 

You never make money on houses unless you sell up and spend it which is what I aim to do when I hit the time when I need care, spend it all on wine women and cars and then use the NI contributions I have made over my lifetime and get care for free, I ain't leaving a penny, I never got left any, this culture of buying houses to secure childrens and grand childrens futures is a silly idea, let them fend for themselves it'll make them thicker skinned, I shall help my offspring to buy into property but then they are on their own.

 

I told my parents to use the equity in their house to enjoy their twilight years as I don't want their money and I bet they are glad they did now because the government wont get a penny if they go into care because they have a charge against their house that would take them well under the 100k, fair play to them.

 

 

[camelspyyder]

Jesus. Just vote Labour.

 

Then the younger versions of yourself (middle income tax payers) will fund your retirement and care, and you can leave all your worldly goods to your kids.

[camelspyyder]

...that is - after we struggle through the upcoming hung parliament.

[lol-lol]

1 hour ago, camelspyyder said:

Jesus. Just vote Labour.  Then the younger versions of yourself (middle income tax payers) will fund your retirement and care, and you can leave all your worldly goods to your kids.

 

I hope and expect that on current trajectory, and first has, get a First or Two-One in their degrees as this is often the sift for getting better jobs. So hopefully they will also follow and get jobs in the upper quartile of earnings.

 

They will sadly have the government fee loan to repay do that 9% defacto tax on earning over £21K is a going to be a real handicap for them.

 

People of our generation have managed the economy so poorly, national debt more than doubling in the last 7 years, the next generation are more than likely to be worse off than us as the system is so skewed.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36821582

Edited 2 June, 2017 by lol-lol

[gadgetman]

To be fair to the Tories, even Labour didn't address this when they we in power.  Didn't they make matters worse?

 

So the proposals, although still pants, is better than anything previously.

 

 

Flipping the argument, at what point should the country cover the cost of care when someone has assets?  And are people happy to pay the extra through taxes?

[moley]

Labour are going to supply health care with their plan to raise corporation tax and increased taxes for the higher earners, they might come unstuck with that, but they have another plan which is to lower the threshold on inheritance tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inheritance-tax-left-out-of-labour-manifesto-2017-amid-worries-among-london-mps_uk_59157f27e4b0031e737cc4a9

[Ootohere]

One thing is certain whoever is in power in the UK, Plebs will be taxed until dead and then after they are dead.

Only those and such as those can avoid that and those are not Plebs on PAYE.

 

If Peers of the realm are worth £300 a day 'Expenses', surely a 'Hard working individual' should be allowed to earn £300 Gross for a weeks work and have no deductions for Tax / NI from that. (£15,600 a year.)

Let them spend their earnings and pay the tax on stuff bought.

[StevesTruck]

14 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

I hope and expect that on current trajectory, and first has, get a First or Two-One in their degrees as this is often the sift for getting better jobs. So hopefully they will also follow and get jobs in the upper quartile of earnings.

 

 

 

Nope, sorry, that's just part of the scam. Employers don't want young people with good degrees, who are keen to soak information up and take all the training they are given . They want skilled, experienced workers. However, the education system is geared towards keeping people in the education system, not turning them out with the skills the employers need.

 

But that keeps the debt flowing and the universities (whoever the hell owns those) in business. 

[lol-lol]

6 hours ago, StevesTruck said:

 

Nope, sorry, that's just part of the scam. Employers don't want young people with good degrees, who are keen to soak information up and take all the training they are given . They want skilled, experienced workers. However, the education system is geared towards keeping people in the education system, not turning them out with the skills the employers need.

But that keeps the debt flowing and the universities (whoever the hell owns those) in business. 

 

I want to work with people who are laterally thinkers who can problem solve.  Do not want experienced people who just cannot think outside the box.  Experienced people are often expensive to employ, inflexible in their thinking and these days I am looking to those who can absorb information quickly, challenges the norm and can be recruited at a fraction of the cost and have a much better long term future than a us forty and fifty somethings that rally should be handing over what they know and looking forward to a retirement and let the young get on with it with us just doing a 1,2,3 day a week plugging the gaps role.  Many old dogs you cannot treach new tricks and we have a fast evolving world that needs agile minds to deal with IMO.  

 

This applies to many of the current issues which are not being sorted by dogmatic older generations hanging on to milk the system whilst handing over a indebted and messed up economic future of the UK in regard to housing and jobs.

Edited 3 June, 2017 by lol-lol

[Ootohere]

Sir Ian Wood has managed to help clear lots of Dead Wood (Mature Workers) from the North Sea Industry and make sure pay and conditions are cut and not improving all with the assistance of George Osborne & the Conservative & Unionists with the 'Workers' & Contractors suffering cuts and un-employment and still the major 'Companies' are doing rather well during a supposed lean time.

Plenty Taxes & Duties still going to the treasury.  This should be the public purse but somehow it seems to find its way back to the 'Companies', Investors, Owners, 

and various others but not into Training the next generation of workers or to improving their work conditions, travel safety or accommodation.

Edited 3 June, 2017 by Awayoffski