What about someone who has paid between 30 and 50 % of their income all of their lives in tax? Should they not be entitled to free care on the same basis as everyone else?
1 Like
May got a lucky break with the terrorist attack in Manchester. I know that sounds bad but with the suspension of the General Election campaigning, it will take the focus of her disastrous performance on tv and now the Tories can use today to sort themselves out.
Well done, you just completely contradicted yourself in that post and admitted that it is indeed a dementia tax.
Of course, with Labour’s policies, I can just see it now, people faking dementia as a lifestyle choice to get free care. 
The Tories are so right - people with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or whatever have no personal responsibility at all and are sponging off the state. Absolutely disgraceful.
They are right, in that something needs to change in the way care is funded. As I understand it, any of your personal property above 100 thousand pounds would go to pay for your care, if needed, when elderly.
Given that the baby boomer generation, having benefitted from job security, and having ridden the housing wave, and as a class, have greater wealth and security than the young adults of today, why should the youth work to pay for the care on an elderly person, who has a home most of them will never afford, when all in truth is affected is the relatives in the will.
The tories are absolutely correct on the principle of this.
1 Like
I find it hilarious that the same people who are against any rise in inheritance tax are the same people who think anybody unlucky enough to suffer from a condition that requires long-term social care should lose most of what they have to pay for it.
It’s completely contradictory and the worst manifestation of the “I’m alright, Jack, but if you’re not, fuck you” culture I’ve ever seen in politics.
I’m in favour of a large inheritance tax.
1 Like
I’m not against either.
But tell me, do you think your kids should work an entire lifetime, unable to afford even a basic house, paying extortionate rent, in order to cover the care of the landlord?
The obvious solution to all of this is to divest yourself of all of your assets, either by gifting them to your children or living a dissolute life, when you hit 65 and then fall on the mercy of the State, penniless, when you need full time care.
2 Likes
Do you think the landlord should lose most of what he has just because he’s unlucky enough to get Alzheimer’s and require long-term care?
Do you think anybody should?
And if so, why should it be any different for somebody who requires, say expensive cancer treatment or extensive rehabilitation after a stroke?
Sounds like a plan
Sure you can’t take it with you. Not with the Tories in government anyway.
Shocking political misjudgement on this, taking it for granted that all the coffin dodgers would meekly vote Tory.
Cost of housing and cost of long term care are different issues
Buy more vinyl!
1 Like
What do you want think of the fair deal system here?
Isn’t the former Tipperary hurling manager , Eamon O Shea , an academic who specialises in this area of economics ?
I wouldn’t be an expert on it. From what I know of it it seems slightly better than what the Tories are offering but again it places the burden for paying for social care hugely on the individual themselves.
I’d sooner be euthanized than have my life’s work frittered away being kept alive just to die an undignified death and many like me feel the same way.
7 Likes
Give it twenty years and they might make it compulsory.
I do, as a matter of fact.