KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What an amazing amount of stereotypes! Are you a Daily Mail reader? But seriously, it can be annoying seeing your taxes going to healthy people of working age who choose not to have a job, or to those that have never heard the word contraception. However, by the time people are old and frail then that's all that really matters, rather than the poor choices that they might have made when they were younger. I can only repeat, I don't mind my taxes going to people who are worst off than me but I don't like paying for people who are wealthier. They may have paid more into the system than I have but that's not to say that it's true of their children. The way that I look at it is that it's them that I'm subsidising, as much, if not more than the parents.Somebody else come in on this please, we seem to be going round in circles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I think we will have to agree to disagree.[:)]Dotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 Stereotypes seem to be going both ways !I don't mind what Joe Bloggs does with his money, he can choose to spend it how he likes, if he ends up with nothing - so be it.Now why should anyone care if another chap chooses to save his money, with the intent that his children should get it - they both have the right to choice, it simply isn't your business or the states. In fact the children are going to pay inheritance tax on it, in this area a reasonable semi would take you over the thresholdKathy - from your posts in the Education thread and the thread here, I think we are at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as the parent child relationship goes, and likely to remain so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Funny, I thought that we were in agreement,or pretty nearly, on the Education thread! It might not be the state's business what someone does with their property in the UK, but it is in France. It's also everyone's business how their taxes are spent. Nobody ever hesitates in telling the poor how to run their lives, but it's always "hands off" when people with money are being discussed. To show that I am really at the opposite end of the spectrum from you, I feel that the level at which inheritance tax kicks in should be lower than it is. Now there's a novel viewpoint!It's strange, I'm never more of a socialist than when posting on this board. It must be the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 The odd thing is, that I haven't voted Conservative for about 25 years either, but I always look 'true blue ' here!Apparently one European or Scandinavian country (can't remember which now) has abolished inheritance tax and their economy has boomed. (It came up on one of those pre budget progs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Double Post Deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 OK I'll come in Fresh. I had a look last night, but as so many waggons have been circled and so much ground (much of it the same) has been covered, I'll just do an off the top of my head thing.KathyC says she doesn't want a return to the poorhouse, yet she is essentially talking about 'underserving poor', (people who she says she resents 'paying for', something I have never heard a 'socialist' say). There's a contradicton there, one which many of us feel I'm sure, because if we don't, then the only solution is a return to the poorhouse, or the workhouse, or whatever its modern equivalent would be. Gay doesn't see why her mother should have to sell her home, when people who never bought a home don't have to make that sacrifice, and get their social care free.I agree that not having been in a position to buy doesn't equate with fecklessness, and I think that not being able to buy is becoming more prevalent, rather than less. But, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that older people are better off staying in their own homes for as long as possible, whatever their tenure is.While home care isn't cheap by any means, people stay reasonably happy - even if they have quite severe disabilities or chronic conditions - in their homes. No one alive is capable of doing the 'sum', because of the extent to which 'health' is tied up with personal contentedness.The argument is going around in circles, because no one wants to pay more taxes, or have more babies, or start paying into a pension plan when they are 18, because they cannot begin to imagine the choices older people are faced with, sometimes after they are already incapable of facing them. (It would probably take a combination of saying yes to all those choices to raise enough money to sort the problem LOL)What's more, until it happens to you , (via your parent) you cannot begin to imagine how truly awful it is. In the space of 2 generations, it isn't right to encourage people to buy their own homes, and then 'nab' them. It's just wrong, just as it would be wrong to shift someone out of a council property they had lived in for 50 years (I have seen this happen) because they don't need three bedrooms anymore, or because they can only use the ground floor. Many people will disagree, but the knock on effects can be considerable to the person and their family, both in health and social terms.Regarding thisThe more I read here, the more it seems to me that the French have got this question worked out. Let the children inherit the property, but let them also pay for their parents' care. Problem sorted!With reference to what I said above, no, it isn't sorted; not by a long shot. Are the children supposed to pay for their parents care before they ever recieve this 'inheritance' while also working and supporting their own children?Sorry if it's a gabble,but someone asked for someone new to join in, and I happened to be here [6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Tresco, thanks for a fresh viewpoint.Just a couple of things; I may resent paying towards the upkeep of the "undeserving poor" but I think that it's right that I should do so. Perhaps I'm just too honest in admitting my resentment. Secondly, I would like to pay more taxes and would vote for a party that put up the rate of income tax in order to spend it on health ,education and social care. Doing this would solve many of the problems British society faces. Unfortunately it's not a vote winner and is therefore unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 So not to go on, but I will. This report, the title to this post, is based in the UK. Therefore I thought this is what we were discussing.On a slightly different slant. What happens to Old folk whose kids live in a different country. Example, parent lives in France, kids in UK.Dotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 And your view that the French have 'got it sorted', KathyC?There should be firm all party agreement about the measures that need to be taken. They did it for the Welfare State when it was set up, (OK, different time, different circumstances) they can do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 [quote user="KathyC"] I would like to pay more taxes and would vote for a party that put up the rate of income tax in order to spend it on health ,education and social care. Doing this would solve many of the problems British society faces. Unfortunately it's not a vote winner and is therefore unlikely to happen.[/quote]Which country are you talking about paying taxes in?Dotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'm still living in the UK, so I mean here. I can't see how putting up taxes in France would solve many of Britain's problems, but you never know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 [quote user="KathyC"]Tresco, thanks for a fresh viewpoint.Just a couple of things; I may resent paying towards the upkeep of the "undeserving poor" but I think that it's right that I should do so. Perhaps I'm just too honest in admitting my resentment. Secondly, I would like to pay more taxes and would vote for a party that put up the rate of income tax in order to spend it on health ,education and social care. Doing this would solve many of the problems British society faces. Unfortunately it's not a vote winner and is therefore unlikely to happen.[/quote]If you wantto pay more tax and can't, why don't you donate to charity if it makes you feel better.Dotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If you don't know the difference between charity and communal endeavour, then I'm afraid that it's too late and I'm too tired to explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 The trouble is that the wealth aspect is not the only inequality, in some areas someone could have help at home, much of which is free, some a fee payable for, when in another area a person with the same level of need as far as care is concerned is told that there is not care at home available and they have to go into home, sell up, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hoorah, we've found an area of agreement: "post code lotteries". You're right, these things should be the same wherever you live in the country, there shouldn't be geographical differences. Does anybody know if this is also the case in France? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Thank you but I don't need it explaining.The reason why putting up taxes is not a 'vote winner' is because I think you are in a minority and quite frankly noboby is going to vote for a party that wants to charge more. Lets see them make better use of the money they have got, before they get any more.This is why you will not be paying any more tax, unless of course you are able to earn more, but if not, then why not donate to a charity, you said you wanted to pay more tax, this way it could all go to the intended destination with a gift aid certificate and you wouldn't have to pay tax. Oh there again don' t bother with the certificate as its more tax you want to pay. [:)]Dotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 No one can agree until I get an answer of some sort to this which may have been missed on the previous page[6]And your view that the French have 'got it sorted', KathyC?Oh, agree if you want to, I only joined in because it was just the three of you, going round and round. Actually, there was something else. Gay has never struck me as a Daily Mail Reader. She may read it, but she isn't one. I'm sure of that. [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 [quote user="Tresco"]No one can agree until I get an answer of some sort to this which may have been missed on the previous page[6]And your view that the French have 'got it sorted', KathyC?Oh, agree if you want to, I only joined in because it was just the three of you, going round and round. Actually, there was something else. Gay has never struck me as a Daily Mail Reader. She may read it, but she isn't one. I'm sure of that. [:D][/quote]And I don't read papers, so its not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Very quickly, I'll just say this. The Daily Mail is a terrible paper. There, I've said it!Carry on, if you are up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 Well I sometimes buy it, [:$] but I rarely read it - I do the word puzzles, my son likes the Suduko, we look at the TV and I may read the best buys for something or other, but I rarely read anything of consequence in it, my home page is the BBC news page and I watch the TV news so I don't really need to - besides I'm already reading good fiction in the form on novels [;-)] For a while I bought the Indy. Nobody ever says 'Express Reader' and thats a lot worse [Www]On the other hand I bought the Economist today because it had a great picture of a Cockerel wearing a blindfold, and the title 'France facing its future' There are two articles, one the leader the other a three page spread. I will have to read and inwardly digest ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I thought of Dotty as the Daily Mail reader but she says she doesn't read newspapers so I was wrong. I'm well aware that most people don't want to pay more taxes, unfortunately they also want better schools and hospitals Where they think the money comes from I don't know. As someone else said, perhaps they think the government just prints it. Perhaps Dotty thinks that charities should provide them.Tresco, my remark about the French having it sorted was something of a throwaway line. Obviously there must be practical problems with this, although the principle seems sound. I should have given more thought before I threw the comment in. Yes, you're right, the Daily Mail is a truly terrible paper. I would make a comment about it's readers, but I've had enough flack for one night.Goodnight all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 KathyCIt seems to me that you keep changing the subject. We are talking about paying for elderly care, not schools or hospitals. Please can you clarify what you mean by 'Perhaps Dotty thinks that charities should provide them' provide what?Good night[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyC Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Schools and hospitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotty0 Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 No I don't think charities should pay for schools, hositpitals or anything else come to that. Dotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now