Jeremy Corbyn, thoughts?

[newjez]

Different governments can say what they like but the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider :mad:

 

 

Well, when the rich control the size of the gap, are you surprised?

[MARYROSE02]

I bet Corbyn is another Champagne socialist?! Where does he live? What car does he drive? Which school did he send his kids to?

[newjez]

Why don't I play the system? Why dobt I blow all my savings on booze and then plead poverty?

 

Why should I have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or pounds if I need nursing home care? Why can't the government pay for it? U expect Tory govts to be nasty but what about Labour govts?

 

Why can't they pay for free nursing home care. Why can't they pay Pommie retirees who come to OZ their full pension? If people have payed their full NI quota then surely they have earned the right to the Govt helping them?

 

And why should people who have paid nothing be helped?

 

 

Welcome to the left wing, if you must call it that. I totally agree with you.

[newjez]

So why don't Labour propose a way to fund nursing home care for people who need it without taking their assets,. Hang on. You think they SHOULD pay for their care?

 

I've always been amazed that the grey vote haven't addressed this. They are such a strong block. Maybe they should means test pensions to pay for it?

[newjez]

[ATTACH]30804[/ATTACH]

 

I wonder what the caring socialist Corbyn idea is for helping people like this?

 

 

Third runway?

[tea4too]

So why don't Labour propose a way to fund nursing home care for people who need it without taking their assets,. Hang on. You think they SHOULD pay for their care?

 

You confuse me MR. You do not want to financially support people who have the ability to support themselves, yet you do not extend this thinking to citizens who have the means to finance their own nursing home care? Should a minimum wage taxpayer be asked to fund the nursing home costs of someone with sufficient assets to pay their own residential care costs? T x

[newjez]

I bet Corbyn is another Champagne socialist?! Where does he live? What car does he drive? Which school did he send his kids to?

 

 

I've never understood why poor people have such a problem with rich people being nice to poor people. That was a cheap shot and you should be ashamed.

[newjez]

You confuse me MR. You do not want to financially support people who have the ability to support themselves, yet you do not extend this thinking to citizens who have the means to finance their own nursing home care? Should a minimum wage taxpayer be asked to fund the nursing home costs of someone with sufficient assets to pay their own residential care costs? T x

 

Or pay their pension for that matter. (Please don't quote the NI joke. It's a tax like any other tax).

[MARYROSE02]

You confuse me MR. You do not want to financially support people who have the ability to support themselves, yet you do not extend this thinking to citizens who have the means to finance their own nursing home care? Should a minimum wage taxpayer be asked to fund the nursing home costs of someone with sufficient assets to pay their own residential care costs? T x

So two people start off in.life in similar jobs with similar incomes and one chooses to be frugal and save their money whilst the other spends every penny they have boozing smoking gambling, and at the end of their lives it is only fair that the frugal person uses their savings to pay for their care, whilst the person who chose not to save should be cared for by the Govt?

 

I agree actually. I wish my parents had put their name down for a council house as soon as they married, then not saved a penny. They prob woukd have ended up buying the house anyway and in the intervening years they could have had wonderful holidays, boozed and gambled, and the state woukd have paid fur the nursing home. What mugs they were.

[MARYROSE02]

You confuse me MR. You do not want to financially support people who have the ability to support themselves, yet you do not extend this thinking to citizens who have the means to finance their own nursing home care? Should a minimum wage taxpayer be asked to fund the nursing home costs of someone with sufficient assets to pay their own residential care costs? T x

I wish I had the strength to blow all my assets now and when it's all gone let the state pay for my care. Why be a mug and save?

[MARYROSE02]

I've never understood why poor people have such a problem with rich people being nice to poor people. That was a cheap shot and you should be ashamed.

What is the difference between David Cameron and Ed Miliband? Both are rich. Both live in posh parts of London. Maybe Corbyn is different. Maybe he lives on a small portion of his salary and gives the rest to charity?

[MARYROSE02]

You do know that before the welfare state (a Labour concept), everyone had to pay for their own health and social care? And this universal health and causal care is a concept that has been steadily eroded by the right wing governments you seem to support?

 

What exactly goes through your brain whenever you put your vote next to the right wing candidate?

What did the socialist govts do to arrest the Tory slide? What can they do.?

[MARYROSE02]

So would you rather have people with absolutely no help at all then? On the streets without hospital treatment and other basic rights? That's the way it sounds.

Of course not but I object to bludgers living off the taxpayers. Nobody had yet explained why it was right that my father should have had his assetsvtaken by the Govt to pay fit his nursing home care, other than to say If he could afford to save money from his income, he can afford to pay for his care. In that case, why save money?

[MARYROSE02]

I've always been amazed that the grey vote haven't addressed this. They are such a strong block. Maybe they should means test pensions to pay for it?

Govt cannot afford to pay. That is the bottom line. It's why we are ask encouraged to save in pension funds

 

I was a mug of course. When my pension was due I could have taken the maximum lump sum and blown it on cars and holidays but I opted for the maximum pension. Idiot.

[newjez]

What is the difference between David Cameron and Ed Miliband? Both are rich. Both live in posh parts of London. Maybe Corbyn is different. Maybe he lives on a small portion of his salary and gives the rest to charity?

 

We're not talking about communism. What is this argument you are putting forward? Have you actually thought about it. Are you seriously saying that someone with money has no right in believing in a fairer society? It's stupid and beneath you. It cheapens everything you've said.

[newjez]

Of course not but I object to bludgers living off the taxpayers. Nobody had yet explained why it was right that my father should have had his assetsvtaken by the Govt to pay fit his nursing home care, other than to say If he could afford to save money from his income, he can afford to pay for his care. In that case, why save money?

 

It's not right. The govt should provide a basic level of care, and if your parents wanted better they should top up. There are many imperfect things. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve them.

[newjez]

Govt cannot afford to pay. That is the bottom line. It's why we are ask encouraged to save in pension funds

 

I was a mug of course. When my pension was due I could have taken the maximum lump sum and blown it on cars and holidays but I opted for the maximum pension. Idiot.

 

That sort of depends on how long you intend to live for.

 

I don't really know that many people on benefits that enjoy being on them. A few saddos maybe. But before you tear apart the current system you need to consider the alternatives. Do you really aspire to an American system?

[tea4too]

So two people start off in.life in similar jobs with similar incomes and one chooses to be frugal and save their money whilst the other spends every penny they have boozing smoking gambling, and at the end of their lives it is only fair that the frugal person uses their savings to pay for their care, whilst the person who chose not to save should be cared for by the Govt?

 

I agree actually. I wish my parents had put their name down for a council house as soon as they married, then not saved a penny. They prob woukd have ended up buying the house anyway and in the intervening years they could have had wonderful holidays, boozed and gambled, and the state woukd have paid fur the nursing home. What mugs they were.

 

It isn’t about ‘fair’ though, is it? If life was fair no one in this world would ever have to sleep rough, no child would go to bed hungry, and no one would ever die lonely. It’s about society, the type of society we want to live in, work towards, and individually and collectively afford.

 

But you side stepped my question MR. If it is an issue for tax payers to support the small percentage of people who could support themselves by working, how does that differ from the tax payer picking up the bill for people with sufficient assets to pay their own bills? Isn’t the basic principle the same? T x

[Gbye grey sky]

Of course not but I object to bludgers living off the taxpayers. Nobody had yet explained why it was right that my father should have had his assetsvtaken by the Govt to pay fit his nursing home care, other than to say If he could afford to save money from his income, he can afford to pay for his care. In that case, why save money?

 

We are much like your parents. Have lived within our means to save and pay a mortgage. We have done this in order to provide us with a secure retirement; it would not be in our nature to do otherwise. If ultimately this money is needed to fund OUR care then I have no issue with this at all. If someone does not have means for whatever reason then they should be supported. Your point is that you should assess everyone to determine whether in their lifetime they could potentially have saved money and if you decided that they wasted it on booze or whatever that they be denied assistance. Can you not see the flaws in your position?

[Keith and Linda]

We have a relative in the UK whom has put his home into a 'family trust' for the sole purpose of the government not making them use it to fund any potential health/home care in their later years, this rellie also goes off at how companies and rich people avoid paying taxes and he cannot see the how his and their acts are connected.

Not sure how much research he put into these family trusts, but I know it could well cause problems for his children when the time comes to realize the cash value. However his single driving force is that the gov does not get their hands on his assets. Very narrow thinking I believe, I know I would want to look after Linda, if the need ever arises, in the meantime we are comfortable with what we have achieved to give ourselves the lifestyle we chose and planned to maintain such for the foreseeable future, our children will get whatever is left once we are finished, be it $1 or $1m

[flag of convenience]

So two people start off in.life in similar jobs with similar incomes and one chooses to be frugal and save their money whilst the other spends every penny they have boozing smoking gambling, and at the end of their lives it is only fair that the frugal person uses their savings to pay for their care, whilst the person who chose not to save should be cared for by the Govt?

 

I agree actually. I wish my parents had put their name down for a council house as soon as they married, then not saved a penny. They prob woukd have ended up buying the house anyway and in the intervening years they could have had wonderful holidays, boozed and gambled, and the state woukd have paid fur the nursing home. What mugs they were.

 

If society consisted of an equal playing field for all I just might find something to agree with you about but as we know it isn't. Hardly only folk that booze and smoke that find themselves without savings. Many middle class have their backs to the wall with debt and living costs. We are all different. Not all can resist the temptation out there to spend. To upgrade. Such behaviour is encouraged by our system.

 

You would have to be a brave person to throw your lot in and be totally dependant on government. Some have little choice and will soon get used to frugal living if not encountered it before.

 

Nothing wrong with council housing apart from the Conservatives subsidising from tax payers their sell off to sitting tenant. It should have been those that had purchased their own house to have been on a stronger leg than the same as council house tenants who could sell at massive profit when time allowed. Agree there, but a Tory measure.

 

Wonder what quality nursing home one would get into with the state paying? Surely better to be able to have a choice into facility that at least appeals, rather than being plonked somewhere in vulnerable years?

[MARYROSE02]

It's not right. The govt should provide a basic level of care, and if your parents wanted better they should top up. There are many imperfect things. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve them.

 

As far as nursing home care goes, there is no 'Basic level of care', although if you have no money or assets, I guess you will be assigned some form of care. I don't actually mind having to use my remaining assets to pay for nursing home care if it means I can get something nice, even if it means my heirs will inherit less.

 

Of course, 'something nice' is a relative value. After my father became ill, with no hope of coming home, I had to look at a couple of homes for him, and I chose the 'nicer' one, and it was 'nice' in some respects. He had his own room, and the food was OK, but it still seemed like a 'prison with friendly warders' (for 630 pounds a week in 2005.)

 

My brother visits nursing homes across NSW as part of his job, and there are very few he has seen that he would like to 'live' in.

 

'Top Up?' How? It seems to me that if you show you are able to save money, you are 'punished' by the government because they will expect you to pay for your care?

 

Of course, we all know, or should do, that no government can afford to pay for all the care, services, and pensions, that an increasingly aging population requires, hence the increase in the retirement age, and the exhortations for people to save for their retirement in superannuation.

[newjez]

We have a relative in the UK whom has put his home into a 'family trust' for the sole purpose of the government not making them use it to fund any potential health/home care in their later years, this rellie also goes off at how companies and rich people avoid paying taxes and he cannot see the how his and their acts are connected.

Not sure how much research he put into these family trusts, but I know it could well cause problems for his children when the time comes to realize the cash value. However his single driving force is that the gov does not get their hands on his assets. Very narrow thinking I believe, I know I would want to look after Linda, if the need ever arises, in the meantime we are comfortable with what we have achieved to give ourselves the lifestyle we chose and planned to maintain such for the foreseeable future, our children will get whatever is left once we are finished, be it $1 or $1m

 

 

There is nothing wrong with structuring your affairs to legally reduce the amount of tax you pay. Whether it is ethical is questionable. But for the little people, deductions are often structured in this way as this is where the govt wants to direct money. As for business and individuals, if the govt wanted to close the loopholes, they would.

[flag of convenience]

That sort of depends on how long you intend to live for.

 

I don't really know that many people on benefits that enjoy being on them. A few saddos maybe. But before you tear apart the current system you need to consider the alternatives. Do you really aspire to an American system?

 

It's been a long time since I met anyone that enjoyed the welfare lifestyle. There was a time a generation ago when payments in the Australian were not too bad. These days they are unsustainable for any duration. Rent is not covered in Australia and a lowly amount is paid to cover a small part of that cost.

 

That poster and others who chastise those on benefits for various reasons, should think very carefully. It is largely the reason they can walk the street with little fear of attack. It stops society from breaking down to an extent. America is just the example of how a rich country can 'get broken' through poor safety nets pushing all too many into extreme poverty if the wheels fall off.

[Keith and Linda]

There is nothing wrong with structuring your affairs to legally reduce the amount of tax you pay. Whether it is ethical is questionable. But for the little people, deductions are often structured in this way as this is where the govt wants to direct money. As for business and individuals, if the govt wanted to close the loopholes, they would.

 

I have no problem with tax avoidance within the law, I think we all try to find ways to pay less tax, it's just that this rellie really has such a bee in his bonnet about the rich, companies and bosses to such an extent that he almost wages a vendetta against them, but then he cannot see (or denies) the irony in his actions, not just on this point but in a few other things in life too.

Still not too sure on 'family Trust' though, he could not answer some questions I posed to him, his sole reason was to not to let the Gov get at it, and he is still not 100% sure that this plan of his will work!