Conservative Manifesto

[grrclark]

grrclark - I can't disagree with your post about taxpayers funding an inheritance. It is fair comment, but it is a complicated subject.

 

That said, I fail to see why someone who has paid in all their life has to fund Cook Islanders to the tune of half a million pounds each. They pay in nothing. There are many other examples of where we tax the population to give it away around the World.

 

Gordon it is a hugely complex situation and overly simplified argument really does it no favour, I agree.

 

For what it is worth I can see both sides of the argument and understand how people do feel aggrieved at having to sacrifice savings that they worked all their days for whilst others receive the same care having done nothing. The same principle exists for so many things in relation to welfare and there can never be an easy answer.

 

We either have a welfare state where some people will be takes and some givers and some give a hell of a lot more than others.

 

Can't really disagree regarding poor tax spend, it frustrates me too.

[Mice!]

why should thin people pay for diabetes treatment for fatties, why should childless people pay for schools, why should people with children pay for nhs ivf treatment for those that don't, you could list it all day if you wanted, how the hell could you find a system that suits everybody 100%, I hate the bbc with a passion, but every year I have to pay their silly licence fee. Life isn't fair, it never has been, but its as good as there is.

You don't have to pay the BBC licence fee, jut prove you don't watch live TV and away you go.

Not only fatties as you put it get diabetes you can be born with it.

We pay our taxes then moan there isn't enough money to fund the nhs fix the roads etc,

 

As the original post said think Mrs May sorry the conservatives could have said what they wanted, didn't need to promise the earth like other parties are doing.

 

Jeremy Corbin on the the last leg this week!!! Imagine if it was Diane abbots

[Gordon R]

Whether you like the Tories, Theresa May or not, having seen her on the TV, she comes across as a politician of stature. She sounds convincing, which Corbyn and Farron don't.

 

Diane Abbott sounds like she is thinking carefully about what she says. Her delivery is slow and deliberate, but she still sounds patronising and not very bright.

 

Current elections seem to rely heavily on TV personae, rather than policy. Tories are ahead on both counts.

[rbrowning2]

Sadly both my children are low earners working hard but only just affording to pay their way in rented properties.

 

Their only hope for ever owning their own houses would be when they inherent the money from my house, which now looks like an option that will be taken away from them. £50,000 will not buy a house.

 

It's a fact that for the majority of our children their standard of living is less that ours.

 

The other fact is that the very rich will still find away round the £100,000 limit to protect their children's inheritance.

 

The oap vote should not be underestimated or undervalued.

[scutt]

hate thatcher? she left office 27 years ago, and died in 2013. I could never admit to voting labour.

 

sorry hated thatchers government and have my reasons so did you vote labour then.

[chesterse]

Why should others have to pay for her? She doesn't want the house does she because she no longer lives there.

Your the one who will get the house left to you. Why should the tax payer fund her care so you can have a larger inheritance?

OK if and when I get it I'll **** it away against a wall so that the State will pay for me in my old age!

[novice cushie shooter]

I agree to a point but i have a family staying over the road for me who get a £1000 rent pm paid all the shopping paid and he gets a big blue bus to run the 2 kids to school in. His wife is registered disabled. He doesnt work as he is her carer. I am not one to judge them but they have two, yes two huge tvs in the living room a 400l tropical fish tank. There kids have better clothes than mine all the techy modern toys bikes trikes etc. I see first hand the rip off. Yes there are people who are really struggling to meet ends meat and kids living in extreme poverty but im sure for each genuine case there is a blagger. Personally i feel very proud being able to support my family through thick and thin and knowing i dont have to cheat money from out government. There are also those very proud people who through no fault of their own find themselves in a position to need help.

 

 

 

It is statements such as this, that demonstrate a sheer lack of incomprehension of the plight the vast majority of those who find themselves in a less fortunate position.

 

I sincerely hope you, or your family, never find yourself in the position of relying on benefits.

 

Not all the rubbish published by the Daily Mail is true. I've yet to meet genuine benefit recipients who can afford plasma TV's, drink 8 pints a night and afford fags at £10 a packet, which is why my social conscience requires me to give generously to our local food bank.

 

To deprive children of what may be their only proper meal of the day is scandalous.

[motty]

 

It is statements such as this, that demonstrate a sheer lack of incomprehension of the plight the vast majority of those who find themselves in a less fortunate position.

 

I sincerely hope you, or your family, never find yourself in the position of relying on benefits.

 

Not all the rubbish published by the Daily Mail is true. I've yet to meet genuine benefit recipients who can afford plasma TV's, drink 8 pints a night and afford fags at £10 a packet, which is why my social conscience requires me to give generously to our local food bank.

 

To deprive children of what may be their only proper meal of the day is scandalous.

Please read my post again.

I am all for helping people that need help, but I am sick to death of subsidising those that don't. I see dozens of work shy folk every day. A lot of them drive around in newer cars than me, have iphones etc, and are seen regularly with drink and cigarettes. These people do not need help to buy school dinners for their children!

For me, other than Brexit, welfare is probably the biggest issue that I want the government to address.

 

Ps, I don't read newspapers.

[fortune]

I am watching the BBC News and there is a woman on there who is suffering from dementia. She has sold her house and that has all been absorbed by care costs. She now gets help but it is still costing the family 40k a year! How can it cost over 100k a year to look after someone who just sits in a wheelchair starring at the floor or wall waiting to die?

Where have they dragged this figure of 100k from? Down round this way you would be hard pressed to find a mid terrace 2 bedroom x council house for under 200k. When you look back a few years it was the city and banks that caused all of this issue with a black hole. That issue seems to have floated off downstream and semi forgotten about.

[team tractor]

OK if and when I get it I'll **** it away against a wall so that the State will pay for me in my old age!

Lol it seems the way forward .

[team tractor]

If He ever needs a home to live in and he's got over £100,000 why should he come asking others? He should use the money he's got.

That's like giving the dole dossers a free holiday and saying to the people who can afford it a bill .

My dads paid in more than most in tax and Ni ( as employers we pay the staffs tax and NI too) but he will be told to pay for his care Butttttt my other halves step mum who has never worked since she was 19 and is now 62 will get the same care For free.

This idle woman goes on 2 holidays a year, my dad gets a week in total off work .

My dad and I work 70+ hours each work currently and he's 65

Last year I had 4 days holiday in total and only Sundays off. I do this to buy my house so my kids have somewhere to live .

[Lloyd90]

That's like giving the dole dossers a free holiday and saying to the people who can afford it a bill .

My dads paid in more than most in tax and Ni ( as employers we pay the staffs tax and NI too) but he will be told to pay for his care Butttttt my other halves step mum who has never worked since she was 19 and is now 62 will get the same care For free.

This idle woman goes on 2 holidays a year, my dad gets a week in total off work .

My dad and I work 70+ hours each work currently and he's 65

Last year I had 4 days holiday in total and only Sundays off. I do this to buy my house so my kids have somewhere to live .

Honest question, would you want to live their lives?

 

I know I wouldn't! I'm glad I work my *** off and pay for what I have. I don't see those people going on the holidays I have or having the experiences I'm fortunate enough to have.

[djrwood]

Why should others have to pay for her? She doesn't want the house does she because she no longer lives there.

 

Your the one who will get the house left to you. Why should the tax payer fund her care so you can have a larger inheritance?

Whilst I agree with some of the logic, why should tax payers fork out if someone can afford it themselves, I think we should be careful that it doesn't get taken forward and applied to other situations. Where does the line get drawn?

 

If it is ok to make someone spend the majority of their accumalated wealth in the final years of life, how does that differ from people with terminal illnesses? Why does the 50 year old son of the chap spending his money in a care home deserve less than the 15 year old boy losing his dad to cancer?

 

And why stop there? The NHS in is current state is unsustainable. Why not means test those seeking treatment and those that can afford to pay be charged? I know the ideals are free at point of use but it can't continue the way it is.

 

I just think it is a slippery slope that we all need to consider carefully

[team tractor]

Honest question, would you want to live their lives?

 

I know I wouldn't! I'm glad I work my *** off and pay for what I have. I don't see those people going on the holidays I have or having the experiences I'm fortunate enough to have.

I work by choice I guess because I like working . We own a thriving business because of it.

The woman in question goes to the canaries for 3-4 weeks a year. I go wales in my tent for 3-4 days and that's it.

The shooting world is terrible for it by us with loads shooting pigeons while on the dole.

 

Yes I can hold my head up high but I want to be treated the same when we're older please.

[ferguson_tom]

I cant see how harping on about how unfair the benefit system does nothing but rile you up, yes its massively unfair and its wrong people who have contributed sweet FA get more than those who have worked hard all their lives but the social system isnt going to change anytime soon.

 

I think importantly this is the first realistic manifesto that isnt just unfunded pipe dreams, they are getting the difficult topics out there early so it wont bite them in the **** later on....we voted for it. I genuinely hope people look at this and realise if the conservatives are having to be so realistic about what they can do it will cast some shadow in the mind of labours supporters who think corporations and rich individuals can fund it all their spending, that is of course until they all decided to ****** off to a more financially attractive country with low corporation tax etc.

 

Elderly care was always going to be a touchy subject but something has eventually got to give, the average life expectancy is constantly going up but the working population is shrinking and unable to support it. Why shouldnt you pay for your care costs or importantly why should i pay your care costs? This whole idea of paying into the system, national insurance etc etc is all a fallacy the money we pay in tax today is to pay off the repayments for the money spent yesterday! Just look at how different the NHS now to 50 years ago, if it hadnt become what it has half the old people moaning about the care costs wouldn't be here to moan about it in the first place!

 

As for free school meals, i reckon a pack lunch costs me at most £5.00 a week for each of my kids. I would happily pay that extra a month if it meant there class sizes got smaller and the standards of education increased. Yes kids from low income families should still get it but from what i can tell they still will, what people dont realise is that its not really about the money. Kids from low income families are a lot more likely to suffer from neglect of some description and by giving them the hot school dinners means they have at least one decent meal a day.

Edited May 19, 2017 by ferguson_tom

[Newbie to this]

I cant see how harping on about how unfair the benefit system does nothing but rile you up, yes its massively unfair and its wrong people who have contributed sweet FA get more than those who have worked hard all their lives but the social system isnt going to change anytime soon.

 

I think importantly this is the first realistic manifesto that isnt just unfunded pipe dreams, they are getting the difficult topics out there early so it wont bite them in the **** later on....we voted for it. I genuinely hope people look at this and realise if the conservatives are having to be so realistic about what they can do it will cast some shadow in the mind of labours supporters who think corporations and rich individuals can fund it all their spending, that is of course until they all decided to ****** off to a more financially attractive country with low corporation tax etc.

 

Elderly care was always going to be a touchy subject but something has eventually got to give, the average life expectancy is constantly going up but the working population is shrinking and unable to support it. Why shouldnt you pay for your care costs or importantly why should i pay your care costs? This whole idea of paying into the system, national insurance etc etc is all a fallacy the money we pay in tax today is to pay off the repayments for the money spent yesterday! Just look at how different the NHS now to 50 years ago, if it hadnt become what it has half the old people moaning about the care costs wouldn't be here to moan about it in the first place!

Quite well put

[Lord Geordie]

 

Why should people not pay for their own care if they have more than £100,000 of savings or assets? Why should my taxes have to pay for somebody who can afford to pay for themselves?

 

Why can people not be responsible for themselves for the entire duration of their adult life? Is there some magical thing that happens when someone reaches pensionable age that they now become the responsibility of the state any more so than when they are younger?

Sorry, but I side with Nathan on this!

 

I only get £12.5k a year! And from that pay a very low tax in relation to those earning £100k.

 

If we were both to pay the same rate of tax (let's say 10%) I pay £1.250 a year in tax. They pay £12.500. I think they deserve the care, and access to the NHS just the same as anyone else. Why should THEY pay for MY care on the NHS then have to fund their own? Even if someone managed to accrue £100k in savings or invested it in a house over a lifetime, they worked for it (and already paid multiple taxes on it) to have to fund into a system heavily for years, only to be turned away when you need access is morally wrong.

 

In my view there are other ways to save money in the NHS. Also other ways of funding schools, armed forces, emergency services etc without stacking those better off!

 

Appointments missed should be paid for via a fine of say £25 unless you have a genuine reason such as hospitalised, severe illness etc. Having your hair done, off your head on smack wouldn't count!

 

Low cost drugs such as Paracetamol, ibuprofen, topical creams, bandages etc would be non prescription items, meaning you would fund your own. The NHS paying £10 for a box of 100 paracetamol, when it would cost circa £1 to buy them from a supermarket is non sensical. Bandages are under 50p for some! The money saved from that alone would be astronomical.

 

Family planning clinics should not be giving out free condoms or birth control either, some use of female birth control should still be allowed as it can help control heavy period problems etc in some cases.

 

Foreign aid imo should be overhauled. ALL taxation should remain within the UK to pay for vital services. Health, schools, armed services, emergency services, roads, rail etc. Once we have everything running correctly, what ever is left over could be put into a foreign aid fund to be sent to genuine cases of natural disasters. Not to fund wars, pay for space programs, or trying to keep a country in our back pockets.

 

Also the like of MPs who earn £74k pa claim tax relief and expenses for buying stationary, or for second homes because they are 20 miles closer to parliament etc should be nipped in the bud. We have to get trains or buses. Some traveling 100+ miles to work each day. Also subsidised meals, and drinks at the HOP is not on. If we can manage to survive on £12k a year, eat out (full price) and pay £3.75 a pint. I think a politician can afford to pay full price too. Besides I thought there was a law on the pricing of alcohol relating to its ABV? We can't sell it in supermarkets below a certain price, nor can pubs! So how can the politicians get away with that?

 

I think it's morally wrong to cap public sector workers pay rises to 1% and then pay yourselves a 10% rise in the same breath. I think politicians should take a percentage CUT in pay if they are truly intent on leveling the playing field. I read over the past few month that one banker had a significant pay cut, as did another high ranking person who I now forget! But if those companies can see the light! Then surely it's time parliament realised it's time for cuts within its own circle.

 

 

 

Now for those of retirement age!

 

Those who have worked their whole lives, and made good money. "Again £100k pa" have paid in substantially more than myself! They have paid more into a system than I have done! But are expected to fund a PRIVATE pension for themselves! Why? While I can understand they MAY have the money to! They shouldn't HAVE to! Can they decline to pay pension contributions, on the basis of the will not be claiming from the pension fund? Of course not.

 

Just because I am of the low class, it should not give me any rights to get MORE in regard to help than a higher class person, just because they can afford to pay more.

 

I feel sorry for people like Nathan and his family. Parents work so damn hard to provide a secure future for their kids, only to have a greedy pair of hands rip it away to pay for a care system that was paid for throughout their whole life!

[panoma1]

Sorry, but I side with Nathan on this!

I only get £12.5k a year! And from that pay a very low tax in relation to those earning £100k.

If we were both to pay the same rate of tax (let's say 10%) I pay £1.250 a year in tax. They pay £12.500. I think they deserve the care, and access to the NHS just the same as anyone else. Why should THEY pay for MY care on the NHS then have to fund their own? Even if someone managed to accrue £100k in savings or invested it in a house over a lifetime, they worked for it (and already paid multiple taxes on it) to have to fund into a system heavily for years, only to be turned away when you need access is morally wrong.

In my view there are other ways to save money in the NHS. Also other ways of funding schools, armed forces, emergency services etc without stacking those better off!

Appointments missed should be paid for via a fine of say £25 unless you have a genuine reason such as hospitalised, severe illness etc. Having your hair done, off your head on smack wouldn't count!

Low cost drugs such as Paracetamol, ibuprofen, topical creams, bandages etc would be non prescription items, meaning you would fund your own. The NHS paying £10 for a box of 100 paracetamol, when it would cost circa £1 to buy them from a supermarket is non sensical. Bandages are under 50p for some! The money saved from that alone would be astronomical.

Family planning clinics should not be giving out free condoms or birth control either, some use of female birth control should still be allowed as it can help control heavy period problems etc in some cases.

Foreign aid imo should be overhauled. ALL taxation should remain within the UK to pay for vital services. Health, schools, armed services, emergency services, roads, rail etc. Once we have everything running correctly, what ever is left over could be put into a foreign aid fund to be sent to genuine cases of natural disasters. Not to fund wars, pay for space programs, or trying to keep a country in our back pockets.

Also the like of MPs who earn £74k pa claim tax relief and expenses for buying stationary, or for second homes because they are 20 miles closer to parliament etc should be nipped in the bud. We have to get trains or buses. Some traveling 100+ miles to work each day. Also subsidised meals, and drinks at the HOP is not on. If we can manage to survive on £12k a year, eat out (full price) and pay £3.75 a pint. I think a politician can afford to pay full price too. Besides I thought there was a law on the pricing of alcohol relating to its ABV? We can't sell it in supermarkets below a certain price, nor can pubs! So how can the politicians get away with that?

I think it's morally wrong to cap public sector workers pay rises to 1% and then pay yourselves a 10% rise in the same breath. I think politicians should take a percentage CUT in pay if they are truly intent on leveling the playing field. I read over the past few month that one banker had a significant pay cut, as did another high ranking person who I now forget! But if those companies can see the light! Then surely it's time parliament realised it's time for cuts within its own circle.

Now for those of retirement age!

Those who have worked their whole lives, and made good money. "Again £100k pa" have paid in substantially more than myself! They have paid more into a system than I have done! But are expected to fund a PRIVATE pension for themselves! Why? While I can understand they MAY have the money to! They shouldn't HAVE to! Can they decline to pay pension contributions, on the basis of the will not be claiming from the pension fund? Of course not.

Just because I am of the low class, it should not give me any rights to get MORE in regard to help than a higher class person, just because they can afford to pay more.

I feel sorry for people like Nathan and his family. Parents work so damn hard to provide a secure future for their kids, only to have a greedy pair of hands rip it away to pay for a care system that was paid for throughout their whole life!

I don't think I could disagree with a lot of this! ^

[subsonicnat]

I am well retired,,,The thing with the Full Blown NHS is it was started on the never,never.

They didn't have that sort of money to kick it off.

So the burden falls to the next generation,Yes you pay as well through the years you are working,but as you reach retireing age the burden is taken on by those that are working.

Since the advent of LIVING A LIFE ON THE DOLE,The burden has become to great.

Silly things crept in,,my pet hate,one breast larger than the other etc.

I did struggle all my life,with 4 children to bring up,bought a house later on in life.

While shopping one day,a chap was on the floor,so went to help,,I got a mouthfull from him as he was really stoned..it made me think it had lost the plot when that happened as I knew he would be getting an extra £10.00 per week to fund his illness..

I have gone on about these things in previous threads,but this is not what your stamp is paid for.

Money is being spent on people from abroad requiring translators at £40,00 per hour..

My father said he did not wish to live in the land I was going to live in..

PerhapsI should be saying the same thing,it is crossing my mind..

[Lord Geordie]

Subsonic!

 

In a digital era one does not need a £40 an hour translator! Even google does a fairly good job of translation for free!

 

As for funding of alcohol dependency and drugs. I am of the belief that those who need help should get it by means of counciling, and not funding the habit! After counciling then I am afraid it would be cold turkey! Drug dealers should be given a lethal dose of the **** they pedal too.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Lord Geordie

[Jaymo]

LG

 

I hope to write a long reply but simply with the vacuum in pieces in the floor and a 3 yo stirring all the parts around whilst I grab a cuppa all I will say is this.

When are you forming your own Political Party that I can vote for!

In so many ( sometimes emotive ) postings you so often give an extremely good point of view across.

 

I cannot add anything to your posting that I disagree with.

The actual tax for someone earning around £100k is almost double what you mention though.

I work hard, I sacrifice many things to provide the best for my family and I have ( if I make it / Company still solvent) a very good Pension to look forward too.

My parents were the same and invested wisely and have the trappings that go with it.

Should we get a better deal from things like the NHS, be at the front of the que for services just because we pay in 5 timesor so the amount of the average earner? No, but we should be not denied it either because we can afford it.

 

As a Tory voter some of Mrs May's policies have us thinking, already I have heard several people saying they will abstain from voting ( rather that than to vote for another Party)

My wife is still ranting on about the School meal provisions- my sons school is in an area whereby at at guess I would say 80% if the children are entitled to a free school meal regardless, but suddenly the pressure is on the remain 20% to find what is it? £437 per annum per child for three years.

Breakfast club- do not see my children enough as it is due to work, when I'm home I wish to enjoy pleasantries over breakfast with them than drop them of making their school day even longer.

 

Ok, mini rant over and back to the dam G-Tech

[Lord Geordie]

Jayme! What's up with the G-Tech? You didn't blow it with liquid did you?

[Jaymo]

No- drive cog had stripped

Problem is that they use a metal primary drive along with a plastic secondary.

When the drive rollers collect too much hair it puts a strain on the gearbox and hey presto- stripped gears and a screeching G-tech

 

£14 replacement and jobs a good un

 

It's got me thinking of buying up all those 'screeching' G-Techs and repair before flogging them on :-)

[grrclark]

Sorry, but I side with Nathan on this!

 

I only get £12.5k a year! And from that pay a very low tax in relation to those earning £100k.

 

If we were both to pay the same rate of tax (let's say 10%) I pay £1.250 a year in tax. They pay £12.500. I think they deserve the care, and access to the NHS just the same as anyone else. Why should THEY pay for MY care on the NHS then have to fund their own? Even if someone managed to accrue £100k in savings or invested it in a house over a lifetime, they worked for it (and already paid multiple taxes on it) to have to fund into a system heavily for years, only to be turned away when you need access is morally wrong.

...........

 

Those who have worked their whole lives, and made good money. "Again £100k pa" have paid in substantially more than myself! They have paid more into a system than I have done! But are expected to fund a PRIVATE pension for themselves! Why? While I can understand they MAY have the money to! They shouldn't HAVE to! Can they decline to pay pension contributions, on the basis of the will not be claiming from the pension fund? Of course not.

 

Just because I am of the low class, it should not give me any rights to get MORE in regard to help than a higher class person, just because they can afford to pay more.

 

I feel sorry for people like Nathan and his family. Parents work so damn hard to provide a secure future for their kids, only to have a greedy pair of hands rip it away to pay for a care system that was paid for throughout their whole life!

 

LG the answer to the questions you pose is really very simple, because they can, albeit they might not want to.

 

There is not enough public money to fund elderly care for everyone on the state so those that can afford to pay are asked to pay. No matter that the contribution throughout life may have been greater, because they have more they pay more.

 

We have progressive taxation in this country which means those who earn more pay more in taxes. That extends all the way through until death. You earn the money and pay tax on it, what you have left you put in savings accounts and you pay tax on any growth in that; you buy a bigger house and you pay more tax on that; you tuck stuff away into a pension and then you pay tax on your pension payments; you give gifts of cash to family and they pay tax on that; and finally when you die and leave a legacy then there is tax to pay on that too.

 

When you consider it against what people receive in return for their contribution then it isn't fair. The alternative is no welfare system or communism and neither work.

[grrclark]

I cannot add anything to your posting that I disagree with.

The actual tax for someone earning around £100k is almost double what you mention though.

I work hard, I sacrifice many things to provide the best for my family and I have ( if I make it / Company still solvent) a very good Pension to look forward too.

My parents were the same and invested wisely and have the trappings that go with it.

Should we get a better deal from things like the NHS, be at the front of the que for services just because we pay in 5 timesor so the amount of the average earner? No, but we should be not denied it either because we can afford it.

 

 

You're not denied health or elderly care services, you are simply expected to pay for it because you have the means to do so.

 

For what it is worth, I am genuinely do understand both sides of the argument and having made a very considerable contribution to the public purse via tax I am not coming at this issue from a sense of entitlement in either direction, but what is the alternative?

 

Do we increase the overall tax burden for everyone in order to pay for care costs for the elderly from the public purse? The upshot of that is that the higher percentile earners will disproportionately shoulder the burden. Something like the top 15% (maybe less) of earners pay 80% of the tax contribution already.

 

I am a card carrying Tory, I absolutely believe in the free market, I subscribe to Hayekian economic theory, i passionately believe in having a small state machine and am all for self responsibility, but having said all that I also passionately believe in social justice and absolutely do believe that those more fortunate, whether that is through good luck or bloody hard graft, do have a duty of care to those in society who are in a less favourable position.