How Tories have topped poll tax

Trusted article source icon
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Profile image for Leicester Mercury

Leicester Mercury

Jeremy Hunt's opening statement on capping care costs said it all – he wants to protect the inheritance of the children of older people.

I had hoped caring for them in old age might have been a more reasonable opening statement and policy.

As it is, we now have one of the most regressive taxes ever dreamed up by the Conservative Party, beating even the poll tax: if your assets are less than £75,000 you lose the lot – whereas a £1 million estate will only pay at a rate of 7.5per cent for care in old age.

Eric Goodyer, Colsterworth.

Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk

myprint-247

View details

Print voucher

Our heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.

Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk

Contact: 01858 468192

Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013

What an excellent idea to chip all dogs.

However, a better penalty for finding a dog not chipped would be to take it away from the owner.

On the Isle of Capri, all dogs have a chip and their DNA taken. Any resulting poo and the owner gets at 1,000 euro fine. It would be a good idea to do this at the same time, as Wigston is already becoming one big dogs' toilet.

Michael G Phillips, Wigston.

I am writing about the closure of Hunters Lodge medical practice, Leicester Forest East.

I knew nothing about the closure until seeing it in the press last week.

As I understand it, no patient has yet received any letter from the primary care trust informing us about what is happening .

I have tried to register with another practice, but am unable to do so until the PCT has agreed the surgeries are allowed to increase their numbers. The situation will put immense pressure on the surrounding medical practices.

Name and address supplied.

In reply to Phil Rowe ("Call to doctors was so costly", Mailbox, February 9). If you have access to a computer, visit the website below and enter the 08 number.

If available, it will give you the 01 number which you can then use on your landline package.

www.saynoto0870.com

Fred Walker, Thurmaston.

7
Tweet this article
Report

7 Comments

  • Profile image for C_G_Lee

    by C_G_Lee

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 4:38PM

    “For once I agree with Eric Goodyer's sentiments. Only the rich and the poor will benefit. Those of us that have spent our working lives trying to save a nest egg for our old age will lose the lot if we are unfortunate enough to need long term care. The only real beneficiaries are the "fat cat" care home owners.

    And it will not only be our children that will lose out on their inheritance, it will also be the spouses who will have to try and manage to pay the day to day bills when the care homes have bled them dry and the money runs out.”

  • Profile image for amoros11

    by amoros11

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 3:40PM

    “Same old tired format out of touch with the climate from Eric. However unemployment is down, growth figures have improved and 25 % has been knocked of the deficit and there is a moderate but slow recovery in place. At least under The Coalition, there is some kind of vision, action and the strength to make decisions, unpopular with the public. Unlike Labour's plan to oppose all cuts without a strategy to assert an alternative.”

  • Profile image for powellp

    by powellp

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 3:17PM

    “"if your assets are less than £75,000 you lose the lot"

    It's all very complicated, but I'm not sure Eric's statement is accurate, nothing new there I know. I have copied across the table below from the BBC site. It gives a good guidance as to what will need to be paid if the proposed chnegs are implimented.

    And just exactly what did Labour do to protect working people who had worked hard all their lives, when faced with having to sell their houses or use their life savings to fund care costs?


    Proposed changes to elderly care in England: What you could pay
    People affected Care costs

    *

    Initial assets* up to £123,000

    Means tested - proportion covered by state

    eg. Property/assets worth £17,500 or less Pay £0 towards care (0% of assets)

    eg. Property/assets worth £50,000 Pay £16,577 towards care (33% of assets)

    eg. Property assets worth £100,000 Pay £44,611 towards care (45% of assets)

    Initial assets above £123,000

    To pay - up to max £75,000

    eg. Property/assets worth £150,000 Pay £67,399 towards care (45% of assets)

    eg. Property/assets worth £200,000 Pay £75,000 towards care (38% of assets)

    eg. Property/assets worth £250,000 Pay £75,000 towards care (30% of assets)”

  • Profile image for Rod52

    by Rod52

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 12:25PM

    “It was a government of Eric's political persuasion that for thirteen years 'sowed the seeds' of our present economic situation. Since the last election, it has become all too apparent that none of our politicians ( neither government or opposition) have any idea of the solutions to our accelerating demise. What they do all have in common though, is the fact that the rich continue to get richer, and the poor poorer under this government, as they did under the previous government. On that at least, politicians of all colours appear to be united in their policies!”

  • Profile image for 4_Stroke

    by 4_Stroke

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 12:08PM

    “Let's just remind us what the last "smash and grab" Labour Government did for those in care..

    Regulation 25 of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 allows Local Authorities to treat a care home resident as having capital they do not actually possess due to intentional deprivation of capital assets.

    This means that a care home resident who intentionally deprives him/herself of a capital asset with the purpose of reducing charges may be treated as being still in possession of the asset. This is known as notional capital. The result is that the resident will be assessed as having capital they do not actually possess and will be charged accordingly

    So if your parents transfer their assets to you (and there is no time limit) and even if they are fully compliant with inheritance laws... they can still come and get it.”

  • Profile image for depreg

    by depreg

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 10:39AM

    “Same old Eric Goodyder, and the Labour party for that matter. His party did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about care costs and still are so vacuous that all they can do is criticise and put forward no ideas of their own.

    Tell me Eric, what is so bad about people who have worked damned hard all their lives passing some of their hard earned cash onto their children?”

  • Profile image for 4_Stroke

    by 4_Stroke

    Wednesday, February 13 2013, 9:46AM

    “if your assets are less than £75,000 you lose the lot .. Whereas if have spent a lifetime of benefits scrounging you will get it all for free, as always!”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters
         
         
         
         
         
         

        Tell us about your area

        Got some interesting news? Write about it and let your whole community know.

          Write an article