-
You're right. You can't take it with you after all. It's an utterly reasonable and sensible policy. It's also progressive, in that it targets those who have the means to pay. But it's also unconservative. It says a lot about May's judgement that she let it into the manifesto.
I'm absolutely sure that the drop in the polls since the story blew up is ageing Tory voters - a very important Tory demographic - switching allegiance because they realise that the party isn't on their side after all.
Meanwhile some of Labour's current policies (such as non-means tested abolition of tuition fees) will directly benefit the rich. Can't help feeling there's a delicious irony in all of this...
-
Its an absolutely evil policy. A person's house has been paid for with money that has been taxed already, including NI which is supposed to cover the cost of your social care anyway.
This won't affect wealthy property owners, they will have enough cash in the bank to pay for their own care anyway. To scrape from ordinary people's estates is evil to the core.
You are reading a single comment by @laner and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Fox
Stonehedge
@laner
To me the idea of getting those owning a home to pay for social care after death through the money from their home seems like a not to0 evil policy, though i'm sure pensioners don't see it that way. Ironic it comes from a party which massively upped the inheritance tax limit and got it to ignore some homes.