Middle class hit hardest by Labour plan? Ah, I see. There’s an election approaching so let’s do every thing possible to deter the middle classes from supporting Labour (again).
‘Could be this be Le Fin…`should be La Fin since ‘fin’ is feminine and not masculine. Pedantic maybe but if using a foreign language, if only in a feeble attempt to impress, then use it correctly. As for the rest of the copy: worthless.
The poor middle classes, always suffering at the hands of Labour.
As for Carla Bruni, I can already sense Mail journalists masturbating furiously at the thought of her being single again. They were bad enough when Sarkozy visited the UK.
If you read the full story the headline scare is just one of three options, also “Critics condemned the plans – saying they would penalise those who had saved all their lives. The Tories warned the true tax bill could be even higher, because a 10 per cent levy would raise £4.5billion – only a third of what is needed to pay for caring for the elderly. … The average 65-year-old today can expect to need care costing £30,000 – with the burden on women averaging £40,400 and men £22,300.”
So if you want to ensure that all who need it will be able to have residential care, there is a major problem in funding it, something that needs intelligent and mature debate. Once again the Mail provides anything but this. A not untypical couple leaving £300K house (IIRC the average UK house is worth somewhat less than this) will pay £30K, whilst between the two on average they will ‘enjoy’ residential care costing £62,700. So here’s my plan – if you’re a Mail reader just pay for your own care.
Ok, let’s not have an Estate Tax (sorry, ‘Death Tax’) and see where it gets us. Here’s an example of where we’d be…
2010: Man dies and leaves house to son, who already owns a house, so rents inherited house out.
2030: Son dies and leaves both houses to his son, who already owns a house. He now owns 3, so lives in one and rents out the other two.
2050: Son dies and leaves both houses to his son, who already owns a house. He now owns 4, so lives in one and rents out the other 3.
2070: Son dies and leaves both houses to his son, who already owns a house. He now owns 5, so lives in one and rents out the other 4.
At this point the rental income from one house pays the mortgage of the bought one, so he no longer works as the income from two of the other rental propeties pays a living wage, and the last one pays for another house to expand the portfolio.
Society has now lost a productive member of society who exists soley as a member of the new ownership class and is born into a life where his descendants exist purely to profit off others without doing anything of worth themselves.
Fastforward 500 years and due to this cycle of inheritence and using rental profits to expand house buying exponentially, and you have single families in control of entire boroughs in towns, able to ‘tax’ their ’subjects’ by unilaterally raising rents accross the boards.
This consolidation of the majority of wealth in a tiny proportion of hands will also allow them to buy up local businesses and service providers and control prices and wages in a similar way.
Welcome to the return of Feudalism! Something I believe the Mail and its readers would desire as they see themselves as those who’d become this new aristocracy.
…just don’t mention the almost enevitable bloody revolution that has followed almost every time in history when this type of society has reared its head.
Shouldn’t that be ‘La’ Fin, not ‘Le’ Fin?
Fin is a feminine noun in French.
Well, the readers will understand, they don’t care, it’s only a foreign language after all and it doesn’t count if you get it wrong.
Only the Middle Class die then!
A tax on death? How is that going to work, then?
Middle class hit hardest by Labour plan? Ah, I see. There’s an election approaching so let’s do every thing possible to deter the middle classes from supporting Labour (again).
‘Could be this be Le Fin…`should be La Fin since ‘fin’ is feminine and not masculine. Pedantic maybe but if using a foreign language, if only in a feeble attempt to impress, then use it correctly. As for the rest of the copy: worthless.
The poor middle classes, always suffering at the hands of Labour.
As for Carla Bruni, I can already sense Mail journalists masturbating furiously at the thought of her being single again. They were bad enough when Sarkozy visited the UK.
If you read the full story the headline scare is just one of three options, also “Critics condemned the plans – saying they would penalise those who had saved all their lives. The Tories warned the true tax bill could be even higher, because a 10 per cent levy would raise £4.5billion – only a third of what is needed to pay for caring for the elderly. … The average 65-year-old today can expect to need care costing £30,000 – with the burden on women averaging £40,400 and men £22,300.”
So if you want to ensure that all who need it will be able to have residential care, there is a major problem in funding it, something that needs intelligent and mature debate. Once again the Mail provides anything but this. A not untypical couple leaving £300K house (IIRC the average UK house is worth somewhat less than this) will pay £30K, whilst between the two on average they will ‘enjoy’ residential care costing £62,700. So here’s my plan – if you’re a Mail reader just pay for your own care.
Ok, let’s not have an Estate Tax (sorry, ‘Death Tax’) and see where it gets us. Here’s an example of where we’d be…
2010: Man dies and leaves house to son, who already owns a house, so rents inherited house out.
2030: Son dies and leaves both houses to his son, who already owns a house. He now owns 3, so lives in one and rents out the other two.
2050: Son dies and leaves both houses to his son, who already owns a house. He now owns 4, so lives in one and rents out the other 3.
2070: Son dies and leaves both houses to his son, who already owns a house. He now owns 5, so lives in one and rents out the other 4.
At this point the rental income from one house pays the mortgage of the bought one, so he no longer works as the income from two of the other rental propeties pays a living wage, and the last one pays for another house to expand the portfolio.
Society has now lost a productive member of society who exists soley as a member of the new ownership class and is born into a life where his descendants exist purely to profit off others without doing anything of worth themselves.
Fastforward 500 years and due to this cycle of inheritence and using rental profits to expand house buying exponentially, and you have single families in control of entire boroughs in towns, able to ‘tax’ their ’subjects’ by unilaterally raising rents accross the boards.
This consolidation of the majority of wealth in a tiny proportion of hands will also allow them to buy up local businesses and service providers and control prices and wages in a similar way.
Welcome to the return of Feudalism! Something I believe the Mail and its readers would desire as they see themselves as those who’d become this new aristocracy.
…just don’t mention the almost enevitable bloody revolution that has followed almost every time in history when this type of society has reared its head.
It’s only a problem because new labour have suggested it (it’s not policy, just a suggestion). If the tories came up with this idea it would be fine.
If that’s the case I’m just not going to die.
Simple solution to this is don’t get wealthy, I don’t plan to. If you’ve got that much money then why aren’t you fucking paying for it anyway.
I see the Mail managed to get the gender of ‘fin’ wrong there…
Pedantic, maybe, but come on, surely someone would have noticed?
@Steven.
That’s why Adam Smith was in favour of a death tax.
Charlotte,
See my comment above.
Shouldn’t that be ‘La’ Fin, not ‘Le’ Fin?
Fin is a feminine noun in French.
Well, the readers will understand, they don’t care, it’s only a foreign language after all and it doesn’t count if you get it wrong.