May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You are correct. But Expenditure per head doubled during His Tonyness's reign. Now the Con Party will talk about total spend but not spend per head!

OK.  I see.

[Orac]

41 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Tories are so confident that they are turning on their own.  Perhaps it's just 'karma' if you believe in such things- that'll teach the old dafties to vote Brexit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/18/social-care-funding-what-are-the-conservatives-proposing

 

There is something crucial which effects any homeowner here: get ill in your dotage- even in your own home- and you could find yourself in hock on your estate. Oops... who will explain that one to the kids!

 

However, if a loved one gets really ill with Alzheimers so that they must be in a care home for many years, then at least 100,000 of their estate will be protected.  I must admit I am one of those that benefits.

 

You gotta love the tories and their hard ball games!

 

Labour proposed a fair tax across the board for all.

 

 

 

People will believe what the mainstream media tell them and they are giving TM an easy ride - can't think why!

 

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Tories are so confident that they are turning on their own.  Perhaps it's just 'karma' if you believe in such things- that'll teach the old dafties to vote Brexit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/18/social-care-funding-what-are-the-conservatives-proposing

 

There is something crucial which effects any homeowner here: get ill in your dotage- even in your own home- and you could find yourself in hock on your estate. Oops... who will explain that one to the kids!

 

However, if a loved one gets really ill with Alzheimers so that they must be in a care home for many years, then at least 100,000 of their estate will be protected.  I must admit I am one of those that benefits.

 

You gotta love the tories and their hard ball games!

 

Labour proposed a fair tax across the board for all.

 

 

Apologies , I have only read the link provided and my knowledge of the subject is limited, but I dont see how 100,000 of their estate is protected.

From the article the threshold to be liable for payment is set at above 100,000 of the estate, with the ability to defer.

What happens if somebody has an estate worth 200,000 , and the bill for care comes to 190,000. 

What proportion of the estate is liable, 100%(190,000), or 90,000 (anything over 100,000), or 100,000 ( to leave the estate with 100,000). 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Apologies , I have only read the link provided and my knowledge of the subject is limited, but I dont see how 100,000 of their estate is protected.

From the article the threshold to be liable for payment is set at above 100,000 of the estate, with the ability to defer.

What happens if somebody has an estate worth 200,000 , and the bill for care comes to 190,000. 

What proportion of the estate is liable, 100%(190,000), or 90,000 (anything over 100,000), or 100,000 ( to leave the estate with 100,000). 

The first 100,000 is protected rather like your income tax threshold.  Currently it is 23,000 odd.  I assume it will be like this but it does not read clearly I agree.

 

Here though is the crucial bit: 'They will be assessed to get a picture of their finances and if their combined savings and property are valued at more than £100,000, they will need to pay for their care.'

 

So at the point at which the value of their assets falls to 100,000 then they qualify for state funding.

 

I think I see your confusion, and that is the value of the house will always be above the threshold, however, in this case value of their assets- what they have against what they owe- gradually depreciates.

 

If this were not the case, then the answer would be to sell the property and pay fees from the proceeds. At some point, the balance would wall to 100,000, and state funding would kick in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[Basil B]

21 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The first 100,000 is protected rather like your income tax threshold.  Currently it is 23,000 odd.  I assume it will be like this but it does not read clearly I agree.

 

The other way of reading it is to say that the first 100,000 is not protected, but the rest is, which would probably favour the wealthier.

As I understand one will have to pay for care until one has has less than £100K in assets (cash and/or property), assuming one is having care at home they can not take the house while one is alive but can do so after one has departed, so I assume one will be able to sign the house over and on will be able to keep £100K cash to draw down on.

 

This is a bummer for people like me who has worked hard, I have bought may own home and contributed to a private pension, yet I see people who have not worked hard, lived on benefits, who will still get benefits when they retire as they probably will not have worked long enough to get a full state pension, and get their rent paid for yet if my house needs repairs I will have to pay for myself...   

Edited May 18, 2017 by Basil B

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

As I understand one will have to pay for care until one has has less than £100K in assets (cash and/or property), assuming one is having care at home they can not take the house while one is alive but can do so after one has departed, so I assume one will be able to sign the house over and on will be able to keep £100K cash to draw down on.

 

This is a bummer for people like me who has worked hard, I have bought may own home and contributed to a private pension, yet I see people who have not worked hard, lived on benefits, who will still get benefits when they retire as they probably will not have worked long enough to get a full state pension, and get their rent paid for yet if my house needs repairs I will have to pay for myself...   

 

Most normal people will agree I'm sure.

 

The situation is even worse for people who are seriously ill, or suffering from a profound incapacitating illness, such as dementia.  I can speak from experience with my own nearest and dearest.  Dad had lung and bone cancer.  He held off from hospital as long as he could.  Finally, he had to go in, spent a couple of days there, and then was farmed off in to a nursing home. Remember this was a very sick man, and not merely aged or frail.  After 3 months, they wanted to withdraw funding, even though he was gasping for air.  It was only when they were informed he was at death's door that they relented.

 

At the same time, mum had to be sectioned as her Alzheimer's disease took a serious turn for the worse.  Although it is a disease, the NHS will not fully fund treatment, therefore assessment is means tested according to the 23000 threshold, which means in effect anyone with property pays.  There is no choice.  It does not matter if they expressly want the property to go to the kids, etc.  Any attempt to dispose of assets can be construed as deprivation for the purpose of avoidance.

 

It really depends how ill one gets, and that is surely disgraceful this day and age, and also somewhat at odds with the universal care we all pay in to.  Needless to say mum and dad paid tax all their working lives, and dad worked for 45 years as I recall, including a stint of national service in Germany.

 

The thing is you don't argue when it's your mum and dad suffering- you just want them not to suffer, and after all it is their money and property. And I imagine it will be the same when each one of us is gravely ill.  it's not right though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

Here's one that will consign me to Thailand for the duration.  Good job I'm doing ok:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

It's a mine field of unpleasant surprises is this manifesto.  Still what would one expect from the nasty party?  I expect Flustered and his mates popped a magnum or two of champers.

[Flustered]

So what is the difference in Thailand requiring a minimum income or deposit in a Thai bank?

 

It is perfectly normal for countries to impose restrictions on people wanting to live there. Th UK was a soft touch for far too long.

 

But then, you are a bit like the Indi or the Guardian in that you criticise items without actually reading them fully or thinking it through.....Typical anti Tory diatribe.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Flustered

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, Flustered said:

So what is the difference in Thailand requiring a minimum income or deposit in a Thai bank?

 

It is perfectly normal for countries to impose restrictions on people wanting to live there. Th UK was a soft touch for far too long.

 

But then, you are a bit like the Indi or the Guardian in that you criticise items without actually reading them fully or thinking it through.....Typical anti Tory diatribe.

 

The Supreme Court - not funded by the Indi or Guardian- described the requirements as harsh, and will obviously think even less of the new stricter requirements. 

 

Thailand is not regarded as a country with a satisfactory human rights record.

[Flustered]

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Thailand is not regarded as a country with a satisfactory human rights record.

If you do not think much of Thailand, why live there?

[mommysboy]

23 minutes ago, Flustered said:

If you do not think much of Thailand, why live there?

It's cheap. I didn't say I do not think much of it, I merely stated what is true regarding its human rights record.  As with most sensible expats I try to live a life where human rights issues are not needed.  We can live well enough.  I have a Thai wife and a baby girl.  And, as we've established, I could not move back to UK without splitting up the family, ie, depriving my daughter of her mother.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

As I understand one will have to pay for care until one has has less than £100K in assets (cash and/or property), assuming one is having care at home they can not take the house while one is alive but can do so after one has departed, so I assume one will be able to sign the house over and on will be able to keep £100K cash to draw down on.

 

This is a bummer for people like me who has worked hard, I have bought may own home and contributed to a private pension, yet I see people who have not worked hard, lived on benefits, who will still get benefits when they retire as they probably will not have worked long enough to get a full state pension, and get their rent paid for yet if my house needs repairs I will have to pay for myself...   

I don't think however it would be a disaster for you if say you needed social services to help if/when the time comes.  Firstly, you would still qualify to have all your medical needs paid for under the national health service, and secondly you would not be incurring the incredibly high room fees that are so financially crippling.  If you have an ok pension and some savings you would likely maintain your wealth.  One would assume trips to Thailand would be rather out of the question through health reasons.

 

If things became too much, you'd probably want to move in to a nursing home.  At which point you'd possibly sell up, and at least know that 100,000 was going to relatives, or where-ever.

[SheungWan]

10 hours ago, Basil B said:

Gordon was defiantly the brains... 

 

What did Tony actually do other than mislead the country over WMD???

You mean, apart from winning three General elections for Labour?

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, mommysboy said:

The first 100,000 is protected rather like your income tax threshold.  Currently it is 23,000 odd.  I assume it will be like this but it does not read clearly I agree.

 

Here though is the crucial bit: 'They will be assessed to get a picture of their finances and if their combined savings and property are valued at more than £100,000, they will need to pay for their care.'

 

So at the point at which the value of their assets falls to 100,000 then they qualify for state funding.

 

I think I see your confusion, and that is the value of the house will always be above the threshold, however, in this case value of their assets- what they have against what they owe- gradually depreciates.

 

If this were not the case, then the answer would be to sell the property and pay fees from the proceeds. At some point, the balance would wall to 100,000, and state funding would kick in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely it would be better, for example, in the example of Alzheimer's. That when the illness is first diagnosed, for any property or other assets to signed over to their spouse or children. If they did that, could the authorities then follow the money trail, and demand the value of the assets?

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Here's one that will consign me to Thailand for the duration.  Good job I'm doing ok:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

It's a mine field of unpleasant surprises is this manifesto.  Still what would one expect from the nasty party?  I expect Flustered and his mates popped a magnum or two of champers.

If this report IS accurate,then I will 100% agree with you. I am now starting the process of returning to the U.K. next January with my Thai wife and British passport children. Financial requirements do not worry me personally, but they do for many people, which I think is very wrong. And as the article says " what will it do to reduce immigration" 

especially when you read of the exemptions that certain people seem to be able to exploit.

 

 

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Tories have been a miserable failure with the economy, and if they are no good with that then they are needed about as much as the proverbial you know what in a swimming pool, since they are useless in all other aspects, save greasing blue greasy palms.

 

Its amazing why any mug still votes for them.  I think it's because they are perceived as the party that will bring Joe Average to untold and unmerited wealth; I suppose it's a bit like buying a lottery ticket.  This time round I think it is the Brexit factor: JA wants a stable, calming figure, ignoring the fact that it is the same tories that have brought the problem about and exacerbated it.  Dumb or what?

 

It's good to see Labour at least gaining some ground in the polls...isn't it?  Corbyn is nothing if not a conviction politician, and he is a good orator.  One can imagine him wiping the floor with May in any debate.  Mind you it does help when you basically have right on your side.

It is more about perception in the party leader in representing the country on the world stage. It cannot be denied that Teresa May speaks garbage better than JC.

I never did like Tony Blair but he had a charisma that appealed to many, labour support dropped quite significantly when he handed over to Gordon Brown.

[sandyf]

7 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Here's one that will consign me to Thailand for the duration.  Good job I'm doing ok:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

It's a mine field of unpleasant surprises is this manifesto.  Still what would one expect from the nasty party?  I expect Flustered and his mates popped a magnum or two of champers.

"In 2015, it was estimated that the £18,600 threshold excludes 41 per cent of the British working population from bringing a foreign spouse to live in Britain, including 55 per cent of women."

They missed a bit out.   "It also excludes 100% of the retired British population on UK state pension."

[i claudius]

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

You mean, apart from winning three General elections for Labour?

And destroying Britain , well nothing much else .

[sandyf]

40 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Surely it would be better, for example, in the example of Alzheimer's. That when the illness is first diagnosed, for any property or other assets to signed over to their spouse or children. If they did that, could the authorities then follow the money trail, and demand the value of the assets?

Not 100% sure but I think there is a time limit, assets gifted over 7 years cannot be touched.

A friend of mines mother took that precaution. As soon as her husband died she downsized her property and gave everything to her 3 sons in case she ever had to go into care, which fortunately never happened. She was still independent and died in her flat about 10 years later.

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, Flustered said:

If you do not think much of Thailand, why live there?

Perhaps ( I don't know him ) he does not have the required income to return to the U.K. with his Thai wife. And does not want to put her through the trauma of taking her into the UK. vie  Calais.

 You may not be aware, but there are a number of cases in Thailand,were British citizens, many of whom are ex-service men, who have had to leave, permanently, their Thai wives and their British children behind in Thailand,due to they're no longer able to meet the Thai financial requirements or for medical reasons. in most cases through no fault of there own.

 

A month ago, I was explaining to one of my old service mates in the U.K, how difficult it can be for a British Citizen ( whose British forefathers can be traced back for centuries) to bring his foreign born wife into the U.K.  He was absolutely flabbergasted, stating that he thought it should be an automatic right.

 

  It would seem from your post that you don't agree with him. Am I correct?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

And destroying Britain , well nothing much else .

You need to back that up with facts. If not, you're just foistering fake news which is forbidden on here. You are entitled to your opinions but tell us exactly how you think Blair destroyed Britain.

 

I can tell you exactly how Thatcher "destroyed" or at least severely damaged Britain....

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Perhaps ( I don't know him ) he does not have the required income to return to the U.K. with his Thai wife. And does not want to put her through the trauma of taking her into the UK. vie  Calais.

 You may not be aware, but there are a number of cases in Thailand,were British citizens, many of whom are ex-service men, who have had to leave, permanently, their Thai wives and their British children behind in Thailand,due to they're no longer able to meet the Thai financial requirements or for medical reasons. in most cases through no fault of there own.

 

A month ago, I was explaining to one of my old service mates in the U.K, how difficult it can be for a British Citizen ( whose British forefathers can be traced back for centuries) to bring his foreign born wife into the U.K.  He was absolutely flabbergasted, stating that he thought it should be an automatic right.

 

  It would seem from your post that you don't agree with him. Am I correct?

Nontabury, you and I disagree sometimes but you are correct about this. British citizens should of course be able to marry and bring home anyone they choose and get a British passport automatically after five years with criminal offence. We should have THE RIGHT to do this once. But, this right should not be extended automatically to those who have recently immigrated themselves.

 

My Thai wife of 17 years has been to the UK many times and gets visas very easily. She doesn't want to live there though.

 

TM is not really interested in the average Brit. 

[rockingrobin]

10 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Here's one that will consign me to Thailand for the duration.  Good job I'm doing ok:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

It's a mine field of unpleasant surprises is this manifesto.  Still what would one expect from the nasty party?  I expect Flustered and his mates popped a magnum or two of champers.

I am not really suprised about the threshold increase , considering it was T.May who first introduced this requirement. 

Is it not really T.May response to the SC ruling regarding the treatment of children , to allow other sources of income to be included .

[billd766]

11 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Here's one that will consign me to Thailand for the duration.  Good job I'm doing ok:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

 

It's a mine field of unpleasant surprises is this manifesto.  Still what would one expect from the nasty party?  I expect Flustered and his mates popped a magnum or two of champers.

 

I couldn't get that link to work so I Googled it and got a printed copy.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreign-spouse-income-limit-latest-supreme-court-rules-lawful-bar-uk-entry-couples-british-children-a7592826.html

 

The Supreme Court has said the Government's £18,600 income threshold that bars UK workers’ foreign spouses is lawful, but judges admitted it will continue to cause “significant hardship” for thousands of couples. 

The policy, brought in when Theresa May was Home Secretary, has been blamed for keeping families apart because British citizens living in the UK do not earn enough money to bring their non-European Economic Area partners to the country. It holds even if their partner's earnings would tip them over the limit.

Britons have previously told The Independent they have had to move abroad to be with their families because of the policy.

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

Surely it would be better, for example, in the example of Alzheimer's. That when the illness is first diagnosed, for any property or other assets to signed over to their spouse or children. If they did that, could the authorities then follow the money trail, and demand the value of the assets?

That would be regarded as deprivation of assets in order to avoid fees.  I dont know if it would be followed up in practice, but a lawyer would not advise this.   However, one or both parents could make a will that puts their share in to a trust for the children upon their death. It then becomes random chance as to whether the will is enacted before one or other of the parents has to dispose of the house before enactment of the other's will.

[Basil B]

7 hours ago, SheungWan said:

You mean, apart from winning three General elections for Labour?

Labour is bound to win some times with a two party system, after a decade of sitting on the opposition benches many voter with the memory of gold fish forget how bad they were in government. 

[Flustered]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

Perhaps ( I don't know him ) he does not have the required income to return to the U.K. with his Thai wife. And does not want to put her through the trauma of taking her into the UK. vie  Calais.

 You may not be aware, but there are a number of cases in Thailand,were British citizens, many of whom are ex-service men, who have had to leave, permanently, their Thai wives and their British children behind in Thailand,due to they're no longer able to meet the Thai financial requirements or for medical reasons. in most cases through no fault of there own.

 

A month ago, I was explaining to one of my old service mates in the U.K, how difficult it can be for a British Citizen ( whose British forefathers can be traced back for centuries) to bring his foreign born wife into the U.K.  He was absolutely flabbergasted, stating that he thought it should be an automatic right.

 

  It would seem from your post that you don't agree with him. Am I correct?

In a nutshell, No.

 

The point I was trying to make and probably missed because I had been in hospital most of the day (outpatients with a torn achilles tendon...long time army rugby injury that went again), was that it is not only the UK that imposes restrictions. Thailand does exactly the same.

 

The UK had a real problem with immigration where one person could bring in entire families unable to speak English, not prepared to adopt English culture and unable to support themselves. These families were immediately able to claim benefits, schooling and medical. Something had to change. We were a soft touch for far to long.

 

Thinking in the cold light of day and a decent nights sleep, provided the partner is able to prove that they (the couple/children) can support themselves and not be an immediate burden to the State as well as be prepared to integrate and adopt local customs, I see no problem. However, it is right that the UK should stop the system by where uncontrolled immigration was leading to ghettos where no English was spoken, the culture of the immigrants family was dominant and in general, UK standards and culture ignored. Try visiting Bradfordstan, it's an eye opener and makes you worry about the future.

 

In Thailand, we always abide by local rules and customs, respect the locals, try to speak Thai and are able to support ourselves without State aid (not that it's available to expats in the LoS).I expect no different from those entering the UK to live. My own wife is Asian, was educated in the UK, speaks better English than me, is better educated than me but still had to jump through hoops when applying for UK citizenship. I on the other hand am not allowed even PR in her country (Singapore) for a multitude of reasons not applicable to this thread but would apply to anyone over 50 not working but financially independent.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

I am not really suprised about the threshold increase , considering it was T.May who first introduced this requirement. 

Is it not really T.May response to the SC ruling regarding the treatment of children , to allow other sources of income to be included .

If you are meaning,other sources of income to include the income or future potential income, of foreign wives, the answer is they are not included. For the husband,it MUST be a guaranteed income or saving etc,or a combination. But like I said before, there are exceptions,but mainly not for British people.

[nontabury]

16 minutes ago, Flustered said:

In a nutshell, No.

 

The point I was trying to make and probably missed because I had been in hospital most of the day (outpatients with a torn achilles tendon...long time army rugby injury that went again), was that it is not only the UK that imposes restrictions. Thailand does exactly the same.

 

The UK had a real problem with immigration where one person could bring in entire families unable to speak English, not prepared to adopt English culture and unable to support themselves. These families were immediately able to claim benefits, schooling and medical. Something had to change. We were a soft touch for far to long.

 

Thinking in the cold light of day and a decent nights sleep, provided the partner is able to prove that they (the couple/children) can support themselves and not be an immediate burden to the State as well as be prepared to integrate and adopt local customs, I see no problem. However, it is right that the UK should stop the system by where uncontrolled immigration was leading to ghettos where no English was spoken, the culture of the immigrants family was dominant and in general, UK standards and culture ignored. Try visiting Bradfordstan, it's an eye opener and makes you worry about the future.

 

In Thailand, we always abide by local rules and customs, respect the locals, try to speak Thai and are able to support ourselves without State aid (not that it's available to expats in the LoS).I expect no different from those entering the UK to live. My own wife is Asian, was educated in the UK, speaks better English than me, is better educated than me but still had to jump through hoops when applying for UK citizenship. I on the other hand am not allowed even PR in her country (Singapore) for a multitude of reasons not applicable to this thread but would apply to anyone over 50 not working but financially independent.

Glad to hear that Flustered, I think most of us would agree with what you've written. Unfortunately British governments have, and are too politically correct. 

In attempting, and failing to control an ever increasing problem, they are targeting easy options, instead of taking the Bull by the Horns.

  Regarding your wife speaking English, does she speak proper English.

 

 

   

 

[Flustered]

38 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Glad to hear that Flustered, I think most of us would agree with what you've written. Unfortunately British governments have, and are too politically correct. 

In attempting, and failing to control an ever increasing problem, they are targeting easy options, instead of taking the Bull by the Horns.

  Regarding your wife speaking English, does she speak proper English.

 

 

   

 

 

It's worse than that she speaks with a Scottish accent having spent too many years in Glasgow nursing. No matter what I say or do, she will not attempt to change. She is proud of her accent and said it took so long to master that she has no intention of altering it.