This wiki has been automatically closed because there have been no edits or log actions made within the last 60 days. If you are a user (who is not the bureaucrat) that wishes for this wiki to be reopened, please request that at Requests for reopening wikis. If this wiki is not reopened within 6 months it may be deleted. Note: If you are a bureaucrat on this wiki, you can go to Special:ManageWiki and uncheck the "Closed" box to reopen it.Housing Market: Difference between revisions
→Extracting the asset
Michaeldakin (talk | contribs) |
Michaeldakin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 130:
The Conservative party also intended to make the families of those requiring care to pay from the value of their house. The plan being that the family could retain £100,000 of the value of the property. This would have meant once costs of sale were taken into account, it was likely that families would see the asset stripped. They backed down on this policy due to a negative public reaction. This is a completely unnecessay measure as the pension pot has sufficient funds to set up a decent and caring system. Cynically you could say it was a method of moving houses into the financial investment market to provide properties for their portfolio which would be broken down into smaller units. See the section [[Pensions - Conservative Impact|Pensions]] to see why elderly needs can be fully funded.
In September 2019 the plan to charge the elderly for their care was re-introduced, again targeting their property to make them pay. In proposals by the Social Market Foundation<ref>Social Market Foundation. Think tank proposing extraction of wealth from the elderly - http://www.smf.co.uk/</ref> (SMF) the following was put forward:
* People with assets topping £150,000 when they hit 65 should be charged £30,000 per year to fund social care
* The levy, covering personal care rather than going into a home, would generate £7billion a year, according to a report by think-tank the Social Market Foundation
* It is thought around 233,000 people – or 41% of 65-year-olds –would have to pay it every year
* Poorer people with houses worth over £150,000 but no cash in the bank would be able to defer the charge until after their deaths
It is also worth noting that once a policy like this is introduced it can easily follow the same route as student fees, with the yearly amount increasing. This policy would in reality asset strip the elderly in our society.
===Who are the Social Market Foundation===
They describe themselves as... ''"The Social Market Foundation (SMF) is a non-partisan think tank. We believe that fair markets, complemented by open public services, increase prosperity and help people to live well. We conduct research and run events looking at a wide range of economic and social policy areas, focusing on economic prosperity, public services and consumer markets. The SMF is resolutely independent, and the range of backgrounds and opinions among our staff, trustees and advisory board reflects this."''
And let's look at what their Director, James Kirkup, said:
:::'''"British politics is in flux. The ideas of the radical centre need a champion. People – of all parties and none – who reject the strident extremes that too often dominate political debate today need a home. SMF will be that champion and offer that home."'''
So not only are they a think tank, of which we unfortunately already have many who are undemocratically influencing government, they clearly state that they are opposed to the policies of the Labour party of removing private companies out of the provision of public services. They are described as experts in the media, but describe themselves are "radical centre", which sounds strikingly like an oxymoron. Rather like saying you are a radically wedded to being a couch potato. Maybe the term should be radically anti-radical.
===Only a think tank - why should we care what they think?===
The SMF is not a think tank outside the bubble of Westminster. Its Executive body has a large proportion of serving MPs. The very ones that are making the decision to take these policies to partliament sit on their Executive and influence government decision making.
Here is their roll call of shame:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Executive Post !! Name !! Outside role !! Comments
|-
| Chair ||Mary Ann Sieghart<ref>Mary Ann Sieghart - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Sieghart</ref> || Political Journalist, Presenter ||
|-
| Director || James Kirkup<ref>James Kirup, Director SMF - http://www.smf.co.uk/staff/james-kirkup/</ref> || Political Journalist || Political Editor of the Telegraph and then Executive Editor – Politics, overseeing and writing commentary and analysis on politics, policy and economics. Writer for the Spectator
|-
| Example || Example || Example ||
|-
| Example || Example || Example ||
|-
| Example || Example || Example ||
|-
| Example || Example || Example ||
|}
</onlyinclude>
| |||