Southerners and Northerners are paying higher taxes, but only the Southerners are benefiting.

But Lindy, if you go into care who is going to pay for it to enable your children to inherit your home? There are so many whose wealth consists of their home.

The cost of living is very much higher in the south and that goes for care homes too.

Lilyflower

The cost of living is very much higher in the south and that goes for care homes too.

Apart from housing, what costs more in the South than the North?

nannypiano

Perhaps it would be better to start at a lower percentage and move upwards with the value of the property and wealth. That would be more like the levelling up Boris Johnson promised.

Because that wouldn't have persuaded people from constituencies with lower than average incomes that the Conservatives are on their side.

Have you been to London lately Doodledog? Buying a few drinks, a pretty ordinary meal - horrendous prices.

Germanshepherdsmum

Have you been to London lately Doodledog? Buying a few drinks, a pretty ordinary meal - horrendous prices.

London prices aren't representative of the whole southern region. I recently had a meal out in Newcastle which wasn't exactly cheap.

Quite, growstuff. The country doesn't begin and end in London, which anyway has a cheap transport system and access to plenty of free entertainment (museums, galleries etc) that much of the country doesn't.

I'm not talking about eating out. The cost of living is about day to day expenses, which can be a lot higher elsewhere, as can council tax and fresh food, depending on area.

I have just bought my son a (Christmas present) voucher for a Michelin starred restaurant in Leeds - the price was eye-watering. If you equate high-end dining with the 'cost of living', you can find expensive restaurants everywhere.

Paying for care doesn't just affect your inheritance. In a case highlighted on our local tv news, a woman developed dementia at the age of 61. Her husband cared for her as long as possible, then she went into a care home. Her pension and savings were taken towards the cost, but not her half of the house, because he still lived there. Unfortunately the husband, now with only his pension, couldn't afford to pay the bills, and was forced to sell the house. Of course the care home promptly pounced on the wife's half of the proceeds. The husband was forced to live in a caravan - all he could afford for his old age. All of his wife's money has now been swallowed up for her care costs.
If the wife had had an illness which left her needing lifelong care it would have been provided free by the NHS. Fair? I don't think so. It's all a lottery!

It's very unfair, and more so as it doesn't apply across the board. The rich will be able to cover the cost of care in old age, the poor will get it paid for, and it's those in the middle that get hammered. Every time.

From the evidence of my entire life all I have ever seen is that this is the Tories doing what they do.

They break promises, lie and rob the poor to pay the rich. They protect their own. They operate in a bubble of rich, connected, entitled people who are in a club we will never be allowed or able to join. This club has its roots in London...not the North. They don't care about the weak, sick, poor, disadvantaged, young or old. If you vote for them, this is what you voted for and this is what you get.

Surely if you are poor, or old, or ill, or have children in education or if you simply care about people in those positions then voting Tory is an act of self harm?

So true Coast path, as people say, the skill of the tories is in persuading people to vote against their own best interests, I know several people who swear by the Tories, although they fleece people without money and give to the rich. Tide is turning though, and will continue to turn when people discover they have to pay for healthcare or go without

It doesn't take that much skill to persuade the voters when the overwhelming majority of national newspapers do the job for them - the Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Express, the Times, all owned by foreign or tax dodging billionaires.

People in the south paid more for their houses in the first place. A teacher in the north earns the same as a teacher in the south, but the southern teacher can buy a smaller house and pay a lot more for it than the teacher in the north who can benefit from cheaper housing and have a bigger house. This is true for many jobs, same pay, more expensive housing in the south.

maddyone

People in the south paid more for their houses in the first place. A teacher in the north earns the same as a teacher in the south, but the southern teacher can buy a smaller house and pay a lot more for it than the teacher in the north who can benefit from cheaper housing and have a bigger house. This is true for many jobs, same pay, more expensive housing in the south.

Generally, that's only true for public service workers, who receive London weighting anyway.

The fact is that wages are on average lower and unemployment is higher in the north and some other regions.

It is also a fact that people in the south (and some other regions) have seen their property values rise more steeply than other areas. In other words, they've made a profit without lifting a finger.

However, as I keep saying, this isn't primarily a north/south issue. It's about wealth/poverty. People with less are being expected to pay more.

Doodledog

It's very unfair, and more so as it doesn't apply across the board. The rich will be able to cover the cost of care in old age, the poor will get it paid for, and it's those in the middle that get hammered. Every time.

Not quite true. There will be many with below median assets who will lose most of their assets.

Please stop this north/south divide. House prices have always been so much higher in the south. Those in the north will soon be moaning when they have to pay over 750k for a basic property. My daughters friend who lives in the north can’t believe how much we pay for a house. As said before there are many many areas in the south that are very very poor. Levelling out might not actually suit a lot of people. Be careful what you wish for!

Rosiehaha

Please stop this north/south divide. House prices have always been so much higher in the south. Those in the north will soon be moaning when they have to pay over 750k for a basic property. My daughters friend who lives in the north can’t believe how much we pay for a house. As said before there are many many areas in the south that are very very poor. Levelling out might not actually suit a lot of people. Be careful what you wish for!

But you've just contributed to the north/south divide narrative.

I think really what this all boils down to is the fact that the U.K. has one of the highest disparities between the most and least wealthy.

Nothing this government will do will change that fact

There are certainly expensive homes in the north. Quite close to where I live is the most expensive area in Scotland. 2 million pounds for a little pied a terre overlooking the Old Course. I'm going to hazard a guess that it wasn't bought by anyone who'll be relying on the state for their care later in life.

And yet watching George Clark on Channel 4 last night, there was a single person down South somewhere who bought a little 2 up 2 down 16 years ago for a quarter of a million pounds. She had £100,000 to spend on it. She wasn't independently wealthy, she was still working.

So there are well off people in the north and poorer people in the south, but I look at property prices in the south with absolute amazement.

It isn’t just about house prices, services are more expensive in some areas too, hairdressers, plumbers, building etc.
As others say though, it isn’t just a North/South divide.
It’s true though that pay in many places in the North is much the same as the South ( apart from London weighting.)
Not just for the public sector either, as DS was recently offered a move to a Northern city with new offices there, and the pay was just the same.

House prices only rise with the buyers ability to pay, wages in the North are lower on average so house prices and rents are lower. Income tax and NI rates are the same so buying a house from taxed income is harder in the south, overheads of everything else is higher too so lots of things cost more.

There is no “fair” way of reducing the impact of care costs unless it is free as it is in Scotland, although I hear it’s not really free there and very hard to access, maybe someone will tell us how their system works in practice.

It’s not true that the average salary in the north of England is the same for the average worker as it is in the South. Public sector workers are the exception, not the rule.
www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/

I think we’ll go on a couple of world cruises, sell our house and just rent instead…?

I own a 2 bedroom flat in North Wales. There will be little money left if I need to sell for my care.
Friends in Harrogate, Yorkshire own a house worth almost a million.
So it really is just about the amount you have left after you sell to pay for care.
Not a North/South divide.

growstuff

Doodledog

It's very unfair, and more so as it doesn't apply across the board. The rich will be able to cover the cost of care in old age, the poor will get it paid for, and it's those in the middle that get hammered. Every time.

Not quite true. There will be many with below median assets who will lose most of their assets.

Well, I suppose it depends on your/my definitions of 'poor' and 'in the middle'. I wasn't being absolutely literal when I said those in the middle - I just meant those who were neither rich nor poor. If you have no assets to be taken you will be ok, as you will if you have enough wealth to hire a nurse, or to be able to pay the fees without selling your house. If you do have to sell, as has been said, the percentage of your assets that will be left will increase in line with the value of your house, and those with least will have most taken away, percentage-wise.

A pledge that nobody would have to lose more than X% of the value of their house would have been fairer, but (a) that would skew the cost differentials between home owners and renters, and (b) would be a massive vote loser in the south, where many people have unearned wealth in their homes. This is why I believe that we should all pay into an insurance fund that covers everyone, regardless of assets. Most people don't need social care, so their contributions would cover the costs of the ones who do.

What should have happened is that the previous proposal (by George Osborne) was accepted, ie, people should be left with a certain amount as a minimum. That way, those with most would have paid more and people would still have been left with a not insignificant sum if they had it.

For some reason (which I have never understood), the Labour Party refused it - as did the very rich, which I do understand.