It should be changed. We can’t afford it and the demographics don’t work. Until then, old people are entitled to expect.

The limp wristed politicians however have been unwilling to tax at the level required to pay for the care supplied. When the voters wake up and realise what we can afford to do without borrowing, I predict care will be cut rather than taxes hiked. The Tories have always seemed more honest with this contract but Labour always end up borrowing from the future. They can’t face the reality that we don’t have the money and don’t want to pay the taxes.

My theory is that “Middle Britain” should get what “Middle Britain” is prepared to pay for: schools, hospitals, transport, social services, defence…. The rich always pay more, some would say it’s less than they can afford and less than their fair share but it’s always more in cash terms. The poor (properly poor, nut just benefit claimants) should not be expected to contribute financially.

I can’t argue against the green position but what you’re talking about is tantamount to theft. Just like the NHS forcing old people to sell houses to pay for care.

Surely it is much greener and more efficient to force these buildings into use rather than build more that may be left empty?

We are all forced to part with our property in some form or another via taxes, what makes real estate so sacrosanct?

All property is owned by someone. No land owner should be forced to give it up for the homeless but there might be a price at which they could be persuaded to let.

LVT is a draconian approach advocated by socialists and the jealous.

If we lack an adequate quantity and quality of social housing, bring more land into use and build more.