Printable View
What do you mean by "starts to deteriorate"? Doesn't that mostly have to do with how you take care of yourself during your life? i.e. my grandfather staid health and played golf every week, he enjoyed an active life till 95 (an example to make sure I'm being clear not an attempt at anecdotal proof).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And if you want to retire and have 20 to 30 years of retirement there are 3 broad options and not mutually exclusive:
1) Work and save like a bastard when you're young (large "nest egg" for you, more taxes for the state)
2) Have a very frugal retirement (less money per unit of time)
3) Accept a reduced range of healthcare options (reduces life expectancy and healthcare costs)
The French appear to want the 4th option:
4) We do as we want (short working day, plenty of holidays, long lunch and early retirement, good pension, good healthcare), and someone else gives us money to do it.
~:smoking:
“What do you mean by "starts to deteriorate"? Doesn't that mostly have to do with how you take care of yourself during your life? i.e. my grandfather staid health and played golf every week, he enjoyed an active life till 95 (an example to make sure I'm being clear not an attempt at anecdotal proof).” I mean that you start to have problem with body, it is when you need longer time to recover from a cold and you need to be more careful…
At 26, I could (I did) party all night, drink (a lot) then go for a 15 km run. Nowadays, just watching the training of a soldier on TV makes me tired…
About how you take care of your body depends on your profession as well.
“We do as we want (short working day, plenty of holidays, long lunch and early retirement, good pension, good healthcare), and someone else gives us money to do it.” And being the best work efficient and highest productivity due to the reasons mentioned above…
And no body except the French pay for their pension. Or do you think that the English pay for the French? THAT would be funny….
Their efficiency and productivity is good pro rata, but not the total output. My work isn't going to agree to pay me the same for a 20 hour week even if I might be relatively more productive and efficient during those hours.
Of the pension that is currently budgeted for (as most is when current incumbents retire and is therefore off books - something not allowed in Private companies), the Bond Markets currently pay for their pension, helped along by the CAP.
~:smoking:
How is it not a personal responsibility? If people are to unhealthy to enjoy themselves because they didn't eat right, drank to much, smoked too much, and didn't exercise than that is their fault. Why cater to them? They aren't children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“If people are to unhealthy to enjoy themselves because they didn't eat right, drank to much, smoked too much, and didn't exercise than that is their fault.”
Yeap, but if people became unhealthy because work conditions were so bad as that they had to be overloaded, or had to breath toxic fumes, or were exposed to extreme temperatures that is not.
When I was a student, I worked on roofs. Temperature are high, lot of dust and al depend on weather. The reason why I refused all jobs proposals is you can’t do it until 60 years old… Nice job, but very hard.
So, to impose a retirement in a job where most started at 17, 40 years, was retirement at 57. Now, thanks to stupid Sakozy, 3 years more.
If you want to speak about family example, none of the male from my family did enjoy retirement. They all died before or just after, “as a light without petrol” to repeat what the doctor said to my mother when her dad died. A life of hard work came to an end; he had no more energy for the pension.
And it is what they want.
The life expectancy increased thanks to early pension. Just let kill the workers so the problem of pension will be resolved. Clever…
So you are just suggesting a lower retirement age for people with strenuous jobs, that sounds reasonable to me, but it's hard to figure out just how much deterioration is due to the job and not other factors, e.g. poor people smoking more.
Life expectancy for unskilled manual labor is 73 for men and 78 for women. I think you need more of an argument to show that 63 instead of 60 is too unjust to balance out the negative effects of the financial problems. Obviously if money wasn't an issue at all...
Simple systems are simple to enforce. The more granular the system the more overhead to sort out and the more mistakes / corruption.
1) Listing the different numbers of jobs and what categories they are in.
2) The length of time people are doing each section of jobs.
3) Different levels of stress in non-physical jobs as this too affects stress levels.
4) Different people have different tolerances to different things. Better factor that in too to make sure the system is as fair as possible.
~:smoking:
You do know that the idea of a pension was for you to be able to live once you were no longer able to work, right? Not that you should enjoy a "long retirement".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If I retire at 80 and die at 90 that'll be good enough for me, my Grandfather has now been retired almost longer than he has been working, and he is bored.
“Simple systems are simple to enforce. The more granular the system the more overhead to sort out and the more mistakes / corruption.
1) Listing the different numbers of jobs and what categories they are in.
2) The length of time people are doing each section of jobs.
3) Different levels of stress in non-physical jobs as this too affects stress levels.
4) Different people have different tolerances to different things. Better factor that in too to make sure the system is as fair as possible”
Which is exactly what the French are actually asking….
“Life expectancy for unskilled manual labor is 73 for men and 78 for women”
My point, thank.
So the French, I do apology on their behalf, thinking, you know, working to live and not living for work, perhaps to have the last 13 years of your life for just envoy the grand-children or gardening, is not too much.
But no.
Sarkozy is having an ideological war on the French. He is a Conservative and he is in favour of the Rich. So, rich have to be rich and envoy life, Poor have to be poor and be thrown after use.
“my Grandfather has now been retired almost longer than he has been working, and he is bored.” My Grandfather never had the opportunity, or my dad.
“You do know that the idea of a pension was for you to be able to live once you were no longer able to work, right?” Welcome in the 19th Century
No, Welcome to the Post-War consensus, the increase in life expectancy has resulted in the pension becoming something it was never meant to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Welcome to the Post-War consensus 1870 war
Just came across this one from a couple of months ago:
Taxman lets Vodafone off £6bn
Of course the Mail runs it from the Government incompetance angle, rather than the innate capitalist corruption angle. Also I don't believe there was much mention from the Taxpayers Alliance for some reason.. I wonder why?
It's a tricky one, as far as I understand it...
Two companies overseas combined, so nothing took place in the UK. As far as I am aware, nothing illegal under current laws has been done (I believe I'm right that a similar scheme is done with very expensive houses - they are owned by a shell company owned abroad, and to get the house you "buy" the company).
Closing this down is going to be difficult as how does one define an entity that is abroad for tax dodging purposes compared to a foreign company? Hammering all foreign companies isn't going to be a clever idea.
Innate corruption? Oddly enough every system that humans have created is riddled with corruption. Holding one's nose and pointing to a Utopia which has never existed is a very sterile approach to adopt.
~:smoking:
And yet spending the majority of media time and attention on 'benefit cheats' is fecund and pointful?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The question you have to ask yourself is whether you think the richest and most powerful are best able to fix society, or the poorest and weakest? I don't believe that we get a better society by endlessly beating up those with the least.
I'm not defending either.
The fact there is an outcry in that housing benefits are topped at £400 a WEEK (the rent for my family home is £950 a MONTH) shows something is seriously wrong, as does c. £21 BILLION gets spent per year on this. Every year. And to date rising. So, back to the £400pw (roughly £20k a year)- which is close to the average wage by itself when one includes taxes... How are these with the least again? There are many workers with a hell of a lot less.
By all means, fight fire with fire and purchase lists of hidden overseas tax accounts and come down like a ton of bricks on the offenders.
Sort out the tax laws that allow fast practices such as occurred at Vodafone.
I'd say legalise drugs / prostitution as well: get money into the state wherever possible from evaders / avoiders and illegal practices!
Concerning the media attention, humans place far more value on potential loss than potential gain. So, they'll be more pissed on the viewed loss of taxes paid than the gains that might have been from taxes not paid. Interest / outrage sells papers.
~:smoking:
the rent on my 2.5 bedroom house is rising to £480/month as of April next year!
That's the issue, as many people are living in Houses worth far more than what the people living in them earn, such as the center of London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
This is why there has been an outcry of "Social-economical Cleanesing" in Areas around the country as people will be forced to move out of these areas.
The new Eastenders will be filled with Upper-Middle Class yuppies to reflect the changing times instead of the trash that currently inhabit the show. :smoking:
The problem is that the extreme examples of benefit payment to the top 5% are used as a justification to attack the other 95% who just about scrape by.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's one of the paradoxes of housing benefit that if you are made unemployed, the state will not pay your mortgage, but if you rent, will happily pay the mortgage of your landlord.
So... only the really poor or the really rich can live there? Not a problem that everyone else will not be able to afford it? Subsidising some with cheap / free housing merely pushes the rents higher (and taxes, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
If it's not relevant to 95%, then 95% won't be affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I agree that the paradox with payment of mortgages is nonsensical, but I feel that this is because of the system that is still pretty prevalent that council houses are viewed as "for life" - sometimes going to one's children. So there's always the need for more as the others are not recycled. And again, not being for life is a massive problem as it forces people to move from where they've lived... Like everyone else.
~:smoking:
'Told you so', part XVII:
The Tories are under siege from...Tories about lying about the deficit. The deficit is far less serious than the government made it out to be. Apparantly, not unlike a previous British government, facts have been 'sexied up' to mislead both Westminster and the public at large.Quote:
The chancellor, George Osborne, came under fire today from MPs on the Treasury select committee, charged with "misleading the public" for claiming the UK was near bankruptcy in the weeks after he took office. He was accused of using inflammatory language to justify massive public spending cuts.
The committee chairman, Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, said Osborne's claim that Britain had been "on the brink of bankruptcy" was "a bit over the top". He also challenged the chancellor's claims that his emergency budget had been progressive, accusing him of "over-egging it a bit".
Tyrie's comments followed heated exchanges during which Osborne was tackled over his handling of plans to cut central and local government spending. The chancellor has repeatedly justified the cuts as a reasonable response to unprecedented debt levels and the threat from credit ratings agencies to downgrade the UK's blue-chip AAA rating.
Tyrie said Osborne's inflammatory language was counterproductive. "Maybe the tough measures on the deficit and also the effort to make the budget fair would have come across more clearly if they hadn't been obscured in debate of claim and counter-claim," he said.
"I think there is something there to look at when making these remarks, which do look to me more like the language of opposition than government. Tell it as it is."
These draconian cuts serve no economic purpose, they serve an ideological one. Let's call it, to borrow a phrase from the Cons own textbook, 'social engineering'.
an ideology i support to the hilt; "stop spending so much of my £\/(<1^& money!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat