The Murdoch Dividend and the UK Government Spending Cuts

**Brenus** · 10-30-2010, 22:10

“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…

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-30-2010, 22:26

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...

**rory_20_uk** · 10-30-2010, 22:32

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-30-2010, 23:52

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…

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".

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.

**Brenus** · 10-31-2010, 08:03

“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

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-31-2010, 13:03

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

**Brenus** · 10-31-2010, 13:23

Welcome to the Post-War consensus 1870 war

**Idaho** · 11-02-2010, 13:00

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?

**rory_20_uk** · 11-02-2010, 13:07

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.