On Mar 20, 1:56*pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:04:36 -0700, Man at B&Q wrote:
On 20 Mar, 12:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:57:08 +0000, Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-20, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
Huge writes:

On 2013-03-19, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:25:01 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
writes

Of course those children you object to subsidising might say in
the future "why should we pay for that old ****ers pensions
....."

Paying for my own pension, thanks, not relying on the state to
provide anything for me.

With all due respect, the idea that any of us "pays our way" is a
fiction.

If none of us pay our way, who's paying for everything?

No one. *That's what this whole 'debt' thing you may have heard
about is.

I think you'll find that some of us most definitely *are* paying our
way. According to the IFS's calculator, our household pays some £27K
per annum more than we get out.

One view of the current economic situation might be that successive
generations have *over the course of their lives* taken more than they
have given.

A more accurate view might be that *some members* of successive
generations have taken more have given.

Not really. If that were the case, then the economy wouldn't be where it
is.

I said *some*. Obviously ther are outweighed by those who do not pay
their way. Your asertion perhaps holds for society as whole.

It's meaningless to point to a snapshot in time as if it means
anything.

Just as meaningles to try to deny that some individuals undoubtedly do
pay their own way. I class myself as one of them.

For now. We'll come back to you aged 100, and see if that's still true.

Given the amount that the state now requires you to pay *for your own*
old age care, there is a very good chance it will still be true.

MBQ