On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 21:22:49 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 20:23:07 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 21:11:06 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 23:24:50 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Andrew
writes
On 30/06/2016 15:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:02:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a
couple
of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to
the
NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Right. One of those eternal optimists. No house insurance either?

Only buildings to shut the mortgage lender up.

Like the lottery, the odds are always against you. The insurance
company makes money. If you don't get anything insured, you're
much
better off, and can afford the odd mishap.

Not like the lottery. You play the lottery hoping to get a
windfall.
You
insure against being hit by a windfall.

If you have enough money to pay for your house being destroyed by
fire
etc, no need to have insurance.

Very few indeed have enough money to pay for a possible third party
claim
after a motor accident - hence the compulsory insurance.

Doesn't need a degree in rocket science to work out. Just ask your
parrot
if you're unsure.

But it helps if you appreciate that the trivial amounts of tax and
NI
paid by the majority of people does not in anyway cover the costs
of the NHS, nor all the free education that their kids receive.

And for people over 65 it is even worse, massively so for the 83+
group. The latter were all retired by the time that Gordon started
hosing money at the NHS in 2001, increasing its budget 5 fold (but
with no matching increase in effectiveness). But they enjoyed huge
tax cuts during their working years prior to 1997,

SO not taking away your money in tax is a benefit?

Yes, taxes are stupidly high.

Not for the clowns on benefits etc.

What is your point?

That those arent taxed all that highly.

So what?

So your 'taxes are stupidly high' isnt true for them.

Not true for armadillos either, so what?

That doesn't change my point that taxes are too high.

What govt does has to be paid for by someone.

Govt does too much.

and their houses
went up 100 times in value,
No benefit at all except to pay my care home fees eventually.
but they have paid *none* of the extra
NI charges.
Well they don't get in-work benefits.

Older people actually make a net contribution to the economy of about
£58bn per year.

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

Which is substantially less then working people.

But they have much lower costs too. particularly
when their house is fully owned etc.

But their taxes are less.

Irrelevant to what you said about net contribution to the ECONOMY.

How do they help the economy when they don't do anything?

So the above is ********: "Older people actually make a net contribution
to the economy of about £58bn per year"

There is no 'so' involved.

What?

They don't work.

They don't need to do contribute by their spending.

These people are now the biggest cost on the NHS even if they don't
contract Cancer. So who should pay the £200,000 cost of Cancer
treatment for for them ?. Their lifetimes tax and NI definately
doesn't
cover even a fraction of the cost.

Well mine has. Never been an inpatient, only an outpatient once.
Haven't
been to a doctor for years and probably only about5 times in a
lifetime. And on top of that I've paid for my own eye test and
prescriptions -until I got free test at 65.

Cannabis cures cancer.

Like hell it does. It actually causes lung cancer just like tobacco
does.

Wrong.

Nope.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...t-reveals.html

Just because that **** rag claims something...

In fact there is no rigorous scientific evidence that it does anything of
the sort.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/t...p/cannabis-pdq

Not a shred of rigorous scientific evidence there.

I've given you two links. A google search comes up with 1000s.

We are still borrowing £75 Billion every year (down from £150
Billion a year in 2010). So that means todays pensioners and
parents are borrowing money from future generations, who don't
yet have the vote and may not even be born yet.

It only has to be paid back if the country you borrowed it from has
more
nukes.

In the era of low interest rates about £78bn has been transferred
from
savers (mostly older people( to borrowers (mostly younger people)

Banks encourage borrowing, it's all their fault. What do you think
made
half of them bankrupt?

That fool Brown deregulating them.

Banks should be private companies. If they fail, they should go under
like anyone else.

That mentality produced the worst of the Great Depression
essentially because runs on banks will collapse the economy
in that situation.

That's their problem.

A great depression is a problem for almost everyone.

Wouldn't have bothered me if the bank I owed £11K went bust.

A bank without enough money to hand out to people who have it in their
account? Oh dear.

That last is what happens with a great depression.

Mismanagement at the bank is what causes it.

--
A man's home is his castle, in a manor of speaking.