"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 22:34:48 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson
writes
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 21:50:28 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson
writes
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.

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? They don't work.
http://www.goldagepensioners.com/research

I see no percentages there comparing them to the working age folk.

Why should there be.

To stop the figures being completely meaningless.

And as for their "spending power", that's just money they had when they
were younger which they withheld and spent later!

That doesn't make it invalid.

Of course it does. The country was without that money while they saved
it.

Like hell it was. Unless it was kept under the bed or buried in a tin
in the garden, the banks or where ever they had it can lend it to
those who need to borrow money to use in their business or to
buy a house etc, so it ends up in the economy even if it is saved.