On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:56:08 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

harry writes:

On Feb 19, 12:28=A0pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some =A340bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefit=
s.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.


I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.
There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

Obviously if no one worked in any way, there would be an immediate
disaster.
But for some people, in fact many, work doesn't create wealth. They
work hard but never earn very much. For them, work just maintains them
in poverty (though that's better than total starvation).

And, of course, not all wealth is generated by work. There are a few
who have enough money not to need to (work).

I have trouble understanding how an economy gets going in the first
place. It must be some kind of a bootstrap process, but it isn't clear
to me how it works.
If you imagine an isolated, primitive country where at first there is
no such thing as money, how does it all start up?
Wealth, understood to mean goods and services, could exist almost from
the start, but its translation into tokens - money - must take some
time.

Indeed, but this happened a long time ago and has evolved in the
system we know and love ;-)

Social decisions have to be taken in some way to establish whether
people who dig coal are 'worth' less or more than the people who
organise the tokens.

It's not surprising that those who control the tokens are able to
manipulate the system so this they are 'worth' more than the 'people
who dig coal'.

Pensioners may not be able to contribute as much to society as they did
when they were still able to work, but they look after grandchildren,
spend the money they saved and/or the pensions to which past work
entitled them in ways which provide employment for others, and can
sometimes provide useful advice based on experience.

Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

They do contribute to society but I believe they are a net 'liability'
(in financial terms), given that people live longer and need more
care.

I'm pretty certain though that lack of work, in the form of millions
unemployed and billions of potential man-hours lost forever, must
reduce the overall standard of living.
And that building submarines, aircraft carriers, and atom bombs, which
governments won't want to sell to others until they're obsolete, is
likely to be less helpful to society than building railways and
airports.
(Unless, of course, there's a danger of invasion and a chance of
avoiding that by the use of weapons.)

That's a big question. My opinion we have got balance wrong and more
should be spent on transport, schools and hospitals and less on wars
and bank bailouts.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Strange way of looking at it. Since when was the NI contribution (main
part of which is to do with the OAP) been voluntary for those on PAYE?

--
*A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:34:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Strange way of looking at it. Since when was the NI contribution (main
part of which is to do with the OAP) been voluntary for those on PAYE?

What is the relevance of this question?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:34:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Strange way of looking at it. Since when was the NI contribution (main
part of which is to do with the OAP) been voluntary for those on PAYE?

What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Windmill" wrote in message
...
Mark writes:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:28:32 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

Fredxx writes:

make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.

IIRC the balance of trade for the UK has been in the red conistently
for many years, if not decades. We don't hear about it so much in the
media nowadays since organisations can borrow more easily. So it's no
surprise that things are unravelling now.

The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

In the run up to the financial crisis banks were increasing leverage
increasing their risk.

You have to choose a sensible fraction to make Fractional Reserve banking
safe.

Its actually made safer by requiring the banks to hold a
specific amount of liquid assets combined with a reliable
bank deposits guarantee that avoids runs on banks.

And avoid playing games intended to get around the rules.

Easier said than done, particularly on the question
of ensuring that the borrowers aren't lying about
their capacity to repay the loan, particularly with
the self employed etc.

100% reserve means the bank keeps all the money it began with and never
makes any loans. That's obviously disastrous for the bank: no income.
50% reserve means that the bank loans, in total, no more than the
amount it originally began with (taking into account the fact that
every loan creates a deposit). That's pretty safe, but too conservative.
10% might be about right, in good times at least.

Trouble is that you cant design a system like that around the good times.

1% is demonstrably dangerous.

Having politicians or bank CEOs deciding on a day to
day basis what reserve is wise, according to no rules
at all, must be the worst possible way to run a bank.

And nowhere in the modern first world is it done like that now.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.

"Windmill" wrote in message
...
harry writes:

On Feb 19, 12:28=A0pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some =A340bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefit=
s.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.


I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.
There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

Obviously if no one worked in any way, there would be an immediate
disaster.
But for some people, in fact many, work doesn't create wealth. They
work hard but never earn very much. For them, work just maintains them
in poverty (though that's better than total starvation).

I have trouble understanding how an economy gets going in the first
place. It must be some kind of a bootstrap process, but it isn't clear
to me how it works.

It basically starts with barter, uses something as a currency
to improve dramatically on barter and then moves on from
that to a precious metals based currency and then from that
to a decent modern fiat currency.

If you imagine an isolated, primitive country where at first
there is no such thing as money, how does it all start up?

With barter.

Wealth, understood to mean goods and services, could exist almost from
the start, but its translation into tokens - money - must take some time.

Yes, some of the more primitive never make it past barter.

Social decisions have to be taken in some way to establish
whether people who dig coal are 'worth' less or more than
the people who organise the tokens.

No one organises the tokens in the most primitive systems.

Pensioners may not be able to contribute as much to society as they
did when they were still able to work, but they look after grandchildren,
spend the money they saved and/or the pensions to which past work
entitled them in ways which provide employment for others, and can
sometimes provide useful advice based on experience.

But that isnt the reason we choose to provide state welfare
for those who have not made adequate provision for their
time past working, most obviously with those with no kids
or any real knowledge that’s any use to anyone.

I'm pretty certain though that lack of work, in the form of
millions unemployed and billions of potential man-hours
lost forever, must reduce the overall standard of living.

Yes, it is the main determinant of a reduced standard of living.

Not always tho, some western european countrys provide a
very decent standard of living for the unemployed and retired.
Corse that means that the tax rates on the employed have to
be higher and you do get a significant percentage who choose
to not work and those that do work can get pretty ****ed off
about that.

And that building submarines, aircraft carriers, and atom bombs,
which governments won't want to sell to others until they're obsolete,
is likely to be less helpful to society than building railways and
airports.

(Unless, of course, there's a danger of invasion and
a chance of avoiding that by the use of weapons.)

Which there isnt any real risk of anymore right thruout
the modern first world.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:56:08 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

harry writes:

On Feb 19, 12:28=A0pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some =A340bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefit=
s.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand,
almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.


I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.
There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

Obviously if no one worked in any way, there would be an immediate
disaster.
But for some people, in fact many, work doesn't create wealth. They
work hard but never earn very much. For them, work just maintains them
in poverty (though that's better than total starvation).

And, of course, not all wealth is generated by work. There are a few
who have enough money not to need to (work).

I have trouble understanding how an economy gets going in the first
place. It must be some kind of a bootstrap process, but it isn't clear
to me how it works.
If you imagine an isolated, primitive country where at first there is
no such thing as money, how does it all start up?
Wealth, understood to mean goods and services, could exist almost from
the start, but its translation into tokens - money - must take some
time.

Indeed, but this happened a long time ago and has evolved in the
system we know and love ;-)

Social decisions have to be taken in some way to establish whether
people who dig coal are 'worth' less or more than the people who
organise the tokens.

It's not surprising that those who control the tokens are able to
manipulate the system so this they are 'worth' more than the 'people
who dig coal'.

Pensioners may not be able to contribute as much to society as they did
when they were still able to work, but they look after grandchildren,
spend the money they saved and/or the pensions to which past work
entitled them in ways which provide employment for others, and can
sometimes provide useful advice based on experience.

Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society

That's very arguable indeed with the work some of them have done.

and we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Its done more because it leaves a rather bad taste to
see them end up destitute begging on the streets etc.

That's also the reason that all modern first and second
world countrys have welfare for the unemployed etc,
even when they have never worked at all.

They do contribute to society but I believe they are a net 'liability'
(in financial terms), given that people live longer and need more care.

Particularly when they use such a high percentage
of the health services in the last few years of 'life'

I'm pretty certain though that lack of work, in the form of millions
unemployed and billions of potential man-hours lost forever, must
reduce the overall standard of living.
And that building submarines, aircraft carriers, and atom bombs, which
governments won't want to sell to others until they're obsolete, is
likely to be less helpful to society than building railways and
airports.
(Unless, of course, there's a danger of invasion and a chance of
avoiding that by the use of weapons.)

That's a big question. My opinion we have got balance wrong and more
should be spent on transport, schools and hospitals and less on wars

Yes, but even New Zealand which would have to be at by
far the lowest risk of invasion of anywhere much at all, does.

and bank bailouts.

Those are different. The argument there is that avoiding another
great depression or worse would cost a lot more than the bailout.

Hard to know how true that is with modern welfare systems tho.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:34:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Strange way of looking at it. Since when was the NI contribution (main
part of which is to do with the OAP) been voluntary for those on PAYE?

What is the relevance of this question?

They are essentially paying for their own pension.

Society didn't 'decide to support' anyone for any
reason with those who did work before they retired.

In message , Fredxx
writes
On 18/02/2013 20:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 09:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths
going to/coming back from a meeting with their probation
officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have
been paid make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to
the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

No point, the govt budget papers should spell out the bulk of it.

So then, no reference or any calculation to confirm the nonsense that
pensioners make a net contribution of £40b to the economy then.
You are soooo predictable. Go google it
--
bert

In message , Windmill
writes
Fredxx writes:

make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.

Which bit of "net" do you not understand?
--
bert

In message , Mark
writes
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:56:08 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

harry writes:

On Feb 19, 12:28=A0pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some =A340bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefit=
s.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.


I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.
There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

Obviously if no one worked in any way, there would be an immediate
disaster.
But for some people, in fact many, work doesn't create wealth. They
work hard but never earn very much. For them, work just maintains them
in poverty (though that's better than total starvation).

And, of course, not all wealth is generated by work. There are a few
who have enough money not to need to (work).

I have trouble understanding how an economy gets going in the first
place. It must be some kind of a bootstrap process, but it isn't clear
to me how it works.
If you imagine an isolated, primitive country where at first there is
no such thing as money, how does it all start up?
Wealth, understood to mean goods and services, could exist almost from
the start, but its translation into tokens - money - must take some
time.

Indeed, but this happened a long time ago and has evolved in the
system we know and love ;-)

Social decisions have to be taken in some way to establish whether
people who dig coal are 'worth' less or more than the people who
organise the tokens.

It's not surprising that those who control the tokens are able to
manipulate the system so this they are 'worth' more than the 'people
who dig coal'.

Pensioners may not be able to contribute as much to society as they did
when they were still able to work, but they look after grandchildren,
spend the money they saved and/or the pensions to which past work
entitled them in ways which provide employment for others, and can
sometimes provide useful advice based on experience.

Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.


Pensioners have contributed to the National Insurance Pension fund which
currently has surplus of some £38bn. This has been "borrowed" by
successive governments to keep your taxes lower.

They have also contributed to private pensions schemes which have been
invested to give them a return on their savings which is now spent in
the economy.


They do contribute to society but I believe they are a net 'liability'
(in financial terms), given that people live longer and need more
care.

I'm pretty certain though that lack of work, in the form of millions
unemployed and billions of potential man-hours lost forever, must
reduce the overall standard of living.
And that building submarines, aircraft carriers, and atom bombs, which
governments won't want to sell to others until they're obsolete, is
likely to be less helpful to society than building railways and
airports.
(Unless, of course, there's a danger of invasion and a chance of
avoiding that by the use of weapons.)

That's a big question. My opinion we have got balance wrong and more
should be spent on transport, schools and hospitals and less on wars
and bank bailouts.

--
bert

In message , Mark
writes
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:39:09 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Indeed. Not being a pensioner I would think that it is working people
who would need a larger allowance as pensioners generally have lower
outgoings.

Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance.

Bus passes (outside metropolitan areas) are generally self regulating.
If you can afford a car you have one.

Places like London receive such a bias in their per capita grant that
they can afford to go well above the statutory minimum
+1. Since the government is taking away other universal benefits it
would be consistent to do this.

Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

Things like winter fuel allowance etc are all headline grabbing gimmicks
introduced by various governments to avoid paying a decent state
pension. Pensioners are means tested at £7400 per annum. Child benefit
is means tested at £40-£60k
Personally I think free dentistry and eye tests should be more widely
available to encourage people to look after themselves.


--
bert

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
As a pensioner you'll have significantly less income as well. Even if
you are one of the lucky few who have contributed to a final salary
scheme for 40 years, the most you will get is 2/3 of your salary. Most
people will end up with much less than half the pay the were earning.
Not that I think there's much of a case for different tax allowances
just because your old.

Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off your
mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no more of
the often considerable expense of getting to work and subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you still
have to eat. It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly


--
bert

In message , Mark
writes
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:21:51 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere smaller
then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these times.

I'm sure you've done the sums but I would expect you so save on bills,
council tax etc in a smaller house.

By the time you've covered all the buying and selling costs there's not
a lot of difference, unless you happen to lived in an affluent area in
the south east and are prepared to relocate away from family and friends
up to the frozen north
House prices have been static in many areas so you may not be getting
a better return than selling/investing.

Savings rates are non-existent and the older you are the less you can
risk the ups and downs of the stock market.

By the governments policy of artificially low interest rates we are
seeing a massive transfer of wealth from savers (older people) to
borrowers (mortgage holders). I forget the figures but it is measured in
billions
--
bert

In message , Huge
writes
On 2013-02-20, bert ] wrote:

Pensioners have contributed to the National Insurance Pension fund which
currently has surplus of some £38bn.

Nonsense. There is no National Insurance Pension fund. State pensions are
a Ponzi scheme which would be illegal were a private company running it.

Oh yes there is - Government actuaries report of the fund to parliament
every year. They also advise on the minimum safe level so that the
government can meat its obligations
Up until 2006 the fund bought guilts which earned interest. But then it
was transferred to an account with the Commissioner for National debt -
a wheeze to get round the illegality of using it for things other than
state pension.
The balance would be higher but in 2004 GB diverted about £2.4bn per
annum to the treasury. He introduced an additional NI employers payment
as a "green tax". When they inevitably squealed he then gave them a
corresponding reduction in the National Insurance Pension fund
contribution. Well shock horror, the alternative would be an increase in
basic tax rate
--
bert

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:50:58 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:
"Windmill" wrote in message
...
Mark writes:


In the run up to the financial crisis banks were increasing leverage
increasing their risk.

You have to choose a sensible fraction to make Fractional Reserve banking
safe.

Its actually made safer by requiring the banks to hold a
specific amount of liquid assets combined with a reliable
bank deposits guarantee that avoids runs on banks.

If this happens in practice.

And avoid playing games intended to get around the rules.

Easier said than done, particularly on the question
of ensuring that the borrowers aren't lying about
their capacity to repay the loan, particularly with
the self employed etc.

The actions of individuals is a drop in the ocean. The big problem is
that the banks started borrowing on the money markets to buy up
essentially worthless assets.

100% reserve means the bank keeps all the money it began with and never
makes any loans. That's obviously disastrous for the bank: no income.
50% reserve means that the bank loans, in total, no more than the
amount it originally began with (taking into account the fact that
every loan creates a deposit). That's pretty safe, but too conservative.
10% might be about right, in good times at least.

Trouble is that you cant design a system like that around the good times.

Correct but that's what happens. In good times the banks demand the
rules are relaxed because it is limiting their profits. Then we get
riskier and riskier behaviour and we have a credit bubble. Then the
rules are tightened until the next 'boom' and the merry-go-round
starts all over again.

--snip--
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:11:30 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:34:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Strange way of looking at it. Since when was the NI contribution (main
part of which is to do with the OAP) been voluntary for those on PAYE?

What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:48:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

And some people who are below state pension age cannot DIY.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

--
Remember the early bird may catch the worm but the second mouse gets the
cheese.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:57:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?


You seem to be assuming that everyone has chidren and a mortgage.
There are many people who don't have children, or whose children have
stopped being a financial burden many years before they receive a
pension. If you've had a mortgage for many years, without moving, the
mortgage payments will be trivial, and may well have been paid off
years before pension age. Many people don't have the option of a
mortgage and live in rented accomodation; that expense isn't suddenly
going to disappear when they retire.

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

Yes. Years ago saving in a pension was a sensible thing to do. Since
all the financial institutions have followed the government in seeing
this huge pot of money as something they can put their sticky fingers
into without most people noticing, it's pretty silly to save into a
private pension scheme.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:22:26 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:11:30 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:34:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

Strange way of looking at it. Since when was the NI contribution (main
part of which is to do with the OAP) been voluntary for those on PAYE?

What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

Iit was presented by politicians as a right that the pensioner had
paid for by 44 years worth of NI contributions. If you didn't pay all
the contributions you got less pension. If you paid less than 11 years
(IIRC) you didn't get any pension. They've changed the rules, but it's
a benefit that the recipient has paid for and reasonably expects to be
paid, without being made to feel guilty. It isn't charity.

Yes, the politicians chose to use the NI cntributions as income,
rather than investments and set the system up with inadequate
contributions, so pensions have to be paid from tax income, but that's
the politicians responsibilty.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

Thats' deliberate. Inflation is the economists way of getting rid of
(national) debt that the country can't repay. Expect it to get worse.

Mark wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Windmill wrote
Mark wrote

In the run up to the financial crisis banks were
increasing leverage increasing their risk.

You have to choose a sensible fraction to make Fractional Reserve
banking safe.

Its actually made safer by requiring the banks to hold a
specific amount of liquid assets combined with a reliable
bank deposits guarantee that avoids runs on banks.

If this happens in practice.

It is with the jurisdictions with a clue.

NOT ONE Canadian or Australian retail bank imploded
spectacularly or even needed to be bailed out by govt
when the **** hit the fan very spectacularly indeed recently.

And avoid playing games intended to get around the rules.

Easier said than done, particularly on the question
of ensuring that the borrowers aren't lying about
their capacity to repay the loan, particularly with
the self employed etc.

The actions of individuals is a drop in the ocean.

Nope, not when those writing the loans only care about
the commission they get because the loan is bundled and
securitized into a CDO as soon as its written and gets a AAA
rating from the ratings agency even when the individual
borrowing the money has lied about its repayment capability.

In fact with the stupid US system, the commission is HIGHER
for the loans written to individuals like that because in theory
they will be paying a higher rate of interest when the sucker
bait interest rate runs out.

The big problem is that the banks started borrowing on
the money markets to buy up essentially worthless assets.

That's not what saw the complete implosion
of much of the world financial system, AGAIN.

100% reserve means the bank keeps all the money it began with and never
makes any loans. That's obviously disastrous for the bank: no income.
50% reserve means that the bank loans, in total, no more than the
amount it originally began with (taking into account the fact that
every loan creates a deposit). That's pretty safe, but too conservative.
10% might be about right, in good times at least.

Trouble is that you cant design a system like that around the good times.

Correct but that's what happens.

It didn't with Canada and Australia. NOT ONE of their
retail banks imploded spectacularly or even needed to
be bailed out by govt when the **** hit the fan recently.

In good times the banks demand the rules
are relaxed because it is limiting their profits.

And any jurisdiction with even half a clue just makes an obscene
gesture in their general direction when they do that and makes
them have the level of liquid reserves that are necessary for the
bad times which ALWAYS happen sometime.

Then we get riskier and riskier behaviour and we have a credit bubble.

ONLY with the jurisdictions that don't have a ****ing clue about the basics.

Then the rules are tightened until the next 'boom'
and the merry-go-round starts all over again.

It didn't with Canada and Australia. NOT ONE of their
retail banks imploded spectacularly or even needed to
be bailed out by govt when the **** hit the fan recently.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

And these current OAPs paid the pensions of those before them.

What you are suggesting is if I lend you a quid, you want the actual
banknote back when the debt is repaid. ;-)

--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,

Surely those that do not qualify for the OAP have much higher savings
accounts ?

we are penalised by inflation eating the value away while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy.

They are kept so low to attempt to get the economy going again.
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary...ily=provenders

Who is subsidising whom?

Yes, savers are subsidising the more profligate who don't bother to save.

And those who choose to borrow to buy real estate too.

In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:57:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you
still have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to
a mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids. And are you really
saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating out?


You seem to be assuming that everyone has chidren and a mortgage.
There are many people who don't have children, or whose children have
stopped being a financial burden many years before they receive a
pension. If you've had a mortgage for many years, without moving, the
mortgage payments will be trivial, and may well have been paid off
years before pension age. Many people don't have the option of a
mortgage and live in rented accomodation; that expense isn't suddenly
going to disappear when they retire.

None of these things suddenly happen. A sensible individual will have done
some planning before they retire.

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

Yes. Years ago saving in a pension was a sensible thing to do. Since
all the financial institutions have followed the government in seeing
this huge pot of money as something they can put their sticky fingers
into without most people noticing, it's pretty silly to save into a
private pension scheme.

Well, if you intend relying on the state to provide for you in retirement,
all I can say is good luck.

If you are so poor during your working life you can't make any provision
for retirement, you may not notice much different. But if you live a high
lifestyle while working with no thoughts about retirement, it's down to
you.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

And these current OAPs paid the pensions of those before them.

What you are suggesting is if I lend you a quid, you want the actual
banknote back when the debt is repaid. ;-)

You are the only one who has made that suggestion.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Feb 21, 10:01*am, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback

wrote:
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* * bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

Thats' deliberate. Inflation is the economists way of getting rid of
(national) debt that the country can't repay. Expect it to get worse.

Very true. If you've got any money, you need t be thinking of an
inflation proof investment.
eg PV panels. I'll get what I'm owed in one form or another.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Surely those that do not qualify for the OAP have much higher savings
accounts ?

Everyone who has a suitable NI payments record gets the OAP, which is
taxable in the normal way.

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

And these current OAPs paid the pensions of those before them.

What you are suggesting is if I lend you a quid, you want the actual
banknote back when the debt is repaid. ;-)

You are the only one who has made that suggestion.

I'm willing to bet you won't consider the OAP charity by the time you're
old enough to get it.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Feb 21, 9:58*am, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback

wrote:
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* * bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. *Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. *Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

Low interest rates will destroy the economy.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:10:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

And these current OAPs paid the pensions of those before them.

What you are suggesting is if I lend you a quid, you want the actual
banknote back when the debt is repaid. ;-)

You are the only one who has made that suggestion.

I'm willing to bet you won't consider the OAP charity by the time you're
old enough to get it.

How many straw men is this?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:10:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

And these current OAPs paid the pensions of those before them.

What you are suggesting is if I lend you a quid, you want the actual
banknote back when the debt is repaid. ;-)

You are the only one who has made that suggestion.

I'm willing to bet you won't consider the OAP charity by the time you're
old enough to get it.

How many straw men is this?

All you have to do is change your statement.

It has got snipped, so here it is again:-

Pensioners have (in the majority) already contributed to society and
we decide to support them as a reward for all they have done.

The OAP is not some grace and favour 'reward' by society. It has been paid
for by NI contributions.

Do you consider a private pension created by your investment while working
some sort of a 'reward' too?

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Surely those that do not qualify for the OAP have much higher savings
accounts ?

Everyone who has a suitable NI payments record gets the OAP,

And those that don’t have that, say because they are
citizens of other EU countrys, presumably have higher
savings accounts because they wont be getting your OAP.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 9:58 am, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback

wrote:
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

Low interest rates will destroy the economy.

Fantasy.

"Mark" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:10:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
What is the relevance of this question?

Try reading what you posted. You make it sound like charity.

State pensions are funded from general tax revenue including NI
contributions. Working people are paying the pensions of those
retired. Society has decided this will happen in our democracy.

And these current OAPs paid the pensions of those before them.

What you are suggesting is if I lend you a quid, you want the actual
banknote back when the debt is repaid. ;-)

You are the only one who has made that suggestion.

I'm willing to bet you won't consider the OAP charity by the time you're
old enough to get it.

How many straw men is this?

It isnt a straw man, its pointing out an error in your original.

On 20/02/2013 23:15, bert wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2013-02-20, bert ] wrote:

Pensioners have contributed to the National Insurance Pension fund which
currently has surplus of some £38bn.

Nonsense. There is no National Insurance Pension fund. State pensions are
a Ponzi scheme which would be illegal were a private company running it.

Oh yes there is - Government actuaries report of the fund to parliament
every year. They also advise on the minimum safe level so that the
government can meat its obligations
Up until 2006 the fund bought guilts which earned interest. But then it
was transferred to an account with the Commissioner for National debt -
a wheeze to get round the illegality of using it for things other than
state pension.
The balance would be higher but in 2004 GB diverted about £2.4bn per
annum to the treasury. He introduced an additional NI employers payment
as a "green tax". When they inevitably squealed he then gave them a
corresponding reduction in the National Insurance Pension fund
contribution. Well shock horror, the alternative would be an increase in
basic tax rate

Well, for some value of "exists".

So the NI fund has been taken from taxpayers (it's a kind of tax after
all) and used to buy government bonds. This means that I am relying on
the government to pay my state pension out of their tax and NI receipts
at the time. Whether it's in gilts, or some other government fund
matters little.

Andy