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?
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.
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.
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.

In the era of low interest rates about £78bn has been transferred from
savers (mostly older people( to borrowers (mostly younger people)
No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.


--
bert

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.

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.

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?

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.

--
What does a Scotsman wear under his kilt?
Lipstick, if he's lucky.

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely
so
much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after Brexit.

They were on whether Britain should be in the eurozone
or not and were completely wrong about that.

NOT ONE of the predicted the worst
recession since the Great Depression either.

With a track record like that, only a fool would take any notice of
them at all

No point in ever using an expert then Wodney.
Because they are not always right.

Even sillier than you usually manage. In this situation the only
thing that makes any sense at all is to consider their claims
and when you do that, they don’t hold water. Even if the pound
does sag say 10% permanently with Britain out of the EU, all that
does is allow British exports that end up in the EU to be buyable
by EU consumers FOR THE SAME PRICE AS THEY WERE BEFORE
BRITAIN LEFT THE EU, if say there is an 8% duty on what comes
into the EU from outside the EU. So even you should have noticed
that that wouldn’t see the British economy with any problem at all.

That is assuming current trade agreements hold.

It assumes nothing of the sort, JUST that what currently applys to
imports into the EU from outside the EU would apply to Britain
with Britain outside the EU. Of course it would if Britain just makes
an obscene gesture in the general direction of the EU it the EU is
actually stupid enough to proclaim that the 4 basic principles that
the EU is based on are non negotiable to get a trade agreement
with the EU when outside the EU.

Being part of the EU confers a lot of practical - and intangible - pros
and cons.

Yes,.

Buggered if I can make sense of them all, but the consensus seemed to be
that the UK would lose out post-exit.

There is no such consensus.

Osborne is more optimistic - make of that what you will.

That there is no consensus on that question.

Yes, imports would cost more, but it is unlikely that most of the
consumer goods that Britain currently imports would damage the economy
much if they cost 10% more, particularly as they would no longer have
the say 8% duty payable on stuff that comes into the EU from outside the
EU.

Yes, remains to be seen. It will have symbolic and policy knock-ons,
though, as the UK growth figures will be hit.

You don’t know that either, particularly if the eurozone
does continue to be in very deep **** indeed and
Britain doesn’t need to get involved in bailing it out.

So on past form of Tory governments, more cuts to pensions and local
services.

Those are the result of having to bail out the
banks and to pay for all that money printing
that was the result of much of the world financial
system imploding so spectacularly in 2008 etc.

No reason why anything like that should
happen when Britain eventually leaves the EU.

Yes, some manufacturing operations that chose to
setup in Britain because it mostly speaks english
and is in the EU will certainly move to somewhere
else in the EU and certainly some banking and
financial services operations may well do that
too, but they pay **** all in the way of taxes
anyway due to their completely fraudulent tax
arrangements so that wont have any real effect
on govt revenue. And given that Britain has one
of the lowest unemployment rates of the majors
in europe, its unlikely to have much effect at all
on the unemployment rate or the cost of benefits
either.

I think the NHS will be further privatised

Possibly, but if it does, that has nothing to do
with Britain leaving the EU, its just a difference
in the political approach that the Torys take.
They have always been much more into
privatising things than Labour.

- they have the political legitimacy to press for this now,

And Labour will be completely politically irrelevant for
a long time too and so its much easier to do that now
when the voters don’t have anyone else to vote for.

and Theresa May is just the person to see it through.

Yes, but it remains to be seen who ends up as PM.

Yes, EU cars would cost more, but again, that isnt going to cripple the
British economy, at most it might see those who choose to keep buying
cars from the EU keep them for a bit longer and that will only affect
the EU car manufacturers.

So those 'experts' have no basis for their claim that
leaving the EU would cripple the British economy.

It won't 'cripple' - I don't remember that mentioned in anything
approaching measured analysis.

Bignell stupidly claims that the British economy will be DESTROYED.

dennis@home wrote
RJH wrote

That is assuming current trade agreements hold. Being part of the EU
confers a lot of practical - and intangible - pros and cons. Buggered if
I can make sense of them all, but the consensus seemed to be that the UK
would lose out post-exit. Osborne is more optimistic - make of that what
you will.

That would be the same Osborne that has said the UK will abandon trying to
stop the deficit by 2020 now we are leaving?

Osborne doesn’t get to decide that, cabinet does and he
isn't even going to be the new PM either and doesn’t even
know if he will be keeping his job under the new one.

So more expensive borrowing

Not by enough to matter.

and more of it,

We'll see...

I think that means more tax unless someone (other than rod) knows why not?

That obviously won't happen if the economy
does fine with Britain out of the EU.

i am dating this girl, we get along wonderfully and i really enjoy
being with her but the sex is terrible , I come immediately and worst
,she cant feel me inside her at all, i am having second thoughts, is
possible to have a relationship with this kind of sex , help?????????

On 02/07/2016 06:04, Rod Speed wrote:
i am dating this girl, we get along wonderfully and i really enjoy
being with her but the sex is terrible , I come immediately and worst
,she cant feel me inside her at all, i am having second thoughts, is
possible to have a relationship with this kind of sex , help?????????


Go away you little prick.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 00:04:19 -0500, Rod Speed
wrote:

i am dating this girl, we get along wonderfully and i really enjoy
being with her but the sex is terrible , I come immediately and worst
,she cant feel me inside her at all, i am having second thoughts, is
possible to have a relationship with this kind of sex , help?????????


Please refer to the Octopus thread for continued advice.

--
AnthonyL

"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.

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.

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.

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.

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.

On 02/07/2016 21:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message


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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the state
so I am a net contributor ATM.


There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to hand
dig drives and stuff like that any more.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the state so
I am a net contributor ATM.

He said net contributor the to ECONOMY, not to the STATE.

There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

See above.

They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Yeah, that is what I said.

Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to hand
dig drives and stuff like that any more.

But its less clear how much of that stuff the older people
do anymore regardless of how they get it done.

Bizarre oofterpa with limp dr. wang, puny wank-tanks, and embryonic
bomb bay hungers for half-pint dirt-hole for frantic donut icing and
unspeakable ham shanking.

Contact me privately at for formidable
and indelicate boom-boom.

On 03/07/2016 11:15, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the
state so I am a net contributor ATM.

He said net contributor the to ECONOMY, not to the STATE.

People that spend tax don't make any bigger contribution to the economy
than if the original tax payer had spent the money. However they don't
starve when they spend the tax rather than the tax payer so on balance
its a good idea for most.


There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

See above.

See above.


They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Yeah, that is what I said.

See above.


Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to
hand dig drives and stuff like that any more.

But its less clear how much of that stuff the older people
do anymore regardless of how they get it done.

really?
ask ARW and TMH how much work is from older people.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.




--
CO2 emissions aren't a problem. CO2 is supposed to be there. It feeds plants for ****s sake! If greenies want plants to be healthy, we need MORE CO2! They pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better!

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the state
so I am a net contributor ATM.

He said net contributor the to the ECONOMY, not to the STATE.

People that spend tax don't make any bigger contribution to the economy
than if the original tax payer had spent the money.

That is very arguable indeed, particularly with the more wealthy
people who would likely save what they are taxed if they weren't
taxed as heavily. Most of those on benefits or the aged pension
etc spend a much bigger percentage of their total income than
the more wealthy do.

However they don't starve when they spend the tax rather than the tax
payer so on balance its a good idea for most.

Clearly those who do spend it do contribute to the economy by spending.

And you're still rabbiting on about tax, he was
talking about the entire economy, not just tax.

There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

See above.

See above.

Useless in your case.

They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Yeah, that is what I said.

See above.

Useless in your case.

Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to hand
dig drives and stuff like that any more.

But its less clear how much of that stuff the older people
do anymore regardless of how they get it done.

really?

Yep.

ask ARW and TMH how much work is from older people.

Nothing like as much as with younger people who buy a house.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.

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.

"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.

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

What govt does has to be paid for by someone.

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.

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

There is no 'so' involved.

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.

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.

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.

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.

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

Snip
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 02/07/2016 06:04, Rod Speed wrote:
i am dating this girl, we get along wonderfully and i really enjoy
being with her but the sex is terrible , I come immediately and worst
,she cant feel me inside her at all, i am having second thoughts, is
possible to have a relationship with this kind of sex , help?????????


Go away you little prick.
That's his problem.
--
bert

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.

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

--
Why do divorces cost so much? They're worth it.

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.
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.
--
bert

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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.

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

Still a significant net contribution to the economy when they do that.

In article ,
"James Wilkinson" writes:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html


The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

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.

Your entire life hasn't happened yet.

How will you cope if you are unlucky enough to acquire a condition that
costs you a few thousand a month to treat for several decades and
leaves you unable to work?

For most people, their NHS expenditure happens mainly near the end of
their lives (the average is something like 50% of lifetime expenditure
is in the last 3 months of life).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 11:04:33 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"James Wilkinson" writes:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html


The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

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.

Your entire life hasn't happened yet.

How will you cope if you are unlucky enough to acquire a condition that
costs you a few thousand a month to treat for several decades and
leaves you unable to work?

For most people, their NHS expenditure happens mainly near the end of
their lives (the average is something like 50% of lifetime expenditure
is in the last 3 months of life).

IF I want to worry about that, I can take out health insurance. Forced health insurance is wrong.

--
One workman asks another, "How long have you been working here?"
The other one replies, "Since they threatened to fire me."

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 22:35:05 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

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.

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 06:05:02 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
i am dating this girl, we get along wonderfully and i really enjoy
being with her but the sex is terrible , I come immediately and worst
,she cant feel me inside her at all, i am having second thoughts, is
possible to have a relationship with this kind of sex , help?????????

Is her volcabually limited to Bhaaa.... too.

In article , James Wilkinson
writes
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.

The rest of the population makes a net withdrawal from the economy =-
that's why we have a massive budget deficit
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.

Nonsense. The money has been invested and has grown by growing the
economy.
--
bert

On 03/07/2016 10:54, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2016 21:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message


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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the state
so I am a net contributor ATM.

The group that is imposing the heaviest burden on the NHS is the 83+
group. This group doesn't have the generous pensions that the baby
boomers are getting. The state pension is worth about £244,000 per
person. Only the top 25% of taxpayers ever paid in enough tax and NI
(after deducting all the 'free' education and NHS that they received
when their kids were younger) to cover this total.
If you are 0ver 65 then the state pension does come from the state.


There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to hand
dig drives and stuff like that any more.

Not if you are retired, receive a public service unfunded pension
and you have chosen to live elsewhere in the EU and spend your
UK taxpayer-provided largesse on another countries GDP. Lots do.
Even those fools who live in Spain and have just the UK state pension
and winter heating allowance, are boosting the Spanish economy, even
if they only eat in 'British egg'n'chip parlours'.

On 03/07/2016 21:50, bert wrote:
In article , James Wilkinson
writes
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 23:24:50 +0100, bert wrote:


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


Employers NI is no longer paid once you reach state pension age,
even if you keep on working. Since NI is just tax with a
cuddly name (and has been for decades), this loophole should be
shut.

It's high time that NI is merged with income tax, with
proper bands. THis would do away with all the nasty side-effects
of earning a bit more but ending up worse off. It would also
claw back some of the eye-wateringly excessive pensions that
14,000 retired civil servants are trousering. This group has
climbed the greasy pole and ended up with salaries of £100,000+
and in quite a few cases £200,000+ and are getting pensions of
£50,000+ per year. Many are still working yet once past 65 they
don't pay NI.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 22:35:05 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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.

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

Still a significant net contribution to the economy when they do that.

Nope,

Yep.

as they spent it later.

Still a significant net contribution to the economy whenever they do that.

"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.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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?

They always do something, even if its only feed themselves
and use public transport etc and medical services etc.

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.

Just as true of aliens showing up in space ships and biting cow's bums.

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.

But would if the banks with all your savings in 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.

Wrong.

In article , Andrew
writes
On 03/07/2016 10:54, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2016 21:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message


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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the state
so I am a net contributor ATM.

The group that is imposing the heaviest burden on the NHS is the 83+
group. This group doesn't have the generous pensions that the baby
boomers are getting. The state pension is worth about £244,000 per
person. Only the top 25% of taxpayers ever paid in enough tax and NI
(after deducting all the 'free' education and NHS that they received
when their kids were younger) to cover this total.
If you are 0ver 65 then the state pension does come from the state.
Well until it was raided by GB the NI Pension Fund had a surplus of some
£50bn and rising.


There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to hand
dig drives and stuff like that any more.

Not if you are retired, receive a public service unfunded pension
and you have chosen to live elsewhere in the EU and spend your
UK taxpayer-provided largesse on another countries GDP. Lots do.
Even those fools who live in Spain and have just the UK state pension
and winter heating allowance, are boosting the Spanish economy, even
if they only eat in 'British egg'n'chip parlours'.

The pension paid to state employees is totally different to the State
Pension.
--
bert

On 04/07/2016 20:48, bert wrote:
In article , Andrew
writes
On 03/07/2016 10:54, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2016 21:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message


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

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

I pay tax from my pension and none of that pension comes from the state
so I am a net contributor ATM.

The group that is imposing the heaviest burden on the NHS is the 83+
group. This group doesn't have the generous pensions that the baby
boomers are getting. The state pension is worth about £244,000 per
person. Only the top 25% of taxpayers ever paid in enough tax and NI
(after deducting all the 'free' education and NHS that they received
when their kids were younger) to cover this total.
If you are 0ver 65 then the state pension does come from the state.
Well until it was raided by GB the NI Pension Fund had a surplus of some
£50bn and rising.

There is no fund, NI is just a tax like income tax.



There are others that are not net contributors like all the public
service/state pensioners where the pensions are paid out of taxes.

They all spend money to make the economy go though.

Older people like me spend more on trades as we just don't want to hand
dig drives and stuff like that any more.

Not if you are retired, receive a public service unfunded pension
and you have chosen to live elsewhere in the EU and spend your
UK taxpayer-provided largesse on another countries GDP. Lots do.
Even those fools who live in Spain and have just the UK state pension
and winter heating allowance, are boosting the Spanish economy, even
if they only eat in 'British egg'n'chip parlours'.

The pension paid to state employees is totally different to the State
Pension.

Only in that it is more.
They both are paid out of tax and not from investments.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:26:58 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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:
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?

They always do something, even if its only feed themselves
and use public transport etc and medical services etc.

But that's a lot less than younger working folk.

Anyway, stop thinking in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet. Money means nothing. To contribute to a society, you do work, you create things, etc.

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.

Just as true of aliens showing up in space ships and biting cow's bums..

But the cannabis ones are on legitimate sites, including government ones..

And funny how health services use it medicinally.

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.

But would if the banks with all your savings in went bust.

I would never put much in one place.

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.

Wrong.

Why?

--
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons."
- General MacArthur

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:26:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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:
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?

They always do something, even if its only feed themselves
and use public transport etc and medical services etc.

But that's a lot less than younger working folk.

Anyway, stop thinking in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet. Money means
nothing. To contribute to a society, you do work, you create things, etc.

Nope, just consume, just like everyone else does.

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.

Just as true of aliens showing up in space ships and biting cow's bums.

But the cannabis ones are on legitimate sites, including government ones.

Not one with any rigorous scientific evidence in double
blind trials that show that cannabis cures cancer.

And funny how health services use it medicinally.

Not to cure cancer they don't.

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.

But would if the banks with all your savings in went bust.

I would never put much in one place.

Doesn't help when they all go bust because of a run on the banks.

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.

Wrong.

Why?

That wasn't what caused the great depression.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 23:09:14 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:26:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news 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:
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?

They always do something, even if its only feed themselves
and use public transport etc and medical services etc.

But that's a lot less than younger working folk.

Anyway, stop thinking in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet. Money means
nothing. To contribute to a society, you do work, you create things, etc.

Nope, just consume, just like everyone else does.

I told you to forget the numbers. Pretend money doesn't exist. You got a big bunch of people in a country, and some are making food so they can all survive, etc, etc. Those sitting about eating food others have created are not contributing. If they died, the rest of them would do better.

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.

Just as true of aliens showing up in space ships and biting cow's bums.

But the cannabis ones are on legitimate sites, including government ones.

Not one with any rigorous scientific evidence in double
blind trials that show that cannabis cures cancer.

Go read some.

And funny how health services use it medicinally.

Not to cure cancer they don't.

Yes they do. Go read the websites. Type "cannabis cures cancer" into google without the quotes....

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.

But would if the banks with all your savings in went bust.

I would never put much in one place.

Doesn't help when they all go bust because of a run on the banks.

No more banks. Sounds cool.

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.

Wrong.

Why?

That wasn't what caused the great depression.

Banks lent money to people who could never pay it back. Banks' fault.

--
Why is there no Disneyland China?
No one's tall enough to go on the good rides.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 23:09:14 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:26:58 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news 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:
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?

They always do something, even if its only feed themselves
and use public transport etc and medical services etc.

But that's a lot less than younger working folk.

Anyway, stop thinking in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet. Money means
nothing. To contribute to a society, you do work, you create things,
etc.

Nope, just consume, just like everyone else does.

I told you to forget the numbers. Pretend money doesn't exist.

Not possible when discussing net contribution to the ECONOMY.

You got a big bunch of people in a country, and some are making food so
they can all survive, etc, etc. Those sitting about eating food others
have created are not contributing.

Yes they are, they are contributing the market
that provides the jobs for those making food.

If they died, the rest of them would do better.

They would do worse, because there would be far fewer
consuming the food they produce so lots of them would
be out of a job and would get no income from selling the
food to those who eat it.

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.

Just as true of aliens showing up in space ships and biting cow's bums.

But the cannabis ones are on legitimate sites, including government
ones.

Not one with any rigorous scientific evidence in double
blind trials that show that cannabis cures cancer.

Go read some.

Been doing that since before you were even born thanks.

And funny how health services use it medicinally.

Not to cure cancer they don't.

Yes they do.

No they don't.

Go read the websites. Type "cannabis cures cancer" into google without
the quotes....

None of those are health services that have based what they
do on rigorous scientific evidence of what cures cancer.

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.

But would if the banks with all your savings in went bust.

I would never put much in one place.

Doesn't help when they all go bust because of a run on the banks.

No more banks. Sounds cool.

Not if that is where you have put your savings.

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.

Wrong.

Why?

That wasn't what caused the great depression.

Banks lent money to people who could never pay it back.

That wasn't what caused the great depression.

Banks' fault.

The great depression wasn't.