Are old people bleeding the country dry?

[Mercurian]

Your original post

 

So?....I did not relate that post to the tax year.

[Mercurian]

OK. I shall state clearly what I mean. The average worker in a year beginning 1st Jan will work until June to pay his tax bills. It is only from June that he keeps all his own money (based on an annual cycle)

[denlin]

OK. I shall state clearly what I mean. The average worker in a year beginning 1st Jan will work until June to pay his tax bills. It is only from June that he keeps all his own money (based on an annual cycle)

 

Thank you - we are not all clairvoyant so perhaps you should make yourself clearer to avoid misunderstandings:hihi:

[Ms Macbeth]

Please try and stick to the topic

 

Thank you

[Balpin]

Please try and stick to the topic

 

Thank you

 

The topic is so obviously a peurile troll it is hardly worth sticking to.

His next one will be that old people should be banned from public transport because they smell of wee.

They are standard trolls on public forums.

[JOHN HABS]

Many old people, even those who have rarely worked are entitled to full sate pension £137.35 per week, plus £250.00 every winter and £10 for every day it is below freezing, along with priority for social housing, full housing benefit for any almost size property, and many other benefits such as free travel, lunch clubs, free prescriptions, priority dental care, TV License and so on...

 

Yet the average young person is demonized as a no good scrounger, now if they're unfortunate to be unemployed they only receive a fraction of what an old person in same circumstances does, £46.85 per week, no HB unless it's in a shared house which are rarely even suitable for one human, no help with energy costs, no free travel, no free lunch clubs, TV license, prescriptions etc.

 

now before you start ranting, I'm not saying old people do not deserve this level of income and support, but compared to other age groups and immigrants they do use a lot of resources and receive a very good standard of living.

 

' If they are unfortunate to be unemployed ' .............. the majority of young people these days are unemployed by choice and summing it up in two words: Bone Idle !

When you get old and to pensionable age won't you want everything you can get your mitts on ?

[Rupert_Baehr]

How? somebody aked when tax year started and you said Jan 1st. It doesn't. It starts on 5 April

 

AS that somebody who asked I would've laughed had he said 5th April. If he (or anybody) can find a society in which the total tax take is less than 20%, I'd be amazed.

 

That is based on a year starting on January 1st.

 

Most of the infrastructure has been in place for many decades although, of course, it requires maintaining. What I am saying is that the government extorts far too much of our money from us to give to unworthy causes . They should let us keep our own money and donate on a voluntary basis to people "in need".

 

What do you define as 'unworthy causes'? (Serious question.)

 

From your figures (Which suggest that the average British taxpayer doesn't start working for himself util mid- June [ a concept with which I'm very familiar] you appear to be suggesting that for the average Brit, the total tax take is about 45%.

 

If you were an American, you'd probably pay about 35%, if you were a German, about 65% and if you were a Swede, about 80%.

 

The Brits pay 45% and for that they expect a cradle-to-grave Welfare state with generous welfare benefits, good pensions, free healthcare (with everything covered) and anything else anybody else gets.

 

The figures don't add up. You can have what you pay for. Brits pay rather less (in total tax take) than do many of their European neighbours - yet they expect the same (or better) services and benefits.

 

They do pay rather more than do Americans, but the Americans (many of whom are reasonably satisfied with the way their welfare system is run) understand that if they don't pay the state to provide services for them, they will have to dip their hands into their own pockets.

 

TANSTAAFL. Either you pay more of your income to the State and the State provides, or you keep more of your income and you provide for yourselves. There is no third alternative (for those who have an income and who don't live off the State.)

 

Pensions are a problem and that problem is going to get worse. Few (if any) politicians have the balls to tackle the problem. Most countries operate a Ponzi Scam. Even those with ring-fenced funds (like Germany) have got problems coming.

 

I've paid into the UK state pension scheme since 1968. I doubt I'll get a pension (and my State pension certainly won't be enough to live on ... not the way I want to live, anyway.) I have an occupational pension and I've saved (since I first started earning.) I was taught to do that - it was what people where I grew up did. When I was about 4 or 5 Grandmère (who was actually my great grandma) told me: "When you grow up and you get your first pay packet, divide it into 3 equal heaps. One you save, one you use to live on and the other you spend against the tin wall in le Pissoir-" At age 5, I wasn't big enough to use the Pissoir (unless I stood back a bit and aimed upwards. )

 

I paid into the British State Pension Scheme and I saved money for my own pension. It is possible (though when some of my friends were going to glamorous destinations, I wasn't and I didn't always have the 'bestest and newest' stuff.

 

(Actually, I didn't do too badly. I had a 26ft boat and a decent car - but I paid cash. I saved until I could afford them.)

 

My son (and many of the younger people on this forum) will either learn the lesson I was taught at Grandmère's knee, or learn to wipe away the tears.

 

Why do so many people who can't afford a piece of paper to wipe the **** from their arse (In Yorkshire parlance '10 bob millionaires'?) waste so much money they can ill-afford on worthless baubles such as 'mobile phones' with giga-pixel cameras, 3-G, 4-G, unlimited downloads, full-stereo etc?

 

I've got a mobile phone. It's a phone. It cost me about a tenner. It makes phone calls. It costs me less than a quid a month to run.

 

When I was a kid, I was taught to make lists.

 

Make a list of what you really need. Be careful. Make sure that you really need the things on that list.

Then make a list of what you want (you can make that one as long as you like.

 

Then make a list (starting with the first list) of what you can afford.

 

That's your shopping list.

 

Life is difficult for many of us - and even for those for whom life isn't difficult, it's not as easy as it was. It may not get a lot easier during the next 10 years.

 

"They said to me: "Smile, things could be worse" - So I did smile and lo, things were worse."

 

A sense of humour goes a long way.

[Forumosaurus]

AS that somebody who asked I would've laughed had he said 5th April. If he (or anybody) can find a society in which the total tax take is less than 20%, I'd be amazed.

 

 

 

 

 

What do you define as 'unworthy causes'? (Serious question.)

 

From your figures (Which suggest that the average British taxpayer doesn't start working for himself util mid- June [ a concept with which I'm very familiar] you appear to be suggesting that for the average Brit, the total tax take is about 45%.

 

If you were an American, you'd probably pay about 35%, if you were a German, about 65% and if you were a Swede, about 80%.

 

The Brits pay 45% and for that they expect a cradle-to-grave Welfare state with generous welfare benefits, good pensions, free healthcare (with everything covered) and anything else anybody else gets.

 

The figures don't add up. You can have what you pay for. Brits pay rather less (in total tax take) than do many of their European neighbours - yet they expect the same (or better) services and benefits.

 

They do pay rather more than do Americans, but the Americans (many of whom are reasonably satisfied with the way their welfare system is run) understand that if they don't pay the state to provide services for them, they will have to dip their hands into their own pockets.

 

TANSTAAFL. Either you pay more of your income to the State and the State provides, or you keep more of your income and you provide for yourselves. There is no third alternative (for those who have an income and who don't live off the State.)

 

Pensions are a problem and that problem is going to get worse. Few (if any) politicians have the balls to tackle the problem. Most countries operate a Ponzi Scam. Even those with ring-fenced funds (like Germany) have got problems coming.

 

I've paid into the UK state pension scheme since 1968. I doubt I'll get a pension (and my State pension certainly won't be enough to live on ... not the way I want to live, anyway.) I have an occupational pension and I've saved (since I first started earning.) I was taught to do that - it was what people where I grew up did. When I was about 4 or 5 Grandmère (who was actually my great grandma) told me: "When you grow up and you get your first pay packet, divide it into 3 equal heaps. One you save, one you use to live on and the other you spend against the tin wall in le Pissoir-" At age 5, I wasn't big enough to use the Pissoir (unless I stood back a bit and aimed upwards. )

 

I paid into the British State Pension Scheme and I saved money for my own pension. It is possible (though when some of my friends were going to glamorous destinations, I wasn't and I didn't always have the 'bestest and newest' stuff.

 

(Actually, I didn't do too badly. I had a 26ft boat and a decent car - but I paid cash. I saved until I could afford them.)

 

My son (and many of the younger people on this forum) will either learn the lesson I was taught at Grandmère's knee, or learn to wipe away the tears.

 

Why do so many people who can't afford a piece of paper to wipe the **** from their arse (In Yorkshire parlance '10 bob millionaires'?) waste so much money they can ill-afford on worthless baubles such as 'mobile phones' with giga-pixel cameras, 3-G, 4-G, unlimited downloads, full-stereo etc?

 

I've got a mobile phone. It's a phone. It cost me about a tenner. It makes phone calls. It costs me less than a quid a month to run.

 

When I was a kid, I was taught to make lists.

 

Make a list of what you really need. Be careful. Make sure that you really need the things on that list.

Then make a list of what you want (you can make that one as long as you like.

 

Then make a list (starting with the first list) of what you can afford.

 

That's your shopping list.

 

Life is difficult for many of us - and even for those for whom life isn't difficult, it's not as easy as it was. It may not get a lot easier during the next 10 years.

 

"They said to me: "Smile, things could be worse" - So I did smile and lo, things were worse."

 

A sense of humour goes a long way.

 

Yeah but can you get Angry Birds on it?

[Green Web]

£46 a week is a disgrace. Don't get me started... but you see the 'it was much better in your day' argument is just a red herring. It wasn't. Some things might have been better but they were cancelled out by a lot of things being worse.

 

Women's Lib hadn't even started so many (higher paid) jobs were out of bounds for women, and advancement in other jobs was very slow or non-existant. Men often insisted that their wives left work when they married as they didn't want to be seen as not able to provide for them. There were more jobs, but not much choice. A biscuit factory is very much like a cutlery factory, and who wants to go down a coal mine? Health and safety standards were poor and many old people are still paying the price with their health today.

 

The idea of an ordinary working class girl going to University was very unlikely as they were expected to stay home and mind the babies. And as for boys it was only if you made it to Only Grammer School by passing the 11+ Exam(approx 7%) that you could take advantage of it anyway, and most didn't.

 

Food choice is far greater today, and many things you take for granted was considered a luxury - chicken for example. Spaghetti was possitively exotic. A far greater proportion of weekly income was spent on food then than today. Central heating was only found in posh newly built houses.

 

There was a huge waiting list for council houses after the war and most married couples started out living with their parents and desparately trying to save for a mortgage, for which you had to pass the most stringent financial rules. Many didn't. The Housing situation was so bad the charity 'Shelter' was started in the 60s to try and provide homes for homeless families.

 

Most working class people were married and bringing up a couple of kids by the time they were 25 and that put an end to any spare cash for nights out or pretty much anything else. From then on it was just a slow long hard grind of work to provide for your family. It was considered a huge disgrace to be on the dole and not be able to keep them, and any benefits you might get were meagre.

 

I could go on... but consider this. Ordinary people should stick together, not be fighting over the scraps.

 

That was one of the good things about post war life. Nearly every working man belonged to a union, and had a political affiliation. There was a strong sense of comradship and people looked out for each other. If you worked in one of the steel works, there would probably be a canteen and a social club, a football team, darts team, tabletennis, friends, a pint in the pub at lunchtime where the old timers would take the young apprentices under their wing and teach them how to behave like real men, ie with dignity and respect.

 

Various governments have done a jolly good job of divide and conquer. Now we're all 'middle class' we've started behaving like them. Of course it's wrong to start a hate campaign against the 'unemployed scroungers' when there are no jobs, and resenting money going to old people, but you've been cleverly manipulatedi nto this way of thinking. I can't understand why there is all this bickering about who's getting what, - like I said, fighting over the crumbs while the rich get richer.

 

It's not about old people bleeding the country dry at the expense of others, but the rich corporations shafting everybody.

 

Yes women back then did have it harder and were shafted left right and centre but just one wage could still afford to buy or rent a nest, now you need at 4x the average wage.

 

Each generation has its plus and minuses, however my folks and all their brothers, sisters friends did menial Polish jobs and they could all afford to eat, have a drink, drive a car, and get mortgages or council houses if they wanted to rent, even in London! That very basic essential living simply isn't possible today for the masses.

 

The choice of food is better now but the quality isn't due to population density, farming methods and immigration, and the only demographic reliant on state handouts who can afford decent food are the elderly, plus as explained they was the only ones who benefited from decent grub in their youth.

 

Its laughable, insulting to suggest that £137.50 a week solely to spend on food can only buy you a few scraps, as a worker if I had just £37.00 left a week to spend on food I could eat like a king.

 

Lets look at the figures and you'll clearly see how fortunate OAP's today REALLY are.

 

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2012/01/unemployed-benefits-fraction-of-welfare-bill

[Green Web]

Will you be in the same frame of mind, when and if you get to be a pensioner yourself

 

Why the need to shout?

 

I doubt there will be a state pension then but if I had the inflated equivalent of £137.50 to spend on food I wouldn't begrudge loosing say at least 20% of the amount to help others, but the again I'm not a greedy sod who thinks the world owes me a free lavish lifestyle because I've paid tax.