Jump to content

Are old people bleeding the country dry?

Recommended Posts

£25k is about the average graduate starting salary. It's below what many of the large employers in Sheffield pay experienced people...

 

Backwards cities? I didn't say anything about backwards anywhere...

 

I started work a decade ago in Rotherham on 18k, my very 1st job out of uni. I expect that same job pays at least 25k now for people starting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong there are more who share my views than you would like to believe in your we'll spend your money down with Israel world

 

True. But they're just as batty.

 

What about the 100,000s who signed up to fight in the wars?

They did a hell of a lot more than a bit of voluntary work todays youths do.

 

You're not surely suggesting we have more wars just to make our youth feel as though they've contributed by sticking them on the front line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
£25k is about the average graduate starting salary. It's below what many of the large employers in Sheffield pay experienced people...

 

Backwards cities? I didn't say anything about backwards anywhere...

 

I started work a decade ago in Rotherham on 18k, my very 1st job out of uni. I expect that same job pays at least 25k now for people starting it.

 

Source??????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18k = £346.15 aweek when you take tax & Ni (£65.34), mortgage or rent & rates (£100), you are left with £180.81,

when you fill your car £60 you have £120 to pay all the bills and food clothes etc etc

 

Are old people not supposed to have cars, pay bills, eat and wear clothes? How are they supposed to do all that on the Old Age Pension?

 

Irrespective of what we think and what we say on this forum, the system will have to change.

 

As Bassman said:

Todays pensioners including myself paid into the system right from the 1950s initialy for people who'd never paid....

 

That's the basic fault of the system. It's a Ponzi Scheme scam. It relies on an ever-increasing number of people paying in and makes no allowances for an increase in the number taking out (nor does the UK scheme consider those who didn't pay in in the first place.

 

Those who are (or have recently) started work will be paying for those who have finished work (and - to be fair - did pay their share) but they will also have to fund their own pensions separately.

 

I grew up in a society which was not accustomed to a 'Welfare State' - The State did not provide for you 'from cradle to grave'. Your parents provided for you when you were small, you provided for your children when they were small and you provided for your parents when they were old. It worked, too.

 

I was told (by Grandmère): "When you are a man and you get your first wage packet, divide it into 3 equal heaps. Use one heap to live, save the second and - if you like - pi88 the third heap up against the wall."

 

Sound advice. I followed it (most of the time.)

 

I'm not wealthy (and I've never been wealthy) but I'm not poor, either. When I was 18 I came to England. I brought enough money with me to enable me to survive fro a month (I didn't realise that the stupid Englishmen would pay me to sit on my arse.) I got a job. Long hours, poor pay. - Such is life.

 

Then I got a better job. Then I got an even better job.

 

I paid taxes, I paid NI - and I took nothing. Why should I? - I was capable of working.

 

I'm retired. - Not 65 (not quite) but I'm not relying on the state to pay me a pension when I get there ... I was never that trusting!

 

I do have an 'old farts' bus pass' (for which I'm very grateful ... I used it twice. A round trip from my son's house int Sheffield motorcycles to get a new tyre for my bike when I had a puncture. (Brilliant company, btw.) I#m one of those people who 'bleeds the economy dry.'

 

People are going to have to pay more into the pot - or perhaps the pot will need to be ring-fenced and divided into a number of smaller pots.

 

How about:

 

P% of your salary into a pension fund, which will be re-invested and used solely for paying pensions?

H% into a health fund which will fund the NHS?

J% into a jobless fund which will pay unemployment benefit?

 

Then, of course, there are the children. They should come first.

 

All children have 2 parents. If one parent dies, let the state step in. If one parent buggers off and declines to pay for the child, let the state step in again and relieve the absent parent of enough money to support his (or rarely her) child.

 

"Oh, I can't afford to support my children ... I've got another family to support."

 

Hard luck, boyo! - No money for you. Your children come first and you can only keep enough of your pay to allow you to survive. - Why should somebody else pick up the bill?

 

Harleyman and Buck both commented on the American welfare system. It isn't generous - but few people starve. When I immigrated to America they told me: "You can come and live here - but you have to pay your own way. You are not entitled to handouts from our taxpayers."

 

The Americans have no shortage of applicants for immigration. The people who do go there expect to work and expect to support themselves. They have to.

 

The UK has different rules. Each to his own, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't the old folk that are costing us money, kids having kids and living off the taxpayer to name just one reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are old people not supposed to have cars, pay bills, eat and wear clothes? How are they supposed to do all that on the Old Age Pension?

 

Irrespective of what we think and what we say on this forum, the system will have to change.

 

As Bassman said:

 

That's the basic fault of the system. It's a Ponzi Scheme scam. It relies on an ever-increasing number of people paying in and makes no allowances for an increase in the number taking out (nor does the UK scheme consider those who didn't pay in in the first place.

 

Those who are (or have recently) started work will be paying for those who have finished work (and - to be fair - did pay their share) but they will also have to fund their own pensions separately.

 

I grew up in a society which was not accustomed to a 'Welfare State' - The State did not provide for you 'from cradle to grave'. Your parents provided for you when you were small, you provided for your children when they were small and you provided for your parents when they were old. It worked, too.

 

I was told (by Grandmère): "When you are a man and you get your first wage packet, divide it into 3 equal heaps. Use one heap to live, save the second and - if you like - pi88 the third heap up against the wall."

 

Sound advice. I followed it (most of the time.)

 

I'm not wealthy (and I've never been wealthy) but I'm not poor, either. When I was 18 I came to England. I brought enough money with me to enable me to survive fro a month (I didn't realise that the stupid Englishmen would pay me to sit on my arse.) I got a job. Long hours, poor pay. - Such is life.

 

Then I got a better job. Then I got an even better job.

 

I paid taxes, I paid NI - and I took nothing. Why should I? - I was capable of working.

 

I'm retired. - Not 65 (not quite) but I'm not relying on the state to pay me a pension when I get there ... I was never that trusting!

 

I do have an 'old farts' bus pass' (for which I'm very grateful ... I used it twice. A round trip from my son's house int Sheffield motorcycles to get a new tyre for my bike when I had a puncture. (Brilliant company, btw.) I#m one of those people who 'bleeds the economy dry.'

 

People are going to have to pay more into the pot - or perhaps the pot will need to be ring-fenced and divided into a number of smaller pots.

 

How about:

 

P% of your salary into a pension fund, which will be re-invested and used solely for paying pensions?

H% into a health fund which will fund the NHS?

J% into a jobless fund which will pay unemployment benefit?

 

Then, of course, there are the children. They should come first.

 

All children have 2 parents. If one parent dies, let the state step in. If one parent buggers off and declines to pay for the child, let the state step in again and relieve the absent parent of enough money to support his (or rarely her) child.

 

"Oh, I can't afford to support my children ... I've got another family to support."

 

Hard luck, boyo! - No money for you. Your children come first and you can only keep enough of your pay to allow you to survive. - Why should somebody else pick up the bill?

 

Harleyman and Buck both commented on the American welfare system. It isn't generous - but few people starve. When I immigrated to America they told me: "You can come and live here - but you have to pay your own way. You are not entitled to handouts from our taxpayers."

 

The Americans have no shortage of applicants for immigration. The people who do go there expect to work and expect to support themselves. They have to.

 

The UK has different rules. Each to his own, I suppose.

 

So true Rupert, i came to the US over 40 years ago, I had to prove i had a job before i could enter ,and thats when it was suppose to be easy to get in here but i still needed all the proper documents also a full time job, back then i think I had to show an x-ray too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, I bet you're paying 50% income tax, right? But those rich bankers, they get special treatment and pay a lower rate?
Ofshore comes to mind, there is one rule for the upper echelon of earners and another for Jo Public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So true Rupert, i came to the US over 40 years ago, I had to prove i had a job before i could enter ,and thats when it was suppose to be easy to get in here but i still needed all the proper documents also a full time job, back then i think I had to show an x-ray too.

 

 

You got in early! :hihi:

 

When I applied for my card, they sent me to a Doctor (in Harley Street, no less! [and they were paying] to be tested for AIDS.

 

I said: "Why do you want to test me for AIDS? - Wouldn't that be a bit like 'taking coal to Newcastle'? You've already got AIDS in America ... It came in by sea. Up the Hudson."

 

Didn't go down too well.:hihi:

 

I was interviewed at the US Imbecile in London initially. It was a pain in the bum! After the interview and the Doctor's visit, I received a 'Missive' requiring me to report on a given date at a certain time and advising me that, should I fail to do so, the consequences would be dire!

 

I phoned them and told them: "I'm awfully sorry, but I can't make it on that day."

 

I got a mouthful! "If you can't be bothered to arrange your timetable, perhaps we can't be bothered to give you a green card!"

 

"Not a problem" said I. I am, however, rather busy that day and I will be 'out of the country'. Please phone Mr Xxxx on the 5th floor. His extension is YYYY. He will explain everything."

 

About 10 minutes later, I got a cringing call from a Mr Brass advising me that my presence would not be required.:hihi::hihi::hihi:

 

American bureaucracy is far worse than anything you might meet in the UK. - And it hasn't improved during the last quarter century.

 

I don't know how Americans get around this, but here's a current example of bureaucratic stupidity:

 

I have a Mississippi driving licence. It expires on 31 May. I'm overseas (at the behest of the US Federal government) so I can't just call in at the local office and renew it. My wife's driving licence expires in June. We wrote to MS DMV, sent them the money (that should've been the most important bit) and asked for a 'postal renewal'. We wrote in March.

 

Two weeks ago we received an unsigned form letter rejecting the application.

 

The matter is now in the hands of a US Senator and I expect it will be resolved promptly.:hihi:

 

Or maybe I'll have to go to jail for driving without a licence.:hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean't no disrespect to you young sir. It was just a good retort. All's fair in love and war..
Wrong again I'm far from a "Young Sir", I'm one of those who paid into the system shorly after it was established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Bassman, you - like the rest of us - didn't 'pay into a system' there never was a system.

 

The money you (and all the rest of us) paid was never 'ring fenced' to pay for our care and pesnions later, it went straight into the government 'pot' and they spent it (and much more) besides.

 

There is NO pension fund. The money you paid in has been squandered. (A Ponzi scheme - but it's legal, because it was set up by the government and they make the laws.)

 

There is no money to pay pensioners. No fund, no nothing. The government took the money you paid in and pi88ed it against the wall. They didn't have to re-invest it on your behalf - they make the laws.

 

You can shut up and wind your neck in!

 

Unless - of course - you think otherwise.

 

We've seen revolting students recently. We've seen lots of other revolting (and often smelly) people , but when have we seen the Grey Party?

 

There are:

the Blues,

the Reds,

the Lavenders,

the Yellows

the Greens

 

... but where are the Greys?

 

I'm a lifetime member of AARP (The American Association of Retired Pharts.) I've been a member since I was 50 (and I wasn't retired back then!) They're not stupid! - They take members aged 50 and upwards because there are more people in the US aged 50+ than there are aged 18 (voting age) to 50. It makes them hugely influential.

 

How many people aged 50+ are there in the UK?

 

How does that compare with the number of voters who are under 50?

 

If somebody got around to forming a Grey Party and if that Party could attract (cutting across traditional party lines) support for 'grey matter' would there be a problem with support for the elderly?

 

Do the sums.

 

The reason that the 'elderly' (aged 50 upwards) get such a crappy deal in the UK is because they are not (yet) organised.

 

I do ordinarily request a discount from traders because of my age. (It doesn't work too well in pubs, ;)) It doesn't work too well in some shops - particularly those not accustomed to a grey-haired clientele [though Sheffield Motorcycles gave me a fiver off a tyre] but many are quite happy to take money off give discounts to old farts. They welcome the trade.

 

If we - the grey(ish) (and I'll include the baldies) haired people - the people aged 50 plus - were to gang together (and ignore the fact that in the past we might've supported a whole rainbow of colours on a pack of porkers) we might just be able to run the country.

 

And we might do a better job of it than Dick Camel-Egg or Wallace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Source??????????

 

Source yourself. You've never provided one in any discussion, if you can't be bothered to look up easily available figures then don't join in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.