I was right.
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
Take back control...
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Less so when the penny drops that because the state pension is essentially a giant Ponzi scheme, the more the young sink into unemployment and poverty the less money there is to pay it.
It is far from unheard of for countries to cut pensions for existing pensioners. It could just as easily happen here.
I haven't looked at the demographic distribution of older people, and compared it with the percentage of older Leave voters, and then done a subsequent calculation.
But at a guess, it could well be true that Leavers are predominantly/likely to be older people. (over retirement age, I'm not so sure), simply because (conversely than with the young people) there are more older people than young, and the older people did vote (or were more likely to vote), and they were more likely to vote Leave.
It's more probable that in the UK, the shortfall will be addressed by removing NI exemptions for income of people above pension age (this is a already being talked about) or a Land Tax (this is already being talked about).
Some countries have a Wealth Tax. It is noticable that wealth is held mostly by older people.
Recent UK governments have been generous with tax exemptions for inherited wealth; both of pension schemes, and houses.
One might ask why the estate of a person whose wealth lies in shares, or stamps, or gold bars, should be taxed more heavily than the owner of a million-pound pension scheme and a million-pound house.
One might equally ask if the young, who are having the benefits of EU membership taken from them by the old, will feel inclined to be generous to those better off than themselves.
May, Buffoon and Gove had the advantages of free University education, with the chance of a maintenance grant. They also have the cushion of generous pension schemes. They are unwilling to let today's young have these advantages.
Perhaps the next government will see things differently.
Except the rabid Brexiteers who will probably soon be in charge of the Tory party wouldn't want a wealth tax and wouldn't give a stuff about doing to pensioners what they've done to every other class of benefit claimants
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 14,125
- Reaction score
- 4,121
- Country
Or maybe get employers to pay NI on all employers earnings rather than capping their hours so they don't earn enough.
So ... at a guess, it could well be not true, then.
Unless there were not enough of them.
for a while.
Not just pensions...
Your* money in banks can be subject to a 'haircut' (aka bank bail-in) in times of a financial crisis, as happened in Cyprus 2013.
Some lost upwards of 50% and was in effect legalised theft.
*I say 'your' money, but in fact any money deposited into a bank becomes the bank's property!
Of course. If it could be true, it could (though not as likely) be not true.
Why not do the research and find out.
I'm assuming that no-one is doing the research, either because no-one (who's remotely interested in proving JohnD wrong) can, or because the research does not back up their objection, or no-one is that bothered. In which case the objection (to JohnD's claim) was made without any real concern about finding out.
The required data is in those articles that I used.
Well, you could add an "unless" to the statement that" Remainers are likely to be young people" unless there were more older people who were also Remainers. But that then changes the assertive sentence to a conditional sentence.
It's a pointless argument.
The grass could be red, if it were not green.
The grass is red - assertive sentence. Remainers are likely to be young people - assertive sentence.
The grass is red, unless it's green. - conditional sentence. Remainers are likely to be young people" unless there were more older people who were also Remainers.- conditional sentence.
Isn't it normally the case that the maker of sweeping statements should prove it?
I take his lack of response to be indicative - and it was just his rampant ageism talking.
You apparently liked doing the calculations against Notch.
I take his lack of response to be indicative - and it was just his rampant ageism talking.
You apparently liked doing the calculations against Notch.
Notch made no attempt to prove his point when he was challenged on it.
Why? He is doing exactly what Notch did, and not attempting to prove his point.
I didn't particularly enjoy it.
But as Notch was denying the absolute obvious, needs must.
The same as John, then.
That is John's MO; when proved wrong, he just ignores it.
It looked like you did.
Ok, then - figures from quick searches.
population - 66,000,000
over 65, 18% - 11,880,000
turnout of over 65s, 90% - 10,692,000
voted leave, 61% - 6,522,120.
Less than 50% of the leave vote.
They are both the same on that score then.
They both make sweeping statements without supporting them with proof.
Isn't that what I said?
How can you tell?
What about the overseas voters? Edit: No matter, only 264,000.
22% of over 60's
- 21% of the overall population of England and Wales was aged under 18 years, 29% was aged 18 to 39 years, 27% was aged 40 to 59 years, and 22% was aged 60 years and over
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...n-by-ethnicity/demographics/age-groups/latest
So the criticism of JohnD was correct. But only just.
Last edited:
