Latest immigration figures

[MNW67]

There'll be someone in a room close by to her that made zero provision for old age getting the same service for nowt.

'Be wise with your money throughout the decades, so we can take it all off you in old age. Don't worry if you've never bothered to work or save, you'll get the same care.'

On the face of it this looks unfair. But it is all very complicated. Many people are never in the position to make provision.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

On the face of it this looks unfair. But it is all very complicated. Many people are never in the position to make provision.

It is unfair.

I'm not so much referring to those who are never in a position to save or invest. I'm referring to those who choose not to. I've given the following example before:

Twins
Each work for 40 years and broadly have the same salaries and expenditure.
Twin A chooses to be sensible with their money, twin B just p1sses it all away over the decades.
They both end up in care, rooms side by side.
Twin A is paying for their care whether they like it or not, twin B isn't.

 

[denso13]

I've given the following example before:

Yea, you like your fairy stories.

 

[pete01]

Yea, you like your fairy stories.

Is that not true?

 

[denso13]

Is that not true?

Who knows, he made it up. Do you know any twins in that scenario?

 

[pete01]

Who knows, he made it up. Do you know any twins in that scenario?

He doesn't mean actual twins, just an example hes used.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

He doesn't mean actual twins, just an example hes used.

I don't think Denso does 'theoretical'.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

He doesn't mean actual twins, just an example hes used.

There an innumerable amount of theoretical scenarios that can be conjured up to illustrate the unfairness of any system.

For example, three men, with a similar amount of savings:

One invest his money in classic cars, which he puts in his child's name. On his death, the classic car is not included on the total wealth, so no tax is due.

Anther man invests his money in property, and on his death, there is a tax to be paid.

The third man (not from the book) gives the money to his child and the tax paid is dependent on the date of the gift and the date of his death.

Any scenario can be dreamed up to illustrate the unfairness of any system.

 

[pete01]

I don't think Denso does 'theoretical'.

Oh

 

[denso13]

He doesn't mean actual twins, just an example hes used.

Can't he defend himself? It's always worst case scenarios with no solutions. Does he mean the penniless twin shouldn't get any care?

Mick and Elton go on a final farewell tour and make £500m each. Elton's eyes get even worse and he needs round the clock care. Should the taxpayer pay for it?

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Oh

And now he's rambling on with his odd obsession with Mick and Elton.

Just humour him.

 

[denso13]

And now he's rambling on with his odd obsession with Mick and Elton.

Do you mean you don't do theoretical? Strange...

 

[pete01]

Can't he defend himself? It's always worst case scenarios with no solutions. Does he mean the penniless twin shouldn't get any care?

Mick and Elton go on a final farewell tour and make £500m each. Elton's eyes get even worse and he needs round the clock care. Should the taxpayer pay for it?

I think that's different to someone having to give up his 120k flat when the council bloke upstairs doesn't have to.

 

[denso13]

I think that's different to someone having to give up his 120k flat when the council bloke upstairs doesn't have to.

So what's the solution?

 

[pete01]

So what's the solution?

Up the limit you can keep from 16k (I think it is now) to 100k maybe?