Printable View
I would certainly be far better off if none of my income had gone into the NHS and I had relied on private health insurance (actually, thus far, pay as you go would have been even cheaper).Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
I have a nephew with cystic fibrosis. Any sensible insurer would conclude that he is an unacceptable risk. Never mind, we will just consider him expendable if it saves the rest of us some money.
Setting aside the fact that most people who opine on PMI have no practical knowledge of it, the other minor matter is that it generally isn't until you are on your death bed that you can actually do the accurate sums - by which time it is, alas, a little late in the day to revise your options.
The NHS has served me fine.
Pacemaker fitted and maintained
2 x arthroscopy one on each knee
Broken arm
Ligaments damage both ankles
Stitches to head, legs and arms
Dislocated shoulder
And just starting in to old age (58)
Thank you NHS
I had no idea that golf was such a dangerous sport Stagger!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
WHAT?
Daft Yorkshireman with a bag of sticks???
Its like braveheart revisited.
CL
Mike t was wrong.
Creating money is a misnomer.
In all contexts what is created is a debt asset pairing.
Spend now. Pay later, and pay interest until you have paid it back.
In the case of banks creating debt asset pairs, if the borrower doesn’t pay back, the bank takes the loss.
Which was what happened in 2008, to cause banks to get into trouble. The borrowers failed to pay back. Gordon brown was too fond of spending illusory income from his debt fuelled property bubble - like giving GPS a 30 percent rise for which they ditched not gained responsibility starting the pressure on A and E.
Brown turned a blind eye to the inevitable catastrophe created by copying US cheap monetary lunacy.
In the case of QE central banks buy up existing debt in the form of government bonds from institutions that already hold them. That gives those institutions liquidity to buy up more debt instruments, including a lot more government bonds.
But It is debt that is created none the less and has to be paid back by the government , so it is all passed onto kids.
But it is a lot worse than that even: keeping interest rates and flooding money supply with QE , kills savings rates completely. It created a monster debt obligation for the already unaffordable public sector pensions. And I mean trillion unfunded debt obligation. That’s tens of thousands for every worker to make up in taxes before they can save their own pension. It creates a massive loss on these pension schemes.
The mp scheme alone for a few hundred people is hundreds of millions!
MPs - like much of public sector - now take out more than they ever pay in tax.
ALL of that will be paid by kids. A staggering sum.
They will be so busy funding doctors , nurses and teachers , firefighterS police and local authority pensions they will never be able to save their own. Indeed they will never be able to retire, in order to keep early public sector retirees in clover.
The rest must work until they drop.
It is already happening. Many good companies were destroyed by having to pick up the tab for government Lunacy: the companies made responsible for political decisions. Government even had the temerity to blame companies for pension shortfall which was a government not a business choice.
I have much of my assets In such as gold now. That and land will be the only thing left worth anything.
The whole world has changed since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
First, life expectancy is off the charts. 15-20 years of retirement someone has to fund. People used to last only a couple of years if they made it till retirement.
Second, that life expectancy is bought at incredibly high cost of Medical care someone has to fund,
Third, most started work at 16 so contributed to the economy, the few graduates matched the jobs available. Now most want higher education, so don’t start work till years later. It isn’t just the cost of education, it is loss of economic earning.
Fourth, Poverty now has a smart phone, living standards are way up.
Fifth, childcare costs a lot of money that is not offset by wages unless it is the wages of two.
All that costs a fortune that needs to be earned by all in a working life.
So no, a single parent can no longer fulfill duties to the economy and family, and living standards.
The truth is we are not paying it. Debt is growing eve& higher, the biggest
Part of which is which the unfunded public pension liability. It doesn’t even make the National accounts!
Yet whenever a government tries to tackle it , yet another part of the public sector threatens to strike over pensions. Somebody else must pay they say!!
There are well over 5 million in public sector most of whose pensions will cost at least 100000 more than they save. It is a trillion problem. The rest of us have to pay, including single parent families.
You are a clever bloke Anthony Kay. The above is blindingly obvious.
You also appear to confuse “single breadwinner” ( of two parents, one looking after kids) with “ single parent “ ie funding of childcare often by the state in tax credits.
If people want to find liars in politics try the ultimate liar Gordon brown.
He told Blair tax credits would cost 250 million believing they would cost 2 billion: they actually cost 30 billion, so good are socialists at maths. Never paid by brown or his bubble, but the coalition: and they account for a significant proportion of the growing debt.
It is not my rejection of it. It is the economic fantasy of living beyond our means,
The “ feeding Britain “ report makes ( so called) single parenthood the single biggest factor in poverty. It is unsustainable.
I'm not an economist so I have to take most of what I read about such things on trust. The learned article I read about Universal Living Wage maintained that paying all citizens a sum guaranteed to keep them fed and housed works out cheaper than administering a Welfare State. Of course, it does not stop individuals topping that up by working if they want to or can. The trouble is that technology is making many jobs redundant and we are faced with millions of what Harari calls "useless humans". Amazon can replace 100 warehouse workers with 1 drone and operator. So Amazon is still making the same money with vastly reduced human costs.
My way of dealing with this was to set out the expectancy on the average tax payer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
Back in the 70s a bloke was expected to start work on average at 17, work until 65 and then die around 72.
It was taking out for 33% and paying in for 66%
Now it's 21/67/82
Or 44% and 56%
Pay in for 11% less and take out for 11% longer. Who's paying for that?
I do think there was something in the Labour discussion about 4 day working weeks. I've urged my wife to apply for Friday's off, but although she'd like to she's a bit embarrassed about asking. Yet she's 55, the income is useful, but there is a quality of life balance to be had, and she could still work the 8-10 Friday's a year when they have busy periods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
The flaw was that it was for no loss of money.
We should probably encourage employers where they can to offer shorter working weeks to those that want it. Some will want more. I knew a guy who wasn't happy if he didn't get 60 hours a week, every week.