Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[Coito ergo sum]

I assume you have state pensions in the US , thats shared taxpayers money gong to people many of whom own a fortune in property, the old pay little tax and get free (or in the US heavily subsidised) medical care

Poor basically is anyone under 30 these days, its school ---> university ---> minimum wage job/unemployment these days

Nope. We have social security, which is a separate tax on wage earners. It was started by FDR to dedicate some portion of each person's income to their retirement. You pay in, and you get paid out after age 65. Die at 65 1/2, though, and you're fucked - nothing goes to heirs. Live to 100, and you're covered.

In the US, the old can get Medicare which is free, and there is an additional coverage you can get called Part B which costs some money. The old pay little tax because they've been paying social security tax since they were kids on their first job, and medicare is also a separate tax paid throughout life.

If poor is basically anyone under 30, then anyone under 30 is not supporting the old. If they are unemployed, they certainly aren't supporting anyone. They are being supported. If they are making minimum wage, they certainly aren't supporting anyone, because the amount in tax coming out of a minimum wage person's check can't possibly support anyone. So, your thesis that the poor young are supporting the rich, old, idle seems demonstrably untenable.

[Cormac]

Old people have effectively mugged young people on an epic scale no handbags required

Well, if the old people need the money, then the young should hand it over, shouldn't they? To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.... and all that...

Wealth tax instead of just taxing income would be a good start (as in Switzerland). Someone in a house they paid £25k for but is now worth £500k should be not be getting money of the state.

Total bullshit.

[Seth]

Old people have effectively mugged young people on an epic scale no handbags required

Well, if the old people need the money, then the young should hand it over, shouldn't they? To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.... and all that...

Wealth tax instead of just taxing income would be a good start (as in Switzerland). Someone in a house they paid £25k for but is now worth £500k should be not be getting money of the state.

If they paid into the system, why shouldn't they get what they paid back out regardless of how successful they are financially? Social Security was SUPPOSED to be an individual savings account that you mandatorily paid into so you wouldn't be a burden on society when you got old. The problem is NOT the mandatory savings plan, that's a good idea, the problem is that Congress has been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund since the beginning to fund pork projects and the piggy banks of everyone in the system are filled with IOUs, so to pay what it owes, the government has to take it from young workers and pray that there will be enough of them to vampire to pay what the government owes.

One simple change would fix the future of Social Security: Direct all mandatory contributions into a personal retirement account for the individual who contributes in a local bank under regulations that prohibit them withdrawing ANY of that money until they reach retirement age. Require that the banks are fiduciaries for the funds and must pay a minimum statutory interest, or the going average investment rate, whichever is higher.

In other words, keep the money AWAY from the sticky fingers of Congress and the future problem is solved completely.

As for today's retirees, they may just be fucked...or we could cut the military budget for a couple of years and use the appropriations to refill the Trust Fund and then set up private accounts for everyone and transfer money into them.

[Cormac]

Old people have effectively mugged young people on an epic scale no handbags required

Well, if the old people need the money, then the young should hand it over, shouldn't they? To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.... and all that...

Wealth tax instead of just taxing income would be a good start (as in Switzerland). Someone in a house they paid £25k for but is now worth £500k should be not be getting money of the state.

Total bullshit.

For example, that 500k might very well be worth LESS than the 25k for which they bought it.

Secondly, most people pay for their house with earned, ALREADY TAXED, money. Why should they then be taxed on that again?

[MrJonno]

For example, that 500k might very well be worth LESS than the 25k for which they bought it.

Secondly, most people pay for their house with earned, ALREADY TAXED, money. Why should they then be taxed on that again?

Because society should be based on need not crap like deserving, the old expect large amounts of tax payers money while possessing large amounts of capital. That is completely unacceptable. It should be the norm to sell your house to pay for your retirement (even if it only taken of you when you die). The leaving money to your children is a vile meme that needs to be crushed, a person responsibility is to pay for themselves before paying for adult children

[Coito ergo sum]

For example, that 500k might very well be worth LESS than the 25k for which they bought it.

Secondly, most people pay for their house with earned, ALREADY TAXED, money. Why should they then be taxed on that again?

Because society should be based on need not crap like deserving, the old expect large amounts of tax payers money while possessing large amounts of capital. That is completely unacceptable. It should be the norm to sell your house to pay for your retirement (even if it only taken of you when you die). The leaving money to your children is a vile meme that needs to be crushed, a person responsibility is to pay for themselves before paying for adult children

Society should be based on meeting the minimum needs of the needy, and allowing anyone who is willing and able to achieve greater than minimum needs to do so and to reap the benefit of their own ability, ingenuity and good/bad fortune.

The idea of "to each according to his need" is among the most despicable concepts ever envisioned by the mind of man, and when coupled with "from each according to his ability to give" means a slave state, plain and simple. A more disgusting concept is hard to think of.

Of course, there should be no assessment of who is or is not more "deserving" -- meritocracies like that never work because the government is incapable of determining who is worthy or deserving.

I agree with the concept of the well to do old not getting taxpayer's money, that I agree with you 100%. But, the idea of working your whole life and not being able to leave what you've amassed to your loved ones -- well, if the person is not receiving state funds, then to take away their right to do with their own things is a debasement and a palpable injustice.

[MrJonno]

The old can leave money after inheritance tax to whoever they want but before they die they should be looking after themselves if they can (the state can intervene if they can't)

Just fed up with pensioners in the UK whining about how they have to live on £120/$180 a week while living in large incredibly expensive houses. I believe the current government is looking at putting someone sort of flat charge to be take from the their estate to pay for non-medical care which actually looks reasonably sensible for a Conservative government

[Coito ergo sum]

The old can leave money after inheritance tax to whoever they want but before they die they should be looking after themselves if they can (the state can intervene if they can't)

You're preaching to the choir. It's you that wants people to be supported by the State to begin with. I'd love to eliminate that as much as possible. Do you?

Just fed up with pensioners in the UK whining about how they have to live on £120/$180 a week while living in large incredibly expensive houses. I believe the current government is looking at putting someone sort of flat charge to be take from the their estate to pay for non-medical care which actually looks reasonably sensible for a Conservative government

Just cut off their dole.

[MrJonno]

Pensioners don't get 'dole' they get a state and/or private pension. If its too low it gets topped up to a not particularly high level. There is no state care for the elderly in England apart from medical care and old people are moaning about having to sell their house to pay for it good!. Scotland I believe is different.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pensioners don't get 'dole' they get a state and/or private pension. If its too low it gets topped up to a not particularly high level. There is no state care for the elderly in England apart from medical care and old people are moaning about having to sell their house to pay for it good!. Scotland I believe is different.

Well, a private pension should be their business, shouldn't it? And, just eliminate state support for the non-needy. Sounds great to me.

Sure they're moaning. Why shouldn't they? Everyone else moans about not getting free stuff. Why should the old be an exception. Heck, at least they're old. Nothing is as distasteful as young, able-bodied college-age students rioting over not getting state support. Yet we have to stomach that enough...

[MrJonno]

Sure they're moaning. Why shouldn't they? Everyone else moans about not getting free stuff. Why should the old be an exception. Heck, at least they're old. Nothing is as distasteful as young, able-bodied college-age students rioting over not getting state support. Yet we have to stomach that enough...

The elderly have had their lives, the young should be the priority

[Jason]

Balls.

In Canada, at least, the CPP premium (Canada Pension Plan) is deducted from your wages your entire life (unless you're self-employed) and paid out on request around 65 years of age. It is not free money. You can also invest in another pension plan privately and/or a retirement savings plan which are also not free money. Employment insurance (it used to be called unemployment insurance) is also deducted from your wages and can be collected in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own. It is also not free money. Welfare is different, but it provides funds to the recipients which put them far below the poverty level which is why subsidized housing often has to be provided to them - a stupid policy IMO.

[MrJonno]

Not referring to pensions I'm talking about the £/$ 10000's per year it takes to look after someone in a old age pensioner's home. Many in the UK are expecting the state to pay for this while still retaining their house so they could give it to their children. No pension is every going to cover this private or public

I'm less bothered about spending this on people who don't have any means but its entirely different matter if they have a 1/2 million in assets but think they have a divine right to leave it to the kids

[Jason]

Do you mean they cannot afford to maintain their assets with their pension alone and somehow the government covers the expense or that pensioners who have significant assets should not be entitled to their pension or what?

[Cormac]

For example, that 500k might very well be worth LESS than the 25k for which they bought it.

Secondly, most people pay for their house with earned, ALREADY TAXED, money. Why should they then be taxed on that again?

Because society should be based on need not crap like deserving, the old expect large amounts of tax payers money while possessing large amounts of capital. That is completely unacceptable. It should be the norm to sell your house to pay for your retirement (even if it only taken of you when you die). The leaving money to your children is a vile meme that needs to be crushed, a person responsibility is to pay for themselves before paying for adult children

Riiiight. Because I should be as concerned for others as much as I should my own children.

Also. Fuck that. I work hard. I am happy to pay tax once on earned money, but not again and again and again.

If I save, and pay my taxes, ad some other guy blows all his earnings and pays his taxes, why should he get more than me from the state in old age?

Apart from that, in your ideal state, Boone would bother their arse working at all.