Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[Coito ergo sum]

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

In much of Yerup, retirees are starting their retirement in their 50s, and the life span is in the neighborhood of 80 on average and going up. What is your definition of elderly?

If we hand over free money to the young and able, then they never do the "paying" -- who does the "paying?" Not the infirm or the retired, right? They have no income. Now you say not the young. So, do we have enough people from age 25 to 50 to support everyone from 0-25 and 50 to 105?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Wow that sounds great, and it's a lot like the plans the Republicans have been talking about for the last 20 years. It's always balked at by Democrats who call it "gutting" social security.

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.

Same in the States.

[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

In much of Yerup, retirees are starting their retirement in their 50s, and the life span is in the neighborhood of 80 on average and going up. What is your definition of elderly?

If we hand over free money to the young and able, then they never do the "paying" -- who does the "paying?" Not the infirm or the retired, right? They have no income. Now you say not the young. So, do we have enough people from age 25 to 50 to support everyone from 0-25 and 50 to 105?

This generation maybe, the next and the one after its going be retirement at 70 + just to survive, and as obesity levels are reaching US levels maybe retirement won't be a problem anyway

[Coito ergo sum]

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

In much of Yerup, retirees are starting their retirement in their 50s, and the life span is in the neighborhood of 80 on average and going up. What is your definition of elderly?

If we hand over free money to the young and able, then they never do the "paying" -- who does the "paying?" Not the infirm or the retired, right? They have no income. Now you say not the young. So, do we have enough people from age 25 to 50 to support everyone from 0-25 and 50 to 105?

This generation maybe, the next and the one after its going be retirement at 70 + just to survive, and as obesity levels are reaching US levels maybe retirement won't be a problem anyway

That sounds exactly like what Mr. Jonno would like! keep the retirees working, because they ought not be on the dole, right? They've "had their life". if those from 50 to 75 are working and paying their own way, then (a) we won't have to pay them state funds, and (b) we can take their money and give it to the young and able-bodied, who in Mr. Jonno's mind are the ones who ought to be getting freebies.

[Cormac]

No tax is ever going to be popular with everyone (or even anyone) but when you money pouring out of the younger poor to pay for the wealthy but sickly old something has to give and no the young can't save more they are too busy paying stupidly inflated house prices (average 1st buyer 35/40 now in the England/Scotland), for their 1.8 kids not to mention the elderly.

Ideally the elderly will die without pain with their last penny spent on a good bottle of wine making way for the next generation (and not expecting me to subsidise them to leave what is basically tax payers money to their children)

What is the point in the young buying a house if the state will just confiscate it. Better not to, to blow all your cash, and get on the housing list, and let the state (I.e. Sucker taxpayers) provide your accommodation.

I look forward to you offing yourself on the day you retire at some stage between 65 and 68. After all, at that point you'll have come to the end of about 45 years of paying taxes, and you are no longer any use to the state.

Perhaps, to be extra efficient, you could throw yourself into a bioenergy vat, so the state could at least harvest a little heat or electricity from your worthless corpse.

Your Loganesque state is a vile dystopia.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cormac, but there is always Carousel!

[Jason]

There is no Sanctuary.

[Cormac]

The young are paying for the old pensions and medical care (even in the US). The elderly certainly haven't covered their own costs and that's while trying to survive on low wages in insecure jobs while paying a fortune to pay the rent/mortgage something the old never had to do

1. That is a remarkable assertion. Have you done the calculations that would ground it? Including the impact of inflation, the time value of money, and the opportunity cost to the state of not having had the benefit of their taxes over 45 years?

2. The elderly performed their end of the bargain with the state. They are entitled to expect the state to do the same.

3. Every generation faces multiple crises. If you think the elderly sailed through a comfortable existence, you are either very young and naive, or you are very ignorant.

[MrJonno]

What is the point in the young buying a house if the state will just confiscate it. Better not to, to blow all your cash, and get on the housing list, and let the state (I.e. Sucker taxpayers) provide your accommodation.

It's a very good question, house ownership is not the norm in most of Europe and rents are sensible (ie a lot less than mortgages unlike in the UK where a mortgage is normally the cheaper option). It almost certainly would be better foir the economy is everyone did blow their cash instead of locking it up in unproductive bricks. The entire economic recession we are in is only partly due to banks, the main cause is people trying to make money out of bricks instead of actually doing something productive like working

[Cormac]

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

Ungrounded assertion.

[Cormac]

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.

What you, rather mendaciously, forget to mention, is that in their day they contributed to the pensions of others, in the expectation that in turn, the same would be done for them.

In my view, this is not a sensible or robust system, but it is unfair and rather churlish of you to recommend reneging on this agreement for people who have upheld their end of the bargain.

[Cormac]

Cormac, but there is always Carousel!

Precisely.

[Cormac]

There is no Sanctuary.

Not in MrJonno's vile little dystopia.

[MrJonno]

The young are paying for the old pensions and medical care (even in the US). The elderly certainly haven't covered their own costs and that's while trying to survive on low wages in insecure jobs while paying a fortune to pay the rent/mortgage something the old never had to do

1. That is a remarkable assertion. Have you done the calculations that would ground it? Including the impact of inflation, the time value of money, and the opportunity cost to the state of not having had the benefit of their taxes over 45 years?

2. The elderly performed their end of the bargain with the state. They are entitled to expect the state to do the same.

3. Every generation faces multiple crises. If you think the elderly sailed through a comfortable existence, you are either very young and naive, or you are very ignorant.

1) You would have had to paid an awful lot of taxes cover what can easily be £100k+ to cover residential care, which simply hasnt happened. It's one thing sharing costs in something you can't plan for like ill health (no one can save enough to cover a heart attack or cancer) its another to expect the state to pay out for what is going to be inevitable ie going into a home

2) the elderly get a pension which I don't have a problem with, I do have an issue with them expecting care that costs magnitudes greater than that

3) People who grew up in the 40's and 50's had it easy, no wars to fight in (no Vietnam here), permanent work, piss cheap education and housing and we are all paying for it now. House prices are still 8-10 times average wages compared to 3 times through most of last century. They are that high because these people are objected to every possible attempt to building more houses as it would reduce the value of their own

[Cormac]

What is the point in the young buying a house if the state will just confiscate it. Better not to, to blow all your cash, and get on the housing list, and let the state (I.e. Sucker taxpayers) provide your accommodation.

It's a very good question, house ownership is not the norm in most of Europe and rents are sensible (ie a lot less than mortgages unlike in the UK where a mortgage is normally the cheaper option). It almost certainly would be better foir the economy is everyone did blow their cash instead of locking it up in unproductive bricks. The entire economic recession we are in is only partly due to banks, the main cause is people trying to make money out of bricks instead of actually doing something productive like working

That is simplistic, populist, wrong, and simply not related to your thesis at all. Because property speculators are not te same cohort at all as your bete noir - the worker who has saved all his life to purchase his home.

And, incidentally, the economic effect of a culture of no saving and immediate spending is rampant inflation.

A renting culture is neither better nor worse than an ownership culture.