Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[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.

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

1. Do you know how much a worker would pay in tax over a working life? Do you understand the effect of inflation over time? Do you understand the concept of time value of money?

2. Do you object to a national health service where healthcare is free at the point of need?

3. World War 2. Northern Ireland. Various colonial adventures. The union driven collapse of British Industry. The collapse of British steel and coal due to the rise of developing economies. Strikes, unemployment, and so on. Yep. They had it easy.

[laklak]

Ah, the young. Bunch of lazy blodging wankers, all the time with "I want this" "I want that" "Gimme Gimme", and my personal favorite - "But that's not FAIR!". I'll clue you in, life ain't fair. Like the farmer said, root hog, or die. I rooted and I got mine, so screw 'em. After they spend four decades busting their balls they can have theirs, too.

[Jason]

You would have had to paid an awful lot of taxes cover what can easily be £100k+ to cover residential care

That gives us an average of £663.75.. multiply by 52 for a total of £34,515 per year.

How many pensioners live in residential nursing homes? How much of the expense is covered by the government? Are you talking out of your arse?

edit: er 52.

[MrJonno]

the worker who has saved all his life to purchase his home.

Thats the problem they didnt, my wife gran was a dinner lady her whole life on a low wage but it still more than covered the mortgage on a 3 bedroom house, try doing that on a minimum wage job these days (or a 50k one for that matter)

[Jason]

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?

How about compound interest on what is essentially a savings plan over 45 years?

[Seth]

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,

There it is. Absolute incontrovertible proof that Jonno is a Marxist.

the old expect large amounts of tax payers money while possessing large amounts of capital.

In the UK perhaps, where the Marxist fuckwits have promised them exactly that for their whole lives. How can you blame them for demanding that the Marxist fuckwits of today keep the promises of the Marxist fuckwits of the past. After all, it's "from each according to his ability."

Social Security (here in the US) is not "taxpayer money", or it's not supposed to be. You're supposed to get out what you paid in...in theory the government is just holding it for you. Of course everybody knows this is a bald-faced lie, but that's how it was advertised.

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).

And where, exactly, is one supposed to live in retirement if one has to sell one's house, that one bought primarily so that one will have a place to live that's paid for when one retires? Sheesh.

And also, if one's house is going to be sold out from under one when one retires, why the flying fuck would ANYBODY bother to buy a house in the first place. They would all just demand that the government give them living quarters, which is perfectly in line with the Marxist fuckwits who thought up your system...it is "To each according to his need" after all.

I love how you laud Socialism and Marxism right up until it's YOUR ox that gets gored and YOU are required to produce "according to your (government determined and mandated) ability" in order that old fogies who were in their turn forced to labor on behalf of others get too decrepit to produce anything and become members of the dependent "to each according to his ability" need.

Fucking hypocrite.

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

Look! There's Karl Marx peeping out of your rectum...

[Seth]

Cormac, but there is always Carousel!

OOhhh...Jenny Agutter...so fine!

[Seth]

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.

Other than outright sexual slavery, I'd say impossible.

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.

Utterly incapable. The only thing that can determine who "deserves" what is the forces of the free market.

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.

That's Marxism in a nutshell. A "palpable injustice" forwarded by greedy have-nots who have not because they are too fucking lazy to make it on their own.

[Seth]

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

They fucking PAID FOR those houses, and they were PROMISED a pension by the Marxist fuckwits who set the system up, so they are entitled to their home and their pension. Don't blame them because Marxist fuckwits like you set it up that way.

[Seth]

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

And YOU are how old exactly...?

When may we expect you to slit your belly on your front lawn out of a deep sense of Marxist guilt and shame for taking "according to your need" without producing "according to your ability?"

Why don't you go to fucking Norway and go sit on an ice floe up in Svalberg and at least donate your worthless carcass to the polar bears and save society the cost of burying you?

[Seth]

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

It's theirs, they can leave it to whomever they please. It's most certainly NOT yours, or the State's, so why should you greedy fuckers get a say in who gets it?

[Seth]

There is no Sanctuary.

Heretic!

[Seth]

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.

I have to disagree here. From the social and economic mobility perspective a renting culture is MUCH better than an owning culture because it leaves the workforce MUCH more free to relocate to where the jobs/work are. One of the reasons we have so many people on welfare and food stamps here is because they bought homes they could not afford and refuse to pick up and go somewhere there's work...because they don't want to dig onions...so we let illegal border crossers in to do the jobs that the now-homeless Americans refuse to do because they are too lazy to do them, or move to where there is work.

[Cormac]

the worker who has saved all his life to purchase his home.

Thats the problem they didnt, my wife gran was a dinner lady her whole life on a low wage but it still more than covered the mortgage on a 3 bedroom house, try doing that on a minimum wage job these days (or a 50k one for that matter)

Yes, the jobs environment has changed. Britain no longer has the vestiges of a mercantilist empire to prop up artificially high wages for jobs. (Except for some overpaid statistical anomaly in the City.

Property has become more expensive. There are many factors in this. Planning restrictions, planning regulations, a growing population, materials, higher wages for builders, and so on.

Workers even then had to work many years to pay off a mortgage.

It still changes nothing. Try are entitled to expect the state to uphold its side.

[Cormac]

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?

How about compound interest on what is essentially a savings plan over 45 years?

That too. And on that basis, I wonder if they'd have gained or lost, on balance.