Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UK health tourism
#11
(10-27-2017, 10:16 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(10-27-2017, 08:18 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: If, as you insist, it is not ageist then it is certainly a sweeping generalisation.

It doesn't matter whether it's a sweeping generalisation or not. As NI is progressive those not included in my sweeping generalisation can rest easy.

If your taking that rational then surely you would have to include the freeriders on the dole who dont want to work and those who scam benefits who pay the square root of fugg all but expect everything ,why should a pensioner who has paid into the system for probaly 50 yrs have to keep paying so the  aforementioned freeloaders can get it free,where do you draw the line ,means test every fugger?
Reply
#12
(10-27-2017, 10:16 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(10-27-2017, 08:18 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: If, as you insist, it is not ageist then it is certainly a sweeping generalisation.

It doesn't matter whether it's a sweeping generalisation or not. As NI is progressive those not included in my sweeping generalisation can rest easy.

NI is a tax on employment and is made up of 2 parts Employers and Employees NI. If you are suggesting that pensioners who remain in employment should continue to pay NI  then I agree otherwise what you are suggesting is a discriminative tax (which does not have the E'ers element) on the income of the elderly which does not apply to other forms of non-employment income such as dividend income or even benefits. So factually and logically your suggestion is both discriminatory and ageist.

And NI is only progressive until it reaches the upper earnings limit when you only pay 2% on the rest instead of 12%.

FWIW NI should no longer exist and should be integrated into normal taxation, this would remove any discriminatory element and tax codes could be used to ensure that taxation was genuinely progressive and applied to all ages consistently. 

There was a working party which looked into doing this a few years back, alas the poor dears thought it was too difficult because of the Employers element of NI and because of the qualifying element of E'Ees NI for a full pension
Reply
#13
(10-27-2017, 11:09 PM)Tetley74 Wrote: why should a pensioner who has paid into the system for probaly 50 yrs have to keep paying so

Because he's "paid in" to nothing. He's paid for current spending, there's not a little pot of cash with his name on it.

(10-28-2017, 06:55 AM)Strawman Wrote: So factually and logically your suggestion is both discriminatory and ageist.

I don't agree. I find it odd that you think it's "discriminatory". Many taxes are.
Reply
#14
(10-28-2017, 02:23 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(10-27-2017, 11:09 PM)Tetley74 Wrote: why should a pensioner who has paid into the system for probaly 50 yrs have to keep paying so

Because he's "paid in" to nothing. He's paid for current spending, there's not a little pot of cash with his name on it.

(10-28-2017, 06:55 AM)Strawman Wrote: So factually and logically your suggestion is both discriminatory and ageist.

I don't agree. I find it odd that you think it's "discriminatory". Many taxes are.

There may not be a little pot with this name on it but there must be a little bowl, no?
Reply
#15
Yes. There's a note in the bottom saying "There's really nothing in here Tetley"
Reply
#16
(10-27-2017, 11:09 PM)Tetley74 Wrote:
(10-27-2017, 10:16 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(10-27-2017, 08:18 PM)John Osbourne Wrote: If, as you insist, it is not ageist then it is certainly a sweeping generalisation.

It doesn't matter whether it's a sweeping generalisation or not. As NI is progressive those not included in my sweeping generalisation can rest easy.

If your taking that rational then surely you would have to include the freeriders on the dole who dont want to work and those who scam benefits who pay the square root of fugg all but expect everything ,why should a pensioner who has paid into the system for probaly 50 yrs have to keep paying so the  aforementioned freeloaders can get it free,where do you draw the line ,means test every fugger?

It is preparation for the forthcoming budget, the enemy is now age coincidently as the they probably prepare to
announce that they want to engage with younger people again, i.e. throw some money their way as part of that
"engagement" 

I am no lover of Corbyn, but by god he has May and her cabinet worried and thrashing about for new ideas.
Reply
#17
(10-30-2017, 09:46 AM)Beano16 Wrote: I am no lover of Corbyn, but by god he has May and her cabinet worried and thrashing about for new ideas.

I don't think they're new ideas. They're all old failed ones which generally make things worse.
Reply
#18
Politicians are so removed from the real world they tinker and meddle with laws that drastically affect everyday peoples lives and have no idea the misery they cause. They are a collective bunch of power seeking corrupt arseholes, Labour, Tory and the rest of the malignant crew.
We have a theoretically superior democratic process, but all we do is handover power to the same set of twats every 5 years. Its jobs for the boys and it will always be this way. The latest vile exposures of insufferable behaviour just emphasise the sad state our legislature is in. Where is fucking Guy Fawkes when you need him?
Reply
#19
Guy Fawkes was trying to restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. I'm not sure that's what we need right now.
Reply
#20
Our Country is bursting at the seams with jobs worthy arseholes, who have forgotten the real purpose of education and health.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)