Dementia Tax

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 12 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jun 17 4.23pm
Originally posted by grumpymort The decline in rates over there is because they are coming over here and having the kids. You just need to go around different schools and you will see it is almost like spot the british kid. population over the whole world is too large need limits on children. Actually, world birth rate is already reducing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jun 17 4.23pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by grumpymort

The decline in rates over there is because they are coming over here and having the kids.

You just need to go around different schools and you will see it is almost like spot the british kid.

population over the whole world is too large need limits on children.

Actually, world birth rate is already reducing.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 4.41pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't accept your logic. People who live longer only cost money if they become ill for a long period. In fact they might cost less per head than someone who lives to 65 and is in ill health through smoking and drinking. People already pay inheritance tax which is unfair in my view and probably more VAT. Now you want them to pay more for being sensible? This sounds like a justification for abusing yourself to me. Except that as people get older, they will require increasingly more medical care, and assistance and eventually are very likely to end up in long term care. Some people who smoke and drink, won't end up with illnesses relating to smoking and drinking, but still pay tax because across a population the reality is that statistically they will. Same applies to people getting old, statistically they become increasingly expensive. But again its about the outliers here, those who actively pursue the 'holy grail' of living as long as possible. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 4.41pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't accept your logic. People who live longer only cost money if they become ill for a long period. In fact they might cost less per head than someone who lives to 65 and is in ill health through smoking and drinking.
People already pay inheritance tax which is unfair in my view and probably more VAT. Now you want them to pay more for being sensible?

This sounds like a justification for abusing yourself to me.

Except that as people get older, they will require increasingly more medical care, and assistance and eventually are very likely to end up in long term care.

Some people who smoke and drink, won't end up with illnesses relating to smoking and drinking, but still pay tax because across a population the reality is that statistically they will.

Same applies to people getting old, statistically they become increasingly expensive. But again its about the outliers here, those who actively pursue the 'holy grail' of living as long as possible.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 4.45pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger You are wrong plain and simple. Once the birth rate falls to a critical level, the population will fall in a number of years even if the population numbers are still increasing. However, what tends to happen when that occurs, is that immigration is used to source workers and keep wages lower. One of the issues that the EU migrant problem helps with is that you get a lot of people paying more in tax and NI, than they'll take out of the system. Not that I want this. Just its the primary perk of EU migrant workers, most spend 2-5 years in the UK only. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 4.45pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You are wrong plain and simple. Once the birth rate falls to a critical level, the population will fall in a number of years even if the population numbers are still increasing.

However, what tends to happen when that occurs, is that immigration is used to source workers and keep wages lower.

One of the issues that the EU migrant problem helps with is that you get a lot of people paying more in tax and NI, than they'll take out of the system.

Not that I want this. Just its the primary perk of EU migrant workers, most spend 2-5 years in the UK only.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 4.46pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I think you have been reading too many Dan Brown Novels. Send him back... "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 4.46pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I think you have been reading too many Dan Brown Novels.

Send him back...

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 4.48pm
Originally posted by pefwin I think he is talking about "limits to Growth" to stop something similar to a Malthusian catastrophe. I believe some right wingers believe in the forced injection of chlamydia, or gonorrhoea to enforce sterilisation in certain sections of to quote "those being born of foreign origin". Edited by pefwin (13 Jun 2017 2.13pm) I'm hard line, I think we need to randomly sterilise around 80% of the worlds population ideally without them being aware of it. No chosen groups etc and within a couple of generations the worlds population will be at a sustainable level. And the only down side is not being able to have children. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 4.48pm

Originally posted by pefwin

I think he is talking about "limits to Growth" to stop something similar to a Malthusian catastrophe. I believe some right wingers believe in the forced injection of chlamydia, or gonorrhoea to enforce sterilisation in certain sections of to quote "those being born of foreign origin".

Edited by pefwin (13 Jun 2017 2.13pm)

I'm hard line, I think we need to randomly sterilise around 80% of the worlds population ideally without them being aware of it. No chosen groups etc and within a couple of generations the worlds population will be at a sustainable level.

And the only down side is not being able to have children.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jun 17 4.51pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Except that as people get older, they will require increasingly more medical care, and assistance and eventually are very likely to end up in long term care. Some people who smoke and drink, won't end up with illnesses relating to smoking and drinking, but still pay tax because across a population the reality is that statistically they will. Same applies to people getting old, statistically they become increasingly expensive. But again its about the outliers here, those who actively pursue the 'holy grail' of living as long as possible. Is your assertion backed up by statistics? Do older people needing increasing care really cost more than the endless fat wheezy middle aged types you see cramming into doctors surgeries? Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (13 Jun 2017 4.55pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jun 17 4.51pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Except that as people get older, they will require increasingly more medical care, and assistance and eventually are very likely to end up in long term care.

Some people who smoke and drink, won't end up with illnesses relating to smoking and drinking, but still pay tax because across a population the reality is that statistically they will.

Same applies to people getting old, statistically they become increasingly expensive. But again its about the outliers here, those who actively pursue the 'holy grail' of living as long as possible.

Is your assertion backed up by statistics?

Do older people needing increasing care really cost more than the endless fat wheezy middle aged types you see cramming into doctors surgeries?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (13 Jun 2017 4.55pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 13 Jun 17 4.53pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I'm hard line, I think we need to randomly sterilise around 80% of the worlds population ideally without them being aware of it. No chosen groups etc and within a couple of generations the worlds population will be at a sustainable level. And the only down side is not being able to have children. You've watched Helix havent you! The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 13 Jun 17 4.53pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

And the only down side is not being able to have children.

You've watched Helix havent you!

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jun 17 4.59pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I'm hard line, I think we need to randomly sterilise around 80% of the worlds population ideally without them being aware of it. No chosen groups etc and within a couple of generations the worlds population will be at a sustainable level. And the only down side is not being able to have children. World birthrate is declining but it won't save us from a population approaching 20 billion before it falls. You are correct that we are f***ed without some effort being made to reduce birthrate further. We could let the starving and weak die but who would sanction that policy? We are also helping the third world to develop. That is self defeating in itself.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jun 17 4.59pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

And the only down side is not being able to have children.

World birthrate is declining but it won't save us from a population approaching 20 billion before it falls. You are correct that we are f***ed without some effort being made to reduce birthrate further.
We could let the starving and weak die but who would sanction that policy? We are also helping the third world to develop. That is self defeating in itself.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 17 5.00pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Is your assertion backed up by statistics? Do older people needing increasing care really cost more than the endless fat wheezy middle aged types you see cramming into doctors surgeries? Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (13 Jun 2017 4.55pm) God man. Look them up yourself.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 Jun 17 5.00pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Is your assertion backed up by statistics?

Do older people needing increasing care really cost more than the endless fat wheezy middle aged types you see cramming into doctors surgeries?

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (13 Jun 2017 4.55pm)

God man. Look them up yourself.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 5.01pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Is you assertion backed up by statistics? Do older people needing increasing care really cost more than the endless fat wheezy middle aged types you see cramming into doctors surgeries? Yep. How much do you think care homes cost compared to an inhaler and shots of insulin? Every person I've known, as they get old, requires more and more health care intervention. And those who lead an exceptionally healthy life, will tend to get the long term degenerative decent into death. The importance here is how groups deviate from the normal. The average person costs less than a smoker and a drinker, but they also cost less than people who are very health conscious. However, only the smoking drinking fat guy is likely to pay any tax for their lifestyle choices. The average person doesn't really take much care of themselves. Its those who deliberate engage in activities that statistically increase your life expectancy that are getting a free ride. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 5.01pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Is you assertion backed up by statistics?

Do older people needing increasing care really cost more than the endless fat wheezy middle aged types you see cramming into doctors surgeries?

Yep. How much do you think care homes cost compared to an inhaler and shots of insulin? Every person I've known, as they get old, requires more and more health care intervention.

And those who lead an exceptionally healthy life, will tend to get the long term degenerative decent into death.

The importance here is how groups deviate from the normal. The average person costs less than a smoker and a drinker, but they also cost less than people who are very health conscious.

However, only the smoking drinking fat guy is likely to pay any tax for their lifestyle choices.

The average person doesn't really take much care of themselves. Its those who deliberate engage in activities that statistically increase your life expectancy that are getting a free ride.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post