You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
So you are saying that when the state pension was introduced no one received a state pension for 30 years until they built up their contributions?
Total meldtown by prominent Nats on Twitter, following Joubergate
Feels like that time England were done out of the Euros vs Portugal by that c*** of a ref. Urs Meier I believe.
My German colleagues still refer to the "third" goal in 1966.
True story, my brother knows the guys who set up the security systems for Deutsche Bank at Canary Wharf. They have two floors there, it took them a couple of years to realize the significance of the four digit entry code for each floor:
1966 and 1945
Weren't DB wholly around the corner from Liverpool Street until earlier this year. They're subletting some of the Clifford Chance block but I hadn't realised that they'd been there for so long.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
Disagree as much as you want, you're still wrong.
The State Pension (and the vast bulk of Public Sector Pensions) are Ponzi Schemes and can easily be demonstrated to be such. As Ponzi Schemes they are reliant on new entrants as the source of money for existing beneficiaries and this will eventually snowball until the Scheme collapses.
The State Pension currently costs £6029.40 for every pensioner in the country (and abroad who have obligations built up when resident here).
The average income in the UK is around £25000 meaning that the average worker pays less than £3000 per annum in tax.
Trying to draw a line under this as it has gone on too long, but I note you didn't answer my previous point.
Pensions are not a ponzi scheme either. By law there has to be a balancing fund to ensure that all the money in the pot pays out the current pension entitlement. The pension age is rising to take costs into account. A Ponzi scheme is a deliberate fraud based around a fake enterprise which could never balance its books. But all the people who are arguing with you are doubly blessed. They will never grow old and nor will their children.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Why does the SNP have an obsession with J.K. Rowling, apart from them being obsessed with the rest of the universe not being scottish enough.
Are you as thick as you make out , where did the SNP say anything about Rowling.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Is all the SNP hatred towards J.K. Rowling because Harry Potter isn't scottish?
Any SNP volunteers to answer the question?
Some of the Yessers are veering very close to a quasi-Fascist definition of Scottishness and Scotland. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei: the SNP. All others are traitors.
Of course they are, I was one of the first over here to accuse Salmond of being a scottish Mussolini over their authoritarian policies and style. Thankfully for the people living in scotland they are still part of Britain so Salmond cannot proclaim himself as supreme dictator and rule over them with an iron fist.
Ach, awa an bile yer heid.
Speedy thinks James Kelly MSP should have become leader of SLab. I think that's all you need to know.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYl0otgSvc especially from 4:35 onwards. And if that does not convince you, then Tim Farron's first leader's speech to conference http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-2015-tim-farron
I find myself torn. I really like and rate Cameron (as people on here might have noticed), yet am less favourable towards the party he leads. I also despise Labour in its current form (although I merely disliked it under Miliband), and liked Clegg (although a friend of mine who met him in a professional capacity did not rate him).
I was saying that Farron might be a good leader on here a few years ago, but he's almost invisible in the media at the moment. I want to know where he's positioning the party, what a Farronite (what an ugly word!) Lib Dem party believes in. His conference speech did not really help when I watched it back.
I'm either going to join the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Which would make me a socially left-wing Conservative, or a socially right-wing Lib Dem. Perhaps.
All I know is I want Labour under Corbyn to fail. Which is an utterly negative and poor reason to join a political party, but there you go.
I'm one of the people who rather likes the Conservative Party, but rather dislikes David Cameron.
Really? Why?
Just a small thing, in today's Sunday Times, which absolutely sums up what I dislike about Cameron. The government wants to ban the use of phrases like "man up" at schools because this is "sexist". This government is probably worse than Blair's in it's desire to monitor and police speech.
I agree with you on that. It's my biggest frustration too.
There was an article on policing fresher's weeks at university in the Sunday Times, that Javid is now getting his teeth into, which annoyed me.
I went to Bristol, which was the university cited as a "bad" example because drunkenly going on the pull with a group of your new mates in your first weeks of freedom might encourage lifelong disrespect to women.
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
You are wildly underestimating it. Working tax credits are VERY widespread among the C2 demographic, and according to an IPSOS-MORI post-election poll the Tories tied with Labour on 32% each with that group.
The Tories have HAD to, and will continue to have to, improve their performance with (white) low-paid workers, in order to compensate for Labour's growing share of the intellectual middle-class.
lol. Latest poll: Labour THIRTEEN points behind.
What's your point? The poster was saying that very few people on tax credits would've voted Tory this year. The stats say that's not the case.
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
You are wildly underestimating it. Working tax credits are VERY widespread among the C2 demographic, and according to an IPSOS-MORI post-election poll the Tories tied with Labour on 32% each with that group.
The Tories have HAD to, and will continue to have to, improve their performance with (white) low-paid workers, in order to compensate for Labour's growing share of the intellectual middle-class.
lol. Latest poll: Labour THIRTEEN points behind.
What's your point? The poster was saying that very few people on tax credits would've voted Tory this year. The stats say that's not the case.
They'll have their chance again in 2020. George just has to decide whether he feels lucky.
My view is he'll make some minor changes in the autumn statement and cross his fingers that we don't hit choppy economic waters.
Or that Corbyn (or heir-to-Corbyn) is still LOTO, in which case he could probably toast babies over an immigrant fire in Whitehall.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
Disagree as much as you want, you're still wrong.
The State Pension (and the vast bulk of Public Sector Pensions) are Ponzi Schemes and can easily be demonstrated to be such. As Ponzi Schemes they are reliant on new entrants as the source of money for existing beneficiaries and this will eventually snowball until the Scheme collapses.
The State Pension currently costs £6029.40 for every pensioner in the country (and abroad who have obligations built up when resident here).
The average income in the UK is around £25000 meaning that the average worker pays less than £3000 per annum in tax.
Trying to draw a line under this as it has gone on too long, but I note you didn't answer my previous point.
Pensions are not a ponzi scheme either. By law there has to be a balancing fund to ensure that all the money in the pot pays out the current pension entitlement. The pension age is rising to take costs into account. A Ponzi scheme is a deliberate fraud based around a fake enterprise which could never balance its books. But all the people who are arguing with you are doubly blessed. They will never grow old and nor will their children.
Pensions are almost the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme if you substitute the sponsor with Government. It's the fraudulent continuation of an economic bubble that successive governments perpetuate with the old age benefits system. You can't stop the scheme and cash out. It relies on fresh meat every day - and that we are all semi-willing victims of Greater Fool Theory.
I can't sue them for breach of contract, the price for changing the state pension rules is political, same for any other benefit.
None of that alters the sales pitch, nor the spirit of agreement.
You promise someone a pension in return for their investment/contribution - you better pay up.
No hiding behind procedure, legal-ese.
What promise? Where is it written down that I'm guaranteed a pension? Show me the promise. Not in any manifesto ... Labour went to court to prove that their manifesto promises weren't binding.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Is all the SNP hatred towards J.K. Rowling because Harry Potter isn't scottish?
Any SNP volunteers to answer the question?
Some of the Yessers are veering very close to a quasi-Fascist definition of Scottishness and Scotland. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei: the SNP. All others are traitors.
I was thinking much the same a couple of days ago.
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
You are wildly underestimating it. Working tax credits are VERY widespread among the C2 demographic, and according to an IPSOS-MORI post-election poll the Tories tied with Labour on 32% each with that group.
The Tories have HAD to, and will continue to have to, improve their performance with (white) low-paid workers, in order to compensate for Labour's growing share of the intellectual middle-class.
No - you didn't follow my calculations carefully enough did you?
Con got 38% of people who voted. Con got 25% of the population.
If Con got 32% of C2s who voted, that implies they got 20% of C2s in the population.
I said 20% absolute maximum, probably nearer 15%.
15% may well be correct, as I maintain high benefit claimants will be less likely to vote Con - ie Single person C2 no kids no benefits more likely to vote Con than Single person C2 with kids on huge benefits.
But whether that is right or wrong, the highest the figure could be is 20% - exactly as per my post!
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
Disagree as much as you want, you're still wrong.
The State Pension (and the vast bulk of Public Sector Pensions) are Ponzi Schemes and can easily be demonstrated to be such. As Ponzi Schemes they are reliant on new entrants as the source of money for existing beneficiaries and this will eventually snowball until the Scheme collapses.
The State Pension currently costs £6029.40 for every pensioner in the country (and abroad who have obligations built up when resident here).
The average income in the UK is around £25000 meaning that the average worker pays less than £3000 per annum in tax.
Trying to draw a line under this as it has gone on too long, but I note you didn't answer my previous point.
Pensions are not a ponzi scheme either. By law there has to be a balancing fund to ensure that all the money in the pot pays out the current pension entitlement. The pension age is rising to take costs into account. A Ponzi scheme is a deliberate fraud based around a fake enterprise which could never balance its books. But all the people who are arguing with you are doubly blessed. They will never grow old and nor will their children.
Pensions are almost the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme if you substitute the sponsor with Government. It's the fraudulent continuation of an economic bubble that successive governments perpetuate with the old age benefits system. You can't stop the scheme and cash out. It relies on fresh meat every day - and that we are all semi-willing victims of Greater Fool Theory.
Isn't that poll simply a test of imagination? I am sure if I thought for long enough I could come up with some circumstances under which I would support a military coup. I could probably come up with some scenarios where I would support violent overthrow of the state by the masses too. Neither is going to happen.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-Age_Pensions_Act_1908
A Ponzi scheme is a deliberate fraud based around a fake enterprise which could never balance its books.
But all the people who are arguing with you are doubly blessed. They will never grow old and nor will their children.
There was an article on policing fresher's weeks at university in the Sunday Times, that Javid is now getting his teeth into, which annoyed me.
I went to Bristol, which was the university cited as a "bad" example because drunkenly going on the pull with a group of your new mates in your first weeks of freedom might encourage lifelong disrespect to women.
Absolutely ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/655852129245077505
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/655851243714187264
My view is he'll make some minor changes in the autumn statement and cross his fingers that we don't hit choppy economic waters.
Or that Corbyn (or heir-to-Corbyn) is still LOTO, in which case he could probably toast babies over an immigrant fire in Whitehall.
You promise someone a pension in return for their investment/contribution - you better pay up.
No hiding behind procedure, legal-ese.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/655855033196544000
Not in any manifesto ... Labour went to court to prove that their manifesto promises weren't binding.
NEW THREAD
Con got 38% of people who voted.
Con got 25% of the population.
If Con got 32% of C2s who voted, that implies they got 20% of C2s in the population.
I said 20% absolute maximum, probably nearer 15%.
15% may well be correct, as I maintain high benefit claimants will be less likely to vote Con - ie Single person C2 no kids no benefits more likely to vote Con than Single person C2 with kids on huge benefits.
But whether that is right or wrong, the highest the figure could be is 20% - exactly as per my post!
Whereas the calculation re 71 MPs assumed 100%!