nemo wrote:


"chico" wrote in message
...
nemo wrote:

I'm sixty today so no compulsion to look for work anymore and no
threat of losing benefits

Slacker. Wastoid.

HAPPY slacker and HAPPY wastoid if you don't mind!!

Look! He's making up his own words now á la Red Dwarf!!!

I can't take credit for coining either word. "Slacker" has long been in
the lexicon and is the title of a movie (plural: "Slackers"). So, too,
with "wastoid." The first I remember hearing the latter was in the
movie "The Breakfast Club." There's also a heavy metal group called
Wastoid.

You're too daft, too ignorant, and too mentally feeble from your
malnourishing diet to have bothered looking up either word because that
would take initiative and intellectual curiosity -- traits which you
lack -- and conflict with your slovenly and passivist "resistance" to
things you find objectionable: all of which is why you are a slacker
and a wastoid.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:39:27 -0600, chico wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:21:21 GMT, "nemo" wrote:
[..]
I think my generation will probably be the last to be so lucky.

Nope. The aging population is growing fast, and if they're
looked after properly they'll keep voting the right way.

By "right way" you mean for their own interests in spite of the economic
consequences of them.

Yes. Like all pensioners, when I start receiving my pension
I won't reproach myself for being an economic burden, and
I won't be feeling that it's before time to retire when I do.

Unfortunately, self-interests don't give a ****
about things like actuarial science so the "right way" simply means
"let me tax (rob) this group for my own group's benefit."

I don't see tax as robbery.

Never forget that governments govern by consent of the
governed.

Likewise, never forget that a Ponzi scheme like a pension plan can only
continue to function so long as the number of people joining the bottom
(downstream) of the pyramid remains greater than the number on top
(upstream). When such programs were conceived and instituted, there
were multiple workers for every person receiving benefits; this made
the financial burden on the taxed rather light. Both our nations are at
a point where the upstream and downstream in such programs are nearing
a balance (1:1), and very soon -- within the next decade -- those
numbers will quickly trend to be downstream heavy and *increasingly*
heavier as time goes on barring unrestricted immigration policies,
which doesn't seem to be the most popular solution on either side of
the Atlantic.

Leave it to me to cite the Guardian on this matter...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/population...130742,00.html

That consent of the governed you mentioned can lead to tyranny. And it
IS tyranny when a growing majority imposes excessive taxation -- in
this case, at rates much higher and more confiscatory than the majority
ever paid into the system -- onto a shrinking minority. The result of
excessive taxation is no better than under taxation: those taxed tend
to act in manners that reduce their taxes, whether it's working/earning
less, emigrating, or participating in black markets.

The breaking point won't be pretty, and the solution means much more of
England in 2027 will resemble Eastern Europe and the greater middle
east than the England of old, but it doesn't seem to bother "ethical"
sorts like you anyway so long as you get what you perceive to be yours.
Just how much more do you want your kids and grandkids to be taxed,
Derek, and how well do they speak Urdu and/or Slavic languages?

I want them to be taxed to a degree that is fitting an just, and if that
means more, then so be it.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:28 GMT, "nemo" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:21:21 GMT, "nemo" wrote:
[..]
I think my generation will probably be the last to be so lucky.

Nope. The aging population is growing fast, and if they're
looked after properly they'll keep voting the right way.
Never forget that governments govern by consent of the
governed.

The trouble with ours is: they govern with the consent of a public swayed by
a Tory Party and Tory press vehemently opposed to any rise in taxes, however
commendable the reason. That's why they're even reluctant to raise taxes to
pay fully for the NHS and prefer to blame its structure and the way it's
run. Of course it employs lots of administrators! But it seems as if our
government and the Tories would rather have the doctors and nurses swamped
with so much paperwork that it stops them treating patients!

Don't forget, a basic rate increase of just one penny in the pound for a
multi-millionaire press baron and his cronies is a hell of a lot of money!

I'm glad to here it, for how else will I get to retire so much earlier
and live comfortably?

Derek wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:28 GMT, "nemo" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:21:21 GMT, "nemo"
wrote:
[..]
I think my generation will probably be the last to be so lucky.

Nope. The aging population is growing fast, and if they're
looked after properly they'll keep voting the right way.
Never forget that governments govern by consent of the
governed.

The trouble with ours is: they govern with the consent of a public
swayed by a Tory Party and Tory press vehemently opposed to any rise
in taxes, however commendable the reason. That's why they're even
reluctant to raise taxes to pay fully for the NHS and prefer to blame
its structure and the way it's run. Of course it employs lots of
administrators! But it seems as if our government and the Tories would
rather have the doctors and nurses swamped with so much paperwork that
it stops them treating patients!

Don't forget, a basic rate increase of just one penny in the pound for
a multi-millionaire press baron and his cronies is a hell of a lot of
money!

I'm glad to here it, for how else will I get to retire so much earlier
and live comfortably?

Via discipline in: working, saving, investing, living within (make that
below) your own means, etc. Some people are diligent enough to plan
their futures like that, the rest just elect politicians to take from
the diligent and give it to them. Those are the two classes in our
society: tax payers (earners) and tax gatherers (government and the
masses who elect them *to tax others*). If you don't call it theft or
robbery, what do you call it? It's taken by force or threat of force,
it's taken without consent of its owner, etc. To paraphrase Murray
Rothbard, if taxes are really voluntary -- and therefore not robbery --
then why doesn't government rid the lawbooks of punishments like fines
and prison for those who'd prefer not to pay?

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:28 GMT, "nemo" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:21:21 GMT, "nemo" wrote:
[..]
I think my generation will probably be the last to be so lucky.

Nope. The aging population is growing fast, and if they're
looked after properly they'll keep voting the right way.
Never forget that governments govern by consent of the
governed.

The trouble with ours is: they govern with the consent of a public swayed
by
a Tory Party and Tory press vehemently opposed to any rise in taxes,
however
commendable the reason. That's why they're even reluctant to raise taxes
to
pay fully for the NHS and prefer to blame its structure and the way it's
run. Of course it employs lots of administrators! But it seems as if our
government and the Tories would rather have the doctors and nurses
swamped
with so much paperwork that it stops them treating patients!

Don't forget, a basic rate increase of just one penny in the pound for a
multi-millionaire press baron and his cronies is a hell of a lot of
money!

I'm glad to here it, for how else will I get to retire so much earlier
and live comfortably?

Here it? My keyboatd does that too sonetimes! ;o)

And the lump (ouch!) sum from my Civil Service pension arrived in my bank
account last night dead on time as well.

Surely this cash will reduce your entitlement to pension credit as this is a
means tested benefit?

Nick

"Nicks" wrote in message
...


And the lump (ouch!) sum from my Civil Service pension arrived in my
bank
account last night dead on time as well.

Surely this cash will reduce your entitlement to pension credit as this is
a
means tested benefit?


Only if your total savings are over £6,000, and even then it's on a sliding
scale based on interest earned by the amount that's over the £6000. Mine's
just under - although there is another lump sum in the pipeline - my Widows'
and Orphans' Fund contributions which I get back with interest because I
never married.

A good chunk of the lump sum will have gone by then though. I need some new
clothes and a new stove, fridge-freezer and other boring household items as
well as a new PC and I'll also be spending a fair bit completely
re-organising and redecorating the flat.