You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Dementia Tax
November 23 2024 12.25am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Dementia Tax

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 7 of 12 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

  

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 13 Jun 17 1.38pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

No, I want people who deliberately pursue a lifestyle that statistically leads to a longer life average to pay tax in the same way. Because, they also will cost the NHS more than the average. Same rules apply.

The problem here isn't from people who are dying prematurely. Its from the people who are living too long. Why is it then that people seem to be happy to tax smokers for their cost to the NHS and not say people who engage in sports, for their cost to the NHS.

I think its more that people who obey all the rules, do the right thing all the time, stay in their box and try to live as long as possible, forget that the point of life is to enjoy it. Rather than saving for that rainy day that'll never come, and the five or ten years of life you'll get when you retire.

There seems to be a stream of people in the UK for whom everything is everyone else's fault, and never their own. Its the people who smoke, the people who drink, immigrants, the opposition, the poor, the needy etc.

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 13 Jun 17 1.40pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You seem unaware that the population would have leveled out and dropped without immigration.

Oddly enough that was not even mentioned at the longevity conference I attended last week. Funnily, enough the statement above would exacerbate the issue in the short to medium term; although I can agree that globally the human population is an issue due to primarily lower mortality rates.

What would you do to alleviate the issues with an elderly population, apart from stopping OAPs from immigrating. Will they still be allowed to emigrate to Spain and similar?

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 13 Jun 17 1.43pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Kermit8

Nothing to do with the natives getting older and not enough of them dying before the age of 80 then?

Our population is going to hit 70mill by 2037 going by the birth/death stats even if we stopped all immigration tomorrow.

Edited by Kermit8 (13 Jun 2017 1.24pm)

The whole reason for immigration was a drop in birthrate. It caused a labour shortage and over a period of time would have lead to a drop in population.
The millions that have come here over the last few decades have created a situation where the birth rate has increased again with many of those being born of foreign origin.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 13 Jun 17 1.44pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Quite agree. My only objection is that I don't get to pay taxation on the whoring, and drugging aspect.

Of course the average person, isn't the issue here. I'm talking about the people who's decisions exceed the average persons, and thus contribute to a longer than average life expectancy.

The average person is paying their fair share. I'm talking about the people who are very fit and healthy, and 'enjoy' a longer than average life expectancy.

I'm happy to pay my fair share. I just object to paying theirs.

How very Tory lol

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 13 Jun 17 1.45pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The whole reason for immigration was a drop in birthrate. It caused a labour shortage and over a period of time would have lead to a drop in population.
The millions that have come here over the last few decades have created a situation where the birth rate has increased again with many of those being born of foreign origin.

If they black send 'em back?

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
NKEagle Flag Pyongyang 13 Jun 17 1.45pm Send a Private Message to NKEagle Add NKEagle as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Reminds me of why I'm not a Christian. The reward for being a good Christian is a very Christian afterlife, milk, honey and peaceful tranquillity. What kind of reward is that for a chaste, moderate life. The spiritual reward for not smoking crack, should be an afterlife of crack without consequences. Similarly, if the reward for being chaste and moderate all my life, was whores and excess, Christianity would appeal.

Like the South Park episode where hell is a lot more fun than heaven!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 13 Jun 17 1.46pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Of course the obvious answer to people paying more for the NHS based on how much they use it is to privatise it or simply charge at the point of access - but none of us want that

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 13 Jun 17 1.52pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The whole reason for immigration was a drop in birthrate. It caused a labour shortage and over a period of time would have lead to a drop in population.
The millions that have come here over the last few decades have created a situation where the birth rate has increased again with many of those being born of foreign origin.


That would make sense if only those pesky facts didn't keep undermining your propositions on the constant basis that they do:

1961-1971 Birth rate 962,000 Death Rate 538,000 year average

1971-1981 - 736,000 and 666,000

1981 -1991 757,000 and 655,000

2001 -2011 722,000 588,000


Edited by Kermit8 (13 Jun 2017 1.55pm)

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 13 Jun 17 1.52pm Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

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.

This is technically inaccurate. IHT is levied on estates not individuals.

I've already made my feelings on IHT clear on these boards.

Social care should be just that - social. The risk should be socialised and people pay across their lifetimes according to their means so that it's available to all according to their needs. Like the NHS basically. I agree that there should be certain pre-conditions but paying for it when you need it and only then shouldn't be one.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 13 Jun 17 1.52pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by pefwin

Oddly enough that was not even mentioned at the longevity conference I attended last week. Funnily, enough the statement above would exacerbate the issue in the short to medium term; although I can agree that globally the human population is an issue due to primarily lower mortality rates.

What would you do to alleviate the issues with an elderly population, apart from stopping OAPs from immigrating. Will they still be allowed to emigrate to Spain and similar?


The problem should have been headed off long ago. In the 60's the pill and scare stories about over population effectively reduced our birthrate at a time when we should have been encouraging big families.
Historically, family size was vastly bigger in the 19th century despite a high mortality rate and tapered off throughout the 20th. The warning signs were there for years.
The quick fix was immigration but now we have enough people to sustain the population. Immigration has to be curtailed now or we face problem that will make the old age issue look like a picnic.
Better management and accountability of services has to occur and a realism about what the state can do while keeping taxation below a damaging level.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (13 Jun 2017 1.53pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
NKEagle Flag Pyongyang 13 Jun 17 1.55pm Send a Private Message to NKEagle Add NKEagle as a friend

Originally posted by NKEagle

We obviously need a sliding scale. When you're young and healthy, drinking and smoking discouraged, and other drugs illegal. As you get older , and pose a greater threat to the public coffers, more and more fun stuff becomes legal based on your year of birth. For example, maybe legal weed for everyone over 55. Wait a couple years, halucinagenics are free game too. 60? Cocaine's legal for you. By the time you're 70, you have the whole smorgasbord, opiods and anything you want. Throw in legal prostitution at some point in that age range while they're at it (strictly as patrons, that is). You'll reduce the lifespan, and older folks would go out with smiles on their faces.

Instead of a depressing chore, visiting dad in the nursing home would be like stepping into a brothel in the Wild West!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 13 Jun 17 1.56pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Can i just commend everyone on this thread for keeping the majority of the posts civil the likes of which has not been seen on this board for a few weeks...some good points and debate

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 7 of 12 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Dementia Tax