Latest snowflake outrage

we paid into it and are now getting it back.
No you are not. The government pension scheme is as bankrupt as the very best of Robert Maxwell's Mirror Group and the bloke Green, there is no money 'in the pot' the money you put in over 47 years has gone, spent on the pensioners who were around at the time. If your kids don't cough up their NI you will get nothing and because there are a lot more collecting pensions now and collecting for many many more years a lot more money is needed. When the old age pension was introduced the average age of death for men was 66, so they were getting a pension for 12 months, now it's 85 so even at the starting age of 67 that's 18 years. To fund a state pension at today's rate you would need ~£180,000 on the open market, so for your 47 years that would be £3,800 pa, meaning if all NI went on state pensions the average man would have to be earning over £40,000 a year to have put the contribution away in 47 years and you can have a state pension after 35 years so actually it's more like £45,000.
 
Last edited:
FB6A8BAC-28A0-4D80-B577-E3CD789DC352.jpeg
She doesn’t like the lion flashing it’s bits and wishes it would put it’s wang away
It’s wang away
It’s wang away
It’s wang away...

...Nimbus has left the building...
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
47 years ago I started paying NI.
I know it was not a ring fenced sum and the problem is we are all living longer but essentially we paid into it and are now getting it back.
So no the pension is not free, though I can understand that claiming it is could well be the start of removing it under a Labour gvmt.
It was nothing unusual for men to pay in for fifty years not so long ago but, then again, that's not the sort of thing young people like to think about because it takes away some of the fun of their moaning.
 
[snip]When the old age pension was introduced the average age of death for men was 66, so they were getting a pension for 12 months, now it's 85 so even at the starting age of 67 that's 18 years.
No it isn't, it's 79.2
Nor was the pension paid to 65 year old men when introduced in 1908; it was 70.
The 65 year age came into use in 1925 when the average lifespan for a man was 61.
Interestingly, it rose to 62 by 1938, then fell to 58 during 1940/41, then rose rapidly throughout the war & passed 65 in 1948.
Importing population from elsewhere isn't just kicking the can down the road; it's making the problem even greater for the future.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
View attachment 378462 She doesn’t like the lion flashing it’s bits and wishes it would put it’s wang away
It’s wang away
It’s wang away
It’s wang away...

...Nimbus has left the building...
What world does she live in where animals don't have willies? Does she also go about the neighbourhood cutting the tackle off of dogs, mastic animals' rectums, and use Polyfilla to fill in the lady orifices of the females.

What harm does she think a crude moulded plastic impression of genitalia is going to? I imagine her offspring is going to grow into a sociopath; not due to such toys, but simply because of her shite parenting skills.
 
No it isn't, it's 79.2
Nor was the pension paid to 65 year old men when introduced in 1908; it was 70.
The 65 year age came into use in 1925 when the average lifespan for a man was 61.
Interestingly, it rose to 62 by 1938, then fell to 58 during 1940/41, then rose rapidly throughout the war & passed 65 in 1948.
Importing population from elsewhere isn't just kicking the can down the road; it's making the problem even greater for the future.
79.2 is based on life expectancy at birth and thus allows for those who die very young. If you survive to anything like adulthood to be in a position to pay some NI it's 85.
Sorry I was being imprecise and referring to the introduction of the pension in 1948. However you rather improve on my argument, until 1948 the state pension was only paid to those who survived well beyond average life span, thus significantly fewer people.
You are entirely correct importing population is kicking the can down the road, but as I've noted earlier [post 4117] it's what we will do because in a democracy no one will vote for the alternative.
 
Simply put, then, you were making stuff up?

You'll understand if I show no confidence in your predictions.
I'm not making up the fact we've had effectively industry destroying outbreaks twice in my lifetime, once with the isolation policy in place are you claiming it will never happen again.
 
I'm not making up the fact we've had effectively industry destroying outbreaks twice in my lifetime, once with the isolation policy in place are you claiming it will never happen again.
Please stop trying to deflect away from your previous incorrect statements.

. . . and, if we're going to play FMD Top Trumps, I'm old enough to have been directly affected by 3 UK outbreaks, none of which 'effectively destroyed the industry'. For the UK, the policy of culling affected animals is the only effective control measure. In '67, my grandfather lost his then herd through that outbreak. 5 miles away and my father's small herd remained unaffected, though unable to moved without examination and under strict controls.

Will it happen again? Of course it will - and the same control measures will be put in place, many animals will be culled.

And the industry will recover.
 
No it's not that they are pumping out salt water: it's that the effect of pumping is to cause increasing levels of salt in the topsoil. It's like what the Romans did to Carthage.
The salt is in the water table. It doesn't materialise out of nowhere. It is left behind when the water evaporates.
 
The salt is in the water table. It doesn't materialise out of nowhere. It is left behind when the water evaporates.
So what you're saying is that the salt is dissolved in the water while it is underground, but pump the water up to the surface and the water evaporates leaving the salt content lying on the topsoil.

Which is the same basic principle as an industrial salt pan, except they use sea water and scrape up the salt from the pan and sell it.
 
No you are not. The government pension scheme is as bankrupt as the very best of Robert Maxwell's Mirror Group and the bloke Green, there is no money 'in the pot' the money you put in over 47 years has gone, spent on the pensioners who were around at the time. If your kids don't cough up their NI you will get nothing and because there are a lot more collecting pensions now and collecting for many many more years a lot more money is needed. When the old age pension was introduced the average age of death for men was 66, so they were getting a pension for 12 months, now it's 85 so even at the starting age of 67 that's 18 years. To fund a state pension at today's rate you would need ~£180,000 on the open market, so for your 47 years that would be £3,800 pa, meaning if all NI went on state pensions the average man would have to be earning over £40,000 a year to have put the contribution away in 47 years and you can have a state pension after 35 years so actually it's more like £45,000.
It's all right, I already know how to suck eggs.
 
You didn't say where it came from actually, and it has to either be in the water at low concentrations or come from nowhere.
We're at risk of a thread drift to a thread drift here. I was merely pointing out to beardyprof that Australia wasn't a good example for the case that he was making about immigration.

The reason being that extensive farming (by Australian standards) has caused the problem with soil salinity, to the point where Australia may have exceeded its carrying capacity. See the link I posted a few posts back.
 

Latest Threads

Top