I’m beginning to feel like a closet leftie today - advocating taking from those who can afford it.
Can we get back to jack boots and giveaways for the rich - much more familiar territory
2 Likes
It probably has more to do with me moving from one super safe seat to another, guess the parties don’t see the point in wasting funds in those seats.
Keep up the good work up your way bud!
1 Like
Yeah fuck it. Tally Ho.
The Tory Party - The Party of The People (so long as you are working and not old, infirm, ill, out of work, poor etc etc).
A quick google search Suggests UK Life expectancy has risen steadily from 66/72 in 1950 to 72/83 in 2010. There’s not been any kind of significant sudden jump. The picture has been clear all the way through, we keep excellent records in relation to death. What do you mean people weren’t supposed to live til they were 95? If it’s that simple, why hasn’t this been anticipated and managed by our accounting and economics geniuses?
3 Likes
I wonder whether there is an ulterior motive here. Maybe Theresa wants Britain to have its own version of this renowned organization…
That’s the flaw with democratic elections ain’t it. Tax more & spend less is a hard combo to sell, even if you’ve got perfectly rational reason, like we’re gonna have to squirrel away a lot more dollar for when ur all old, cos of Population Growth + Life Expectency.
They prob had fingers crossed for a good plague, world war, or Zombie Apocalypse.
1 Like
What I was referring to was simply not enough was put aside for pension / elderly care when post retirment life expectancies have been rising. Why not enough was put aside is down to successive governments not dealing with the issue because the only answers are to tax more, raise pensionable ages or reduce the benefits, none of which are political palatabe.
As for the 95 comment - I was being a bit flippant
2 Likes
But in reason 1, why should that 90 year old that pops his clogs pay for the other person. If that other person has the means, then surely the onus is more on them to pay rather than the person that hasn’t used it?
Reason 2: Surely it encourages you accumulate more if you know you’re going to have to pay for it? As said, they should start handing money down to their relatives earlier, at times when they need it. Don’t forget a lot of the people that this will affect now are babyboomers, who everyone on here seems to have an issue with as they’ve made money out of nothing on their properties, through sheer luck. So this way they are effectively being taxed on that money for their own care.
1 Like
It was quite clearly a joke. That’s why there is a second, more sensible reason below.
To me, this policy seems like a lefty policy, IE. tax those that can afford it to pay for others.
1 Like
“Blind trusts, shell companies, offshore accounts, putting it in the dog’s name, rezoning an 18-bedroom country manor as an industrial unit, whatever’s most convenient.
They have been talking to Harry
It’s fucking shit policy
5 Likes
Downvoted for lack of substantiation.
If it looks like shit and smells like shit 
1 Like