Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Is it time to kill off the oldies

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by scott777 View Post
    Did you mean to say - the only down side.
    I will answer on his behalf. Yes, the only down sides are emotive and illogical. The idea in principal is faltless
    Keep Britain British, whoops, it's to late

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by scott777 View Post
    Most immigrants that need deporting should never have been allowed to come in the first place. That would be much cheaper.

    Yes, governments waste money. You're not actually saying anything of any value.

    No, austerity is not a big part of housekeeping. Efficiency and less corruption is (or should be).

    No, we can't just keep spending. Again, what's your point?

    I've pointed out that lot of money is wasted. If the waste were reduced, why would we pay more tax?
    Agree on some of that. Yes, the illegal immigrants shouldn't be here, but when they overstay their visas, they are here all the same. How would you stop that?

    You say that austerity isn't necessary, but efficiency is. Sorry, but austerity and efficiency are pretty much the same thing. You also tell me that we shouldn't waste money and therefore increased tax isn't required. Again, that's austerity. In fact, we agree on more than you think, I just don't think you understand what austerity is. If the government reduces waste, it can reduce costs without reducing outlay. Of course, in some ways services may have been hit, but until they stop wasting money on unnecessary benefits and foreign aid, things are unlikely to get better. In the meantime they need to look at reducing the population, especially those who cost the tax payer the most, and they are old people. It's not a problem that can be sorted quickly, but I would like to think that within a generation or two there will be nobody left over 70/73 years old.

    If we stay as we are we will need 6 people under 70 to support those over 70, and that will increase the population to something like China eventually. You may find my idea a little distasteful, but there are few, if any other solutions
    Keep Britain British, whoops, it's to late

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 73 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Know it View Post
    Agree on some of that. Yes, the illegal immigrants shouldn't be here, but when they overstay their visas, they are here all the same. How would you stop that?
    Depends which visas. Do you have any figures at all on illegal immigrants and how many began with visas?
    Quote Originally Posted by Know it View Post
    You say that austerity isn't necessary, but efficiency is. Sorry, but austerity and efficiency are pretty much the same thing. You also tell me that we shouldn't waste money and therefore increased tax isn't required. Again, that's austerity. In fact, we agree on more than you think, I just don't think you understand what austerity is. If the government reduces waste, it can reduce costs without reducing outlay. Of course, in some ways services may have been hit, but until they stop wasting money on unnecessary benefits and foreign aid, things are unlikely to get better. In the meantime they need to look at reducing the population, especially those who cost the tax payer the most, and they are old people. It's not a problem that can be sorted quickly, but I would like to think that within a generation or two there will be nobody left over 70/73 years old.
    I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand the meaning of austerity. One definition is: to create difficult economic conditions to reduce public spending. Neither efficiency nor reducing waste requires creating difficult economic conditions.

    Austerity is basically making cuts, even when damage may be done to the service that is provided. Efficiency is reducing the expense without causing damage to the service. They are very different.

    If you ignore the waste and inefficiency, then no amount of population control will work. The more the government is allowed to waste, the more they will do so (as in the phrase, if you give someone an inch, they will take a mile).
    those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily.

    Machiavelli, The Prince

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by scott777 View Post
    Depends which visas. Do you have any figures at all on illegal immigrants and how many began with visas?

    I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand the meaning of austerity. One definition is: to create difficult economic conditions to reduce public spending. Neither efficiency nor reducing waste requires creating difficult economic conditions.

    Austerity is basically making cuts, even when damage may be done to the service that is provided. Efficiency is reducing the expense without causing damage to the service. They are very different.

    If you ignore the waste and inefficiency, then no amount of population control will work. The more the government is allowed to waste, the more they will do so (as in the phrase, if you give someone an inch, they will take a mile).
    This thread isn't about austerity, it's about controlling and balancing an overpopulated country. However, if you think that uncontrolled spending is the way out of this problem, please go ahead and start your own political party, but don't expect a lot of votes LOL
    Keep Britain British, whoops, it's to late

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 73 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Know it View Post
    This thread isn't about austerity, it's about controlling and balancing an overpopulated country. However, if you think that uncontrolled spending is the way out of this problem, please go ahead and start your own political party
    Obviously I don't agree with uncontrolled spending. As I've said, lots of wasted money could be saved, so I'm advocating more control of money -- no more bailouts, invasions and bombings. Limiting old-age would be completely unnecessary.
    those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily.

    Machiavelli, The Prince

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by scott777 View Post
    Obviously I don't agree with uncontrolled spending. As I've said, lots of wasted money could be saved, so I'm advocating more control of money -- no more bailouts, invasions and bombings. Limiting old-age would be completely unnecessary.
    Honestly, I wish it were that simple. Forget the bombing of Syria, the countries biggest financial waste is on many benefits. Example, motobility, and giving drug addicts additional benefits because it is considered an illness. Really, the list goes on and on. The trouble is that as soon as the government makes any attempt to reduce said benefits there are thousands of snowflakes marching up and down Hyde park. The government don't like bad press, so they keep paying out the dosh. The reality is that we find ourselves in a viscous circle. Society does everything to keep people alive as long as they can, and in turn the financial bill is massive. To pay the bill they need taxes that no one wants to pay, because a drop in standard of living isn't going to get any votes next time around. To keep a decent age balance we either need more children or more immigration. Unfortunately we don't have the infrastructure or money to increase the infrastructure, and despite what some people may think, we don't have the space either. My idea gives people a better quality of life, albeit a bit shorter, and saves the country money. It also frees hospital beds, and in many cases housing. People can plan their finances, and if they wish, even plan their own funeral. The hundreds of thousands of care homes we have could be converted into affordable housing, and local authorities won't have to layout out billions of pounds every year paying for people to sit in them while they wait to die. The entire idea is absolutely faultless, but it's not going to happen because most people can't stand the thought of ending someones life, even though it would be a far better death than the one they are likely to have some years later.
    Keep Britain British, whoops, it's to late

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 73 Times in 61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Know it View Post
    Honestly, I wish it were that simple. Forget the bombing of Syria, the countries biggest financial waste is on many benefits. Example, motobility, and giving drug addicts additional benefits because it is considered an illness. Really, the list goes on and on. The trouble is that as soon as the government makes any attempt to reduce said benefits there are thousands of snowflakes marching up and down Hyde park. The government don't like bad press, so they keep paying out the dosh. The reality is that we find ourselves in a viscous circle. Society does everything to keep people alive as long as they can, and in turn the financial bill is massive. To pay the bill they need taxes that no one wants to pay, because a drop in standard of living isn't going to get any votes next time around. To keep a decent age balance we either need more children or more immigration. Unfortunately we don't have the infrastructure or money to increase the infrastructure, and despite what some people may think, we don't have the space either. My idea gives people a better quality of life, albeit a bit shorter, and saves the country money. It also frees hospital beds, and in many cases housing. People can plan their finances, and if they wish, even plan their own funeral. The hundreds of thousands of care homes we have could be converted into affordable housing, and local authorities won't have to layout out billions of pounds every year paying for people to sit in them while they wait to die. The entire idea is absolutely faultless, but it's not going to happen because most people can't stand the thought of ending someones life, even though it would be a far better death than the one they are likely to have some years later.
    You don't seem to be thinking about what I'm writing. Are you denying that if we stop wasting money on wars and bailouts that we could afford benefits and the NHS? Why is it so complicated? Clearly, as you seem to agree, cutting spending on benefits causes trouble. Society does everything to keep people alive as long as they can because most people don't want to die. So your solution is much more complicated than mine.

    If life-expectancy continued to rise, year after year, then the aging population would run out of control. But there is no evidence that that will happen. In fact, life-expectancy is increasing quite slowly and will soon reach a limit, until more radical discoveries are made. At the moment, this really isn't a big problem, compared to the expenditure on war and bailouts and a million other rich-people-benefitting ideas.
    those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily.

    Machiavelli, The Prince

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by scott777 View Post
    You don't seem to be thinking about what I'm writing. Are you denying that if we stop wasting money on wars and bailouts that we could afford benefits and the NHS? Why is it so complicated? Clearly, as you seem to agree, cutting spending on benefits causes trouble. Society does everything to keep people alive as long as they can because most people don't want to die. So your solution is much more complicated than mine.

    If life-expectancy continued to rise, year after year, then the aging population would run out of control. But there is no evidence that that will happen. In fact, life-expectancy is increasing quite slowly and will soon reach a limit, until more radical discoveries are made. At the moment, this really isn't a big problem, compared to the expenditure on war and bailouts and a million other rich-people-benefitting ideas.
    Right, because MOST people want to stay alive, that doesn't mean it is the right for the population. We are just another animal, and self survival is instinctive, but not certainly isn't beneficial to society as a whole. The longer we live, the more it costs the tax payer. If you think otherwise, you really are living on another planet.

    The cost of bombing a peasant country full of north African Muslims is an insignificant price compared to what it may cost if their oil was in the wrong hands. Personally I don't care what happens in Syria as long as it doesn't cost me money. Believe me, the UK or American government aren't bombing Syria based on moral grounds, as 99% of any military action is based on a future financial saving. It should also be noted that the ISIS threat needs to be halted, unless you believe that all Muslims are very nice chaps, and just want to live side by side in absolute harmony. This is something most liberal snowflakes like to believe.

    We both believe that there are cuts to be made, and that's why I am pro austerity. Our biggest cost by far is the ageing population, and that's why my idea could work
    Keep Britain British, whoops, it's to late

Similar Threads

  1. Labour 'oldies' not coming back
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-08-2013, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •