On 03/02/2012 16:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , charles
wrote:
In , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article4f2c0467.141281750@localhost, Cynic
wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I
mentioned - friends and relatives who do not work step in and help.
The second is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility
that you will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

It already IS compulsory, unless you can tell us how to opt out of NI
payments on income. The reason that it's such a bloody mess is that
there's no incentive to make it work properly as it's far easier just to
sting taxpayers for more. Things are highly unlikely to get worse if the
cold dead hand of the state is taken out of the equation.

The State Pension, for example, is based on no sound economic principle,
just sheer stupidity and money wasting rather than the use of actuarial
principles.

The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them.
Look at what is happening to pensions in the UK now so many employers have
pulled out of providing them without choice to their employees.

Take our former industry, Charles. At one time the majority working in it
were staff and could look forward to a company pension. This is not the
case now, and many industries are the same.


Hmm, something to do the ongoing £5billion a year theft from what were,
previously, viable schemes.

the majority will only have a sate pension plus any savings to live on.
Because they have been given the choice, and chose to have jam now. I'm
glad I won't be around to see it.


That "jam" has already been taken - due to the abolition of ACT - for
political reasons and the "restructuring" of society.



--
Moving things in still pictures

In article ,
®i©ardo wrote:
No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

It already IS compulsory, unless you can tell us how to opt out of NI
payments on income.

Quite. So replacing it with a private scheme will be of no use unless it
is compulsory to have cover. Leave it up to the individual, and too many
will decide against. After all, youngsters live for ever. ;-)

The reason that it's such a bloody mess is that
there's no incentive to make it work properly as it's far easier just to
sting taxpayers for more. Things are highly unlikely to get worse if the
cold dead hand of the state is taken out of the equation.

Wish I had your confidence it would get better. If you look at the US
health insurance, they pay approximately 3 times per head that the NHS
costs us - and although it may work well for the rich, it certainly
doesn't for the poor.

The State Pension, for example, is based on no sound economic principle,
just sheer stupidity and money wasting rather than the use of actuarial
principles.

What do you mean by that?
The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to
them. Look at what is happening to pensions in the UK now so many
employers have pulled out of providing them without choice to their
employees.

Take our former industry, Charles. At one time the majority working in
it were staff and could look forward to a company pension. This is not
the case now, and many industries are the same.


Hmm, something to do the ongoing £5billion a year theft from what were,
previously, viable schemes.

So there will be no 'theft' from private schemes in the way of profits and
charges? You must live in a different world...

the majority will only have a sate pension plus any savings to live on.
Because they have been given the choice, and chose to have jam now. I'm
glad I won't be around to see it.


That "jam" has already been taken - due to the abolition of ACT - for
political reasons and the "restructuring" of society.

ACT?

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/02/2012 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

It already IS compulsory, unless you can tell us how to opt out of NI
payments on income.

Quite. So replacing it with a private scheme will be of no use unless it
is compulsory to have cover. Leave it up to the individual, and too many
will decide against. After all, youngsters live for ever. ;-)

The reason that it's such a bloody mess is that
there's no incentive to make it work properly as it's far easier just to
sting taxpayers for more. Things are highly unlikely to get worse if the
cold dead hand of the state is taken out of the equation.

Wish I had your confidence it would get better. If you look at the US
health insurance, they pay approximately 3 times per head that the NHS
costs us - and although it may work well for the rich, it certainly
doesn't for the poor.

The State Pension, for example, is based on no sound economic principle,
just sheer stupidity and money wasting rather than the use of actuarial
principles.

What do you mean by that?
The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to
them. Look at what is happening to pensions in the UK now so many
employers have pulled out of providing them without choice to their
employees.

Take our former industry, Charles. At one time the majority working in
it were staff and could look forward to a company pension. This is not
the case now, and many industries are the same.


Hmm, something to do the ongoing £5billion a year theft from what were,
previously, viable schemes.

So there will be no 'theft' from private schemes in the way of profits and
charges? You must live in a different world...

Thank you for summing up a typical Socialist viewpoint where "profit" is
synonymous with "theft" in your dictionary. However, without such
profit, and the tax paid on it, there would be no State! This could well
explain the unlimited "success" of the Cuban, East German and Bulgarian
economies, to name but a few.

The UK's financial and professional services generated a trade surplus
for the British economy of £40billion in 2010, whilst the financial
services employ 1.9 million people, of whom more than two-thirds work
outside London. Taxation imposed on the sector was £63billion - which
equates to 12% of all Government tax receipts - this is more than the
budget of the Department for Education.

Without success such as this we could not afford to have a Department of
Education and many other things besides. What is your suggestion - that
we print more money instead?

I find the it interesting, given the initial total opposition of the
medical profession to the proposed NHS, that they can have their views
so comprehensively changed by just by having oodles of public money just
thrown at them, regardless of any efficiency in the process, or the outcome.

the majority will only have a sate pension plus any savings to live on.
Because they have been given the choice, and chose to have jam now. I'm
glad I won't be around to see it.


That "jam" has already been taken - due to the abolition of ACT - for
political reasons and the "restructuring" of society.

ACT?


Advance Corporation Tax.

--
Moving things in still pictures

In article ,
®i©ardo wrote:
Thank you for summing up a typical Socialist viewpoint where "profit" is
synonymous with "theft" in your dictionary.

Just responding to your typical moronic right wing view that all taxation
is theft.

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/02/2012 12:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In articlevoednUmuF6ix7rPSnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
Thank you for summing up a typical Socialist viewpoint where "profit" is
synonymous with "theft" in your dictionary.

Just responding to your typical moronic right wing view that all taxation
is theft.


No, I leave the moronic statements to you, as you obviously have lots of
experience in that respect, e.g:

"And countless insurance companies have gone bust over the years."

First define "countless" and then name five in the last ten years.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:32:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 4f2c0467.141281750@localhost,
Cynic wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second
is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you
will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a profit?

That is indeed what it is *supposed* to do. Unfortunately the NI pot
is too tempting for governments to dip into - as are all other
supposedly special-purpose taxes such as road tax etc.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:56:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

That's how car insurance works, so I don't see why not.

The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them.

In which case if it *does* happen to them, they will have to make
alternative arrangements along the lines I have already mentioned.

There are no doubt a high proportion of people who will decide that
they do not *need* such insurance because they have sufficient family
and friends who could step in as caraer should it become necessary.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:16:30 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

Two things would have saved my employment - a more flexible employer
(working reduced hours for reduced pay, but at least still working or
very flexible hours) ... snip

That's only possible if the employer can reasonably employ a person on
that basis. If your employer needed a person who could be relied upon
to get through a fixed amount of work per week, and/or who was needed
on-site during working hours, it would not have been something your
employer would have been *able* to agree to.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:51:02 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

Can you not see that for a great many employers, paying an extra
salary every month to someone who does not actually do any work can be
just as devastating, and could easily result in bankruptcy for the
employer? That would especially be the case if such a thing became
law, because for every genuine case there would bound to be several
chancers who did not*really* have to stay at home as a carer.

IF such a thing became law? Have you ever looked at the rights for
pregnant women?

Yes - and fathers as well now. At least it is not completely
open-ended, which paying for an unproductive "carer" would have to be.

The law regarding maternity leave has resulted in many employers being
even more reluctant that they used to be to employ women between
certain ages.

Not that I think it would be a bad thing, from a sociological
perspective, to return to the old-fashioned system of having the
husband as the breadwinner and the wife staying at home taking care of
the domestic duties. Unfortunately the economy has changed to make it
impossible for a great proportion of families to be able to live on a
single income.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:46:19 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

Why should that situation be anyone's problem apart from you, your
friends and your family?

When my wife was in a similar situation, it would certainly have
caused me just as much hardship as it did you *if* I had provided all
the necessary care personally. There were however plenty of friends
and family members who between them were able and willing to provide
the additional necessary care without significant detriment to
themselves.

The idea that complete strangers had any sort of duty to solve the
problem by paying for her care did not even cross my mind.

My wife's family is from Ireland, she has no family over here (her
parents moved here before she was born and have now died) and we
couldn't really expect her extended family to come and live here for a
very extended period. My parents are well into their seventies and
certainly couldn't help her up and down the stairs or grab her when she
moved and her balance went; or look after our three young kids for
extended periods over many, many months. All our friends are in full
time work or live many miles away. No, I am not making up a scenario
here, this is simply the case.

There are many situations that I can sympathise with, but at the end
of the day I have to take the attitude "tough luck" rather than shell
out to solve everyone else's problems. I'd love to be able to save
all the starving 3rd World children as well - but pragmatically that
is also "tough luck".

If the only people who could be her carers are in Ireland (or Africa
or India or China), then pragmatically there is a decision to be made
as to whether she needs to move to where she can be properly looked
after. Lots of people have difficult problems to overcome, and I do
not accept that the only solution available is to take more and more
money from the taxpayers.

--
Cynic

In article 4f316ac0.94678500@localhost, Cynic
scribeth thus
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:51:02 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

Can you not see that for a great many employers, paying an extra
salary every month to someone who does not actually do any work can be
just as devastating, and could easily result in bankruptcy for the
employer? That would especially be the case if such a thing became
law, because for every genuine case there would bound to be several
chancers who did not*really* have to stay at home as a carer.

IF such a thing became law? Have you ever looked at the rights for
pregnant women?

Yes - and fathers as well now. At least it is not completely
open-ended, which paying for an unproductive "carer" would have to be.

The law regarding maternity leave has resulted in many employers being
even more reluctant that they used to be to employ women between
certain ages.

Yes I know one firm that had three of them go preggers at the same time
the replacement staff and cars broke them;(...


Not that I think it would be a bad thing, from a sociological
perspective, to return to the old-fashioned system of having the
husband as the breadwinner and the wife staying at home taking care of
the domestic duties. Unfortunately the economy has changed to make it
impossible for a great proportion of families to be able to live on a
single income.

Indeed it has..
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:21:27 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 01/02/2012 13:37, Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:32:34 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

Wrong. Taking the property of an innocent man because you are acting on
*rumour* is still theft. In your scenario, the *thief* is still a thief,
even if by mistake, while my uncle was quite clearly an innocent victim.

Similarly, beating up an innocent person because you *think* he is a
thief is still GBH.

"Think" is not the right word and neither is "innocent". There's a big
difference between "suspecting" that someone has your stolen tools and
having actually seen him take them from your vehicle and make off with them!

There is also a similar difference between "suspecting" that someone
has committed GBH, and actually seeing him beating up a youngster in
the street.

In the theft case the "thief" may believe that he has the moral right
to take the tools, and in the second case the pugalist believes he has
the moral right to inflict GBH. Can you not see that the two
situations are exactly the same - a person acting outside the law
because he thinks he has the right to do so?

--
Cynic

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:43:14 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

I will state again, if you don't have enough time to analyze what you need
to be able to see when driving then you are driving too fast.

And I will state again that the brain is capable of analysing only one
situation at a time, so there will be plenty of times when you do not
have time to analyse what you need to be able to see while stationary.

--
Cynic

On 07/02/2012 18:12, Cynic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:16:30 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

Two things would have saved my employment - a more flexible employer
(working reduced hours for reduced pay, but at least still working or
very flexible hours) ...snip

That's only possible if the employer can reasonably employ a person on
that basis. If your employer needed a person who could be relied upon
to get through a fixed amount of work per week, and/or who was needed
on-site during working hours, it would not have been something your
employer would have been *able* to agree to.

I am almost entirely an office based Engineer. I design things, write
specifications, check other peoples documentation, etc. At least 90% of
it could be done at home. Take the kids to school, return home, work,
have lunch, work, pick up kids - once kids are in bed work a bit
longer. At the worst I could go into the office for a couple of short
days to allow for face to face contact and meetings. My level of work is
easily measured as there are detailed project plans, with deadlines,
expected times, etc. for each document required. Broadband will easily
allow me to VPN into the company network, although a USB stick would do.

However - just try getting almost any Engineering employer to agree to
that. Despite the fact that it would cost them nothing at all. Employers
are frequently not flexible, not because of any difficulty, but because
management like to be able to look at who is in the office and do they
*look* busy and so be obviously *managing* their employees.

SteveW

On 07/02/2012 18:06, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:56:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

That's how car insurance works, so I don't see why not.

The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them.

In which case if it *does* happen to them, they will have to make
alternative arrangements along the lines I have already mentioned.

There are no doubt a high proportion of people who will decide that
they do not *need* such insurance because they have sufficient family
and friends who could step in as caraer should it become necessary.

Thus pushing up the price of insurance for everyone else, as the risk is
not being spread among everyone, but only amongst those of higher risk.
Very soon, those with familial histories of problems would find
themselves priced out of buying any insurance. Those with insurance
would try not to go to the doctor at any point, in case something small
pushes up their premiums.

SteveW