Jump to content

Things that piss you off that shouldn't


AVFCforever1991
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
Just now, Seat68 said:

What the hell! How very dare you. 

Well exactly, you can dis the Queen as much as you like but dissing Bill is like declaring war on England

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bickster said:

Well exactly, you can dis the Queen as much as you like but dissing Bill is like declaring war on England

Exactly that. He is untouchable. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
1 minute ago, Seat68 said:

Exactly that. He is untouchable. 

And even if you did touch him, his suit would not crease and you'd be rebuked in such a way that you didn't really know if it was a rebuke at all

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

And even if you did touch him, his suit would not crease and you'd be rebuked in such a way that you didn't really know if it was a rebuke at all

So nothing like your rebukes? 😉

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
49 minutes ago, maqroll said:

I saw him in Valkyrie and there was nothing about his acting that suggested high ranking Nazi officer. It annoyed me.

I mean, Valkyrie is one of the shittest films ever made tbh 😀

As for Bill Nighy - he's made some really good movies and been excellent in most of them and always comes across as a thoroughly nice chap.

Also from what I've read he doesn't like the limelight and shuns as many award ceremonies as he can get away with. He also never watches any of his films (presumably apart from when he's forced to a Premiere)

I've always thought he would look his happiest pottering around in his garden or visiting some Nation Trust building.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

If one more dick says I got "pinged" I'm going to punch them.

You got a message you need to isolate

I used to work next to a guy once who called instant messages "tweets".

"Yeah tweet me when you're ready and I'll do that"

"Drop me a tweet"

 

It always really **** confused anyone with a brain who knew what a tweet actually was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sid4ever said:

For you youngsters, you will have to wait to be 58 in 2028 to access your pension pot.

I'm 30 and I don't even think the state pension will exist by the time I get to it

Feel like my only option is become a slumlord and leech rent payments off younger people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
11 minutes ago, Mozzavfc said:

I'm 30 and I don't even think the state pension will exist by the time I get to it

Feel like my only option is become a slumlord and leech rent payments off younger people

It will. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mozzavfc said:

I'm 30 and I don't even think the state pension will exist by the time I get to it

Feel like my only option is become a slumlord and leech rent payments off younger people

 

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It will. 

You'll just have to wait till you're 90 until you get your hands on some cash.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
1 minute ago, stuart_75 said:

 

You'll just have to wait till you're 90 until you get your hands on some cash.

I'm sure the age of eligibility will increase somewhat, but if life expectancy does not increase rapidly (and it looks like it won't) then there is a limit of political popularity to how far it can be raised. 

People just need to ask themselves some questions about this topic:

Are pensions now quite generous? Yes, the triple lock makes pensioners relatively better off each year. 

Why are pensions generous? Because pensioners are *by far* the most important voting bloc, and will only become more so as the population ages. 

Would this very powerful voting bloc ever want the government to ditch the state pension? Hell no. 

So what would happen if a government did that? They would obviously lose the next election; it would be political suicide. 

Could you instead raise the age at which people receive the benefit? Yes, and that will continue to happen periodically. But most older voters are not 90+; see the second answer about political popularity. And clearly as many people get into their seventies, their physical and mental capacities, not to mention their overall health, are likely to start going downhill. People can't be milked forever, there are hard limits here. 

But won't the system run out of money? No, that's not how it works; the pension system is not some completely separate thing to the rest of government finances. Its growing costs can be financed in one of the four ways you can finance anything - taxes could be raised, spending could be diverted from elsewhere, borrowing can be increased, or the economy could grow faster. 

So is there any way in which the state pension could disappear? Not really, no. In theory, you could have a political party that only catered to the young who were determined to do it, but 1) political parties don't win elections if their voters skew too young (see Labour 2019 for example), and 2) that would be completely stupid as said young people are the future beneficiaries of the pension. Another possibility is that British democracy could end and we could fall into dictatorship, and the dictator could order it. Or thirdly, the British economy could completely and utterly collapse, but then frankly we'll have bigger issues to worry about.

I'm an optimist, I don't think we're heading into a dictatorship or a dystopia any time soon. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Are pensions now quite generous? Yes, the triple lock makes pensioners relatively better off each year. 

Why are pensions generous? Because pensioners are *by far* the most important voting bloc, and will only become more so as the population ages. 

Would this very powerful voting bloc ever want the government to ditch the state pension? Hell no. 

State Pensions are not generous. They are some of the lowest in certainly Europe, if not the developed world (in terms of relative to cost of living etc.). 
The triple lock benefits the young the most as it maintains the level and even inches it up each year, so their pensions will be larger. 
 

Quote

It’s pointless attacking Britain’s pension increase. Ultimately we’ll all benefit from it

The 8% rise and the triple lock may seem an intergenerational unfairness. But almost 2 million OAPs are living in poverty


….Indeed, our state pension remains almost the lowest in the developed world. According to the Trade Union Congress, if Britain scrapped the triple lock in favour of an earnings link, £700 a year would be cut by 2050, driving 700,000 pensioners into poverty. The reason the triple lock benefits the young the most is that every year it accrues more in value: so in 20 years’ time, for example, it will be worth far more to someone in their 40s today. With so many younger people not saving for private pensions until middle age – worsened by the current national emergency – they will come to depend on the state pension all the more. Given private pensions impose thousands of pounds worth of costs on individuals over their lifetime, is it not better to rely on progressive taxation to fund a generous state entitlement instead?

Owen Jones, by no means a Tory

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/britain-pension-increase-triple-lock-oaps-poverty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much money, in theory, could a murderous tory government save, if it prematurely killed off 120,000 people a few years early?

I’d make it over a billion a year.

The stato’s on ‘more or less’ and ‘fact checker’ yesterday estimated that whilst the average age of people dying with covid was over 80, the fact they were already over 80 suggests that statistically they were likely to live another 9 years.

Government might have culled £9 Billion of payments out of the system.

We’d be a cruel bunch if we begrudged them a few million in dodgy PPE contracts after that sort of saving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â