http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110301/...g-45dbed5.html
Next...equal retirement, or earlier for men, who don't live as long.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110301/...g-45dbed5.html
Next...equal retirement, or earlier for men, who don't live as long.
Or should it be No
or Maybe??
Does anyone really believe that cheaper or better insurance is on the horizon?
or
that pension payments will be improved.
or that .........
Anyway equal retirement age is already planned.
Where is the logic?
If you make a risk assessment and find that young men have a far greater risk of motor accidents than young ladies, and you further find that the average payout is much higher for young men than young women what's the logical thing to do?
By the way Insurance companies are in business (profit). They are not in it for the benefit of drivers.
EU regulations. Bah!
Insurance is gambling
Keith - Administrator
There are many inequalities.
Why should a person who earns more than another pay more in direct taxation.
Why should people living in a big house pay more Council Tax than those living in small houses,
Why should non smokers pay the same National Insurance as smokers.
The list is very, very long.
Clearly those who are less of a risk should pay less and vice versa, but its a funny old world !!!!!
NO! It's a funny old EU. It's getting funnier by the month! And by funny I don't be funny Ha Ha. I mean funnyOriginally Posted by johncar54
peculiar
yes theres a lot of injustice,
i have another view on the smokers, the tax on those cigs is a fortune enough to pay the nhs for recieving treatment ,smoke related illnesses, so i dont agree ,i dont think a none smoker pays as much as a smoker
Simple ... because they can AFFORD to!!
For precisely the same reason I've already mentioned. People who live in BIG houses are usually those with the wherewithal that facilitates the provision of additional amenities/luxuries an affluent lifestyle permits. If a person can no longer afford such "extravagancies",then he/she should get the hell out of it - pronto!
I've worked in the financial services industry for over 20 years, and during that time actuaries have always calculated premiums based on risk, using past claims experience and mortality/morbidity tables and a whole host of other probabilities (including smoking status, occupation, previous health and possibly family medical history). It is extremely complex, but it is done that way to ensure that the average person pays a fair premium based on the risk they represent.
The basics are that women generally live longer which means life assurance is cheaper, and annuities are more expensive. Women suffer more ill health than men, so long term income protection and critical illness cover is more expensive.
Typical EU meddling into areas where they should have no right.
And as usual the ordinary 'person' in the street ends up with the worst possible scenario.
In my opinion a smoker should pay much more tax.
Look, it pollutes the atmosphere, It smells disgusting and makes our clothes smell disgusting. It uses our oxygen to stay alight and puts bad chemicals in the air.
Cigarette butts are just everywhere, all around the roads, the streets and my garden.
They cause forest fires. They cause disputes, bullying and crime in our prisons where they almost replace currency.
The govt uses the tax to fund what..................? Moats, Duck Houses, and Chelsea flats
Smokers walk around with a lighted stick that burns holes in my clothes.
They teach children how to follow in their footsteps.
The arguments against smoking are well known. Smoking has been shown to be dangerous to health. Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer have all been linked.
And what about your sex life? What about mine with passive smokingC'mon please.
Smoking is a sin.
In my opinion a smoker should pay much more tax.
Look, it pollutes the atmosphere, It smells disgusting and makes our clothes smell disgusting. It uses our oxygen to stay alight and puts bad chemicals in the air.
Cigarette butts are just everywhere, all around the roads, the streets and my garden.
They cause forest fires. They cause disputes, bullying and crime in our prisons where they almost replace currency.
The govt uses the tax to fund what..................? Moats, Duck Houses, and Chelsea flats
Smokers walk around with a lighted stick that burns holes in my clothes.
They teach children how to follow in their footsteps.
The arguments against smoking are well known. Smoking has been shown to be dangerous to health. Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer have all been linked.
And what about your sex life? What about mine with passive smoking
Smoking is a sin.Typical ex smoker
Imagine is absolutely right, smokers pay on average an extra £1500 a year in excise duty and VAT on their cigarettes. Why should they pay more income tax and NI? To say that smoking alone is the cause of all of their health problems and should be taxed more is complete rubbish. Lifestyle and diet are just as important factors, a smoker with a healthy diet and who regularly exercises will be no more of a burden to the state than someone who drinks/eats too much or who doesnt look after their health in other ways. If smoking is so unhealthy and smokers die younger, why should they pay more in NI? After all todays NI is what pays Old Age Pensions and as smoker die younger they wont claim the Old Age Pension for as long, so they should actually get a rebate on their NI contributions.
For those of you who want to have a go at smokers, just think about the £10's of billions taxation on smokers raises. Yes, let's ban it and watch you non smokers income tax and NI go up by 5% to offset the shortfall in the treasury
Radical reform of the NHS is planned under the Health and Social Care Bill, with competition from private providers, but it's not about to become "NHS plc" funded from insurance. Private companies will only "cherry pick" the easiest and most profitable procedures. The common serious and chronic conditions like cancer, heart disease, complications of obesity and alcohol abuse will continue to be treated by the NHS, funded out of taxation.
It's a logistical nightmare and impossible to have a differential system of taxation for the NHS based on actuarial estimates of health risk for every individual in the UK. There are few illnesses which are not in some degree the result of lifestyle. Smoking is not the only example, but the tax revenue from smoking is twice the estimated cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related illness (5 billion GBP, or 5% of the NHS budget, each year). Most common cancers are the result of lifestyle ( diet and smoking), and also cost the NHS around 5 billion GBP. Obesity-related illness costs a similar amount. Illness from alcohol abuse costs around 3 billion GBP. Lifestyle is a major influence on the chance of getting a heart attack.
The NHS per capita cost in the UK as a whole is around 1,250 GBP. In North Yorkshire (where Graham lives) it's 1500 GBP.
None of us know for sure how much health care we will need in a lifetime.
The NHS is far from perfect. But competition within health care does not work - cost may fall but so also will quality. I prefer to pay for my health care needs, whatever they may be, by taxation. Paying through insurance, or when you need treatment if you or your relatives can afford it - as in the Philippines - is a scenario I never wish to see in the UK.
when my wife worked for the vampire squad (Hematology dept) at the local hospital, the hospital had to offer the work to priavte vendors, i think each one failed becuase of concerns, how can a private company which has to make a profit under cut people who are directly employed by the trust? unless they cut corners or pay a lot less, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys
I'm not even registered with a doctor...or a dentist.
The nosy receptionists raise my blood pressure so much that I have to go home and have a lie down.
My son is though.
Another member doesn't bother with travel insuranceI'm not even registered with a doctor...or a dentist.
I wish you both good health !
Typical ex smoker
You took the words right out of my mouth!!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110301/...g-45dbed5.html
Next...equal retirement, or earlier for men, who don't live as long.
A prize should be offered to anyone who can explain, logically, how we (and even more surprising Grahamw48) managed to deviate so far from the question which Graham started this thread with !!!!!!
It is unfortunate that so often a question, which has been posted by a person really wanting the answer to that question, get left behind whilst we meander here there and everywhere, getting always further from the question. Thus, the thread-starter probably fails to get the answer they were hoping for. This gets increasingly worse as the thread grows longer, as probably most of us never go back and the read the first post, and all the subsequent ones.
Typically the problem Edward De Bono poses when he talks about 'digging holes to solves problems.' (Briefly, as the hole grows everyone forget why it was started and maintaining the hole becomes the reason for its existence).
PS I apologise or deviating !!!!
Both points were about equality of the sexes.
Is that so difficult to understand...even by the self-appointed thread police ?
I threw a topic in for discussion, that's all.
I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth the bother.
Graham I was making a general point.Both points were about equality of the sexes.
Is that so difficult to understand...even by the self-appointed thread police ?
I threw a topic in for discussion, that's all.
I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth the bother.
We all know that many people come here when they maybe desperate to find a solution. By us sticking to the subject of the tread-starter I believe we can assist those people better.
Thanks Joe for demonstrating how we can loose sight of the therad-starter. I hope that was the intention of your post !!!
Threads going off topic is fine here, other forums have strict policies, and to be honest it is
Keith - Administrator
Threads going off topic is fine here, other forums have strict policies, and to be honest it is
Some of the best threads are the ones that go off at tangents. If a threads question is answered by the first post it will die if off topic comments aren't introduced
I would have thought that was the time to start a new thread on the new subject, but what do I know !!!!
Some of the best threads are the ones that go off at tangents. If a threads question is answered by the first post it will die if off topic comments aren't introduced
No need to, as the Search Engine fodder is in the initial title and first few posts. If you start a new thread for every single change of topic, you end up with a lot of irrelevant threads.
Keith - Administrator
Glad you raised that.
I have almost no sucess with using the search facilty.
An example:- I just tried searching for CFO. It came up with Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms What am I doing wrong ?
PS again apologies for deviating
Johncar, what was the original question?
This thread topic has been the subject of plenty of media coverage. It covers a very broad range, including impacts on retirement.
I agree with Englishman, some of the best topics are the ones that deviate.
I like deviation
Me too...does that mean I'm a deviantI agree with Englishman, some on the best topics are the ones that deviate.
I like deviation
Me too - and I ain't talking about "*
I agree with Englishman, some of the best topics are the ones that deviate.
I like deviation"deviation
! But life would be pretty mundane if everyone were fashioned from the same mould.
You can't use 3 letter for a search, has to be 4. If I made it 3 the database search index would be over 18GB's and slow the server to a crawl. Just use google: "cfo site:filipinaroses.com"
In fact I may look at using Google Search instead of hogging my server.
Keith - Administrator
Very many thanks for that
Well done Graham for raising the topic
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
