Looks like the party is over....

[marshian]

5 minutes ago, Nestor said:

As long as its a recyclable box.

 

Does flammable count as recycling?

[JamesPa]

8 hours ago, marshian said:

 

Does flammable count as recycling?

Only if the heat is captured and put to good use. 

 

I recall a fuss a few years ago because a council was proposing to capture 'waste' heat from their crem to heat the adjacent swimming pool.  I dont actually know if the proposal went ahead or not.

Edited yesterday at 08:16 by JamesPa

[Beelbeebub]

13 hours ago, JamesPa said:

Sadly it wont. 

 

You can't possibly allow facts and figures spoil an ideological argument, or an opportunity to bash the government  whatever the colour, or declare civil servants incompetent.

 

For the avoidance of doubt your argument in incontrovertible, but apparently that no longer matters.

Sadly you are probably right that this argument will keep popping up. 

 

Still, feel free to quote that post back at them. 

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, JamesPa said:

I dont actually know if the proposal went ahead or not

It didn't.

[Beelbeebub]

Just for completeness here is a graph of oil & gas production (hence the hugher BoE numbers) production from an oil and gas consultancy that errs on the high side of things. 

 

As you can see it still shows a big drop even with discoveries and prospects included. 

 

[SteamyTea]

There are a number of different reviews about world energy, EIA, OPEC  BP, Petroleum, all are within a fraction of each other.

Makes it easy to see the Venezuela has more proven reserves/resources that anyone else.

 

The trouble with all these reviews is that many people do not want to believe them. Those people cannot be helped.

[Oz07]

On 26/11/2025 at 17:35, Crofter said:

And the biggest ticket item is the triple lock. But pensioners actually get out and vote, so there's no way any realistic government is going to touch them.

We should remove universal suffrage and only allow votes based on whether you are a net contributor to society. 

 

16 year olds now. Too young to buy fags or have a drink but get a say in how the country is run. What next primary school pupils. 

[SteamyTea]

12 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

only allow votes based on whether you are a net contributor to society. 

"No taxation without representation"

 

Or

 

"No representation without taxation" Alan B'Stard

 

 

Edited 15 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Crofter]

22 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

We should remove universal suffrage and only allow votes based on whether you are a net contributor to society. 

 

16 year olds now. Too young to buy fags or have a drink but get a say in how the country is run. What next primary school pupils. 

I take a polar opposite view. 

Everybody should be able to vote. Even prisoners. Votes determine the government, and the government should always be accountable.

[Oz07]

11 hours ago, Crofter said:

I take a polar opposite view. 

Everybody should be able to vote. Even prisoners. Votes determine the government, and the government should always be accountable.

The problem is everyone just votes themselves the money. Recent immigrants will never vote for less immigration, pensioners will never vote against the triple lock, scroungers will never vote for the 2 child benefit cap. 

 

The way I see pensioners could still be net contributors to the state. And those that aren't should accept that their 40 or 50 year period of contributing and voting is over. 

 

Anyway im taking this off topic sorry. 

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

scroungers

Define 'scroungers'.

 

Seems the over 65s are currently the biggest contributors to income tax.

https://ifs.org.uk/data-items/share-adult-population-paying-income-tax-age-bracket

 

Edited 3 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Oz07]

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Define 'scroungers'.

 

Seems the over 65s are currently the biggest contributors to income tax.

They will get to vote then. 

 

Scroungers in my view is any working aged adult who is a consistent net drain on society. Including those with anxiety and other spurious disability claims. 

[SteamyTea]

24 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

working aged adult who is a consistent net drain on society

So my old lodger, who had a stroke in the first 3 years of her life, is a scrounger.

As are the people affected by thalidomide.

Are the workers that got made redundant when a large employer closes scroungers?

Edited 2 hours ago by SteamyTea

[JohnMo]

Gee this has become a diverted thread.

 

But I think everyone should be allowed to vote, once classed as an adult, except prisoners (they lost the right be part of society). Getting the vote was a hard struggle, not that long ago only land owners got to vote, they were also the MPs and the house of lords 

 

Scroungers - they are just a token of the welfare state we live in. Change the rules, change the benefits and times they get them. There are plenty of things to do in this country, they should form work gangs, to get things fixed, to stay entitled to public money - litter picking, bringing in crops, etc. But suspect that's too difficult to manage, and we may hurt someone's feelings.

[Beelbeebub]

47 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Seems the over 65s are currently the biggest contributors to income tax.

I thi k we have to be a little careful about interpreting that graph. 

 

It says that a higher % of over 65 (just) pay income tax - *not* that the tax take from that segment is higher 

 

The basic state pension is a hair over 9k for those who became pensioners before 2016. That means any pensioner who earns more than about 3.5k from other sources will pay income tax. 

 

For those that retired after 2016 the basic is just under 12k, so they onky be to earn £500 or so to start paying taxes.  

 

This (and the triple lock) is probably why there was a distinct upward kink from 2018/19ish.

 

So pretty much every pensioner who earns more than a few k from an old work place pension or maybe letting a room, or doing a day a week at the supermarket pays income tax. 

 

Whereas the under 65's are less likely to pay income tax because their income floor is zero. 

 

So more pensioners pay tax, thanks to the increaces in state pension over the last 15years or so. 

 

The really interesting figure would be total taxes collected from over 65's vs pensions (and if you want to be thorough - medical and social care costs for over 65's)

 

I am not certain that is a positive nunber

[Crofter]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So my old lodger, who had a stroke in the first 3 years of her life, is a scrounger.

As are the people affected by thalidomide.

Are the workers that got made redundant when a large employer closes scroungers?

People who believe in the deserving poor generally don't like to accept that bad things can happen which are out of your control.

[Oz07]

I'm not saying we should stop looking after these people. Just that they shouldn't get to vote. After all turkeys don't vote for Christmas. 

[Beelbeebub]

Just did a some number crunching

 

For income tax, the over 65's pay abiut £30bn a year.  I imagine a similar total in Vat and other indirect taxes. So a total take of £60bn, maybe a touch more if we include death duties. 

 

Pensions alone are double that. 

 

My point is the over 65's are (as an age group) net negative on the national finances. 

 

This is not a criticism (babies are also net negatives in financial - and quality of sleep - terms) 

 

But the bulk of the tax take comes from thr middle aged (40-50) higher earners. 

 

We need to be careful about determining who is a scrounger and who isn't.  As has been pointed out anyone can become disabled and contributions to society are subjective and not always obvious from a purely financial perspective. 

 

And finally, everyone should vote. 

 

Voting (and despite waht the Americans thing, not guns) is one of the last defenses against tyranny.

 

Once you start to exclude people for various reasons (not paying enough tax for example) it becomes far easier for politicians to pick their voters. 

 

One area we are failing on is voter information and education. 

 

You can only make a choice based on the information you are supplied and if that information is skewed then your vote can be manipulated. In traditionally totalitarian societies this is done by government capture of media - state media. You only see stories about the glorious leader, the vile foreigners and the victory parade to celebrate the 4th year of the 3 day special military operation. 

 

In the west it now seems to be big business and billionaires who are shaping the media landscape and not to benefit of all. 

 

See the pushback against renewables - for example the often quoted "energy security" argument for stayijg on the energy source we have to import from unstable regimes. 

[JohnMo]

19 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I thi k we have to be a little careful about interpreting that graph. 

 

It says that a higher % of over 65 (just) pay income tax - *not* that the tax take from that segment is higher 

 

The basic state pension is a hair over 9k for those who became pensioners before 2016. That means any pensioner who earns more than about 3.5k from other sources will pay income tax. 

 

For those that retired after 2016 the basic is just under 12k, so they onky be to earn £500 or so to start paying taxes.  

 

This (and the triple lock) is probably why there was a distinct upward kink from 2018/19ish.

 

So pretty much every pensioner who earns more than a few k from an old work place pension or maybe letting a room, or doing a day a week at the supermarket pays income tax. 

 

Whereas the under 65's are less likely to pay income tax because their income floor is zero. 

 

So more pensioners pay tax, thanks to the increaces in state pension over the last 15years or so. 

 

The really interesting figure would be total taxes collected from over 65's vs pensions (and if you want to be thorough - medical and social care costs for over 65's)

 

I am not certain that is a positive nunber

There was program on radio 4 that looked at pensions etc. it analysed our country and many others. The rounded outcome was, it really doesn't matter what you pay out as a pension, the younger in society pay the same taxes, as either direct tax, or indirect from their pay packet direct to the older family members. So you either allow the state to pay the older in society (collected when they pay taxes throughout their working life), or the younger of society start dipping their hand into their own pocket to support them. Possibly all have to have a granny annex to house them.

[saveasteading]

4 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

seems to be big business and billionaires who are shaping the media landscape and not to benefit of all. 

Was it not always so?

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

I'm not saying we should stop looking after these people. Just that they shouldn't get to vote. After all turkeys don't vote for Christmas. 

It's an all too short set of step from there to those that do have the vote starting to think they shouldn't look after those that don't vote.

 

If your criteria for voting is "Net contributor to treasury" then you basically confine the vote to the top earning 40% of households. 

 

That is not a good idea for a just and stable society. 

 

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

There was program on radio 4 that looked at pensions etc. it analysed our country and many others. The rounded outcome was, it really doesn't matter what you pay out as a pension, the younger in society pay the same taxes, as either direct tax, or indirect from their pay packet direct to the older family members. So you either allow the state to pay the older in society (collected when they pay taxes throughout their working life), or the younger of society start dipping their hand into their own pocket to support them. Possibly all have to have a granny annex to house them.

And the bad thing about that is it puts your old aged eggs in one basket. 

 

If your kids get sick, die, don't get a well paid job etc. You're stuffed. 

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Was it not always so?

In different ways yes to a degree. 

 

Doesn't make it a good thing or inevitable. 

 

I used to be relatively relaxed about the existence of billionaires but now my views are veering away, I'm increacingly struggling to see any that are a net benefit to the world. 

[Beelbeebub]

As for big businesses

 

I saw an interesting take. 

 

The"paper clip problem" is a familiar thought experiment in AI. 

 

From wikipedia

 

The scenario describes an advanced artificial intelligence tasked with manufacturing paperclips. If such a machine were not programmed to value living beings, then given enough power over its environment, it would try to turn all matter in the universe, including living beings, into paperclips or machines that manufacture further paperclips.

 

Obviously we are very far away from inventing an AI capable of the above. It"s just a parable about the dangers of creating entities hyper focused on a single goal - like the sorcerer's apprentice with the brooms and buckets of water. 

 

Someone recently pointed out to me that we already have created those entities. 

 

Large companies are entities who's sole focus in maximising profits and everything else is secondary.  Without restraint they will (and have in the past) destroy environments, overthrow governments, foster conflict, start wars. 

 

All to produce more profits. 

[JohnMo]

3 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

And the bad thing about that is it puts your old aged eggs in one basket. 

 

If your kids get sick, die, don't get a well paid job etc. You're stuffed. 

Exactly - so pay pensions that fair and out a burden on the younger of society.

 

7 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

criteria for voting is "Net contributor to treasury"

 

19 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

I'm not saying we should stop looking after these people. Just that they shouldn't get to vote. After all turkeys don't vote for Christmas. 

Think saying "are you net contributor to society" to get a vote is just nonsense. 

 

So anyone in adult education, doing a degree for example, excluded, training to be a doctor excluded, if your not earning day £40k your excluded etc

 

I'll bow out now, this thread has turned to nonsense - more like Facebook and I'm not on that for good reason.