BBC launches consultation on TV licence fee for over-75s

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:26:44 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

My 87 year old mum would ram her copy of Radio Times right
up your arse until it disappears, if you were to suggest to her she
watches any of those genre of programme.

I would pay her licence fee for her to watch that !-)

I would think it would be quite difficult anyway.

Isn't there a U-bend or something?

And why doesn't it stop the noxious emissions?

On 22/11/2018 19:50, Andrew wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:42, critcher wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:18, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 17:45, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andrew wrote:
On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the
over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,

Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket


If Corbyn amd McDonnell get into power, then it most certainly will
be money OUT of your pocket. LOTS.


sooner the better.

If you have more bedrooms than occupants then I hope you can
afford the transfer of the bedroom tax from social tenants to
owner occupiers, plus means-testing of the single person discount
(where applicable), plus the garden tax (about 3% of your properties
value every year, not just when you move), plus revaluation to keep
the welsh happy (already occurred there), plus a collapse of Sterling
(making everything more expensive), plus another 2008/9 recession.


as Trump would say....false news.
as I would say........bull****

On 23/11/2018 14:32, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 14:04:10 +0000, critcher
wrote:

On 22/11/2018 19:50, Andrew wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:42, critcher wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:18, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 17:45, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andrew wrote:
On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the
over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,

Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket


If Corbyn amd McDonnell get into power, then it most certainly will
be money OUT of your pocket. LOTS.


sooner the better.

If you have more bedrooms than occupants then I hope you can
afford the transfer of the bedroom tax from social tenants to
owner occupiers, plus means-testing of the single person discount
(where applicable), plus the garden tax (about 3% of your properties
value every year, not just when you move), plus revaluation to keep
the welsh happy (already occurred there), plus a collapse of Sterling
(making everything more expensive), plus another 2008/9 recession.


as Trump would say....false news.
as I would say........bull****

Don't worry Raab has realised that leaving is worse than staying. The Dutch have
started up about fishing rights. They should get rid of their giant factory
ship/trawler that legally hoovers up 50% of the fish caught in the North Sea
every year.


It's not the fish, it was specific species like sand eels that puffins
and other birds depended on until fishing for sand eeels was banned.

And anyone who doesn't believe my warnings should pay more attention,
notably to what the Fabians issue as their 'proposals' for 'fairer'
taxation. One of those is the removal of the 25% taxfree element of
a private pension (Note, no such mention of a parallel removal of a
public servants 3x first years pension as a tax-free element).

Labour governments have a track record of not just removing some
Conservative legislation that impacts 'their' core voters (the
parasite brigade) but also doing something in return out of pure spite.

QED The so-called bedroom tax will be scrapped and either directly or
indirectly it will be imposed on private owners via the much-publicised
garden tax.

MOre recently MCdonnell has stated that he will grab 10% of all
dividends paid in the UK, supposedly for the benefit of the employees
of the targetted companies, but 90% of the grab would stay with the
treasury.

Why ?. Well I suspect Osbornes decision to remove compulsory annuities
has a lot to do with. Annuity sales have collapsed, which means the
pension funds are no longer forced buyers of UK gilts which severely
restricts a Labour govts mass borrowing intentions. All those
people removed from buying an annuity have gone into drawdown or
collect dividends in their SIPPS instead. McDonnell is going to steal
10% of those dividends (on top of Browns ACT tax grab).

What he doesn't realise is that by slamming up corporation tax, a
companies profit and its ability to pay those dividends is going to
take a hit anyway, so he will end up shooting himself, the private
pensioners and UK industry in the foot.

On 22/11/2018 20:19, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:45, Andrew wrote:
On 21/11/2018 20:31, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:

They make programs that their audience research indicates what
is desired.

I think that's the point that many have already made here, they
don't. They make programs that they think will attract the audience
they *want* to attract!

Hence daytime wall-to-wall property spivving, cooking, quizzing and
the occasional soap. Plus plenty of repeats.

Well it's strange, I'm old, and quite a few of my family and
neighbours are, yet I know of no-one who wastes their time watching
such crap. Most of us have got better things to do.

It's time you stopped peddling Daily Mail style stereotypes and
learned to think based on factual information.

And there you go again.

Take a look in the mirror!Â* What a clockwork toy!Â* Who is it that in the
last hour or so has made in this thread three posts full of political
diarrhea and vomit without a single fact supported by any provenance
whatsoever?Â* You just puke it out until your clockwork runs down, and
then wind yourself up for the next one, nothing remotely resembling
thought is involved at all.

Anyone who doesn't hold your point of view must be a 'daily mail'
reader.

People who can't be arsed to think properly and instead spew out
right-wing gross simplifications and stereotypes usually turn out to be
Daily Mail readers.

Does this mean you are a guardian or inde reader?

Being able to make up my own mind when given facts, I'm a reader of
factual content.Â* Patently, you are not.

Err, did you forget to take your daily lithium tablets ?.

The entire thread about the removal of the pensioners freebie IS
political.

Which party handed this out in the first place in order to BUY votes ?.
Free lunches are soooo difficult to give up aren't they ?.

Has the qualifying age ever been updated to take in account
longevity ?. NO

Like most public servants/trade unionists you just cannot bear the
thought of anyone else not sharing your left wing agenda. Take your
head out of Corbyns arse and smell the coffee.

And for your education I read plenty of factual information, including
all the available online papers, plus a range of other material like
the Economist, FT, New Scientist, Flight, when I visit the nearest
larger town library, so stick your utterly incorrect assertions where
the sun doesn't shine.

All you can deduce from my postings is that I don't vote Labour,
and never will.

In article , Andrew97d-
says...

On 21/11/2018 17:11, Java Jive wrote:
I should point out that I'm not yet 75 or over, but ...

On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:

On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:

On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:

If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation

Irrelevant.* When you move house usually you sell your old one for more
than you paid for it, but proportionately will have to pay more for the
new one, and thus make no profit.* In the early 1970s, my brother bought
a house in Greenwich for, I think, about £12,000, and sold it some years
later for about £80,000, but all of that went on purchasing his next
home.* I bought a house in the south for about £125,000 in 1997 and sold
it for about £215,000 in 2012, but none of that sum remains in my bank
account today, more's the pity.


Very relevant when you are saddled with £50,000 of student debt

It makes no difference if you are "saddled" with £50,000 of student debt
or £50 million of student debt as, unless you get an extremely well paid
job (in which case "who cares?"), you will pay back exactly the same and
the tax payer will be "saddled" with the rest.

What students actually pay, given they earn over the minimum threshold
so pay at all, is a fixed percentage of their earnings.

So if you posted what you did because you believe what you said then
please - educate yourself on how student financing actually works
instead of just repeating spin.

I recommend the Martin Lewis website to start you off.

On 24/11/2018 15:12, Andrew wrote:

[snip more diarrhea]

Noone is going to believe a word you write until you start providing
provenance in the form of links to authorative statements of fact,
Labout Party policy, etc. As the political saying goes ...
Put up, or shut up.

On 24/11/2018 15:24, Andrew wrote:

[snip more diarrhea]

Again, noone is going to believe a word you write until you start
providing provenance in the form of links to authorative statements of
fact, Labout Party policy, etc. As the political saying goes ...
Put up, or shut up.

On 24/11/2018 15:36, Yellow wrote:

So if you posted what you did because you believe what you said then
please - educate yourself on how student financing actually works
instead of just repeating spin.

His entire posting history in this thread shows that facts and he are
total strangers.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:45:06 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

On 24/11/2018 15:36, Yellow wrote:

So if you posted what you did because you believe what you said then
please - educate yourself on how student financing actually works
instead of just repeating spin.

His entire posting history in this thread shows that facts and he are
total strangers.

He's living in his own bubble. I binned the ****wit some time ago.

On 24/11/2018 15:41, Java Jive wrote:
On 24/11/2018 15:12, Andrew wrote:

[snip more diarrhea]

Noone is going to believe a word you write until you start providing
provenance in the form of links to authorative statements of fact,
Labout Party policy, etc.Â* As the political saying goes ...
Â*Â*Â*Â*Put up, or shut up.

ROFL,

"authoritive statements of fact" my arse, you mean a group of
like-minded people who, because they all agree with each other
have decided that they are "right" and anyone who disagrees is
"wrong" and automatically a [daily mail/grundian/telegraph,
delete as appropriate] reader. When I visit one of local
reference libraries I browse through all the available
papers and magazines.

In the days when I was working in East Croydon I would regularly
use my season ticket and spend the entire day in Croydon library
and work my way through as many papers, periodicals and magazines
as possible. Not just the papers, but all manner of pubs, like
the lancet, lloyds bank review, assorted architectural mags,
ETI electronics, various computer mags, New england journal of
medecine (not sure why they subscribed to this). This library
had almost every magazine going.

What's more I remember stuff. I *don't* need to trot any of it out
as some sort of 'proof'.

You can always tell a dyed-in the-wool socialist, because they
hide behind a wall of utterly pointless statistics, and links to
even more dross, rather than providing a proper, concise answer.