Election 2024

[brb]

in an overall trend of lower birth rates.

So it's a choice, smaller work force, less productivity and higher taxes (to pay for pensions) or you encourage immigration to fill the void, maintain productivity, put more money into the exchequer via taxes, and keep the tax burden down.

or you encourage your population to have more kids.

 

[PINKIE]

America specifically is absolutely mental about autism and its varying causes, Trump believes that certain medicines give you autism, which is scientifically flawed for many reasons.

It's very much related to the "vaccines give you autism" crowd despite that being thoroughly disproven.

The core issue here is very very old men don't understand much about the modern world but also happen to control the modern world, so say ridiculous **** without any pushback whatsoever.

Like Putin and Xi talking utter nonsense regard organ transplants, it was pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo, but they are powerful, so people listen to it.

Add to that, Trump has got the absolute fruit loop RFK as health secretary

 

[PINKIE]

or you encourage your population to have more kids.

You can do that, but I guess you'd have to incentivise it by offering more child benefit or having certain tax breaks for extra children. Even then though, you're not going to see the benefits to the workforce and the economy for around 20 years or so.

Selective immigration is a fairly immediate fix.

 

[Welshie]

All very odd behaviour by him from a financial perspective, can be very damaging this sort of nonsense - especially as a fair few Americans are sucked in by this type of ****. Paracetamol has to be by far the biggest selling drug world wide. I can't make it make any sense to my brain, feel like I'm missing something here.

I realised today that the oldest chap on here is Duggie, he's still younger than Trump and seems way more clued up on things.

It's absolutely bonkers that such a person is actually running a super power.

 

[brb]

You can do that, but I guess you'd have to incentivise it by offering more child benefit or having certain tax breaks for extra children. Even then though, you're not going to see the benefits to the workforce and the economy for around 20 years or so.

Selective immigration is a fairly immediate fix.

Very short sighted view, because unless you deal with child birth rates now, you will still have the problem in 20 years time. We've had decades to monitor and deal with this.

 

[Archers Road]

or you encourage your population to have more kids.

Or have less old gits living until they’re 95

 

[brb]

Or have less old gits living until they’re 95

To be expected when everyone wants a nanny state, it means everyone is going to live longer, it's not like they wouldn't have known this and the cost of care. Probably why the world wants a war, so it can bomb a few care homes, after the Tories failed during covid to wipe them all out.

 

[PINKIE]

Very short sighted view, because unless you deal with child birth rates now, you will still have the problem in 20 years time. We've had decades to monitor and deal with this.

You probably have to do both tbh. But for the immediate term, you’re not going to plug the workforce gap without immigration

We’re seeing the same thing from Brexit. We opted out of free movement and then discovered that we had a shortfall in lots of manual and low paid sectors that were traditionally filled by workers from the EU. Even the skilled worker visa didn’t really address it, because many of those jobs didn’t qualify for the scheme.

We’ve got 30k asylum seekers sitting in hotels which is making the flag shaggers go mental. We could give them visas and sort this nonsense out

 

[Archers Road]

To be expected when everyone wants a nanny state, it means everyone is going to live longer, it's not like they wouldn't have known this and the cost of care. Probably why the world wants a war, so it can bomb a few care homes, after the Tories failed during covid to wipe them all out.

In all seriousness, as one old git to another, here’s how I see the problem; every hard working person looks forward to putting their feet up for a few years at the end of their/our lives. And that’s great, if you’re lucky enough to get that far in life. But because we are living longer and longer, we inevitably become a burden on society, then in the last few years we’re kept going by medical science long past the point where we were ever meant to be alive. To address this problem, governments throughout the developed world are raising the pension age beyond the point where it is reasonable to expect people to go on working. So we’re old and knackered before we ever get to retirement, which when we finally get there we can’t enjoy. Far better imo to retire at 60 (65 at the oldest) but forego the help of medicine to extend old age indefinitely. The Welfare State, or Nanny State as you call it, was supposed to care for us from the cradle to the grave, and maybe it still could, if only we were less keen on avoiding the grave. I’m not suggesting euthanasia btw; I’m suggesting reducing access to medicine which artificially prolongs life beyond a certain point.

 

[Sucky]

You must log in or register to see media

The humanoid robots is a parody of course. But the UN plan is to maintain the working population due to an aging population, who all require pensions, in an overall trend of lower birth rates.

So it's a choice, smaller work force, less productivity and higher taxes (to pay for pensions) or you encourage immigration to fill the void, maintain productivity, put more money into the exchequer via taxes, and keep the tax burden down.

So was chemtrails

 

[Libby]

In all seriousness, as one old git to another, here’s how I see the problem; every hard working person looks forward to putting their feet up for a few years at the end of their/our lives. And that’s great, if you’re lucky enough to get that far in life. But because we are living longer and longer, we inevitably become a burden on society, then in the last few years we’re kept going by medical science long past the point where we were ever meant to be alive. To address this problem, governments throughout the developed world are raising the pension age beyond the point where it is reasonable to expect people to go on working. So we’re old and knackered before we ever get to retirement, which when we finally get there we can’t enjoy. Far better imo to retire at 60 (65 at the oldest) but forego the help of medicine to extend old age indefinitely. The Welfare State, or Nanny State as you call it, was supposed to care for us from the cradle to the grave, and maybe it still could, if only we were less keen on avoiding the grave. I’m not suggesting euthanasia btw; I’m suggesting reducing access to medicine which artificially prolongs life beyond a certain point.

I've always thought that but a bit of a minefield in deciding the cut off points/criteria

But I've always thought that if someone in their 80s has had multiple strokes, beat cancer once already and then is diagnosed again and this time it's terminal. Then we shouldn't be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to potentially give that person an extra 6 months of 'life'.

As I say though, a ****ing minefield.

 

[Sucky]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[PINKIE]

So was chemtrails

we could get in to a looooong conversation about chemtrials if you like lol

But in summary, passenger jets leaving contrails aren’t it.

And that’s what I see a lot of people losing their minds over.

 

[PINKIE]

I've always thought that but a bit of a minefield in deciding the cut off points/criteria

But I've always thought that if someone in their 80s has had multiple strokes, beat cancer once already and then is diagnosed again and this time it's terminal. Then we shouldn't be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to potentially give that person an extra 6 months of 'life'.

As I say though, a ****ing minefield.

Doctors take the hypocratic oath to preserve life. But when you speak to them on a personal level, loads of them see the futility in trying to keep people alive who have very little quality of life

 

[Sucky]

we could get in to a looooong conversation about chemtrials if you like lol

But in summary, passenger jets leaving contrails aren’t it.

And that’s what I see a lot of people losing their minds over.

Not right now mate I just dont have the time

 

[Sucky]

Doctors take the hypocratic oath to preserve life. But when you speak to them on a personal level, loads of them see the futility in trying to keep people alive who have very little quality of life

How many Dr's have you spoken to on a personal level then bro?

Www.surveybypinkie.gov

 

[Archers Road]

I've always thought that but a bit of a minefield in deciding the cut off points/criteria

But I've always thought that if someone in their 80s has had multiple strokes, beat cancer once already and then is diagnosed again and this time it's terminal. Then we shouldn't be spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to potentially give that person an extra 6 months of 'life'.

As I say though, a ****ing minefield.

And it will probably never happen anyway, because old people are far more likely to vote than younger people.

But if it did, yeah it’s a minefield; I’d draw a distinction between medicine designed to keep someone comfortable, and medicine designed to keep them alive, especially when bedbound and incontinent.

 

[Sucky]

BBC turned off comments.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Peej]

Anyone any idea why Trump is spouting this stuff about Tylenol (paracetamol). I believe it's owned by Johnson & Johnson now, which is an American company, so he's damaging his own country brand. They earlier in the year said they were going to spend $55bn on factories in the states, 4 new plants.

Edit: Oh the actual owning company is Kenvue, although Independent was spun off from Johnson & Johnson, presumbably due to past *scandals dating back to 1982 (*subjective on my part). Still american though.

Isnt Tylenol just a brand name for Paracetamol. It’s a generic now so cost pennies and is made all over the world.

I would think JFK Jnr has been in his ear with some crackpot nonsense and he sees it as a way to cover up the calls to release the Epstein files. See Prince Andrew’s ex wife is tied into this somehow too.

The net is closing on more and more pervs.

 

[brb]

In all seriousness, as one old git to another, here’s how I see the problem; every hard working person looks forward to putting their feet up for a few years at the end of their/our lives. And that’s great, if you’re lucky enough to get that far in life. But because we are living longer and longer, we inevitably become a burden on society, then in the last few years we’re kept going by medical science long past the point where we were ever meant to be alive. To address this problem, governments throughout the developed world are raising the pension age beyond the point where it is reasonable to expect people to go on working. So we’re old and knackered before we ever get to retirement, which when we finally get there we can’t enjoy. Far better imo to retire at 60 (65 at the oldest) but forego the help of medicine to extend old age indefinitely. The Welfare State, or Nanny State as you call it, was supposed to care for us from the cradle to the grave, and maybe it still could, if only we were less keen on avoiding the grave. I’m not suggesting euthanasia btw; I’m suggesting reducing access to medicine which artificially prolongs life beyond a certain point.

I completely agree with you mate, I'm sure you already know that.