Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Polly is a vicious moron (#94)

On Monday, Polly Toynbee wrote one of her usual stupid screeds on the subject of paying for old age, with particular reference to yet another taxpayer government-funded green paper.
Today's green paper will lay out various options. On retirement, everyone who can would pay a lump sum of around £20,000 up front and nothing ever again. Or that sum could be attached to the value of their home, deducted from their estate after death along with accumulated interest. Or, if you delay retirement and don't draw your state pension for three years, the sum would be waived altogether. These could be mixed and matched by paying a portion up front, and having a portion attached to the value of your home.

One thing is plain: if the scheme is to work, then paying this £20,000 will have to be compulsory for all – or at least for the 70% who own property and savings. Polling showed only 15%-20% would pay up and join the scheme if it was voluntary: the rest would take their chance with the care roulette wheel, hoping for the best and risking losing everything. But unless all join, this universal insurance plan won't work.

No, no and thrice no, you evil fucking bitch: as Timmy has pointed out, we all have a universal insurance plan, and it is already compulsory—it's called National Insurance.
Money must be found, since the quality of care is well below any acceptable standard. Even without improvement, there will soon be a £6bn funding gap. The average cost per head is £30,000, varying between the drop-dead lucky ones who pay nothing and long-term Alzheimer's cases who may pay £200,000 for years in a nursing home.

This National Insurance that I spoke of, Polly. You remember it? Maybe not, since I am sure that your accountants have worked out a way for you to dodge it.

However, we fucking proles have to pay it and, this year alone, I will pay £2,570 into it; my employer will pay another £2,991—a total of £5,561.*

Let us assume that, over my working life, I and my employers pay roughly the same amount in every year, shall we? Assuming I retire at 65 (fat fucking chance, by the way), how much will I have paid in over my lifetime of 44 years, Pol? Can you do basic arithmetic? Come on, Pol, come on...

Yes! That's right, Polly. Over my working life, I will have paid £244,684—a reasonably substantial sum. So far, in my eleven in employment, I have claimed not one single penny of that. So, that's a pretty nice profit that the government is sitting on.

Of course, that's the point about insurance: it spreads the risk. But the other point is that insurance funds are supposed to be just that—actual funds that exist and which can pay out if necessary. Insurance companies, by law, have to have a certain size of fund (as do pension companies).

It also helps if said funds are invested and then bring in a bigger return—or, at the very least, bring in enough to offset the fall in the value of the fund caused by inflation—than if the money had been put in a sock under the bed.

Unfortunately—and I am becoming weary of pointing this out to morons like you, Polly—the government has not actually been doing this. It has been taking the money and using it as income: there is no fund, and no investment. So of course there is a fucking shortfall, you moron—not least because the government keeps paying out to people who have not ever paid a fucking penny into the fund!

Not only this, but the government has been using most of the money paid by new investors, i.e. young people, to pay out to early investors, i.e. old people. This is what is known as a Ponzi Scheme and Bernie Madoff was imprisoned for a silly amount of time for running one.

Whatever you think of NICs as an idea, what I have outlined above is the reality of what has been happening—it is a fraud. Given all of this—given the failure of successive governments to run this compulsory fucking scheme honestly or competently—you approve yet more demands on our money?

You advocate that we should be forced to give yet more of our money to the state, when the state has failed to honour the promises that it made when it took the first lot?

You advocate the stealing of yet more cash so that the state can carry on blithely perpetrating a massive fraud on people who have no option but to pay into it?

At what point, Polly, you loathsome fuckwit, is it going to dawn on you that giving money to politicians is a really fucking stupid thing to do? When are you going to realise that these bastards never fulfill their promises?

Go fuck yourself, Toynbee: you make me sick, you fawning fucking state lapdog. Go on, fuck off and die.

* Plus, of course, I pay for private health and unemployment insurance, and a private pension, on top of my NICs. These private options cost less than my NICs contributions alone.

20 comments:

Budgie said...

I don't think I would have the stomach to read Polly, nor the minutes to waste in my life. I don't read Mary Tiddell either, thank God.

thefrollickingmole said...

So let me get this straight, the answer to the government fucking up the national insurance by taxing and squandering is to give them more money?
Yeah, Im sure that will work.

Just out of interest whan did the national insurance start to get raided as "income" rather than what it was intended for?

Henry Crun said...

I don't understand. First the government tell us we are all going to die young from being obese, smoking, drinking too much, going outside in the sunshine. Then they tell us that the population of old people is increasing and that the retirement age is going to increase because of all these sprightly pensioners are healthier and living longer.

Wish they'd make their fucking minds up.

Anonymous said...

You can't hang them from lampposts - it's forbidden!

http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2009/07/nanny-bans-bunting-again.html

Simon said...

Sorry you got it wrong - NICs has never been an insurance scheme, it is an assurance scheme. Money paid in goes out immediately to fund current expenditure not future expenditure.

So yep Ponzi in a way but was never set up as an insurance scheme.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Simon,

I know Wikipedia gets things wrong, but I'll just quote this...

"A key assumption of the Act was an unemployment rate of 4.6%. At the time the Act was passed unemployment was at 3% and the fund was expected to quickly build a surplus."

In other words, there was supposed to be an actual fund. (I shall try to find the text of the original National Insurance Act 1911 though.)

In any case, to call an assurance fund an insurance fund would—under normal trading laws—be illegal, I believe.

DK

Simon said...

Indeed it would be illegal but I believe various statutes have changed the system to reflect the population growth and expenditure. It is in effect an assurance scheme now whatever it is called

In reality what we should have done was create a sovereign wealth fund in the 70s from North Sea oil revenues and I doubt we would be having these problems now

Devil's Kitchen said...

Simon,

"It is in effect an assurance scheme now whatever it is called"

The relevent word there is "now": it was not set up as an assurance scheme...

But yes, any kind of fund—an actual fund rather than Ponzi payouts—would be better than nothing.

DK

Simon said...

If we had followed Norway's example we would have been more than ok.

The Government Pension Fund Global (Formerly the Petroleum Fund) was founded in 1990 and is valued at $325bn - some $81,500 per citizen

Then again they seem to get NICs right as well. The Government Pension Fund Norway was founded in 1967 and had a value of $16.6bn in 2006

Always enjpy your blog Devil!

Wossat? said...

The argument is irrelevant. The carbon tax will make sure we haven't got two fucking brass farthings to rub together...

Roger Thornhill said...

Again the Socialists want to reward fecklessness and punish the lower and middle earners.

I bet they see the bulge in retirees and rub their grubby, kleptocratic and collectivist hands together at the prospect of all those lump sums. Very soon the money will come in and immediately roll out again. After a few parliaments, as with NI, the promises will soon be forgotten or reneged.

It is another excuse to know what we have, to suck away independence.


If the idea is so grand and "works", how come private companies do not provide such schemes? The answer may lie in the compulsion Polly speaks of (compulsion upon others being mothers milk to Fabian scum like her), which is just a form of redistribution. Few seams remain unplundered, I guess and this is just another grab. What next? compulsory saving for education funds? Compulsory savings for holidays? Compulsory healthy food purchase? Compulsory green energy purchase?

Oh, spoke too soon.



One day Socialism, Fabianism and all manner of Social Democracy, "social justice" and fluff will be seen in the same light as the Pharaohs - a form of enslavement, only it will be seen as all the more wicked due to its stealth and bare-faced hypocrisy and lies.

Garry said...

They eventually take your property anyway.

My late grand parents sold there house and went into care homes. Because they were suddenly flush with cash they didn't qualify for free care anymore, and had to pay,for the same state care that others received free. They were in care for only a few years before passing away,by which time there was only a few thousand pounds left in their account.

It looks like this government is looking for an advance on what a future government will eventually take anyway.

john in cheshire said...

Can someone please explain to me why there is no body of people in this country dedicated to killing the socialist shit polluting our world? Why do we have to just keep railing against them in print. Why can't we organise to take them out and lynch them?

Anonymous said...

The government pay out to people who have never put a penny into it.
Yeah, "trannies", single-whores, opps, i MEAN MOTHERS, (whose ignorance has been causedd by the said "government") and other users. The people who have some get up and go are penalised. wELL THEY DO NOT WANT PEOPLE WHO CAN MATCH THEM TO GET AHEAD. We might lynch them; those on welfare won't!

Anonymous said...

NI is what you call a Ponzi scheme. Madof just got 150 years in jail for that in the US. The amount he stole is peanuts compared with our state run scam has taken from us...

Lola said...

Simon/DK:-

Assurance is like an endowment (!) it builds up a fund that will eventually pay out and in the meantime provides a level of insurance cover against whatever peril you've decided to insure against, death, ill health etc. In other words you are providing a fund in the future for something that will happen.

Insurance is a risk cover. You are laying off the risk of suffering some form of loss that may or may not happen.

NIC was created as an assurance scheme. Cradle to the Grave and all that. But it is run as a Ponzi scheme.

Whatever it is as it is currently run it is just more tax.

Basil Brown said...

50 years of paying direct/indirect taxes and disguised-taxes like NI to the government, then if you need "non-medical" care in your final years, your lifetime contributions to the exchequer count for nothing and the government want to redistribute your estate.

For anyone who is, or has a relative in this situation, the following link will be of interest. It appears that PCTs have been relying on public-ignorance of a legal precedent established in 1999; denying NHS-funded care to people who are really entitled to it.

http://gpss.npl.com/nhscare/

John Demetriou said...

Superb article, and properly researched and fact packed as usual.

Brilliant, keep this up.

JD

wonkotsane said...

Elderly care is devolved so, once again, No Mandate Brown is inflicting his thieving scams on England only.

Anonymous said...

The British way of doing things is to treat any form of revenue as just another tax. To quote one of the NHS Blog Doctor's heroes, Aneurin Bevan once said that "the best kept secret about the National Insurance fund is that there isn't one". Any money collected is simply handed over to the Treasury and subsumed in the pot of general taxation. The same is true of the "Road Fund" licence fees paid by motorists and the contributions paid into the Civil Service, NHS, teachers, police and fire service pension schemes, all of which are unfunded.