The Times.."work Longer Or Allow More Immigration"

[gotoutintime]

QED for my comment in post #4

I find that extremely ageist in general and and offensive in particular. If I had been paid my professional rate ( a professional status I largely self-funded!!) all the hours I GAVE to those in therapy - when the PTB would not fund it, preferring to fund advisers/ counsellors for asylum seekers and immigrants, to ensure they collected their 'fair share' of benefits - then I could have retired to the likes of Mustique!

As it is, I have joined the ranks of the terminally unpaid to do work that this govt COULD fund if they did not:

Engage in illegal wars

Pay out benefits to people who are too lazy to work

Allow in unskilled immigrants and their unable-to-work dependents - the latter who add a further drain to the NHS

Bank roll the upper echelons in the banking system

Create dozens of pointless quangos to enrich their fat-cat mates and 'dependants'

Shove their own snouts in the trough

Throw money about and create dozens of public sector posts.

Collude with self-destructive druggies and dole out free drugs to keep them functioning, in what is largely a useless existence.

As it is, I am faced with doing a thankless, nerve-wracking, physically draining task ..unpaid, and any help that I do get, I PAY FOR - in the knowledge that my OH and I paid our dues in taxes and NICs, only to witness people who never paid into the system ( incomers AND indigenous) get benefits lavished on them.

To pour even more water on this drowning rat, the money I managed to save for my old age - whilst others squandered theirs on 'riotous living', is now producing F*** All interest, so my capital is dwindling.

When YOU cells, have done as much unpaid work as I have..for as LONG as I have, and had to spend your savings on looking after your terminally ill OH ( where the added insult is that because his illness isn't called an illness - even tho' it is killing him very,very, slowly - and he is assessed as needing 'social care', so you pay thru' the nose for treatment and care)

You don't want to read/hear some little ill-informed upstart saying stuff like that.

As it is, I suspect you are merely a whining pencil-neck, whose self-pity is only exceeded by his insensitivity.

Quote - It was stated that 6 million Carers save this country over £87 BILLION POUNDS a year, enough to fund a second National Health Service.

Source - http://www.ukcarers.org.uk/

How much money have YOU saved the country, cells?

[/Rant mode]

Well said Aunt Jess. If we had some sensible people like you on the Front Bench to wake up the numb nuts of MP's that couldn't run a p1ss-up in a brewery, then life in Britain would be so much fairer.

People who give ao much to care for their spouse or parent's should be looked after a bit better by the Government. The elderly, sick and frail would obviously prefer to receive care from their own family and although this saves the Government and eventually us taxpayer's a fortune, the Family Carer's receive only a pittance.

If for instance a family whose able bodied members of working age can't be arsed to go and work for a living, and claim benefits and credits on a LONG term basis, then why should they receive so much more out of our ridiculous benefits system than Carer's who have to give up their jobs to do what is right.

The people needing care tend to need looking after 24 hours a day not 1 hour per day as in what the Social Services? allow. Even if they provided 4 or 5 hours a day care time it would help a great deal more.

We will nearly all get old one day - just hope we all have a good OH or other family member to help us if needed.

edit: sentence phrased wrong

[cells]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_popu...opean_countries

Check it out, bearing in mind that England is more densely populated than the UK.

Population density 2003

Ss(people per sq km)

England 130,281 (Area sq. km) pop.dens...........................

383

Northern Ireland 13,576

125

Scotland 77,925

65

Wales 20,732

142

United Kingdom 242,514

246

How do you know that is an indication that England is overcrowded and say Australia is under crowded?

Could it not mean that Australia is extremely under populated and the uk is very under populated?

You need an intrinsic definition and not a comparison. A comparison will get tell you if you are more overcrowded relative to some other country.

Clearly a good intrinsic view would be to look at the amount of empty space.

Some 90% of the country is empty. How can we be overcrowded if 90% is empty?

Perhaps you could argue our planners cram us into small spaces which is true, but that doesn’t mean the country is overcrowded.

Just take a look at Google maps.

[Prescience]

Worryingly, every "Informed" economic Think Tank these days, seems to buy-in to the flawed and false concept of "A Demographic Time Bomb".

Let's look at some of the realities.

First: the only reason Britain has a state pension problem is since the regime of National Insurance was first mooted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Budget), Governments have stolen the cash and wasted it in their usual profligate style.

Like many state civil servant pensioners, Government must now continue paying benefits from cashflow, rather than reserves and of course, raise pension levels a little each year to try and counter inflation and rising costs generally.

The last insurance company to operate such a scam with "Premium Income" (Cashflow) being used to discharge claims liabilities was called Fire Auto and Marine, operated by a dodgy Ceylonese man called Emile Savundra: he went to jail and rightly so.

One of the core rules of insurance is investing premium income after operational expenses have been serviced and pay claims from invested reserves: if this operational regime is not operated, then it isn't insurance.

The Wilson government insituted the sensible concapt of increasing contrubutions, pro rata with income: the more you earned, the more you paid: when benefits were claimed (Unemployment, sickness pension) then the "Graduated Contributions" led to "Graduated Benefits".

Thatcher of course, canceled this regime: well in fact cancelled the graduated benefits bit: but increased contributions! And retained the concept of the more you earned the more you paid: worse this dastardly women and her gang, also introduced Class IV NIC for the self-employed: for which the taxpayer receives absolutely no benefit whatsoever!

It is pure tax: a tax on self-employment and thus initiative and innovation and enterprise.

Couple of probs with the concept of working much longer: at what? Where are the jobs? All the older people can't become greeters at Asda! Ageism is alive and well in the workplace.

And most employers become increasingly disinterested in applicants after 35 these days!

The optional choice to continue working or to retire should be a personal one after a decent retirement age. Not mandatory 'cos greedy useless profligate governments screwed up!

Again!

A look at mortality tables shows that increasing working years to say 68, simply means that more will die -having paid in for 40 years or so! - and receive too little back.

A further reality is simply that the well off live far longer than the poor: thus mortality rates must be weighted by income group.

And it is the less well off who are expected to work longer: those with a decent corporate pension (If there are many left!), will often retire Early.

When I started work, those of above average income either expected a decent company pension (Most of which then were contributary) or were able from earned income after tax to buy a private pension from one of the main assurance companies.

Well, the thieving banks and the financial chicanists have ruined this one too!

Despite all their blather about how optimal and efficient all this trading and wheeling and dealing has made capital markets, the stark reality is for the little guy they aint!

They have never ever been worse: and bear in mind, circa 80 of ALL cash inflows into these markets come from Institutional Investors: from pension funds, insurance companies, assurance companies and mutual funds and ISAs etc.

To suggest immigration is the panacea merely demonstrates how fiscally myopic the Thunderer has become since Farter Murdoch ruined it.

Here, what has to be remember is the sheer drain on extant resources: housing in an era where this is wholly dysfunctional: Health: Education, etc. All of which has to be paid for.

The concept of millions of new immigrants funding an already flawed and bankrupt concept simply means they themselves would also be claimats in the future: thus this "Motorway Improvement" simply moves the tailbacks and traffic jams further along the route.

Instead of major companies ceasing final salary pension schemes, developing black holes in pension funds and taking contribution holidays into those funds, what is needed is a drastic rethink: how can it be, that in an era where the stock markets went stratospheric, corporate profits zoomed and wages and salaries stayed pretty much static, then there wasn't enough surplus funding for sensible pension contributions?

Corporate greed is the simple answer.

Instead of employers shifting their obligations to the public sector - once again - and of course naturellement, rewarding themselves with zillions, the corporate sector will have to ante up and pay an increasing share of this burden.

Additionally, it's a nice scam for government to whitter on about workers saving for their future retirement, stakeholder pensions and etc: what with?

The simple answer is to reduced government waste and insane profligacy and reduce taxation: and thereby allow workers to enjoy much greater disposable income which can then be applied to savings and investments for the future.

Don't forget, too, Britain's state pension and benefits are amongst the lowest in Western Europe: far lower than Italy, Spain, France and even Greece!

[Guest AuntJess]

How do you know that is an indication that England is overcrowded and say Australia is under crowded?

Could it not mean that Australia is extremely under populated and the uk is very under populated?

You need an intrinsic definition and not a comparison. A comparison will get tell you if you are more overcrowded relative to some other country.

Clearly a good intrinsic view would be to look at the amount of empty space.

Some 90% of the country is empty. How can we be overcrowded if 90% is empty?

Perhaps you could argue our planners cram us into small spaces which is true, but that doesn’t mean the country is overcrowded.

Just take a look at Google maps.

You mean the green bits need covering with concrete and tarmac? Ever heard of CO2? Or the 'lungs of England? And there are far more green bits in France for example, so why not tank them up till they reach our pop. dens.?

Ever wondered why life expectancy in Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset is far higher than the North West or Midlands, and deaths from heart disease and cancer far lower in the South West than North West and Midlands, despite old people retiring to said South Western Counties?

Check it out. The stats that is.

[Guest pioneer31]

Some 90% of the country is empty. How can we be overcrowded if 90% is empty?

uninhabitable perhaps? and the 90% figure is bull

Just take a look at Google maps.

Oh right......

Does Google Maps reveal where the local businesses, schools. hospitals, jobs, water/gas/leccy supplies are?

[cells]

QED for my comment in post #4

I find that extremely ageist in general and and offensive in particular.

what bit? the bit where i say we should export the old?

i don’t mean at gun point, just encourage them to leave. lots already do to places like Spain.

writing a blank cheque is the wrong way to go about it.

if at 65 you have £100k in savings, you have two choices.

either leave the country and live out you remaining 20-25 years in a cheap country at relatively ok comfort.

or you can burn through your 100k in less than 10 years in the uk and cry for help from the state/family for the remaining 15 years.

If I had been paid my professional rate ( a professional status I largely self-funded!!) all the hours I GAVE to those in therapy - when the PTB would not fund it, preferring to fund advisers/ counsellors for asylum seekers and immigrants, to ensure they collected their 'fair share' of benefits - then I could have retired to the likes of Mustique!

i know from your previous posts you are a xenophobe which is a shame as you seem nice in all other ways. You’re falling for propaganda again, the government spends ~700B in this country, how much of that goes to asylum seekers and immigrates? I would be surprised if it were >2-3%

As it is, I have joined the ranks of the terminally unpaid to do work that this govt COULD fund if they did not:

Engage in illegal wars

Pay out benefits to people who are too lazy to work

Allow in unskilled immigrants and their unable-to-work dependents - the latter who add a further drain to the NHS

Bank roll the upper echelons in the banking system

Create dozens of pointless quangos to enrich their fat-cat mates and 'dependants'

Shove their own snouts in the trough

Throw money about and create dozens of public sector posts.

Collude with self-destructive druggies and dole out free drugs to keep them functioning, in what is largely a useless existence.

yes they waste a lot of money.

and they could potentially pay for good healthcare and homecare for the old if they were more efficient and i would prefer that.

As it is, I am faced with doing a thankless, nerve-wracking, physically draining task ..unpaid, and any help that I do get, I PAY FOR - in the knowledge that my OH and I paid our dues in taxes and NICs, only to witness people who never paid into the system ( incomers AND indigenous) get benefits lavished on them.

i assume your "free work" is caring for your ill husband rather than say working for a charity.

what you are doing is natural and has been done for as long as humans have been on earth.

it is a type of insurance. if your husband was well and you were ill then he would likely have looked after you.

you also mentioned you had a few kids. well they too should be helping you be it directly or financially.

on top of all of this. euthanasia should be legal and we should all discus when we are of sound mind if we want to continue living in certain conditions. i would take the option of euthanasia rather than be a huge burden on family.

we all die jess. there is nothing wrong with choosing the day you die.

yes lots of scroungers exist. that is a different debate though.

To pour even more water on this drowning rat, the money I managed to save for my old age - whilst others squandered theirs on 'riotous living', is now producing F*** All interest, so my capital is dwindling.

vote labour

When YOU cells, have done as much unpaid work as I have..for as LONG as I have, and had to spend your savings on looking after your terminally ill OH ( where the added insult is that because his illness isn't called an illness - even tho' it is killing him very, very, slowly - and he is assessed as needing 'social care', so you pay thru' the nose for treatment and care)

poor you. having to do something humans have been doing for generations.

now where did i put that violin?

your alternative is what? that the state looks after your ill husband by charging others?

You don't want to read/hear some little ill-informed upstart saying stuff like that.

As it is, I suspect you are merely a whining pencil-neck, whose self-pity is only exceeded by his insensitivity.

if your going to try to insult me, at least try to do a good job of it. Pencil neck, hahaha, showing your age dear. no self pity but your correct in that i am probably a little less sensitive than most people. however what i advocated isn’t me being sensitive or not, it is a matter of logic or fact. moving to a cheaper country will buy you more goods and services and give you a better quality of life.

Quote - It was stated that 6 million Carers save this country over £87 BILLION POUNDS a year, enough to fund a second National Health Service.

Source - http://www.ukcarers.org.uk/

no, they didn’t save a penny. They just didn’t cost the government £87B.

there is a big difference. or you could claim your saving the country £50k a year by not getting hit by a bus and requiring 24/7 care.

How much money have YOU saved the country, cells?

[/Rant mode]

a good estimate would be about £3-5m so far.

and you?

[cells]

uninhabitable perhaps? and the 90% figure is bull

Oh right......

Does Google Maps reveal where the local businesses, schools. hospitals, jobs, water/gas/leccy supplies are?

businesses, schools, hospitals, jobs, water, gas, electricity are all things we can build anywhere in the country.

and no, it isnt uninhabitable.

the UK geography is such that the vast majority of areas are habitable.

[cells]

You mean the green bits need covering with concrete and tarmac? Ever heard of CO2? Or the 'lungs of England? And there are far more green bits in France for example, so why not tank them up till they reach our pop. dens.?

increasing the population to 100m be it internally or immigration would mean we have 85% of the land left rather than 90% of the land empty. still the vast majority would be empty.

i have indeed heard of CO2, what about it?

France can do what France wants.

however there is no need to lye to ourselves and pretend the country is bursting when 90% of it is empty.

it just makes the ones saying so look stupid.

Ever wondered why life expectancy in Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset is far higher than the North West or Midlands, and deaths from heart disease and cancer far lower in the South West than North West and Midlands, despite old people retiring to said South Western Counties?

Check it out. The stats that is.

let me guess. it is because there are no asylum seekers stabbing and raping people there?

[Guest pioneer31]

businesses, schools, hospitals, jobs, water, gas, electricity are all things we can build anywhere in the country.

but they aren't in place, in your 90% uninhabited bit!

and no, it isnt uninhabitable.

the UK geography is such that the vast majority of areas are habitable.

but they need services and infrastructure to be habitable - geddit?

[cells]

A further point worth noting is that immigrants from Europe have lower population densities than either England OR the UK, as a whole, Yet Brits emigrate to live in countries**with less overcrowding - indicating that Brits like room to stretch and breathe, and are more likely to benefit the economy of their chosen country, as they don't take jobs away from the natives. Why Eastern European come here, cannot be due to feeling claustrophobic in their own country.

**POP. DENS. of countries that Brits emigrate to

France = 108

Spain = 78

Oz = 6.4

NZ = 14

Canada = 3.3

North America = 32

http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/po..._density_0.html

These facts also give rise to the question, why are people from non-overcrowded countries coming here, thus reducing the chances of indigenous Brits, to find work, huh?

Don't gimme that 'Brits won't do lowly jobs' bullsh**: ALL my refuse collectors are English, and 70% of the caring team that I pay to help me to wash and dress my OH, are BRITISH.

Addendum - 100% of the carers in local day centre catering for the elderly are - WAS's -

The uk is crowded not because there are too many people but because of planning permission.

They force us to live on top of each other while 90% of the nation is empty fields.

So blame the planners instead of making up people to blame.

[cells]

Well said Aunt Jess. If we had some sensible people like you on the Front Bench to wake up the numb nuts of MP's that couldn't run a p1ss-up in a brewery, then life in Britain would be so much fairer.

People who give ao much to care for their spouse or parent's should be looked after a bit better by the Government. The elderly, sick and frail would obviously prefer to receive care from their own family and although this saves the Government and eventually us taxpayer's a fortune, the Family Carer's receive only a pittance.

If for instance a family whose able bodied members of working age can't be arsed to go and work for a living, and claim benefits and credits on a LONG term basis, then why should they receive so much more out of our ridiculous benefits system than Carer's who have to give up their jobs to do what is right.

The people needing care tend to need looking after 24 hours a day not 1 hour per day as in what the Social Services? allow. Even if they provided 4 or 5 hours a day care time it would help a great deal more.

We will nearly all get old one day - just hope we all have a good OH or other family member to help us if needed.

edit: sentence phrased wrong

It isn’t the job of government to take care of us, that is our and our families jobs.

Jess looking after her husband is the natural thing to do. Her looking for state help is the unnatural thing to do.

And trying to justify something that is wrong using something else which is even worse doesn’t make the first noble.

[cells]

but they aren't in place, in your 90% uninhabited bit!

but they need services and infrastructure to be habitable - geddit?

Chicken and egg?

So we have never built a new town or city?

It is impossible to do?

How about the fact that empty farmland in the middle of nowhere is £5k an acre and hence you can easily build the roads, services, houses and sell the lot at a profit.

[Guest anorthosite]

My only concern(s) (wasn't the weather) it was whether I'd find suitable employment and as our son has an English accent, whether he'd be bullied, given the deep religious er issues that have divided Scotland for some time.

Oh, just avoid Glasgow then! I grew up barely aware of them as I was in Edinburgh.

I'd always recommend Perthshire, where I am now. The job situation's as good or as bad as anywhere else, but its on the edge of the highlands, and is beautiful. But with cities like Perth, Dundee and Stirling commutable to, a job shouldn't be too big a challenge.

The weather's been lovely this year as well

[cells]

Jess if you’re still reading.

If you are finding it difficult looking after your husband physically and or financially why don’t you emigrate to a cheaper country?

In lots of countries you can buy or rent a house. Pay for living costs and also hire a part time helper for 20 hours a week for <£5k pa. £10k pa will get you a full time live in helper and give you a good quality of life.

That £10k here would just about pay rent (or the interest on your house).

Pros:

You free up housing in the uk which is required.

You create a job in a country that needs it.

You get a higher quality of life for yourself and your husband.

It costs you considerably less.

Might mean you don’t need to put your husband in a home when you get weak or he gets worse.

Cons:

You leave the uk and with the things that entails.

It is what I would do.

But for some weird reason you seem to detest even the thought of it.

[Guest AuntJess]

increasing the population to 100m be it internally or immigration would mean we have 85% of the land left rather than 90% of the land empty. still the vast majority would be empty.

i have indeed heard of CO2, what about it?

France can do what France wants.

however there is no need to lye to ourselves and pretend the country is bursting when 90% of it is empty.

it just makes the ones saying so look stupid.

let me guess. it is because there are no asylum seekers stabbing and raping people there?

Not very good at guessing I see, nor at googling for info. and YOU have saved the country 3 million.

Yeah right . Pull the other leg - it's got bells on.

[Guest Skinty]

The uk is crowded not because there are too many people but because of planning permission.

They force us to live on top of each other while 90% of the nation is empty fields.

So blame the planners instead of making up people to blame.

Spoken like a true townie.

I know what. Let's build a wall alongside the M25 with gun-turrets to stop people leaving London or anything entering. Let's see what happens.

Now apply this model to the entire UK but instead of a wall, think a lack of oil. Or think about what happens when we have lots of extreme rain fall on land covered by concrete.

Not to mention the social problems of everyone being packed in without anywhere to walk and the pollution too.

Besides which, 90% of the nation as "empty fields" strongly suggests that you are only thinking of England.

[cells]

Spoken like a true townie.

I know what. Let's build a wall alongside the M25 with gun-turrets to stop people leaving London or anything entering. Let's see what happens.

Now apply this model to the entire UK but instead of a wall, think a lack of oil. Or think about what happens when we have lots of extreme rain fall on land covered by concrete.

Not to mention the social problems of everyone being packed in without anywhere to walk and the pollution too.

Besides which, 90% of the nation as "empty fields" strongly suggests that you are only thinking of England.

eh?

did you misread what i typed?

the current system is like you describe.

the outer edges of London are very empty but there is an invisible wall that prohibits people building there.

so Londoners are forced to live in dense conditions when the outer edges of their city is very empty.

as for me, i live in a small market town with lots and lots of fields around it. plus the north Yorkshire moors right on the doorstep.

the country needs about 5m more houses/flats. Which would take up about 1% of the empty space. the alternative is the current one with high rents and living in 50m2 boxes.

[cells]

and YOU have saved the country 3 million.

Yeah right . Pull the other leg - it's got bells on.

I have. Better efficiency in using energy mostly.

[Guest Skinty]

eh?

did you misread what i typed?

the current system is like you describe.

the outer edges of London are very empty but there is an invisible wall that prohibits people building there.

so Londoners are forced to live in dense conditions when the outer edges of their city is very empty.

as for me, i live in a small market town with lots and lots of fields around it. plus the north Yorkshire moors right on the doorstep.

the country needs about 5m more houses/flats. Which would take up about 1% of the empty space. the alternative is the current one with high rents and living in 50m2 boxes.

OK let me be a bit more explicit as you clearly missed the point I was making.

Fields are used for farming. You cannot just concrete over all available land. Otherwise you won't be able to grow food, soak up rainfall or allow people to exercise.

How long would people survive in London if you did not allow them to leave and allowed no food or resources to enter? And you are wanting to apply this to the whole UK under the mistaken assumption that 90% of it is unused fields?

[cells]

OK let me be a bit more explicit as you clearly missed the point I was making.

Fields are used for farming. You cannot just concrete over all available land. Otherwise you won't be able to grow food, soak up rainfall or allow people to exercise.

How long would people survive in London if you did not allow them to leave and allowed no food or resources to enter? And you are wanting to apply this to the whole UK under the mistaken assumption that 90% of it is unused fields?

you still don’t seem to get it, about 90% of the country is empty. to builder another 5m homes would mean about 89% of the country being empty.

plus about 23.23% of the actual land mass of the UK is used for agriculture. The other 75% isn’t.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/UK.html

plus there is so much production of grains in Europe/uk that we pay farmers to leave parts of their land to "wildlife". it is now painted as eco wash but it was first put there long ago to stop Europes "grain mountains"

plus if what you said was a concern and we were close to some limit. we would be knocking small villages down and building high rise flats in London for them to live in.

most of the country is empty. we have plenty of land to build more houses on.

[wickywackywoo]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article6718090.ece

Even the leftie Times accepts that immigration provides economic benefits for us all

So the logic would appear to be more immigrants = more money for us all.

If that's the case then why aren't we now up to ears in money given the scale of immigration we've already seen? Because it's complete and utter nonsense, that's why.

I used to read the Times regulary ten years or so ago - before it turned into a brainless left wing rag.

[Frank Hovis]

you still don’t seem to get it, about 90% of the country is empty. to builder another 5m homes would mean about 89% of the country being empty.

plus about 23.23% of the actual land mass of the UK is used for agriculture. The other 75% isn’t.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/UK.html

plus there is so much production of grains in Europe/uk that we pay farmers to leave parts of their land to "wildlife". it is now painted as eco wash but it was first put there long ago to stop Europes "grain mountains"

plus if what you said was a concern and we were close to some limit. we would be knocking small villages down and building high rise flats in London for them to live in.

most of the country is empty. we have plenty of land to build more houses on.

You're taking a very narrow view cells. It's not just about the square yardage on which you live.

What about the overcrowding on roads, public transport, visitor attractions, hospitals, the loss of natural beauty as it is filled up with cafes and car parks.

I have lived in the south west for years. It's always been busy in summer (obviously) but it used to be quiet in the winter. Now it's busy all year, there are traffic jams and queues.

It has got worse. It is less easy to get around and when you do get somewhere it will be more crowded. There are only so many beaches, harbours, and tourist destinations.

[wickywackywoo]

It isn’t the job of government to take care of us, that is our and our families jobs.

Jess looking after her husband is the natural thing to do. Her looking for state help is the unnatural thing to do.

And trying to justify something that is wrong using something else which is even worse doesn’t make the first noble.

Unfortunately, it is. When they deprive you of the means to look after your own family through sky high taxation then they can damn well cough up when you need it.

Personally, I'd prefer the Goverment f*ck off and take none of my money and I'd be happy to be responsible for all my family's needs. As long as they continue to steal most of my money via taxes they can most certainly give me something for it.

[cells]

So the logic would appear to be more immigrants = more money for us all.

If that's the case then why aren't we now up to ears in money given the scale of immigration we've already seen? Because it's complete and utter nonsense, that's why.

I used to read the Times regulary ten years or so ago - before it turned into a brainless left wing rag.

Because the British decide to put all their excess earning into housing and because of a socialist government which taxes wealth more and more rather than let the people keep their money.

It is also the reason we have not seen a huge increase in wealth from the say 1970s..... of course unless you owned lots of houses during that time, in which case you are up to you ears in money.

Plus there had been huge increases in some areas. Look at the NHS, student numbers, numbers on the dole and the sick, numbers of single mums, etc.

Your just not seeing a bigger piece of the pie, it don’t mean others aren’t.

[Guest AuntJess]

Well cells, with me averaging 120 posts per month, and you 338, it kinda makes one wonder. I am retired and post when my OH is asleep.

What do YOU do for a living, that you can clock up so many more posts than me? I have 35% the number of posts you have.