nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Ten of Swords

Part 1 here

All mod warnings from part 1 remain in effect

All thread bans from part 1 remain in effect

Threadbans Thread 2

Hqrry113

Carry on...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

christy c

McMurphy wrote: »

How can I elaborate on a hypothetical situation?

You keep typing out the same thing over and over and over about demographics looking after themselves.

I asked why aren't the current govt looking at alternatives, superannuation for example, mandatory pension enrolment plans.

It's not A/B christy, you known this.

There's a myriad of things we could knuckle down on before targeting people retiring imo.

Seen we are in the SF thread, why haven't SF looked at what you are suggesting rather than coming out with nonsense?

Increasing the pension age is being done in many countries, it will at least form part of the solution IMO

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

or pay people enough that they have their own pensions.

So who is responsible for that?
It's the same as increasing taxes really though isn't it and the cost of living.
The more people are paid the higher the cost of goods and services goes up the more money is needed to live anyway.
That's not the answer.

mynamejeff

maccored wrote: »

you, johhnyflash, blanch152 etc - yous are all talking the same rubbish. easy to mix ye's up .. especially when some like to jump in and deflect questions from the other

Why are you quoting the newletter at me? thats a very slanted publication

lol the irony of a poster with your profile accusing me of botting

:):):)

its an application form for the online army you were asking about

though it might be helpful to you

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yous are one claiming expertise in demographics,

seems a commonsense solution sorting 2 issues at once for me....unless i see evidence to say it'll not work,why not support it?

I'm not claiming expertise, I have heard experts in the area talking about the scale of the problem and done some reading on the subject.

To obtain evidence, research would be required. Has this been done?

maccored

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres enough money in the world to end hunger,

its the rich who cant be satisfied

dont be saying that too loud - sure its easier to pretend the only option is work until you die

maccored

Bishop of hope wrote: »

As the amount of pensioners in the country is, growing too there's sense in increasing it.
The other option is increased taxes.
But that said its pretty severe to have people of 67 and 68 forced to work too.

or pay people enough that they have their own pensions.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

As the amount of pensioners in the country is, growing too there's sense in increasing it.
The other option is increased taxes.
But that said its pretty severe to have people of 67 and 68 forced to work too.

People who were expecting to retire and get their due. Criminal really.

If anything is to be done about this it has to be on a very long phased finger to be fair.

maccored

mynamejeff wrote: »

again I think you are mixing me up with another poster but here a link for you to read
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/after-signing-over-millions-sinn-fein-wouldnt-talk-donor-security-reasons-942027

heres a form to join the online army , you might be missing out on payments

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26753

you, johhnyflash, blanch152 etc - yous are all talking the same rubbish. easy to mix ye's up .. especially when some like to jump in and deflect questions from the other

Why are you quoting the newletter at me? thats a very slanted publication

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

I remember that, but if you want to have a discussion you could elaborate. If you don't want to partake that's fine.

How can I elaborate on a hypothetical situation?

You keep typing out the same thing over and over and over about demographics looking after themselves.

I asked why aren't the current govt looking at alternatives, superannuation for example, mandatory pension enrolment plans.

It's not A/B christy, you known this.

There's a myriad of things we could knuckle down on before targeting people retiring imo.

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

i agree - but its 2020. its increased one year in this decade alone. the age should be reducing as the country grows - not increasing. thats backwards

As the amount of pensioners in the country is, growing too there's sense in increasing it.
The other option is increased taxes.
But that said its pretty severe to have people of 67 and 68 forced to work too.

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you increase the birthrates,by providing affordable housing to young couples putting off starting families

Deos this not cancel.it out???

How much would you need to increase birth rates by? Possible in theory but I haven't seen any research supporting this as a strategy

mynamejeff

maccored wrote: »

are you delusional? sorry for asking but your on about some 'online army'. In not in an online army

also - you never told me the story you made up yet. is it as good as mary lou going to the US and those fairytales?

again I think you are mixing me up with another poster but here a link for you to read
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/after-signing-over-millions-sinn-fein-wouldnt-talk-donor-security-reasons-942027

heres a form to join the online army , you might be missing out on payments

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26753

maccored

christy c wrote: »

But reducing it makes the problem bigger, that's what is backwards

if they could do it years back, they should be able to do it now. the main difference is these days a ceo has something like 200 times the pay of a general worker, whereas in the 50s it was around 20 times (pretty sure I read that somewhere).

the cost of living has more than likely increased more than the rate of pay has over the decades. those are issues that need to be sorted out rather than being worse off than we were x amount of years ago. We live in a society where people cant afford health care, never mind a private pension. thats just wrong

to fix that takes thought and consideration, rather than whatever FF and FG are doing

christy c

McMurphy wrote: »

You don't remember me telling you I've enough in my own job to be doing with out drawing up potential pension plans for a sitting govt who spend over 15m on advisers a year? Perhaps your memory has been eroded by typing out the "demographics" line a few too many times repeatedly.

Am I in agreement? Not necessy, id like to see the pros and cons of mandatory pension enrolment first.

Why do you think I should go down a rabbit hole making up hypothetically pension deductions and contributions etc etc?

.

I remember that, but if you want to have a discussion you could elaborate. If you don't want to partake that's fine.

christy c

maccored wrote: »

i agree - but its 2020. its increased one year in this decade alone. the age should be reducing as the country grows - not increasing. thats backwards

But reducing it makes the problem bigger, that's what is backwards

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

I remember you threw out mandatory pension deductions once, but didn't elaborate. Are you in agreement that the demographics looking after themselves is a silly idea?

You don't remember me telling you I've enough in my own job to be doing with out drawing up potential pension plans for a sitting govt who spend over 15m on advisers a year? Perhaps your memory has been eroded by typing out the "demographics" line a few too many times repeatedly.

Am I in agreement? Not necessy, id like to see the pros and cons of mandatory pension enrolment first.

Why do you think I should go down a rabbit hole making up hypothetically pension deductions and contributions etc etc?

.

maccored

christy c wrote: »

I'd love to have the pension age at 55, but it needs to be balanced with reality

i agree - but its 2020. its increased one year in this decade alone. the age should be reducing as the country grows - not increasing. thats backwards

maccored

mynamejeff wrote: »

I posted the information you requested ,

balls in your court ,
im sure you know the story as a avid member of the online army

are you delusional? sorry for asking but your on about some 'online army'. In not in an online army

also - you never told me the story you made up yet. is it as good as mary lou going to the US and those fairytales?

mynamejeff

maccored wrote: »

thats my bad and I apologise about that. Youve been waffling so much about this person that I had (mistakenly) thought thats what you had called the person.

arent you going to tell me the story though - SF did what to that person? Or is it a case of just more whataboutery from you?

I posted the information you requested ,

balls in your court ,
im sure you know the story as a avid member of the online army

christy c

maccored wrote: »

increase the working age much higher than 65 most of us wont have much of a retirement to look forward to

I'd love to have the pension age at 55, but it needs to be balanced with reality

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

First time SF voter.......

:cool:

In a general election - yes.

maccored

christy c wrote: »

No, working till we die?

increase the working age much higher than 65 most of us wont have much of a retirement to look forward to

christy c

maccored wrote: »

increasing the age? Dont you read your own posts?

No, working till we die?

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Case in point. Part of my education in spotting bull****.

First time SF voter.......

:cool:

maccored

christy c wrote: »

Whose idea is that?

increasing the age? Dont you read your own posts?

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

Don't need to imagine it, many likely will vote for them given the poor quality of others including SF

So you keep saying. So they will keep getting the same thing.

I believe in change. Remove the power swap, break it for all time and everyone ups their game. If the 'change' is usurped or doesn't cut the mustard vote them out too.

maccored

mynamejeff wrote: »

Post 4155, that's one of yours right ?

as for calling some one with a serious mental illness "retarded" , your just a bad person but here is the post you complaining about 4146 and 4159 .

some yoke lads

thats my bad and I apologise about that. Youve been waffling so much about this person that I had (mistakenly) thought thats what you had called the person.

arent you going to tell me the story though - SF did what to that person? Or is it a case of just more whataboutery from you?

christy c

maccored wrote: »

i dont agree in increasing the age. I wont need a pension if I work til I die (isnt that the idea?)

Whose idea is that?

maccored

christy c wrote: »

Part of the answer, agreed. Another part is increasing the age which is happening in many countries

i dont agree in increasing the age. I wont need a pension if I work til I die (isnt that the idea?)

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Case in point. Part of my education in spotting bull****. Imagine still voting FG after the precedent they set this week?

Don't need to imagine it, many likely will vote for them given the poor quality of others including SF