maccored wrote: » i dont agree in increasing the age. I wont need a pension if I work til I die (isnt that the idea?)
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
christy c wrote: » Don't need to imagine it, many likely will vote for them given the poor quality of others including SF
christy c wrote: » Whose idea is that?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Case in point. Part of my education in spotting bull****.
maccored wrote: » increasing the age? Dont you read your own posts?
christy c wrote: » No, working till we die?
JohnnyFlash wrote: » First time SF voter....... :cool:
maccored wrote: » increase the working age much higher than 65 most of us wont have much of a retirement to look forward to
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?
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
christy c wrote: » I'd love to have the pension age at 55, but it needs to be balanced with reality
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?
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
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? .
christy c wrote: » But reducing it makes the problem bigger, that's what is backwards
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?
[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???
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.
mynamejeff wrote: » again I think you are mixing me up with another poster but here a link for you to readhttps://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 paymentshttps://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26753
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.
Deleted User wrote: » Theres enough money in the world to end hunger, its the rich who cant be satisfied
[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?
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
maccored wrote: » or pay people enough that they have their own pensions.
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.
mynamejeff wrote: » 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
Bishop of hope wrote: » 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.
