It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

£1,000,000 for the over 50's

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I was just checking back on one of my older threads and discovered the following posted by scottlpool2003


Everybody over the age of 50 gets given £1,000,000 and instantly retires. £1,000,000 is enough to live on from 50 upwards even on interest of 4% would be £40,000 per year. If a retired person or couple can't live on £40k/year then something is seriously wrong. They don't have access to the whole £1m, maybe a fixed amount or if they want to buy a house or whatever, they have to apply for it. They also sacrifice their pension.

So all those people retiring in 10-15 years ANYWAY have now freed up tons of jobs and left enough experienced people in those jobs to help train the younger generation (it's practically happening anyway with apprenticeships). It sounds far fetched to give £1m to everyone between the age of 50 and 70 but the govt are plowing billions into apprenticeships and other "economy boosting schemes" anyway.

It's win-win, big gaps in the job market, tons of millionaires with cash to spend, govt stops WASTING billions on stupid apprenticeships, youth get employed, less people on benefits, hundreds of billions saved in pensions, more people paying taxes it's totally worth spending £100bn or so.


What a fantastic idea. Cant realy fault it (I'm over 50
), what do you all think?

DONT GIVE ME THE STARS, GIVE THEM TO THE POST BELOW, IT WAS SCOTS IDEA.

edit on 11-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Thanks, wasn't expecting a thread to be started about it but glad someone can see the logic in it. The person who was telling me about this idea got so many questions and 'what ifs' asked by me but the only negatives that we could think of were:

1. What if the people don't agree?
Logical thing would be to either make it compulsory.

2. What if the people blow the money?
As I said in the original post, they do not have direct access to the funds, just the interest which is £40,000 a year and if they want access to larger sums of money to buy a house for example, it has to be applied for.

3. What will they do with their time?
Well if the professional 'better trained, higher skilled' jobs are freed up for the younger generation to fill, it would open up the less skilled jobs such as supermarkets, shops etc if they so wish to do so.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by scottlpool2003
 


Hi scot, didnt realise you were on line, if I'd known I have pestered you to post the thread.

I think its the perfect way to solve a lot of problems, even the big bad bankers who seem to control everything would like it.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
if everyone getsthe same amount then would that not effect the value of the money?
how would you get around that?
edit on 11-7-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


It's okay.

I do believe there are solutions out there for the World's problems, but it just appears that we're too busy wasting more time/effort and money into meaningless schemes. It's the apprenticeships that really winds me up. I saw another one today for a "warehouse operative". What does this job consist of that warrants the government paying to train people to shift boxes and clean up. The same with sales/customer services. I can't go to college or university to learn how to be a warehouse operative or salesperson or customer service person so why the hell are we footing the bill for this? There are already thousands of people working in these sectors that haven't had to go to college to learn these things, they get 'on the job' training which hasn't done any harm over the last 20 years. It's just another abuse of the system and an abuse of our taxes.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
if everyone getsthe same amount then would that not effect the value of the money?


No only those over 50 would get the money, and they only get the interest, not the actual million.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Not really, the money isn't printed, more than this is already spent on the pensions and apprenticeships. It balances its long term as the pension deficit is reduced, more money is plowed into the economy as more people are spending and more people are paying taxes so instead of devaluing the money, it increases the economy and production.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottlpool2003
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


It's okay.

I do believe there are solutions out there for the World's problems, but it just appears that we're too busy wasting more time/effort and money into meaningless schemes. It's the apprenticeships that really winds me up. I saw another one today for a "warehouse operative". What does this job consist of that warrants the government paying to train people to shift boxes and clean up. The same with sales/customer services. I can't go to college or university to learn how to be a warehouse operative or salesperson or customer service person so why the hell are we footing the bill for this? There are already thousands of people working in these sectors that haven't had to go to college to learn these things, they get 'on the job' training which hasn't done any harm over the last 20 years. It's just another abuse of the system and an abuse of our taxes.


These schemes achieve two things
1. It hands over billions to private companies - shareholders.
2. It's a form of control. We have to have a qualification or we cant have a job. Have you noticed how nearly all qualifications only last for 3 or 5 years? even my hgv license will expire if I dont pay £1500 every 5 years for EXTRA training.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I have seen this idea put forward before - it came round in an email. The main problem here is that no one actually works out the figures! They spout the idea and don't even bother to look at whether it will work. Figures for Ireland.



I don't believe that either the Irish Government or the Government of the UK can afford these sort of figures. For Ireland as an example that sum annually is approaching bailout levels. Not once to cripple the economy, but every single year.

The GDP of the UK is currently £2.2 Trillion yet somehow they are to find £612 TRILLION or about 278 times GDP every single year???

It does not seem to be a very good idea to me. It would be great as I am well over 50, but I think it would never happen.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Your calculation is based on over 50's... My calculation is based on 50-65 which is 11.2m

Source (www.50plusworks.com...)

It is in fact a hell of a lot higher than I thought but the final figure would be 1.1 × 10^13

50,000 young unemployed people in Britain could potentially enter high skilled employment, pay more taxes, come off benefits.

11.2m people have money to spend...

Edit:

Also note that those 11.2 million sacrifice their pension
edit on 13-7-2012 by scottlpool2003 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2012 by scottlpool2003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by scottlpool2003
 


You are correct and I note that I got my billions and trillions muddled I think. If you look at it I said 12X which is actually not that far out, but let's us the figures in the document you linked to.

11,200,000 people are between 50 and 65 and of those 64.9% are working. which is 7,268,800.

Give each of those, to shorten the calculation, your suggested £40,000 interest. That comes to 290,752,000,000 - each and every year. So even on the cut down figure you are looking at 290 billion every year increasing. (See below)

Also bear in mind that even though these people don't get a pension in fact they do and one that is 4 times the normal. As year year goes past the numbers will increase as older people drop off and the new 50 year olds 'retire'. Eventually you are going to have the full 21 million @ the same rate of 64.9 which will then come to 545 billion and this does not account for those who were not in employment but still need supporting.

I don't know what the pension is in the UK but let's say £100 a week. So each of those on the new scheme are saving the state 50 billion against a cost of 545 billion + the other state aid to those not in the scheme.

If we assume an average wage for the new opportunities for the younger people and being VERY generous in saying the gubbermint would get 30% take take from that, the additional inflow is 94 billion which is nowhere near enough to cover the expenditure.

It just does not work.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I see your point, but I think you're mistaking the fact that it isn't every year it's a one off scheme for all current 50-65 year old's which leaves a 15 year turnaround period for the economy.

I know it would never happen and I know it would cost hundreds of billions but I certainly think its better spent than say the recent £50bn purchase of trains (which aren't even being made in this country) combined with the £32bn HS2 train line as it isn't vital to our economy at this moment in time.

Also, a good £100bn or so would be saved from benefits, I mean we've hit £182bn on 3 'off the top of my head' schemes.

I don't know, I just think it is time the government pulled their fingers out and got tough with their spending. Cuts to the military, cuts to public services but throw money at wasted things like apprenticeships, trainlines etc in my opinion it's a manipulation of figures. "Look, we got 15,000 young people in employment" - Yes but you made 20,000 army servicemen unemployed and 130,000 public sector workers unemployed that makes what? -115,000 way to go!
edit on 18-7-2012 by scottlpool2003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by scottlpool2003
 


A good start would be removing all subsidies to alternative power. Loopy that companies get paid more than the consumer pays in some cases. Remove feed in tariffs for domestic installations as well that are over and above commercial rates on the day ahead rates. Only commercial rates should be paid.

If so called 'green power' (which is actually one of the most polluting of all) cannot stand on it's own merit then it should not stand at all.

Prevent medical companies from overcharging the NHS. £3000 or more for a stent? Blooming ridiculous. Break the stranglehold of patents on medicine - they are killing it and us.

I may get flamed for this but, make sure that those on benefits all get treated the same. The excessive pandering to 'asylum seekers', many of which are not genuine, results in an unbalanced distribution. Either even it up or bring everyone down on the same level.

Make ALL benefits means tested. The daft idea that someone gets a State Pension when they have their own sufficient pension is stupid. People will say, but I paid for that, but anyone who pays taxes pays for many things for which they do not see the benefit. Child benefit. Means test it.

Rein in the banks. They should go bust if that is the commercial result of their behaviour. The man with the corner shop does not get bailed out if his business is in trouble.

Don't spend silly sums on sports events!



edit on 23/7/2012 by PuterMan because: Ah, the inevitable speeling erra




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
It wouldn't work because inflation would be out of control and only the over 50s would be able to afford to live.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join