The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Woodsey]

I'm warming to this idea. Old people aren't affected, by and large, by employment policies, mortgages, interest rates, crime (most victims are young, not old). Things like the environment, foreign relations and defence don't matter to them, cos they're going to die soon anyway. The only issues that affect them are things like healthcare, social care and pensions, ie things that the Tories are forever cutting. Yet they go and vote overwhelmingly for the Tories. As they clearly vote for the wrong people, there is a case for not having a vote after you retire.

Exactly, we pretty much become healthcare absorbing retards at 65 (or whenever we retire) - personally I'd go further in marginalising this worthless bunch.

Aye, Euthanasia 

[RED-DOG]

Must say I've never thought about the idea of having a maximum age limit on voting. Maybe we should lay off Keith a bit, because it's certainly an interesting idea and as worthy of debate as anything else. I've heard people say only current taxpayers should be allowed to vote, which is effectively the same thing but probably not quite as controversial (But still obviously controversial).

I've actually read a lot of research on voter habits, and as well as anecdotal evidence, my view is that people tend to vote for the party the identify with most, rather than necessarily the one that would benefit them most in the immediate future. Whenever I talk to an older person about voting, this comes across even more so. I remember talking to my Grandfather shortly before he died, well into his 80s, that he was voting Conservative because he believed they would create more jobs at the time. Obviously he was well past a point where getting a job matters.

Obviously from the tone of my question, I have a low opinion on young voters. I guess by process of elimination that means I consider older voters to be better informed and more virtuous.

I would quite like to know what "Lay off Keith" means in the context of this debate.

[DaveShoelace]

Must say I've never thought about the idea of having a maximum age limit on voting. Maybe we should lay off Keith a bit, because it's certainly an interesting idea and as worthy of debate as anything else. I've heard people say only current taxpayers should be allowed to vote, which is effectively the same thing but probably not quite as controversial (But still obviously controversial).

I've actually read a lot of research on voter habits, and as well as anecdotal evidence, my view is that people tend to vote for the party the identify with most, rather than necessarily the one that would benefit them most in the immediate future. Whenever I talk to an older person about voting, this comes across even more so. I remember talking to my Grandfather shortly before he died, well into his 80s, that he was voting Conservative because he believed they would create more jobs at the time. Obviously he was well past a point where getting a job matters.

Obviously from the tone of my question, I have a low opinion on young voters. I guess by process of elimination that means I consider older voters to be better informed and more virtuous.

I would quite like to know what "Lay off Keith" means in the context of this debate.

Might totally be wrong but I just sensed a bit of hostility is all, apologies to all if not the case

[RickBFA]

They've made their money, had their families, bought their houses and got money in the bank.

They don't need tax breaks, boosts on savings rates or reduction on inheritance tax.

Young people need the money spent on bribing old people for their votes to help to buy their first house, improve education for their children and improve the NHS.

The focus of governemnt should be on the future and young people ARE the future.

I think you'll find that the reduction in inheritance tax doesn't do much for the relevant old person.

Think that the tax break (age allowance) have been reduced?

Savings rates have been risible since the financial crisis.  The main beneficiary of low interest rates are those with mortgages.  Unfortunately this has also encouraged the BtL market but the government is taking action there.

Of course it does, they want to keep their money in their family. That's what they worry about. That's what they vote for.

I must admit was pleasantly surprised when Osborne increased the stamp duty on BtL owners.

Didn't go nearly far enough (obv) but it was a start.

If someone has worked hard, took risks and created wealth why shouldn't they have the right to keep their money in their family?

We all have a social responsibility but I don't understand why this motive to protect their own financially is an issue? Its a natural instinct.

[redsimon]

The talk about Inheritance Tax (IHT) and how unjust it is baffles me.

What % of estates paid any IHT last year? I'm pretty sure it was less than 5% of estates.

[RED-DOG]

Must say I've never thought about the idea of having a maximum age limit on voting. Maybe we should lay off Keith a bit, because it's certainly an interesting idea and as worthy of debate as anything else. I've heard people say only current taxpayers should be allowed to vote, which is effectively the same thing but probably not quite as controversial (But still obviously controversial).

I've actually read a lot of research on voter habits, and as well as anecdotal evidence, my view is that people tend to vote for the party the identify with most, rather than necessarily the one that would benefit them most in the immediate future. Whenever I talk to an older person about voting, this comes across even more so. I remember talking to my Grandfather shortly before he died, well into his 80s, that he was voting Conservative because he believed they would create more jobs at the time. Obviously he was well past a point where getting a job matters.

Obviously from the tone of my question, I have a low opinion on young voters. I guess by process of elimination that means I consider older voters to be better informed and more virtuous.

I would quite like to know what "Lay off Keith" means in the context of this debate.

Might totally be wrong but I just sensed a bit of hostility is all, apologies to all if not the case

No problem.

I was not intentionally hostile, but Keith's views are obviously and probably intentionally controversial.

IMO they warrant robust examination.

[doubleup]

The talk about Inheritance Tax (IHT) and how unjust it is baffles me.

What % of estates paid any IHT last year? I'm pretty sure it was less than 5% of estates.

IHT only came into the discussion because Camel said that old people dying was a tax break (as well as saying that they were getting it too easy when they were living).

IHT is an odd tax in that it is effectively a deferred wealth tax.  The rationale behind that kind of tax is that too much concentration of wealth is damaging for society.  It doesn't seem to have worked as wealth inequality persists.  The very rich manage to avoid it quite easily.

[byronkincaid]

If someone has worked hard, took risks and created wealth why shouldn't they have the right to keep their money in their family?

The grandkids have less incentive to work hard, take risks and create wealth? Monevator (good blog) rants about this, his basic argument is that it's better to tax the dead than the living.

We have a State and the money for it has to come from somewhere. I believe it’s better to tax unearned windfalls from the dead more heavily and the earnings of the living and productive less heavily

[david3103]

Must say I've never thought about the idea of having a maximum age limit on voting. Maybe we should lay off Keith a bit, because it's certainly an interesting idea and as worthy of debate as anything else. I've heard people say only current taxpayers should be allowed to vote, which is effectively the same thing but probably not quite as controversial (But still obviously controversial).

I've actually read a lot of research on voter habits, and as well as anecdotal evidence, my view is that people tend to vote for the party the identify with most, rather than necessarily the one that would benefit them most in the immediate future. Whenever I talk to an older person about voting, this comes across even more so. I remember talking to my Grandfather shortly before he died, well into his 80s, that he was voting Conservative because he believed they would create more jobs at the time. Obviously he was well past a point where getting a job matters.

Obviously from the tone of my question, I have a low opinion on young voters. I guess by process of elimination that means I consider older voters to be better informed and more virtuous.

I would quite like to know what "Lay off Keith" means in the context of this debate.

Might totally be wrong but I just sensed a bit of hostility is all, apologies to all if not the case

No problem.

I was not intentionally hostile, but Keith's views are obviously and probably intentionally controversial.

IMO they warrant robust examination.

My thoughts entirely.

[TightEnd]

this is an amusing read

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12045229/MPs-need-to-be-much-ruder-to-the-general-public.html

Click to see full-size image.

[DungBeetle]

I'm warming to this idea. Old people aren't affected, by and large, by employment policies, mortgages, interest rates, crime (most victims are young, not old). Things like the environment, foreign relations and defence don't matter to them, cos they're going to die soon anyway. The only issues that affect them are things like healthcare, social care and pensions, ie things that the Tories are forever cutting. Yet they go and vote overwhelmingly for the Tories. As they clearly vote for the wrong people, there is a case for not having a vote after you retire.

Perhaps we can just strike off anyone who has ever voted Tory from future elections to ensure a glorious left wing politburo for ever?

[DungBeetle]

I used to be anti inheritance tax but over time I figured we need to collect a certain amount of tax so better to tax a windfall rather than increase tax on someone who is out working.  The problem at the moment is it hits people who inherit a family home rather than the very rich for whom it is worth the expense of offshore trusts.  Not that inheriting a London house is to be sniffed at but it is a tax that hits the upper middle class than the mega rich which seems to defeat the point.

[TightEnd]

Jeremy Corbyn criticised by judge for making violent criminals sound like 'peace campaigners'

ouch.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12046798/Jeremy-Corbyn-criticised-by-judge-for-making-violent-criminals-sound-like-peace-campaigners.html

[TightEnd]

11pt Tory lead in ComRes / Sunday Mirror /Independent on Sunday

Con 40% (-2)

Lab 29% (+2)

LD 7% (NC)

UKIP 16% (+1)

Green 3% (NC)

[MintTrav]

I'm warming to this idea. Old people aren't affected, by and large, by employment policies, mortgages, interest rates, crime (most victims are young, not old). Things like the environment, foreign relations and defence don't matter to them, cos they're going to die soon anyway. The only issues that affect them are things like healthcare, social care and pensions, ie things that the Tories are forever cutting. Yet they go and vote overwhelmingly for the Tories. As they clearly vote for the wrong people, there is a case for not having a vote after you retire.

Clearly   That's funny mate, thanks for the good belly laugh.

I clearly need to borrow some smilies from you so it's more obvious if a post isn't meant to be serious.