In the world of Nosemonkey, there are a few givens:<\/p>\n
1) I can’t do maths<\/p>\n
2) The NHS is the single biggest problem facing the UK, and the cause of most of this country’s woes, but no one will ever be able to sort it out<\/p>\n
3) Economics is boring (even though I know it’s not really)<\/p>\n
4) Trains are even less interesting than blogs<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The first two are largely irrelevant here. But, to my surprise, Tom at Blairwatch<\/a> has managed to combine the last two in to (what strikes me as) a well-considered summary of the difficulties of working out quite why the British rail system is just so rubbish, and just what can be done to fix it.<\/p>\n
Now that that all makes sense, all I need is for someone to explain to me why, when a \u00c2\u00a350 a month contribution to a private health insurance scheme will cover me for pretty much all necessary hospital trips and a \u00c2\u00a380 a month contribution to a private pension would (according to the government’s pension calculator<\/a>) leave me with a weekly pension of c.\u00c2\u00a383 a week (\u00c2\u00a31 more than the standard state pension, assuming retirement at 65), the government effectively forces me to pay National Insurance when that money would be just as -if not more – profitably invested in private health insurance and pension schemes? Especially as the state pension’s unlikely to exist by the time I’m finally allowed to retire (probably 90 or so by then), so all the National Insurance I’m paying would, from a purely selfish point of view, be far better invested in a private pension fund.<\/p>\n
Small words and short sentences only, please. (And if I see the term “monetarism” in there, your comment will be instantaneously deleted…)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the world of Nosemonkey, there are a few givens: 1) I can’t do maths 2) The NHS is the single biggest problem facing the UK, and the cause of most of this country’s woes, but no one will ever … Continue reading