Cause & Effect of Diets on Pensions

Overheard in the Car:

Hay: “I remember when this field was covered in houses.”


Vast Swathes of UK Public Can’t Grasp Cause & Effect

A new study shows that a huge portion of the UK’s public is incapable of linking what they do with the consequences of what they do, or as the experts call it, cause and effect.

This has been borne out by the observation that many people, when voting for a political party that says it will decimate public services if called to form a government, cannot subsequently understand why services are cut when that party is voted into power.

Stonehenge Domino Theory

People with Crap Diets to Die

The toxic printing inks in the recycled packaging of pre-prepared foods will ensure that those who eat such crap will die an early and painful death, according to new research.

Firms have reacted by packaging their salt-laden, fat-infused, sugar-saturated products, which lack any semblance of nutrition and are likely to ensure that the people who eat them die an early and painful death from type 2 diabetes and heart attacks, in healthy, virgin cardboard cut from unsustainable forests.

Companies firmly believed this will portray them as responsible and cognizant of their customers’ health, thus tricking consumers into believing they will not now die an early and painful death.

The irony is that this strategy will succeed.

Health warnings on food can kill

Government Fails to Understand Concept of Saving

On a more serious note, the Work & Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan-Smith, wants to reward people who save for their old age.

The UK state pension system is one where people contribute to it through mandatory National Insurance contributions in order to receive a pension at retirement age.

A private pension system is one where people contribute to it through voluntary contributions in order to receive an additional pension at retirement age.

One system is mandatory, the other is optional. By any definition, both are old-age savings schemes.

Mr Duncan-Smith appears to think they are radically different and that the former is not a savings scheme but more a sponger’s charter, despite contributions being mandatory and at a level set by the government itself. It’s as if we’re being led to believe we’re not actually entitled to our own savings.

Not only that, but despite men and women individually contributing exactly the same proportion of their salary into the scheme, married couples receive less in pension than two separate individuals, which seems rather unfair. Can governments be found guilty of mis-selling pensions? I doubt it.

The words 'state-sposnored Ponzi scheme' come to mind.


Call for Assistance

If anyone can assit me in putting a Facebook Like button within my template (which doesn't seem to follow the standard template HTML nomenclature) for individual posts, please get back to me.