Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Gay cheek!

Are gay people really "net contributors to public services through their taxes, because very few of them have children" when they are more likely to require expensive NHS treatment to fight HIV than the rest of the UK population!?!

6 comments:

wildgoose said...

And by not having children they are abusing our Pension Ponzi scheme whereby we pay our parents' pension and our children pay for ours.

Or in their case, our children pay for their pension as well.

xoggoth said...

Yes probably. The cost of HIV treatment is £16k pa. Can't be bothered to research the point but I suspect education the average family exceeds that. A very recent news item said state schools cost more per pupil than private schools.

Also not that many gays have HIV anyway. Most of the new cases and the big increase in the UK is down to African immigrants, most of those women.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What X says, although on relative costs of state/private education I have it on good authority that the ISC conducted no such research (but it is factually correct anyway).

Snafu, I think you are way off the mark here:

On the plus side, gays tend to earn more and hence pay more income tax; very few do get AIDS, and if they do, the cost of treatment nets off with the fact that they get less old age pension.

On the 'irrelevant' side, agreed, they don't bring up kids, but they are paying more tax to fund other people's child benefit/state education so that's a net nothing. Also, you can't compare cost of state education with HIV treatment; gays go to school just the same as straights. Or indeed bi's.

It is more relevant to compare net cost of gays (lots of tax paid, some AIDS costs) with African immigrants (bugger all tax paid, lots of AIDS costs).

Just sayin', is all.

Snafu said...

Mark, I was just picking up on Prospective parliamentary candidate Margot James unchallenged statement!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Thinking about this a bit more, she could have said that for all childless people - whether that is out of selfishness, commonsense, fear of childbirth, infertility or simply being too ugly to find a partner.

Rob said...

Given that the proportion of homosexuals who receive expensive treatment on the NHS is probably a very small one, I imagine that they are, as a group, net contributors to the exchequer.

However, as this group tends to be 'progressive' and liberal/left-wing in persuasion, it is odd that they feel this should give them greater power (even than they already have!). Strangely, the left produces the opposite argument when it is bankers or plain white-bread middle-class males who are the net contributors.