This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Uk's annual expenditure is £502B and £180B of this is spent on the benefit system - that's 35% of the budget. Is this too much money to spend and is it unsustainable? Surely, as people live longer the demand for health care will also increase, pushing the NHS budget up aswell. Does this mean higher taxation? Cuts elsewhere e.g. foreign aid? Or does it mean the end of the welfare system?
In reply to Oliiver:
There's only one solution:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/
But in the meantime rising energy prices will have an effect.
There's only one solution:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/
But in the meantime rising energy prices will have an effect.
In reply to cuppatea: You'reright. there is no problem that can't be solved by Jenny Agutter taking her kit off and then putting it back on again
In reply to Oliiver: Your mum is bloated and at bursting point.
In reply to Oliiver: Were did you get your figures? These are different
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2013UKbn
and would put benefits at 17%. They say they get the figures fro government publications.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2013UKbn
and would put benefits at 17%. They say they get the figures fro government publications.
In reply to Oliiver:
You are aware that 50% of the benefit system goes on the state pension? Damn those voting pensioners!
> The Uk's annual expenditure is £502B and £180B of this is spent on the benefit system
You are aware that 50% of the benefit system goes on the state pension? Damn those voting pensioners!
In reply to Oliiver: They've combined welfare and pensions under 'helping other'. That's flawed as people have been making contributions to their state pensions all their working lives, it isn't a benefit.
In reply to Papillon: you don't have to contribute, to claim a state pension
In reply to Oliiver: peter, what's with the beard?
In reply to Oliiver:
very good and timely question. Also of that 180B the bulk of it is 85B on old age. I imagine the bulk of that to be national pensions, there is no further breakdown of the spending that I can see so it is hard to see how much of that is also going on accomodation, meals on wheels, home help etc. To me it is not simply a case of cutting out money, that just shifts the problem elsewhere and still doesn't address the problem of an aging population. Neither does simply raising the pension age without addressing what jobs are available for people to do.
I think that a staggered retirement and opportunities for people to move into more suitable work would help. as would properly addressing the problem of work for the disabled (amongst those who can work) yes we have made great headway but a lot more understanding needs to take place.
The problem from a political point of view is that any attempt to dismantle the Welfare state is an instant vote loser as starving dying people do not win votes. So we still need the welfare state but may have to shift the focus of it from reactive to proactive and encouraging healthier lifestyles. Aside from the actual pension (which was introduced in 1908) most of the money goes on health related and mobility issues if these can be eased it helps costs over all.
The problem is that any attempt to remove the Welfare state does not remove the need for it. There will still be old people who will need to be housed and fed and whom, for whatever reason have not been able to provide for themselves. In the past it fell on sons and daughters to provide for their parents in their dottage which in itself is a drain on any economy as the time and money lost in caring for an ageing parent is not fuelling the economy, as people would need to give up work in order to do this. How we deal with this will define us for centuries to come and determine if humanity can continue or return to barbarism
very good and timely question. Also of that 180B the bulk of it is 85B on old age. I imagine the bulk of that to be national pensions, there is no further breakdown of the spending that I can see so it is hard to see how much of that is also going on accomodation, meals on wheels, home help etc. To me it is not simply a case of cutting out money, that just shifts the problem elsewhere and still doesn't address the problem of an aging population. Neither does simply raising the pension age without addressing what jobs are available for people to do.
I think that a staggered retirement and opportunities for people to move into more suitable work would help. as would properly addressing the problem of work for the disabled (amongst those who can work) yes we have made great headway but a lot more understanding needs to take place.
The problem from a political point of view is that any attempt to dismantle the Welfare state is an instant vote loser as starving dying people do not win votes. So we still need the welfare state but may have to shift the focus of it from reactive to proactive and encouraging healthier lifestyles. Aside from the actual pension (which was introduced in 1908) most of the money goes on health related and mobility issues if these can be eased it helps costs over all.
The problem is that any attempt to remove the Welfare state does not remove the need for it. There will still be old people who will need to be housed and fed and whom, for whatever reason have not been able to provide for themselves. In the past it fell on sons and daughters to provide for their parents in their dottage which in itself is a drain on any economy as the time and money lost in caring for an ageing parent is not fuelling the economy, as people would need to give up work in order to do this. How we deal with this will define us for centuries to come and determine if humanity can continue or return to barbarism
In reply to Papillon:
interesting comparison though
interesting comparison though
In reply to Papillon:
I'm not sure I see much difference. For welfare, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those without sufficient income. For pensions, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those over a given age.
I'm not objecting to either of those, but the principle is much the same. Yes you "pay in" when earning in order to get a pension, but you also "pay in" while earning in order for there to be a welfare system.
> They've combined welfare and pensions under 'helping other'. That's flawed as people have been
> making contributions to their state pensions all their working lives, it isn't a benefit.
> making contributions to their state pensions all their working lives, it isn't a benefit.
I'm not sure I see much difference. For welfare, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those without sufficient income. For pensions, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those over a given age.
I'm not objecting to either of those, but the principle is much the same. Yes you "pay in" when earning in order to get a pension, but you also "pay in" while earning in order for there to be a welfare system.
In reply to Oliiver:
You have to have 30years NI contributions to get the full state pension, and it isn't means tested. It has and is shifting that way but to today's pensioners it was clear cut when they were working, the state pension was earned.
> (In reply to Papillon) you don't have to contribute, to claim a state pension
You have to have 30years NI contributions to get the full state pension, and it isn't means tested. It has and is shifting that way but to today's pensioners it was clear cut when they were working, the state pension was earned.
In reply to Oliiver: Means tested state pension. Coming to all of us aged under 50 (probably)
In reply to knthrak1982:
As far as I can tell it doesn't but if the money ain't there then the money ain't there
As far as I can tell it doesn't but if the money ain't there then the money ain't there
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The original idea was you paid in towards your pension... a nationalised pension scheme. Yes it is changing but today's pensions worked under the old scheme, so I'm sticking with welfare and pensions shouldn't be lumped together.
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure I see much difference. For welfare, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those without sufficient income. For pensions, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those over a given age.
>
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure I see much difference. For welfare, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those without sufficient income. For pensions, people with sufficient income pay tax, and this money is spent on those over a given age.
>
The original idea was you paid in towards your pension... a nationalised pension scheme. Yes it is changing but today's pensions worked under the old scheme, so I'm sticking with welfare and pensions shouldn't be lumped together.
In reply to Oliiver:
Ive just Remembered who you remind me of.
Arnold Judas Rimmer, From red dwarf.
The character likeness is outstanding.
Ive just Remembered who you remind me of.
Arnold Judas Rimmer, From red dwarf.
The character likeness is outstanding.
In reply to cuppatea:
Good as far as it goes, but this has a lot to offer too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> There's only one solution:
>
>
> There's only one solution:
>
Good as far as it goes, but this has a lot to offer too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/
In reply to Oliiver:
Try and know what you are talking about when you make a statement like that, it is bollox.
> (In reply to Papillon) you don't have to contribute, to claim a state pension
Try and know what you are talking about when you make a statement like that, it is bollox.
In reply to Papillon:
Which would make entire sense if they had invested that money in its own pot. But they never had, they've always just spent it on current expenditure. Thus it is essentially a tax and benefit system.
But the "old system" always was a con (if anyone got the impression that the money was being invested for them), it always has been a system of taxing current earners and using the money to pay current benefits.
> The original idea was you paid in towards your pension... a nationalised pension scheme.
Which would make entire sense if they had invested that money in its own pot. But they never had, they've always just spent it on current expenditure. Thus it is essentially a tax and benefit system.
> Yes it is changing but today's pensions worked under the old scheme, ...
But the "old system" always was a con (if anyone got the impression that the money was being invested for them), it always has been a system of taxing current earners and using the money to pay current benefits.
And the larger part of the welfare budget is spent on those who have a job.
Caveat - I don't vote blue or red.
Milliband and his living wage, why didn't the previous bunch of numpties sort out the tax/minimum wage at the same time. Minimum wage should be what you can live on (ie a living wage, not a random figure) & tax allowance should equal a full-time job at minimum wage. They should rise.
The current bunch of numpties have done no better.
Talk of 45% and 50% tax bands is diversion. What would sort out the economy is people working and being paid a decent amount. What this needs is some sort of radical support for a manufacturing and farming. Money needs to exchange hands for actual goods not just services, we need to make something and ideally drop our imports or increase our exports.
We're a small company (~50 employees). Most of our employees don't have qualifications let alone degrees. We pay a fair wage and directors salaries are not an obscene multiple of the lowest salary. We export ~85%.
It can be done. But not with the short-sighted and incompetent MPs we've had for the past 15 years.
I wouldn't usually post such a serious and non-trolling post, but I've been depressed by the vast number of unemployed people who've applied in the couple hours my vacancy has been open.
Caveat - I don't vote blue or red.
Milliband and his living wage, why didn't the previous bunch of numpties sort out the tax/minimum wage at the same time. Minimum wage should be what you can live on (ie a living wage, not a random figure) & tax allowance should equal a full-time job at minimum wage. They should rise.
The current bunch of numpties have done no better.
Talk of 45% and 50% tax bands is diversion. What would sort out the economy is people working and being paid a decent amount. What this needs is some sort of radical support for a manufacturing and farming. Money needs to exchange hands for actual goods not just services, we need to make something and ideally drop our imports or increase our exports.
We're a small company (~50 employees). Most of our employees don't have qualifications let alone degrees. We pay a fair wage and directors salaries are not an obscene multiple of the lowest salary. We export ~85%.
It can be done. But not with the short-sighted and incompetent MPs we've had for the past 15 years.
I wouldn't usually post such a serious and non-trolling post, but I've been depressed by the vast number of unemployed people who've applied in the couple hours my vacancy has been open.
In reply to mike kann:
With Ed Millband's spunk
> (In reply to Oliiver) Your mum is bloated and at bursting point.
With Ed Millband's spunk
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It was a fairly convincing 'con' for people at the time. The money was collected separately and put in a separate fund (the National Insurance Fund).
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
>
> But the "old system" always was a con (if anyone got the impression that the money was being invested for them), it always has been a system of taxing current earners and using the money to pay current benefits.
>
> [...]
>
>
> But the "old system" always was a con (if anyone got the impression that the money was being invested for them), it always has been a system of taxing current earners and using the money to pay current benefits.
It was a fairly convincing 'con' for people at the time. The money was collected separately and put in a separate fund (the National Insurance Fund).
In reply to Al Evans:
What was wrong with Oliiver's statement? Do you not know the eligibility criteria?
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> Try and know what you are talking about when you make a statement like that, it is bollox.
> [...]
>
> Try and know what you are talking about when you make a statement like that, it is bollox.
What was wrong with Oliiver's statement? Do you not know the eligibility criteria?
In reply to Oliiver: perhaps the uk could earn more money. If you moved towards high value activities, and moved people off unemployment you could afford the welfare state you would like.
You don't need a race to the bottom, you just need to do more productive tasks than working in shops and selling mobile phone tones. As I recall uk productivity in terms of GDP per population could be better
What sort of thing does your father do Olliver? Would you consider it actively productive?
You don't need a race to the bottom, you just need to do more productive tasks than working in shops and selling mobile phone tones. As I recall uk productivity in terms of GDP per population could be better
What sort of thing does your father do Olliver? Would you consider it actively productive?
In reply to wbo: he's a managing director for redrow homes ltd
In reply to Oliiver: I'd say the housing market is extremely productive and efficient.
In reply to Submit to Gravity: That's nothing. You should see his sister. Apparently David is far more virile. She's already burst.
In reply to Oliiver: I wouldn't. It's a glorified service. If you don't have a productive economy then people can't buy houses because they're skint, so building an economy round building is what's called a bubble, and equally a source of the UKs woes as anything else.
And, as energy was mentioned earlier, you can ask him why uk houses are so poor for energy use. Uk gas and leccy prices are lower than most of Europe already but thanks to crap efficiency your bills are high
And, as energy was mentioned earlier, you can ask him why uk houses are so poor for energy use. Uk gas and leccy prices are lower than most of Europe already but thanks to crap efficiency your bills are high
In reply to Oliiver: full / at bursting point. Very little give
In reply to Oliiver: In terms of your original question, define what you mean by 'bloated'. Where is the excess you assume in your question, where is it in danger of bursting?
Once we understand what you are asking, then we may be able to answer: but asking a leading question won't help you find an answer.
Of course, this presumes you want your question answered and not just to garner forum notoriety.
T.
Once we understand what you are asking, then we may be able to answer: but asking a leading question won't help you find an answer.
Of course, this presumes you want your question answered and not just to garner forum notoriety.
T.
In reply to Oliiver: Is UK expenditure on the Welfare state really that high?
Based on the info in the links below the UK's spend on the welfare state as a % of GDP appears to be fairly unremarkable! Proably a tad on the low side for such a wealthy country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=socx-data-en&doi=els-...
Based on the info in the links below the UK's spend on the welfare state as a % of GDP appears to be fairly unremarkable! Proably a tad on the low side for such a wealthy country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
http://stats.oecd.org/BrandedView.aspx?oecd_bv_id=socx-data-en&doi=els-...
In reply to Graham Mck: 21-26% 12 years ago... Too high IMO
In reply to Papillon:
The "National Insurance Fund" is simply an accounting device, an adding up of the money in and money out. There is no actual investment pot, there is no "those shares in Coca-Cola and Microsoft etc are invested for your pension". If there's a deficit in this notional "Fund" then the government just puts in more money, and if there is a surplus then the money is just lent to the government for expenditure.
Thus, overall, it's a simple money-in, money-out system of taxation for current needs.
> It was a fairly convincing 'con' for people at the time. The money was collected separately and
> put in a separate fund (the National Insurance Fund).
> put in a separate fund (the National Insurance Fund).
The "National Insurance Fund" is simply an accounting device, an adding up of the money in and money out. There is no actual investment pot, there is no "those shares in Coca-Cola and Microsoft etc are invested for your pension". If there's a deficit in this notional "Fund" then the government just puts in more money, and if there is a surplus then the money is just lent to the government for expenditure.
Thus, overall, it's a simple money-in, money-out system of taxation for current needs.
In reply to Oliiver:
You don't appear even to know what bloated means ... or you're pretending it means something else to water down your initial emotive statement. It means swollen e.g like a balloon or stomach, i.e. actually distended.
> (In reply to Oliiver) full / at bursting point. Very little give
You don't appear even to know what bloated means ... or you're pretending it means something else to water down your initial emotive statement. It means swollen e.g like a balloon or stomach, i.e. actually distended.
In reply to Oliiver: ...and what is your opinion based on? All you seem to do is spout childishly argumentative sound bites. You are very predictable both in your views and your responses and I find it quite tedious. In fact you are so predictable it seems like you are operating to a formula and I suspect you are the childish alter ego of a UKC poster who has been around a tad longer than you. If this is in fact not the case then it is all very sad!
In reply to Graham Mck:
Or, more simply, he is simply a child (a 16-yr-old).
> I suspect you are the childish alter ego of a UKC poster ...
Or, more simply, he is simply a child (a 16-yr-old).
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I think the metaphor pretty much means the same thing. Don't split hairs.
In reply to Graham Mck:
Not me?
> (In reply to Oliiver) ...and what is your opinion based on? All you seem to do is spout childishly argumentative sound bites. You are very predictable both in your views and your responses and I find it quite tedious. In fact you are so predictable it seems like you are operating to a formula and I suspect you are the childish alter ego of a UKC poster who has been around a tad longer than you. If this is in fact not the case then it is all very sad!
Not me?
In reply to Oliiver:
No it isn't, far from it. Do you actually know how much land construction companies are sitting on until the prices rise?
> (In reply to Oliiver) I'd say the housing market is extremely productive and efficient.
No it isn't, far from it. Do you actually know how much land construction companies are sitting on until the prices rise?
In reply to Oliiver:
What's getting me is that as people live longer they tend to need more care for longer, therefore the current generation of worker bees will be asked to work for longer to help pay for this. We will sacrifice the prime decade (at a guess - I am 35 and reckon I'll work to 75 not 65) of our retirement so that a lot of people can enjoy what is quite probably going to be the worst decade of their life as their bodies fail them. Yes I am sure there are some out there who are still going strong at 80/90 but we all know there are an awful lot of people who get put into nursing homes and suffer an appalling, undignified and painful end to their lives wishing every new day will be their last.
What's the answer? Euthanasia? Unthinkable?
What's getting me is that as people live longer they tend to need more care for longer, therefore the current generation of worker bees will be asked to work for longer to help pay for this. We will sacrifice the prime decade (at a guess - I am 35 and reckon I'll work to 75 not 65) of our retirement so that a lot of people can enjoy what is quite probably going to be the worst decade of their life as their bodies fail them. Yes I am sure there are some out there who are still going strong at 80/90 but we all know there are an awful lot of people who get put into nursing homes and suffer an appalling, undignified and painful end to their lives wishing every new day will be their last.
What's the answer? Euthanasia? Unthinkable?
In reply to mwr72: evidence? You can't trust the huffing ton post. Actually, housing companies can't get enough land atm. They'd just love to buy and build on green belt land.
In reply to Oliiver:
It's not splitting hairs. You say 'very little give'. Well, something that is capable of becoming bloated, like a stomach or a balloon has a lot of give, and is actually quite a good metaphor for welfare benefits, in that a government can easily overspend, just as someone can overeat. What you are saying is that we have reached some kind of fixed limit, as if the size of the inflated balloon is fixed (yes, it will burst eventually ... but most bloated things can be bloated further). You picture is wrong too in another sense, because the capacity of the 'stomach' of the welfare budget can be increased without any further bloating/stretching simply by increasing taxation.
It is really irritating seeing people using our language so loosely, and then claiming they did not mean what they said (because they weren't too bothered about the meaning of the words in the first place).
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) I think the metaphor pretty much means the same thing. Don't split hairs.
It's not splitting hairs. You say 'very little give'. Well, something that is capable of becoming bloated, like a stomach or a balloon has a lot of give, and is actually quite a good metaphor for welfare benefits, in that a government can easily overspend, just as someone can overeat. What you are saying is that we have reached some kind of fixed limit, as if the size of the inflated balloon is fixed (yes, it will burst eventually ... but most bloated things can be bloated further). You picture is wrong too in another sense, because the capacity of the 'stomach' of the welfare budget can be increased without any further bloating/stretching simply by increasing taxation.
It is really irritating seeing people using our language so loosely, and then claiming they did not mean what they said (because they weren't too bothered about the meaning of the words in the first place).
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: a government can overspend of course. Borrowing, taxation or cutting elsewhere. And that's what we're currently doing
In reply to wbo:
> (In reply to Oliiver) I wouldn't. It's a glorified service. If you don't have a productive economy then people can't buy houses because they're skint, so building an economy round building is what's called a bubble, and equally a source of the UKs woes as anything else.
>
>
Which industries could this not be said of and why?>
>
In reply to Oliiver:
So? So what? That is what all capitalist countries, i.e just about everyone, is now doing. Your point is far from clear.
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) a government can overspend of course. Borrowing, taxation or cutting elsewhere. And that's what we're currently doing
So? So what? That is what all capitalist countries, i.e just about everyone, is now doing. Your point is far from clear.
In reply to Oliiver:
And it's crucial that we overspend more. It's vital, (a) to feed the poor, and (b) to promote inflation to downsize the capital accumulations of the obscenely and antisocially rich.
And it's crucial that we overspend more. It's vital, (a) to feed the poor, and (b) to promote inflation to downsize the capital accumulations of the obscenely and antisocially rich.
In reply to mwr72:
Oliiver is counting on that, it's his retirement plan
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> No it isn't, far from it. Do you actually know how much land construction companies are sitting on until the prices rise?
> [...]
>
> No it isn't, far from it. Do you actually know how much land construction companies are sitting on until the prices rise?
Oliiver is counting on that, it's his retirement plan
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Aren't you being a tad harsh on him here? The FreeDictionary gives the primary meaning of "bloated" as: "Much bigger than desired: e.g. a bloated bureaucracy; a bloated budget". Oxford Dictionaries gives a secondary meaning as: "excessive in size or amount: e.g. the company trimmed its bloated labour force ...". Thus his usage is entirely valid.
> You don't appear even to know what bloated means ... or you're pretending it means something else to
> water down your initial emotive statement. It means swollen e.g like a balloon or stomach, i.e. actually distended.
> water down your initial emotive statement. It means swollen e.g like a balloon or stomach, i.e. actually distended.
Aren't you being a tad harsh on him here? The FreeDictionary gives the primary meaning of "bloated" as: "Much bigger than desired: e.g. a bloated bureaucracy; a bloated budget". Oxford Dictionaries gives a secondary meaning as: "excessive in size or amount: e.g. the company trimmed its bloated labour force ...". Thus his usage is entirely valid.
In reply to Oliiver:
Huffington post? I was working in construction before you were a spunk bubble in your daddy's happy sack. I've also talked to more site managers than I would care to try remember, a good 90% have told me that their companies have blocks of land all over the place sitting there doing nothing until prices rise at which point they will build and sell property for a premium.
And of course they would love to buy up green belt land, it will add to their fallow land portfolio, which they would love to build on to sell property at a premium.
> (In reply to mwr72) evidence? You can't trust the huffing ton post. Actually, housing companies can't get enough land atm. They'd just love to buy and build on green belt land.
Huffington post? I was working in construction before you were a spunk bubble in your daddy's happy sack. I've also talked to more site managers than I would care to try remember, a good 90% have told me that their companies have blocks of land all over the place sitting there doing nothing until prices rise at which point they will build and sell property for a premium.
And of course they would love to buy up green belt land, it will add to their fallow land portfolio, which they would love to build on to sell property at a premium.
In reply to Postmanpat: manufacturing, services that can be sold oversea, and things that generate real value. A rather inward looking country with an economy based around selling services to a population with decreasing wealth strikes me as having a challenge.
Less unemployed doesn't hurt either if you can grow a value and export based economy as well they won't need hiding in marginal min wage jobs either?
Do you think the uk has a decent economic plan for the future Olliver. Or do you think bodging along is just fine? Seeing as you fancy a career in politics you may as we'll start thinking about this
Less unemployed doesn't hurt either if you can grow a value and export based economy as well they won't need hiding in marginal min wage jobs either?
Do you think the uk has a decent economic plan for the future Olliver. Or do you think bodging along is just fine? Seeing as you fancy a career in politics you may as we'll start thinking about this
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well, yes, that's what he first seemed to say, then he brought in this thing about 'bursting point/very little give' ... which suggested some rigid container that was going to crack or burst, which is not what bloated means.
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Aren't you being a tad harsh on him here? The FreeDictionary gives the primary meaning of "bloated" as: "Much bigger than desired: e.g. a bloated bureaucracy; a bloated budget". Oxford Dictionaries gives a secondary meaning as: "excessive in size or amount: e.g. the company trimmed its bloated labour force ...". Thus his usage is entirely valid.
>
> [...]
>
> Aren't you being a tad harsh on him here? The FreeDictionary gives the primary meaning of "bloated" as: "Much bigger than desired: e.g. a bloated bureaucracy; a bloated budget". Oxford Dictionaries gives a secondary meaning as: "excessive in size or amount: e.g. the company trimmed its bloated labour force ...". Thus his usage is entirely valid.
Well, yes, that's what he first seemed to say, then he brought in this thing about 'bursting point/very little give' ... which suggested some rigid container that was going to crack or burst, which is not what bloated means.
In reply to mwr72: uhm, bull shit. Do you think site managers actually know what's going on? A lot of work, if not all is sub contracted out. My father is one of 8, who manage different regions of redrow housing - currently redrows market capitalisation is £960m. I don't think your source of info is that reliable
In reply to wbo:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) manufacturing, services that can be sold oversea, and things that generate real value. A rather inward looking country with an economy based around selling services to a population with decreasing wealth strikes me as having a challenge.
>
Are you suggesting that non manufacturing services cannot be exported? Are you suggesting that unless something can be exported they have no real value"?>
> Less unemployed doesn't hurt either if you can grow a value and export based economy as well they won't need hiding in marginal min wage jobs either?
>
Does housing construction not employ people? Do you think the manufacturing jobs that have gone overseas would be well paid were they in the UK?>
In reply to craigloon: £5? Showing your class
In reply to Oliiver:
Do you not think that contracts managers know what's going on? Did you know that they speak regularly to both site managers and regional managers? Did you know that they are a link in a chain? While they may not know everything, site managers know a hell of a lot more than you think they know!
So your daddy is not actually a director then, he's a regional manager?
You have no need to tell me how a construction company works, I know they are management companies now, not like in the past when they employed their workforce rather than sub-contracting all their work.
(There are a few posters on UKC who also work in construction who would agree).
> (In reply to mwr72) uhm, bull shit. Do you think site managers actually know what's going on? A lot of work, if not all is sub contracted out. My father is one of 8, who manage different regions of redrow housing - currently redrows market capitalisation is £960m. I don't think your source of info is that reliable
Do you not think that contracts managers know what's going on? Did you know that they speak regularly to both site managers and regional managers? Did you know that they are a link in a chain? While they may not know everything, site managers know a hell of a lot more than you think they know!
So your daddy is not actually a director then, he's a regional manager?
You have no need to tell me how a construction company works, I know they are management companies now, not like in the past when they employed their workforce rather than sub-contracting all their work.
(There are a few posters on UKC who also work in construction who would agree).
In reply to Oliiver: he was a regional director now he's md
In reply to Postmanpat: no, non manufacturing services are excellent. They are however generally SE centric. And the general population doesn't like banking nor do the government seem to like education anymore. And not everything needs to be exported either, but if you continually want to import stuff you need to pay at some point, either by exporting or by growth.
Of course you need to build houses, but they need to be affordable, and people need to have money to buy them. But how do they get that - extra debt? How was wealth generated in the early 2000's - a bubble, based on debt. Or look at Ireland , Spain, countries that built economies around the housing market at the expense of others - how has that panned out for them.
I do not suggest all jobs will return, but some productive stuff needs to else you will find that while unemployment may drop the jobs created will be low paying and poor value. Why can uk shipbuilders, as an example, build N Sea facilities - why does that have to go to Korea. That is the sort of high value work the uk needs to get hold of
Of course you need to build houses, but they need to be affordable, and people need to have money to buy them. But how do they get that - extra debt? How was wealth generated in the early 2000's - a bubble, based on debt. Or look at Ireland , Spain, countries that built economies around the housing market at the expense of others - how has that panned out for them.
I do not suggest all jobs will return, but some productive stuff needs to else you will find that while unemployment may drop the jobs created will be low paying and poor value. Why can uk shipbuilders, as an example, build N Sea facilities - why does that have to go to Korea. That is the sort of high value work the uk needs to get hold of
In reply to wbo:
It may be high value but many of the jobs aren't. Manufacturing produces far fewer jobs than it used to and many of them are poorly paid.
I sort of think you've not really thought this through.
> (In reply to Postmanpat) no, non manufacturing services are excellent. They are however generally SE centric. And the general population doesn't like banking nor do the government seem to like education anymore. And not everything needs to be exported either, but if you continually want to import stuff you need to pay at some point, either by exporting or by growth.
>
So, you agree that services can create jobs and therefore growth and of course exports. It's not clear on this basis why it can't create the wealth needed to enable people to buy houses. >
> Of course you need to build houses, but they need to be affordable, and people need to have money to buy them. But how do they get that - extra debt? How was wealth generated in the early 2000's - a bubble, based on debt.
>
Construction, including housing construction, is a key driver of jobs and growth in almost every economy. It may be true that financing through excessive debt is less than optimal but that doesn't mean it is not a productive economic activity.>
> I do not suggest all jobs will return, but some productive stuff needs to else you will find that while unemployment may drop the jobs created will be low paying and poor value. Why can uk shipbuilders, as an example, build N Sea facilities - why does that have to go to Korea. That is the sort of high value work the uk needs to get hold of
It may be high value but many of the jobs aren't. Manufacturing produces far fewer jobs than it used to and many of them are poorly paid.
I sort of think you've not really thought this through.
In reply to Oliiver:
Young master Oliver can help get the Benefit bill down by paying Back the 16 years of child benefit his parents have no doubt Scrounged off the state despite being so wealthy and self Reliant?
Young master Oliver can help get the Benefit bill down by paying Back the 16 years of child benefit his parents have no doubt Scrounged off the state despite being so wealthy and self Reliant?
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
Because as Carolyn clearly says there ARE elegibility factors
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> What was wrong with Oliiver's statement? Do you not know the eligibility criteria?
> [...]
>
> What was wrong with Oliiver's statement? Do you not know the eligibility criteria?
Because as Carolyn clearly says there ARE elegibility factors
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility
In reply to mwr72:
(I'm no expert), I suspect that a lot of land banks lie fallow because of 1) the planning system, and 2) that the supply/ demand curves have not yet intersected, to make a development viable?
One policy the government could use to give the developers/ land banks an enema would be to make changes to the planning system (to bypass local democracy and release agricultural land) and compulsory purchase/ release of publicly owned land. They could also consider a tax on land banks (though I wouldn't think this would be particularly effective).
It would be a sort of Quantitative easing for building land. It suits most voters though to keep property prices high, a policy that doesn't do that would not be popular I think!
(I'm no expert), I suspect that a lot of land banks lie fallow because of 1) the planning system, and 2) that the supply/ demand curves have not yet intersected, to make a development viable?
One policy the government could use to give the developers/ land banks an enema would be to make changes to the planning system (to bypass local democracy and release agricultural land) and compulsory purchase/ release of publicly owned land. They could also consider a tax on land banks (though I wouldn't think this would be particularly effective).
It would be a sort of Quantitative easing for building land. It suits most voters though to keep property prices high, a policy that doesn't do that would not be popular I think!
In reply to Al Evans:
Anyway, I don't respond to thread like this normally, so will stop - just thought it was unfair to pick on the young lad .
> (In reply to Climbing Pieman)
> [...]
> Because as Carolyn clearly says there ARE elegibility factors
> https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility
Yes, there are, but have you actually read them? Of course it may depend on how you define contribute and in what context eg life long carers do contribute to society, but not necessarily pay NI. However, even working you can be below the NI threshold for paying NI but still get credits which earn a state pension in many (unusual?) circumstances. I deal with many folk who have say never worked, but are eligible for a SP. What Oliiver' said was that you don't have to contribute to get a state pension, and he is correct in that statement if you mean contribute as in paying NI.> [...]
> Because as Carolyn clearly says there ARE elegibility factors
> https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility
Anyway, I don't respond to thread like this normally, so will stop - just thought it was unfair to pick on the young lad .
In reply to Oliiver:
Funny that John Tutte's bio doesn't match your fictional father's http://www.redrowplc.co.uk/About-Redrow/Directors/
jk
> he was a regional director now he's md
Funny that John Tutte's bio doesn't match your fictional father's http://www.redrowplc.co.uk/About-Redrow/Directors/
jk
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You've just described modern finance. My bank account is just an accounting device, just numbers on a database. The surplus from the NIF is invested in government gilts, so interest is paid back to the NIF, just as some private pension funds invest in government gilts.
Yes there is a move to paying pensions from general taxation, but that is because of various government acts over the last 60 years, most relatively recently. However, today's pensioners are perfectly entitled to believe they were part of a national pension scheme.
Of course the other point is the state pension is not means tested, a big and significant difference to most of the benefits the OP refereed to.
Anyway lump them together if you want, but I don't think you can have a meaningful discussion on either (benefits or pensions) if you do.
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
> The "National Insurance Fund" is simply an accounting device, an adding up of the money in and money out. There is no actual investment pot, there is no "those shares in Coca-Cola and Microsoft etc are invested for your pension". If there's a deficit in this notional "Fund" then the government just puts in more money, and if there is a surplus then the money is just lent to the government for expenditure.
>
> Thus, overall, it's a simple money-in, money-out system of taxation for current needs.
>
> [...]
>
> The "National Insurance Fund" is simply an accounting device, an adding up of the money in and money out. There is no actual investment pot, there is no "those shares in Coca-Cola and Microsoft etc are invested for your pension". If there's a deficit in this notional "Fund" then the government just puts in more money, and if there is a surplus then the money is just lent to the government for expenditure.
>
> Thus, overall, it's a simple money-in, money-out system of taxation for current needs.
You've just described modern finance. My bank account is just an accounting device, just numbers on a database. The surplus from the NIF is invested in government gilts, so interest is paid back to the NIF, just as some private pension funds invest in government gilts.
Yes there is a move to paying pensions from general taxation, but that is because of various government acts over the last 60 years, most relatively recently. However, today's pensioners are perfectly entitled to believe they were part of a national pension scheme.
Of course the other point is the state pension is not means tested, a big and significant difference to most of the benefits the OP refereed to.
Anyway lump them together if you want, but I don't think you can have a meaningful discussion on either (benefits or pensions) if you do.
In reply to knthrak1982:
we aren't paying off the debt, we are borrowing c. £100bn more each year - the deficit.
We will pay interest servicing existing debt which is c.£1trn. UK Gov probably borrows at c2.7% on newly issued debt but a lot of that will be gilts from when interest rates were higher. We are proably spending 35-50bn on interest p.a.
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> Where does paying off debt fit into that chart?
>
> Where does paying off debt fit into that chart?
we aren't paying off the debt, we are borrowing c. £100bn more each year - the deficit.
We will pay interest servicing existing debt which is c.£1trn. UK Gov probably borrows at c2.7% on newly issued debt but a lot of that will be gilts from when interest rates were higher. We are proably spending 35-50bn on interest p.a.
In reply to Papillon:
No, not at all. There is a huge difference between a funded pension scheme -- which many private pension schemes are -- and a simple money-in, money-out scheme.
If you take a funded pension scheme, with a large investment pot, everyone could stop contributing now and the scheme could still meet its obligations. That is simply not how National Insurance works, there is no investment pot, the "Fund" is simply an accounting device, and current receipts are used for current expenditure.
No, the scheme now is just as it always was, it has never been a funded scheme with an investment pot.
Only in the sense of a promise that: "you pay for today's pensioners, and then future generations will pay for you". As I said, you've been conned if you think that there was actually an investment fund that your contributions were being put into, to build towards your future pension.
> You've just described modern finance ... just as some private pension funds invest in government gilts.
No, not at all. There is a huge difference between a funded pension scheme -- which many private pension schemes are -- and a simple money-in, money-out scheme.
If you take a funded pension scheme, with a large investment pot, everyone could stop contributing now and the scheme could still meet its obligations. That is simply not how National Insurance works, there is no investment pot, the "Fund" is simply an accounting device, and current receipts are used for current expenditure.
> Yes there is a move to paying pensions from general taxation, ...
No, the scheme now is just as it always was, it has never been a funded scheme with an investment pot.
> However, today's pensioners are perfectly entitled to believe they were part of a national pension scheme.
Only in the sense of a promise that: "you pay for today's pensioners, and then future generations will pay for you". As I said, you've been conned if you think that there was actually an investment fund that your contributions were being put into, to build towards your future pension.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There are plenty of private pension schemes which are relying on current contributions to pay current pensions.... mine for a start!
Nobody's been conned, your just obsessing over a narrow definition of what a pension fund is, which is wrong. Are you also denying that the NIF has been invested in government gilts?
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
> No, not at all. There is a huge difference between a funded pension scheme -- which many private pension schemes are -- and a simple money-in, money-out scheme.
>
> If you take a funded pension scheme, with a large investment pot, everyone could stop contributing now and the scheme could still meet its obligations. That is simply not how National Insurance works, there is no investment pot, the "Fund" is simply an accounting device, and current receipts are used for current expenditure.
>
>
> [...]
>
> No, not at all. There is a huge difference between a funded pension scheme -- which many private pension schemes are -- and a simple money-in, money-out scheme.
>
> If you take a funded pension scheme, with a large investment pot, everyone could stop contributing now and the scheme could still meet its obligations. That is simply not how National Insurance works, there is no investment pot, the "Fund" is simply an accounting device, and current receipts are used for current expenditure.
>
There are plenty of private pension schemes which are relying on current contributions to pay current pensions.... mine for a start!
>
> Only in the sense of a promise that: "you pay for today's pensioners, and then future generations will pay for you". As I said, you've been conned if you think that there was actually an investment fund that your contributions were being put into, to build towards your future pension.
> Only in the sense of a promise that: "you pay for today's pensioners, and then future generations will pay for you". As I said, you've been conned if you think that there was actually an investment fund that your contributions were being put into, to build towards your future pension.
Nobody's been conned, your just obsessing over a narrow definition of what a pension fund is, which is wrong. Are you also denying that the NIF has been invested in government gilts?
In reply to Papillon:
Yes, some schemes are technically in deficit, by accounting rules, but the principle of a funded scheme is that they have assets sufficient to cover all future obligations. (Further contributions then add to the pot and generate further obligations, but aren't there to fund current payouts.)
Well good, if you're accepting that everyone knew it was a system of "you pay for current pensioners, in return for an IOU from future taxpayers, who will provide for you", then great, no-one was conned. Just so long as those past contributors understand that it was a deal in which the "future taxpayers" had no say, and thus shouldn't be regarded as binding on them.
As I said, the NIF is an accounting device. There is no "fund" of all the contributions. What they do do is add up the inputs and outputs of the scheme each year. If there is a "deficit" then the government tops it up, if there is a "surplus" then that money is "lent" to the government. But that only concerns a very small portion of the money, namely the small gap between inputs and outputs, which is small because the scheme has always been designed to be in rough balance on current inputs and outputs.
E.g. "The Fund is used exclusively to pay for contributory benefits, and operates on a ‘pay as you go’ basis: broadly speaking, this year’s contributions pay for this year’s benefits." -- from www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04517.pdf
E.g. Government Actuary: "The National Insurance Scheme is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis with contribution rates set at a level broadly necessary to meet the expected benefits expenditure in that year, after taking into account any other payments and receipts, and to maintain a working balance."
[In complete contrast to a funded scheme which would have a massive excess of inputs over outputs in its early years, when no-one had built up much pension entitlement -- hence the building up of a large investment pot.]
> There are plenty of private pension schemes which are relying on current contributions to pay
> current pensions.... mine for a start!
> current pensions.... mine for a start!
Yes, some schemes are technically in deficit, by accounting rules, but the principle of a funded scheme is that they have assets sufficient to cover all future obligations. (Further contributions then add to the pot and generate further obligations, but aren't there to fund current payouts.)
> Nobody's been conned ...
Well good, if you're accepting that everyone knew it was a system of "you pay for current pensioners, in return for an IOU from future taxpayers, who will provide for you", then great, no-one was conned. Just so long as those past contributors understand that it was a deal in which the "future taxpayers" had no say, and thus shouldn't be regarded as binding on them.
> Are you also denying that the NIF has been invested in government gilts?
As I said, the NIF is an accounting device. There is no "fund" of all the contributions. What they do do is add up the inputs and outputs of the scheme each year. If there is a "deficit" then the government tops it up, if there is a "surplus" then that money is "lent" to the government. But that only concerns a very small portion of the money, namely the small gap between inputs and outputs, which is small because the scheme has always been designed to be in rough balance on current inputs and outputs.
E.g. "The Fund is used exclusively to pay for contributory benefits, and operates on a ‘pay as you go’ basis: broadly speaking, this year’s contributions pay for this year’s benefits." -- from www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04517.pdf
E.g. Government Actuary: "The National Insurance Scheme is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis with contribution rates set at a level broadly necessary to meet the expected benefits expenditure in that year, after taking into account any other payments and receipts, and to maintain a working balance."
[In complete contrast to a funded scheme which would have a massive excess of inputs over outputs in its early years, when no-one had built up much pension entitlement -- hence the building up of a large investment pot.]
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There is no reason why a public pay as you go scheme should not work... you haven't made any point there. Other pension schemes operate on that basis, for the civil service as far as I know, but they work, and are binding.
It's an account like any other, a number on a database... as I said.
http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=CRND/CRND_Portfolio/NIFIA
And there have been changes as the link demonstrates.
Again, are you denying that the NIF was invested in government gilts?
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
>
> [...]
>
> Well good, if you're accepting that everyone knew it was a system of "you pay for current pensioners, in return for an IOU from future taxpayers, who will provide for you", then great, no-one was conned. Just so long as those past contributors understand that it was a deal in which the "future taxpayers" had no say, and thus shouldn't be regarded as binding on them.
>
> Well good, if you're accepting that everyone knew it was a system of "you pay for current pensioners, in return for an IOU from future taxpayers, who will provide for you", then great, no-one was conned. Just so long as those past contributors understand that it was a deal in which the "future taxpayers" had no say, and thus shouldn't be regarded as binding on them.
There is no reason why a public pay as you go scheme should not work... you haven't made any point there. Other pension schemes operate on that basis, for the civil service as far as I know, but they work, and are binding.
> [...]
>
> As I said, the NIF is an accounting device. There is no "fund" of all the contributions. What they do do is add up the inputs and outputs of the scheme each year. If there is a "deficit" then the government tops it up, if there is a "surplus" then that money is "lent" to the government. But that only concerns a very small portion of the money, namely the small gap between inputs and outputs, which is small because the scheme has always been designed to be in rough balance on current inputs and outputs.
>
>
> As I said, the NIF is an accounting device. There is no "fund" of all the contributions. What they do do is add up the inputs and outputs of the scheme each year. If there is a "deficit" then the government tops it up, if there is a "surplus" then that money is "lent" to the government. But that only concerns a very small portion of the money, namely the small gap between inputs and outputs, which is small because the scheme has always been designed to be in rough balance on current inputs and outputs.
>
It's an account like any other, a number on a database... as I said.
http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=CRND/CRND_Portfolio/NIFIA
And there have been changes as the link demonstrates.
Again, are you denying that the NIF was invested in government gilts?
In reply to Papillon:
I've never said there is a reason why it should not work. It can and does work. BUT it is effectively a current tax to pay for current expenditure. It is the same as people being taxed to pay for current unemployment benefits and similar. That was my point.
But the "account" is only of the small balance between current inputs and current outputs, a small working balance because that's how the government chooses to work the accounting.
No, I am not denying that the SMALL WORKING BALANCE is NOTIONALLY invested in gilts -- in other words the government gives interest to the "fund" on this working-balance amount. The fact remains that THIS IS NOT AN INVESTMENT POT. All it is is a small accounting balance between current inputs and outputs. If the inputs stopped that small balance would run out in about six months. It would need to be 100 times bigger if it was actually an investment pot!
> There is no reason why a public pay as you go scheme should not work... you haven't made any point there.
I've never said there is a reason why it should not work. It can and does work. BUT it is effectively a current tax to pay for current expenditure. It is the same as people being taxed to pay for current unemployment benefits and similar. That was my point.
> It's an account like any other, a number on a database... as I said.
But the "account" is only of the small balance between current inputs and current outputs, a small working balance because that's how the government chooses to work the accounting.
> Again, are you denying that the NIF was invested in government gilts?
No, I am not denying that the SMALL WORKING BALANCE is NOTIONALLY invested in gilts -- in other words the government gives interest to the "fund" on this working-balance amount. The fact remains that THIS IS NOT AN INVESTMENT POT. All it is is a small accounting balance between current inputs and outputs. If the inputs stopped that small balance would run out in about six months. It would need to be 100 times bigger if it was actually an investment pot!
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I believe the reason that the distinction is made is to underline the fact that we have a nationalised pension scheme, which is not the same as people being taxed to pay unemployment benefit.
£39billion aint that small.
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
> I've never said there is a reason why it should not work. It can and does work. BUT it is effectively a current tax to pay for current expenditure. It is the same as people being taxed to pay for current unemployment benefits and similar. That was my point.
>
>
> [...]
>
> I've never said there is a reason why it should not work. It can and does work. BUT it is effectively a current tax to pay for current expenditure. It is the same as people being taxed to pay for current unemployment benefits and similar. That was my point.
>
I believe the reason that the distinction is made is to underline the fact that we have a nationalised pension scheme, which is not the same as people being taxed to pay unemployment benefit.
> [...]
>
> No, I am not denying that the SMALL WORKING BALANCE is NOTIONALLY invested in gilts -- in other words the government gives interest to the "fund" on this working-balance amount.
>
> No, I am not denying that the SMALL WORKING BALANCE is NOTIONALLY invested in gilts -- in other words the government gives interest to the "fund" on this working-balance amount.
£39billion aint that small.
In reply to Papillon:
Which part of the unemployment benefit system is not nationalised? Anyhow, the unemployment-benefit system is actually part of the very same National Insurance system with the very same National Insurance Fund as the pension system. If one is a tax-benefit system then so is the other.
It's tiny compared to NI spending with runs at about £5 billion a month, so that would last less much less than a year.
> I believe the reason that the distinction is made is to underline the fact that we have a nationalised
> pension scheme, which is not the same as people being taxed to pay unemployment benefit.
> pension scheme, which is not the same as people being taxed to pay unemployment benefit.
Which part of the unemployment benefit system is not nationalised? Anyhow, the unemployment-benefit system is actually part of the very same National Insurance system with the very same National Insurance Fund as the pension system. If one is a tax-benefit system then so is the other.
> £39billion aint that small.
It's tiny compared to NI spending with runs at about £5 billion a month, so that would last less much less than a year.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
From http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/ni-fund-ac-gb-1112.pdf
"In 2011-12 contributory benefits funded from the NIF totalled £82.36 billion, which included £74.11 billion relating to State Pension and £4.98 billion relating to Incapacity Beneit. The remainder included payments made in relation to Bereavement Beneit, Maternity Allowance, Christmas Bonus,
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Contributory) and Employment & Support Allowance."
That's most of the pensions but a fraction of the welfare spending for that year (because of the word contributory).
Do you really think we can have a constructive discussion on either pensions or unemployment benefits if you insist on lumping the two together?
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
> Which part of the unemployment benefit system is not nationalised? Anyhow, the unemployment-benefit system is actually part of the very same National Insurance system with the very same National Insurance Fund as the pension system. If one is a tax-benefit system then so is the other.
>
>
> [...]
>
> Which part of the unemployment benefit system is not nationalised? Anyhow, the unemployment-benefit system is actually part of the very same National Insurance system with the very same National Insurance Fund as the pension system. If one is a tax-benefit system then so is the other.
>
From http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/ni-fund-ac-gb-1112.pdf
"In 2011-12 contributory benefits funded from the NIF totalled £82.36 billion, which included £74.11 billion relating to State Pension and £4.98 billion relating to Incapacity Beneit. The remainder included payments made in relation to Bereavement Beneit, Maternity Allowance, Christmas Bonus,
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Contributory) and Employment & Support Allowance."
That's most of the pensions but a fraction of the welfare spending for that year (because of the word contributory).
Do you really think we can have a constructive discussion on either pensions or unemployment benefits if you insist on lumping the two together?
In reply to Papillon:
Yes, I think we can. I think we should recognise that state pensions are a tax-benefit system just like other parts of the welfare state, and that we should have a combined tax-benefit system.
> Do you really think we can have a constructive discussion on either pensions or unemployment benefits
> if you insist on lumping the two together?
> if you insist on lumping the two together?
Yes, I think we can. I think we should recognise that state pensions are a tax-benefit system just like other parts of the welfare state, and that we should have a combined tax-benefit system.
In reply to Coel Hellier: Good we can agree to disagee.
I don't as pensions and unemployment benefit are obviously different payments for different circumstances, just like a soldiers or nurses wage.
I don't as pensions and unemployment benefit are obviously different payments for different circumstances, just like a soldiers or nurses wage.
In reply to Choss: You're the only scrounged here. Go and get a job you lazy sod
In reply to jkarran: uhm there's 8 mds and john tute? Manages them
In reply to Papillon:
Agreed, and disability benefits are also different payments for different circumstances. There are indeed different aspects to the welfare state.
> ... pensions and unemployment benefit are obviously different payments for different circumstances,
Agreed, and disability benefits are also different payments for different circumstances. There are indeed different aspects to the welfare state.
In reply to Choss: you're on long term benefits but can go climbing ? You're a parasite v
In reply to Oliiver:
So have you enjoyed scrounging your schooling off the taxpayer today. Youre a sad Indictment of state education by the way. Thank god my daughter is at a public school your dad couldnt even afford.
Payed Back all that scrounged child benefit yet? No, didnt think so.
So have you enjoyed scrounging your schooling off the taxpayer today. Youre a sad Indictment of state education by the way. Thank god my daughter is at a public school your dad couldnt even afford.
Payed Back all that scrounged child benefit yet? No, didnt think so.
In reply to Oliiver:
Thats your greatest display of ignorance ever. Reporting as discriminatory abuse right now.
> (In reply to Choss) you're on long term benefits but can go climbing ? You're a parasite
Thats your greatest display of ignorance ever. Reporting as discriminatory abuse right now.
In reply to Choss: uhn you're full of shit. You story doesn't add up. You claim to be a disabled peasant, who's daughter goes to a private school and you can climb?
In reply to Oliiver: Ah well. That's this thread pulled then........
In reply to Choss:
See, you can use capital letters correctly if you try (I'll gloss over the apostrophe catastrophe).
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> Thats your greatest display of ignorance ever. Reporting as discriminatory abuse right now.
> [...]
>
> Thats your greatest display of ignorance ever. Reporting as discriminatory abuse right now.
See, you can use capital letters correctly if you try (I'll gloss over the apostrophe catastrophe).
In reply to Oliiver: Serious question, Oli-poos. Why do you think the whole welfare state/benefits system was established in the first place?
In reply to Chambers:
After insulting every disabled person in the country, Climber or not, i should think young master Oliver is too Ashamed to show his face anymore.
After insulting every disabled person in the country, Climber or not, i should think young master Oliver is too Ashamed to show his face anymore.
In reply to Choss:
Nah. I don't think he knows what it is to be ashamed. I didn't when I was a baby and was convinced I knew more than anyone else and that my opinions actually carried some weight.
The funny thing is, no prospective employer who'd seen the kind of bollox he writes on here would ever give him a job. Apart from McDonald's. They'll take anyone. That's probably Oli's destiny. (Although I suspect he's actually seventeen, didn't get good enough GCSE results to stay on at school and is currently flipping burgers for the minimum wage.)
> (In reply to Chambers)
>
> After insulting every disabled person in the country, Climber or not, i should think young master Oliver is too Ashamed to show his face anymore.
>
> After insulting every disabled person in the country, Climber or not, i should think young master Oliver is too Ashamed to show his face anymore.
Nah. I don't think he knows what it is to be ashamed. I didn't when I was a baby and was convinced I knew more than anyone else and that my opinions actually carried some weight.
The funny thing is, no prospective employer who'd seen the kind of bollox he writes on here would ever give him a job. Apart from McDonald's. They'll take anyone. That's probably Oli's destiny. (Although I suspect he's actually seventeen, didn't get good enough GCSE results to stay on at school and is currently flipping burgers for the minimum wage.)
In reply to Chambers: If it is a child, then it is going to be quite interesting when reality hits. Or is it a Special Person who can bypass the schite that the rest of us navigate during our lives.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Hi Coel as one of the more sensible people posting on here. I was wondering what our options are? Given that the number of people of retirement age is going to rise. As I see it you can't simply pull the plug on the benefits/pensions system as the welfare of those involved has to be considered. But within that there should be scope to work on. Obviously working longer is one option, but may be a staggered retirement would help. Also whether money can be raised from other sources.
Interestingly when the pension was first introduced in 1908 the retirement age was 70! Not many people want to be digging roads up when they are 70 so some programme to help people move into more appropriate employment would be usful
Hi Coel as one of the more sensible people posting on here. I was wondering what our options are? Given that the number of people of retirement age is going to rise. As I see it you can't simply pull the plug on the benefits/pensions system as the welfare of those involved has to be considered. But within that there should be scope to work on. Obviously working longer is one option, but may be a staggered retirement would help. Also whether money can be raised from other sources.
Interestingly when the pension was first introduced in 1908 the retirement age was 70! Not many people want to be digging roads up when they are 70 so some programme to help people move into more appropriate employment would be usful
In reply to Duncan Bourne: I find it staggering that an obviously intelligent and and thoughtful person like you hasn't realised that capital simply doesn't give a shit about people. I find it even more staggering that despite hundreds of years of trying to reform capitalism so that it appears to give a damn what happens to people when they are no longer able to produce profits for capital you still think that there might be ways to humanise it.
In reply to Chambers:
One has to be pragmatic.
Yes capitalism is all about profit but within that framework it has also embraced humanist issues. Wilberforces anti-slavery bills for one and let's not forget the emancipation of women. Even the Labour party could said to have emerged within a capitalist system. So yes I think that there is still further that we can go in order to "humanise" it.
But much of that is irrelevant as there is no way that this country is going to ditch capitalism anytime soon. We are all too comfortable on the whole. I remember very well what a certain union leader said to me once. He said "the problem is that the average working class man is a poor tory" by which he meant that self interest was his presiding motive. He would support the workers and his fellow man while it served his interest but as soon as he gained any advantage his social ideals were ditched. This is not true of all people but it is certainly true of a sizable portion. So the working man wants there to be some capitalism so that he (or she) can sell their labour on the side, follow that idea for a print business or sell cupcakes from their kitchen window. They will still find it hard to compete with the big players but they still want their slice of the cake. Thus we have that perennial situation that labour get in then conservatives get in, then labour. The only people ensuring that the conservatives get in are labour voters. So no capitalism doesn't give a shit about people but then lots of people don't give a shit about people either.
I am MORE interested in how you would progress and, given a rising population as stated, how you would finance the welfare state?
Don't get me wrong I believe that a welfare state is the mark of a civilised society and a society without some means to support its disadvantaged and old is not civilised. But it is a problem that needs to be tackled.
One has to be pragmatic.
Yes capitalism is all about profit but within that framework it has also embraced humanist issues. Wilberforces anti-slavery bills for one and let's not forget the emancipation of women. Even the Labour party could said to have emerged within a capitalist system. So yes I think that there is still further that we can go in order to "humanise" it.
But much of that is irrelevant as there is no way that this country is going to ditch capitalism anytime soon. We are all too comfortable on the whole. I remember very well what a certain union leader said to me once. He said "the problem is that the average working class man is a poor tory" by which he meant that self interest was his presiding motive. He would support the workers and his fellow man while it served his interest but as soon as he gained any advantage his social ideals were ditched. This is not true of all people but it is certainly true of a sizable portion. So the working man wants there to be some capitalism so that he (or she) can sell their labour on the side, follow that idea for a print business or sell cupcakes from their kitchen window. They will still find it hard to compete with the big players but they still want their slice of the cake. Thus we have that perennial situation that labour get in then conservatives get in, then labour. The only people ensuring that the conservatives get in are labour voters. So no capitalism doesn't give a shit about people but then lots of people don't give a shit about people either.
I am MORE interested in how you would progress and, given a rising population as stated, how you would finance the welfare state?
Don't get me wrong I believe that a welfare state is the mark of a civilised society and a society without some means to support its disadvantaged and old is not civilised. But it is a problem that needs to be tackled.
In reply to Chambers: The welfare state was setup to be a safety net and also, in response to ww2. However, it's beginnings can be found after ww1. Choss, you're not even disabled, you can climb a higher grade than me, but can't work? You're just lazy. By the way, have fun in equilibrium for the next 40 years of your life.
In reply to Oliiver: Incorrect. Read some history whilst you're not doing 'history' homework. The welfare state was set up to buy off working class discontent.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
One does. I'm glad we agree on that.
There was no moral compass guiding the abolition of slavery. Capital demands a free labour force and slavery was in the way. There were no 'humanist' issues at stake for the ruling class, merely the pursuit of profit. If the Labour Party hadn't 'emerged' the ruling class woulkd have invented it. (In fact, in many ways, they did!) The 'emancipation of women' that you talk of is chimerical.
All of which is besides the point. If workers were really self-interested capitalism would end tomorrow, if not sooner.
So capitalism isn't civilised. We agree on that, too!
> (In reply to Chambers)
> One has to be pragmatic.
> One has to be pragmatic.
One does. I'm glad we agree on that.
> Yes capitalism is all about profit but within that framework it has also embraced humanist issues. Wilberforces anti-slavery bills for one and let's not forget the emancipation of women. Even the Labour party could said to have emerged within a capitalist system. So yes I think that there is still further that we can go in order to "humanise" it.
There was no moral compass guiding the abolition of slavery. Capital demands a free labour force and slavery was in the way. There were no 'humanist' issues at stake for the ruling class, merely the pursuit of profit. If the Labour Party hadn't 'emerged' the ruling class woulkd have invented it. (In fact, in many ways, they did!) The 'emancipation of women' that you talk of is chimerical.
>
> But much of that is irrelevant as there is no way that this country is going to ditch capitalism anytime soon. We are all too comfortable on the whole. I remember very well what a certain union leader said to me once. He said "the problem is that the average working class man is a poor tory" by which he meant that self interest was his presiding motive. He would support the workers and his fellow man while it served his interest but as soon as he gained any advantage his social ideals were ditched. This is not true of all people but it is certainly true of a sizable portion. So the working man wants there to be some capitalism so that he (or she) can sell their labour on the side, follow that idea for a print business or sell cupcakes from their kitchen window. They will still find it hard to compete with the big players but they still want their slice of the cake. Thus we have that perennial situation that labour get in then conservatives get in, then labour. The only people ensuring that the conservatives get in are labour voters. So no capitalism doesn't give a shit about people but then lots of people don't give a shit about people either.
> But much of that is irrelevant as there is no way that this country is going to ditch capitalism anytime soon. We are all too comfortable on the whole. I remember very well what a certain union leader said to me once. He said "the problem is that the average working class man is a poor tory" by which he meant that self interest was his presiding motive. He would support the workers and his fellow man while it served his interest but as soon as he gained any advantage his social ideals were ditched. This is not true of all people but it is certainly true of a sizable portion. So the working man wants there to be some capitalism so that he (or she) can sell their labour on the side, follow that idea for a print business or sell cupcakes from their kitchen window. They will still find it hard to compete with the big players but they still want their slice of the cake. Thus we have that perennial situation that labour get in then conservatives get in, then labour. The only people ensuring that the conservatives get in are labour voters. So no capitalism doesn't give a shit about people but then lots of people don't give a shit about people either.
All of which is besides the point. If workers were really self-interested capitalism would end tomorrow, if not sooner.
>
> I am MORE interested in how you would progress and, given a rising population as stated, how you would finance the welfare state?
> Don't get me wrong I believe that a welfare state is the mark of a civilised society and a society without some means to support its disadvantaged and old is not civilised. But it is a problem that needs to be tackled.
> I am MORE interested in how you would progress and, given a rising population as stated, how you would finance the welfare state?
> Don't get me wrong I believe that a welfare state is the mark of a civilised society and a society without some means to support its disadvantaged and old is not civilised. But it is a problem that needs to be tackled.
So capitalism isn't civilised. We agree on that, too!
In reply to Chambers:
part of the reason but not the sole reason.
part of the reason but not the sole reason.
In reply to Chambers:
I disagree there. There was certainly a moral compass as the influential Methodist Christian climate of the time railed against it. What you correctly surmise is that slavery had long ceased to be of economic concern to government so in that sense it was easy to fight against, unlike in America where it took a civil war.
I doubt that the ruling class would have "invented" the Labour party as you say. More they were less afraid of the labour party than the communist party given the events in Russian at the time.
Don't see why emancipation of women is chimerical, it required the initial support of men to be pushed through
Sorry I really doubt that. Workers want to be capitalists on the quiet
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]
>
>> [...]
>
> There was no moral compass guiding the abolition of slavery. Capital demands a free labour force and slavery was in the way. There were no 'humanist' issues at stake for the ruling class, merely the pursuit of profit. If the Labour Party hadn't 'emerged' the ruling class woulkd have invented it. (In fact, in many ways, they did!) The 'emancipation of women' that you talk of is chimerical.
I disagree there. There was certainly a moral compass as the influential Methodist Christian climate of the time railed against it. What you correctly surmise is that slavery had long ceased to be of economic concern to government so in that sense it was easy to fight against, unlike in America where it took a civil war.
I doubt that the ruling class would have "invented" the Labour party as you say. More they were less afraid of the labour party than the communist party given the events in Russian at the time.
Don't see why emancipation of women is chimerical, it required the initial support of men to be pushed through
> [...]
>
> All of which is besides the point. If workers were really self-interested capitalism would end tomorrow, if not sooner.
>
> All of which is besides the point. If workers were really self-interested capitalism would end tomorrow, if not sooner.
Sorry I really doubt that. Workers want to be capitalists on the quiet
In reply to Duncan Bourne: The arguments against slavery may have been couched in moral language, but the impetus to abolish it was most definitely economic.
As far as the Labour Party is concerned, one of the purposes it serves is to delude people into thinking they're being offered a choice. That's pretty useful from a ruling class interests point of view. And bear in mind that it was established a decade before the Russian Revolution.
I referred to the emancipation of women as chimerical because, despite the legislation and rhetoric, no-one's been emancipated.
As far as the Labour Party is concerned, one of the purposes it serves is to delude people into thinking they're being offered a choice. That's pretty useful from a ruling class interests point of view. And bear in mind that it was established a decade before the Russian Revolution.
I referred to the emancipation of women as chimerical because, despite the legislation and rhetoric, no-one's been emancipated.
In reply to Duncan Bourne: Some workers may want to be capitalists 'on the quiet', although few of them are quiet about it! But the fact remains that they can't.
It's scary how many westerners have been so brainwashed by mainstream media and the public school system that they actually want more government involvement in their lives. Government and the welfare/warfare state is a huge scam based on central banking and money printing. Watch Hidden Secrets of Money at youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0&
In reply to Oliiver:
He did raise a good point though Oliiver. Did your parents receive child benefit for your goodself and what is your view on that?
He did raise a good point though Oliiver. Did your parents receive child benefit for your goodself and what is your view on that?
In reply to Darron:
Indeed they did. His mum also recieved free dental care while she was pregnant/breastfeeding, and got paid maternity leave. They also may have recieved working tax credit, and childcare vouchers via their employment. Olicer is also in line for low interest student loans that don't have to be paid back until he is earning over a certain threshold, and are written off after a certain number of years.
Not bad.
Sx
Indeed they did. His mum also recieved free dental care while she was pregnant/breastfeeding, and got paid maternity leave. They also may have recieved working tax credit, and childcare vouchers via their employment. Olicer is also in line for low interest student loans that don't have to be paid back until he is earning over a certain threshold, and are written off after a certain number of years.
Not bad.
Sx
In reply to cander:
Not really!
> (In reply to Sarah G)
>
> I rather think you're making Olivers point for him ....
>
> I rather think you're making Olivers point for him ....
Not really!
In reply to Chambers:
But they did. When it all kicked off the capitalists, or to be more accurate the industrialists, were working class people with an idea that would never have seen the light of day had absolutism still been the rule. There is nothing wrong with raising capital to bring an idea to fruition, be it a steam engine, telephone system or social media page. Where things go wrong is when the new elite get all protectionist and pull up the ladder behind them. An unfortunate aspect of any system that puts a small group in power, and any large group will create a small group within it. Thus any social system needs an avenue for dissent as a check on the elite. It is laws that limit our right to protest which are the greatest danger
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne) Some workers may want to be capitalists 'on the quiet', although few of them are quiet about it! But the fact remains that they can't.
But they did. When it all kicked off the capitalists, or to be more accurate the industrialists, were working class people with an idea that would never have seen the light of day had absolutism still been the rule. There is nothing wrong with raising capital to bring an idea to fruition, be it a steam engine, telephone system or social media page. Where things go wrong is when the new elite get all protectionist and pull up the ladder behind them. An unfortunate aspect of any system that puts a small group in power, and any large group will create a small group within it. Thus any social system needs an avenue for dissent as a check on the elite. It is laws that limit our right to protest which are the greatest danger
In reply to Chambers:
A rather negative view. I feel it was a combination of both. It was unsustainable from both an economic and moral standpoint.
Certainly the Labour party now is concerned with that but back in the beginning the aim was to create a more equal society. While it could be said that not all the aims of the nascent Labour movement were consistent with Marxist or even Socialist thinking, it was still providing a clear alternative for the working man. The Ruling class feared the workers and the rise of Unionism and memories of the French revolution, barely a hundred years before, fuelled this fear and moves to reform were Europe wide in order to stave off yet another blood bath. It is also true to say that most leading Socialists and Marxists in Britain at the time were not working class, that would come later. But as the Liberals were slow to adapt to the growing labour movement and as the Unions gained more actual working class members (prior to the late 1880's most union members were skilled craft workers, having arisen out of the old guilds, the ordinary worker did not get a look in at first) Labour finally allied itself with the unions and by 1900 was definite force in politics.
Surely to say that it was all engineered by the "ruling" class does a disservice to all the Socialists, Marxists, workers and unions who paved the way for the welfare state we now have?
They got the vote though.... and long before America too!
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne) The arguments against slavery may have been couched in moral language, but the impetus to abolish it was most definitely economic.
A rather negative view. I feel it was a combination of both. It was unsustainable from both an economic and moral standpoint.
>
> As far as the Labour Party is concerned, one of the purposes it serves is to delude people into thinking they're being offered a choice. That's pretty useful from a ruling class interests point of view. And bear in mind that it was established a decade before the Russian Revolution.
> As far as the Labour Party is concerned, one of the purposes it serves is to delude people into thinking they're being offered a choice. That's pretty useful from a ruling class interests point of view. And bear in mind that it was established a decade before the Russian Revolution.
Certainly the Labour party now is concerned with that but back in the beginning the aim was to create a more equal society. While it could be said that not all the aims of the nascent Labour movement were consistent with Marxist or even Socialist thinking, it was still providing a clear alternative for the working man. The Ruling class feared the workers and the rise of Unionism and memories of the French revolution, barely a hundred years before, fuelled this fear and moves to reform were Europe wide in order to stave off yet another blood bath. It is also true to say that most leading Socialists and Marxists in Britain at the time were not working class, that would come later. But as the Liberals were slow to adapt to the growing labour movement and as the Unions gained more actual working class members (prior to the late 1880's most union members were skilled craft workers, having arisen out of the old guilds, the ordinary worker did not get a look in at first) Labour finally allied itself with the unions and by 1900 was definite force in politics.
Surely to say that it was all engineered by the "ruling" class does a disservice to all the Socialists, Marxists, workers and unions who paved the way for the welfare state we now have?
>
> I referred to the emancipation of women as chimerical because, despite the legislation and rhetoric, no-one's been emancipated.
> I referred to the emancipation of women as chimerical because, despite the legislation and rhetoric, no-one's been emancipated.
They got the vote though.... and long before America too!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...