PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

It turns out, the maths behind austerity is wrong!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ziggy12345



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 1235

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you think the maths used for austerity is wrong read this! I have never seen such a load of tosh in all my life. It cant be more wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22310186
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
featherstick



Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 1324

PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed. "Reckoning with Risk" by Gerd Gigerenzer should be on everyone's reading list.
_________________
"Tea's a good drink - keeps you going"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1684
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

featherstick wrote:
Nice to see that you agree with Steve's point that "Consequently, the only pertinent question that remains is how the coming reduction in wealth is to be distributed; equitably or inequitably".

Pensioners aren't riding a gravy train. The taxes they paid when they were earning paid for the hospital you were born in, the inoculations that kept you healthy, the school you were educated in, and the coppers that kept you safe. Now it may be that you and your family went private for all those things but my example still stands for the majority.

The fact that their house is worth a fortune is unfair but it is a factor of the consistent under-supply of housing in this country, not because pensioners have freeloaded off you or anyone else.


I often agree with Steve.

Funnily enough their taxes mostly didn't pay for any of those things as the current level of national debt will attest. They voted in Governments that consistently borrowed money to provide benefits for themselves and deferred payment for later generations.

When you add up how much money was paid in it is nowhere even close to the benefits received. The difference is being forced on the younger generation now who get to pay for their own education and are forced into a life of paying rent.

Explain to me again why the poor should be kept poor by paying for benefits for the rich.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
featherstick



Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 1324

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
featherstick wrote:
Nice to see that you agree with Steve's point that "Consequently, the only pertinent question that remains is how the coming reduction in wealth is to be distributed; equitably or inequitably".

Pensioners aren't riding a gravy train. The taxes they paid when they were earning paid for the hospital you were born in, the inoculations that kept you healthy, the school you were educated in, and the coppers that kept you safe. Now it may be that you and your family went private for all those things but my example still stands for the majority.

The fact that their house is worth a fortune is unfair but it is a factor of the consistent under-supply of housing in this country, not because pensioners have freeloaded off you or anyone else.


I often agree with Steve.

Funnily enough their taxes mostly didn't pay for any of those things as the current level of national debt will attest. They voted in Governments that consistently borrowed money to provide benefits for themselves and deferred payment for later generations.

When you add up how much money was paid in it is nowhere even close to the benefits received. The difference is being forced on the younger generation now who get to pay for their own education and are forced into a life of paying rent.

Explain to me again why the poor should be kept poor by paying for benefits for the rich.


Pensioners' benefits are not keeping the poor poor. Poverty-level wages subsidised by taxpayers, poverty landlords subsidised by taxpayers, the destruction of social mobility, poor schooling and the wholesale dismantling of decent paying jobs are keeping poor people poor. You are taking two fine concepts that made us a civilised society - intergenerational solidarity, and universality of benefits, and peddling the neo-liberal line that would do away with any collective social commitment until we are all miserable atomised unit of consumption, grimly making fully rational resource allocation decisions and never feeling part of anything larger.
_________________
"Tea's a good drink - keeps you going"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Pensioners' benefits are not keeping the poor poor.
Yes and no Minister. It seems to me that a lot of what is going on in the economy at the moment is driven by an effort to "protect asset values". For example, housing benefit and the new house-buying scheme in the Budget are protecting the value of houses. QE seems aimed at protecting the values of shares and "virtual" assets based on shares. Etc. And a lot of pensions are simply investments in precisely these assets whose value HMG is seeking to protect.

The downside consequences of this asset-protecting do appear to be falling disproportionately on the next generation down. Their salaries are low, their job-security is usually non-existant and it also happens that their overheads (property, food, energy) are high: this latter is not a result of protecting asset values of course. There's a generation about 15 years older than I am (so, newly-retired people) who, I believe, will eventually prove to be the richest generation ever. I mean, in all human history.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1684
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

featherstick wrote:

Pensioners' benefits are not keeping the poor poor. Poverty-level wages subsidised by taxpayers, poverty landlords subsidised by taxpayers, the destruction of social mobility, poor schooling and the wholesale dismantling of decent paying jobs are keeping poor people poor. You are taking two fine concepts that made us a civilised society - intergenerational solidarity, and universality of benefits, and peddling the neo-liberal line that would do away with any collective social commitment until we are all miserable atomised unit of consumption, grimly making fully rational resource allocation decisions and never feeling part of anything larger.


Pensions are a huge strain on national resources and the finances of private companies. That is why final salary schemes no longer exist.

Pensioners are a huge strain on the NHS and the cost of running that is one of the reasons why free grants for University education no longer exist.

So much for inter-generational solidarity.

The great mistake was giving pensions free at the inception of the Social Reforms. Younger generations do not pay in to save for their own retirement because they are working too hard to pay the benefits for today's pensioners.

It's a Ponzi scheme and they always end the same way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
featherstick



Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 1324

PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what would be your suggestion that would a) preserve intergenerational solidarity, and b) not lead to further pensioner poverty greater than the 20% already in poverty and the further 20% who are only just above the poverty line in the UK?
_________________
"Tea's a good drink - keeps you going"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9811
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Quote:
Pensioners' benefits are not keeping the poor poor.
Yes and no Minister. It seems to me that a lot of what is going on in the economy at the moment is driven by an effort to "protect asset values". For example, housing benefit and the new house-buying scheme in the Budget are protecting the value of houses. QE seems aimed at protecting the values of shares and "virtual" assets based on shares. Etc. And a lot of pensions are simply investments in precisely these assets whose value HMG is seeking to protect.

The downside consequences of this asset-protecting do appear to be falling disproportionately on the next generation down. Their salaries are low, their job-security is usually non-existant and it also happens that their overheads (property, food, energy) are high: this latter is not a result of protecting asset values of course.


There is a dilemma here. If the government don't protect asset values they make it easier for the next generation to buy property but if they do that they risk destroying the economic system thus making it impossible for the next generation to buy property.

If the government allow asset values to tumble the banks and building societies go bankrupt as their assets, the value of the houses that they loan against, would no longer cover their loans. A similar thing would hold with the stock market. If that is allowed to drop most pension funds and insurance companies would go bust as they wouldn't have the income to cover their outgoings.

The housing and stock market could be allowed to hold still, which in reality is a drop over the long term, as they would not be keeping up with inflation and would lose value in relation to income. That is the government's only option really. There is a danger in doing that which is a loss in confidence in the market provoking a sudden drop in values.

Quote:
There's a generation about 15 years older than I am (so, newly-retired people) who, I believe, will eventually prove to be the richest generation ever. I mean, in all human history


The generation which retired about twenty years ago, many at 55, was the richest. Since then things have gone downhill for pensioners with the loss of many company pension schemes and dips in the stock market. Having said that, there are quite a few very well off pensioners now especially if you are retiring from government, local government and the right IT and oil companies. Also many of those who retired to Spain a while ago have come unstuck as that country and its property boom have crashed.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:


There is a dilemma here. If the government don't protect asset values they make it easier for the next generation to buy property but if they do that they risk destroying the economic system thus making it impossible for the next generation to buy property.

If the government allow asset values to tumble the banks and building societies go bankrupt as their assets, the value of the houses that they loan against, would no longer cover their loans. A similar thing would hold with the stock market. If that is allowed to drop most pension funds and insurance companies would go bust as they wouldn't have the income to cover their outgoings.

The housing and stock market could be allowed to hold still, which in reality is a drop over the long term, as they would not be keeping up with inflation and would lose value in relation to income. That is the government's only option really. There is a danger in doing that which is a loss in confidence in the market provoking a sudden drop in values.


The peak-oil plateau is more of an arte, a sharp edge along which we balance lest we slide off in avalanche, but all such arte's come to an end, downwards.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The generation which retired about twenty years ago, many at 55, was the richest.
sorry yes, they were the richest, on retirement. But their lives, which will have included the 30s WWII (happy VE Day btw!) were not the richest in aggregate I reckon.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1684
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

featherstick wrote:
So what would be your suggestion that would a) preserve intergenerational solidarity, and b) not lead to further pensioner poverty greater than the 20% already in poverty and the further 20% who are only just above the poverty line in the UK?


Why should the younger generation be interested in intergenerational solidarity? The baby boomers clearly aren't as they have systematically voted for Governments that have given them the cream while passing the bill down the generations.

How do you explain to a houseless 23yo that they must pay 25% of their income in taxes that mostly support a generation that retired at 55, who own most of the houses and most of the wealth?

Means tested top up pensions all round would be a start. Why should we expect to get free money just because we are old? We don't expect to get Income Support if we earn enough to live on and we have no right to expect a free pension either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
featherstick



Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 1324

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
featherstick wrote:
So what would be your suggestion that would a) preserve intergenerational solidarity, and b) not lead to further pensioner poverty greater than the 20% already in poverty and the further 20% who are only just above the poverty line in the UK?


Why should the younger generation be interested in intergenerational solidarity? The baby boomers clearly aren't as they have systematically voted for Governments that have given them the cream while passing the bill down the generations.

How do you explain to a houseless 23yo that they must pay 25% of their income in taxes that mostly support a generation that retired at 55, who own most of the houses and most of the wealth?

Means tested top up pensions all round would be a start. Why should we expect to get free money just because we are old? We don't expect to get Income Support if we earn enough to live on and we have no right to expect a free pension either.


I haven't said the current situation is fair. I'm interested in what you would suggest to ensure a society that gives dignity to all. Means-testing has time and again been shown to be an expensive and inefficient way to get unfair results. Universality builds political support for measures, and also usually makes sure they are of better quality. Services only for the poor are likely to be poor services. The "boomer vs. the rest" debate is simple, seductive, and wrong. Actually its a debate between the rich and the rest, and terms of the debate should cover how we set out to more equitably share limited and possibly declining resources. That includes both the unemployed 23 year old that you mention, and the lonely pensioner in poverty that I mention. They both have a right to a decent standard of life and a system that denies it to them is quite clearly failing.
_________________
"Tea's a good drink - keeps you going"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1684
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lonely pensioner has had 70years to save for a pension and has apparently failed.

The 23year old can't afford a pension because policies enforced by the Boomers have artificially limited house supply driving prices and rents out of economic reach.

Why have state pensions at all? One state benefit for all ages would provide for the poor and get us away from the idea that there is a age past which the state should keep us.

Some people are looking at having more time receiving state benefits of one kind or another than they ever spent working for a living. Unsustainable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
One state benefit for all ages...


That was the basis of the Green Party's Tax Credit system, proposed in the 1970s. It was a good proposal. So it hasn't happened.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13970
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Effectively, neoliberal ideology became hegemonic. This was achieved so effectively that many adherents refuse to countenance the idea that their worldview constitutes an ideology at all. From their perspective, it’s just common sense. There are no other realistic options. Anything other than the status quo is either naive idealism or sinister radical dogma.


Amen.

Source
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group