Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

The Welfare State

Recommended Posts

its not going to be fun watching people realise they have been duped

link

Les Echos reported this week that 64% of French workers were retired by age 60. People working for favored state enterprises – such as the SNCF, which runs the train system…or for the “fonction publique,” which keeps people from getting anywhere – may retire earlier. They get extra credit for years worked in hardship overseas destinations – such as Tahiti, for example. And a French politician can get a pension after only 6 years in government. In the old days it was a lucky man who retired before his beard grows white. Now, if he plays his cards right, he could begin collecting a pension before his beard starts to grow at all.

This information comes in the context of a great debate, “a parliamentary battle.” The French government has proposed a law raising the retirement age to 62. The socialists have proposed 150 amendments. Over at The Financial Times, meanwhile, the editors have devoted this week to their own great debate on the subject. “To tighten, or not to tighten – that is the question,” writes Martin Wolf.

The rumbles in Paris and London are just two of many mock skirmishes going on. Neither side wants to aim too carefully at the real problem; they fear they might hit themselves!

You’ll recall, the G20 – the USA dissenting – urged member states to cut public expenses. They pledged to cut public deficits in half by 2013 and to stabilize debt by 2016. But Hungary has already broken ranks.

The big spenders insist that more spending is needed to protect the system. The cutters say more cuts are the thing that will preserve it. Neither has any doubt that the system is worth saving. That, precisely, is the target of today’s back page artillery.

Otto von Bismarck would hardly believe what a smashing success his innovation has become. Practically every advanced government picked it up in one form or other. The little guy liked it because he thought it gave him something for nothing. And the welfare state proved him right. The expenses of the first generations in the system were easily supported by the larger, richer generations that came after. Leaders liked it too, because it made the voters more dependent and controllable: the masses wouldn’t revolt as long as their pension checks kept coming.

Ernest Ackerman must have smiled broadly when he got the first US Social Security check for 17 cents in 1937. Since then, the checks got bigger and came earlier. More benefits were added – education, health care, parks, libraries, unemployment compensation… Ordinary people began to spend more time in universities than they did in bars. Health care services included evermore complicated and expensive procedures. Thousands were employed to regulate, control, protect and administer the public weal. Millions more were able to malinger and leech. One got a subsidy for his farm. Another was ‘disabled’ at work. And still another had his bank bailed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can promise yourself everything when your not paying the bill.

How nice of everyone's parents to expect us to pay for them.

I once ruined Christmas when I brought this up after drinking too much of a crap Australian varietal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once ruined Christmas when I brought this up after drinking too much of a crap Australian varietal.

I was about to have a early night. :D

Edited by Zngland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France seems to do everything right. They work 20% less hours than Brits a year.. and end up with a gdp per capita 20% larger.

We don't have so much work to go around in the 21st century so they distribute it giving long vacations, short work weeks, early retirements. As technology marches forward and with it productivity per hour continues to rise a society can take some of that increase as a leisure dividend.

It can also take some of that new production and distribute it to the most vulnerable in society. Or just generally distribute it to everyone who is a citizen of the nation. For example generous maternity leave which France also did. That should be a conservative, pro-family platform. Let moms stay home with their kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in North Cyprus they only have to work 15 years and then they can take retirement.

The Cypriots as a whole probably work the least hrs out of everyone in the in the E.U. especially in summer.

My thoughts are that the E.U countries should unify this retirment thing, and it would be nice if we could do it the Cypriot way. B) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France seems to do everything right. They work 20% less hours than Brits a year.. and end up with a gdp per capita 20% larger.

We don't have so much work to go around in the 21st century so they distribute it giving long vacations, short work weeks, early retirements. As technology marches forward and with it productivity per hour continues to rise a society can take some of that increase as a leisure dividend.

It can also take some of that new production and distribute it to the most vulnerable in society. Or just generally distribute it to everyone who is a citizen of the nation. For example generous maternity leave which France also did. That should be a conservative, pro-family platform. Let moms stay home with their kids.

Exactly. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't benefit from automation and the IT revolution ... no reason, that is, except the fact that we still depend on wage packets, salaries and means-tested benefits to distribute purchasing power.

You could, in fact, distribute a non-means-tested national dividend "to everyone who is a citizen of the nation". This would encourage part-time work and job-sharing, and would act as a protection against sickness and redundancy. It would also make it possible for a family to enjoy a good standard of living with only one partner being employed outside the home (or both part-time), reducing the stress, overwork, and financial pressure which play a big part in marriage breakdown.

Where would the money to pay a national dividend come from?

The most sensible proposition would be to stop subsidising the banks to the tune of £200 billion, which is how much they currently profit from being allowed to create our entire non-cash money supply (97% of the total) in the form of compound interest-bearing loans to their customers (especially people taking out over-sized mortgages on over-valued houses).

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 shows how the necessary reforms can be implemented. By establishing that "every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account", it will make it as illegal for the commercial banks to create new non-cash money in the form of "credit" as it already is for them to print notes or to mint coins. Instead of being offered as "loans" from the banks to finance the projects that earn them the biggest profits, new money will be spent directly into circulation by the elected government, on infrastructure and services, or in the form of a national dividend - as indicated by the electorate at general elections. We would no longer be dependent on the mediation of the banks for our national currency. They would be like any other private businesses, and could no longer hold us to ransom.

An added advantage offered by the Bill is the possibility of controlling inflation directly, by adjusting the amount of new money issued, instead of depending upon the blunt instrument of fluctuating interest rates (to the alternating detriment of borrowers and savers).

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill is online, with explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't benefit from automation and the IT revolution ... no reason, that is, except the fact that we still depend on wage packets, salaries and means-tested benefits to distribute purchasing power.

You could, in fact, distribute a non-means-tested national dividend "to everyone who is a citizen of the nation". This would encourage part-time work and job-sharing, and would act as a protection against sickness and redundancy. It would also make it possible for a family to enjoy a good standard of living with only one partner being employed outside the home (or both part-time), reducing the stress, overwork, and financial pressure which play a big part in marriage breakdown.

Where would the money to pay a national dividend come from?

The most sensible proposition would be to stop subsidising the banks to the tune of £200 billion, which is how much they currently profit from being allowed to create our entire non-cash money supply (97% of the total) in the form of compound interest-bearing loans to their customers (especially people taking out over-sized mortgages on over-valued houses).

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 shows how the necessary reforms can be implemented. By establishing that "every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account", it will make it as illegal for the commercial banks to create new non-cash money in the form of "credit" as it already is for them to print notes or to mint coins. Instead of being offered as "loans" from the banks to finance the projects that earn them the biggest profits, new money will be spent directly into circulation by the elected government, on infrastructure and services, or in the form of a national dividend - as indicated by the electorate at general elections. We would no longer be dependent on the mediation of the banks for our national currency. They would be like any other private businesses, and could no longer hold us to ransom.

An added advantage offered by the Bill is the possibility of controlling inflation directly, by adjusting the amount of new money issued, instead of depending upon the blunt instrument of fluctuating interest rates (to the alternating detriment of borrowers and savers).

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill is online, with explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

You maybe right but one of the reasons that "DEBT" money is created by the Central Bank is to stop govt from trashing their currency

by funding unaffordable vote manipulating pet projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason we will never have this Utopian future where robots do all the work and everyone can relax and enjoy themselves is hat every will still have their rent to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason we will never have this Utopian future where robots do all the work and everyone can relax and enjoy themselves is hat every will still have their rent to pay.

And if there is a rent strike, who ultimately loses out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 201 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.