We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Darling will spend his way out of recession
Comments
-
My belief is that a bigger state hurts the poor more than the rich as it pays to be poor. Why bother going out and working hard if the couple next door earn the same or more for sitting on their a r s e s watching TV all day?
The empirical evidence does not support this. Before the welfare state, the poor were much poorer, and the rich richer.
Means-tested benefits are a disincentive, but the alternative of universal benefits were eroded from Thatcher onwards. Having no benefits is not really an option, unless you want slums.
Having seen real life slums in Kenya, trust me, you really would not want that option, unless you like the idea of living in a suburban house with a 10 foot high garden wall and a security guard! The ultimate form of serfdom is destitution.
Such a situation has more to do with inequality than GDP. Tanzania is a poorer country than Kenya, yet Dar es Salaam has no slums, in stark contrast to Nairobi or Mombasa. Don't think it could not happen in the UK if bad policies were put in place.
EDIT. High security walls are less pleasant for small town houses than a palace BTW!Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
Sir_Humphrey wrote: »When it was founded, the publicity made it clear that the NHS was a form of mutual insurance and was not charity.
that has always been a form of dishonesty, though, the whole NI thing. It's never covered NI-type spending....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Finally, the belief that you can work for 40 years and then live on a pension for 40 years has been fostered by companies, Governments and trade unions and swallowed by a public that didn't want to see that it was a crazy idea.
Male life expectancy at 65 is17 additional years.
In 1981 male life expectancy was 13 years & most people retiring in 1981 would have worked for 50 years - I'd say that was probably fair enough.
The problem has been that policy is still set for conditions of 40 years ago & changes (eg pension age increasing to 68) are not implemented fast enough.US housing: it's not a bubble
Moneyweek, December 20050
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards