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!
Dutch cabinet resigns over collapse of austeriy talks
Comments
-
But we live in a society where there is a great deal of conspicuous extravagance, while at the same time, old people are told to $h1t themselves in their beds because nobody will help them get to a toilet.
That is largely a management issue. If you speak to nurses and ask them (and I have) you will usually be told that patient neglect is due to 'modern' management issues within nursing and nurse training - not a lack of resources.
I would add that the more institutionalised and nannying the state has become, the less individually caring are most citizens.
It is fashionable to blame 'factha" and individualism. It is just as likely, IMNSHO, to be due to a lack of a sense of duty and individual responsibility.0 -
The case I was mostly thinking of was at home. The council told her she could no longer have any night-time support, so she'd be put to bed at 8.30 every night and left alone until 8.30 the next morning.That is largely a management issue. If you speak to nurses and ask them (and I have) you will usually be told that patient neglect is due to 'modern' management issues within nursing and nurse training - not a lack of resources.
But that's just an icon. There are many other cases, all different, but all symptomatic of the state of things. This is now the kind of country we are and the kind of people we are."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
The case I was mostly thinking of was at home. The council told her she could no longer have any night-time support, so she'd be put to bed at 8.30 every night and left alone until 8.30 the next morning.
Clearly barbaric. And I can't help wondering how much the 'cuts' used as an excuse for that barbarism have affected the well paid council leaders concerned?But that's just an icon. There are many other cases, all different, but all symptomatic of the state of things. This is now the kind of country we are and the kind of people we are.
No disagreement there at all.,0 -
I thought you were starting to sound a bit more cheerful Wookie
I am... and I see that the real economy is actually starting to recover. Yes there are lots of risks and ultimately I don't believe all the debt will be paid off, therefore there will be default, either through inflation or outright default.0 -
The case I was mostly thinking of was at home. The council told her she could no longer have any night-time support, so she'd be put to bed at 8.30 every night and left alone until 8.30 the next morning.
There is always a limit to the level of service the country can offer. Even if it took all of the money off of everyone it couldn't afford to do everything for everyone so we'll always have to draw a line somewhere.
Providing round the clock care at people's homes must be incredibly expensive. I'm not saying we shouldn't offer the service; however if we want to we need to accept the huge costs that go with it. That becomes especially hard to justify when it will not be the people needing that kind of care (typically the elderly) who pay for it but the younger generations who will almost certainly not be able to afford to pay for that kind of care when they themselves need it.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
There is always a limit to the level of service the country can offer. Even if it took all of the money off of everyone it couldn't afford to do everything for everyone so we'll always have to draw a line somewhere.
Providing round the clock care at people's homes must be incredibly expensive. .
Agree with your 1st para.
The 2nd para is the nub really distributed care in peoples homes, for this type of care is not cost effective. Having nurses, carers and doctors trawling around spending half their time on the move when they should be in centralised locations.
Funny how most big business saves money by cutting off branches and centralising, elderly care seems to go in the other direction?
This is a major problem in this country as care for the elderly is whittled away. They either clog up NHS beds, which it isn't designed for, or are left to fend for themselves with little support.
If a child is suspected of being at risk they are readily whisked into the care system. Often the needy elderly are even more vulnerable as they are not so resilient."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
This is what I mean. A supposedly rich country that "can't afford" to look after its old folk because younger generations might not then have the lifestyle they expect (and their expectations are way higher than ever before).That becomes especially hard to justify when it will not be the people needing that kind of care (typically the elderly) who pay for it but the younger generations"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
But we live in a society where there is a great deal of conspicuous extravagance, while at the same time, old people are told to $h1t themselves in their beds because nobody will help them get to a toilet.
There is something deeply and fundamentally wrong here (and the fact that by and large we don't much care isn't a good symptom either).
Fixing this demands that we find a way to afford a lot of basics before any extravagance can be tolerated. And if the rich don't like it, we must conclude that the wrong people are rich, and instead of mucking about with their taxes, we should simply confiscate their wealth, on the grounds that they don't deserve it. It's not carved in stone that a person's value is measured by his ability to line his own pockets.
Philosophically you are spot on. I often argue no one needs more than about £3m in wealth which is why I switch the TV over if someone like the billionaire Paul MaCartney pop up.
But in terms of practicality, targeting the rich and big global firms will end up in worse not better outcomes.
Take HSBC today announcing 2000 UK redundancies. Taxing them more, regulating them more, making business more difficult to do and profits less, will only cause even more of this sort of migration abroad.
Capital is allocated to the places that best serve it. You yourself would not bother risking your savings unless the return and risk / reward balance compell you to so do.
Taxing the rich and going after corporate profits will make us feel good for a very short time only.
The only answer is to make Britain incredibly business freindly, thats how you get real wealth creation and the ultimate wefare - jobs.0 -
The case I was mostly thinking of was at home. The council told her she could no longer have any night-time support, so she'd be put to bed at 8.30 every night and left alone until 8.30 the next morning.
But that's just an icon. There are many other cases, all different, but all symptomatic of the state of things. This is now the kind of country we are and the kind of people we are.
But YOU buy the goods of nations with none of the costly European style social contract benefits you demand, because those goods are cheaper. They are cheaper because Chinese folk dont have round the clock elderly care and the wnaton waste of the NHS and so on so they can keep all thier costs down.
So on the one hand with your wallet you are saying the Indian / Chinese low benefiots low wage society gets your vote, but then when it comes to our own selfish little world we expect the world to pay for an extraoridnary level of featherbedding societal constructs.
Cant you see your model is just not sustainable, unless YOU and the rest of us are prepared to pay a lot more for costly British goods whch in turn would boost our economy to pay the Taxes you need to get to your incredible world of European social entitlements.
Chinese people wont be buying enough of our goods for as long as they cost more, which will be forever if we foolow your model and maintain this ultra high cost society.
I'm sorry, we cant have everything our hearts desire.0 -
But YOU buy the goods of nations with none of the costly European style social contract benefits you demand, because those goods are cheaper. They are cheaper because Chinese folk dont have round the clock elderly care and the wnaton waste of the NHS and so on so they can keep all thier costs down.
Actually, in my experience, elderly Chinese people tend to be looked after far better than ours. This is because the Chinese respect their elders and love them - not hand off their care to the State because they can't be bothered.
The often vicious attitude to the elderly frequently displayed on this forum is at the root of our problem - not the lack of lavish (and inevitably wasteful) government spending.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards