Dutch cabinet resigns over collapse of austeriy talks

N1AK

pqrdef wrote: »

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).

Personally I don't think that I am obliged, or morally obligated, to pay whatever it takes to offer the elderly every service they desire. I believe I am morally obligated to ensure a certain base standard, but that falls some way short of round the clock at home care.

For decades we have built up liabilities against the state in pension entitlements and medical care; now the same people who voted for this are expecting the current generations to make up the difference. I don't expect the state to fund round the clock at home care for me when I am older, and will save accordingly, so why should I be paying to provide it for others when the money could be going towards paying off the debts we're lumped with?

pqrdef

N1AK wrote: »

so why should I be paying

And by the time we've all done saying that, we're back to the Middle Ages.

First thing to understand is that nobody makes any money at all without depending on a lot of other people. Society makes its money collectively. Society decides how to distribute it. Your concept that it's you that's paying is entirely artificial, bogus and inappropriate.

Obviously if society gets its priorities sorted you'll get less pocket money to spend on sweeties. Is that a problem?

N1AK

pqrdef wrote: »

And by the time we've all done saying that, we're back to the Middle Ages.

First thing to understand is that nobody makes any money at all without depending on a lot of other people. Society makes its money collectively. Society decides how to distribute it. Your concept that it's you that's paying is entirely artificial, bogus and inappropriate.

Obviously if society gets its priorities sorted you'll get less pocket money to spend on sweeties. Is that a problem?

Your concept of no personal control over the creation of assets, services and wealth is naive and lazy.

Obviously in a society much of what individuals do is supported by others. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who would claim otherwise. To take that statement to the absurd extreme that this means that people's individual actions are irrelevant is entirely false.

You cannot claim that two individuals in otherwise identical situations where one works and one does not are the same because it is society 'collectively' making money. The same is true on the level of generations. The current elderly left a financial void by promising themselves services that they did not fund. Expecting later generations to feel morally obliged to cover for their financial irresponsibility is selfish, and potentially unrealistic.

It isn't a problem for me if taxation increases in the UK. If it does, and the money is being spent on things I disagree with I can always emigrate.

pqrdef

N1AK wrote: »

Obviously in a society much of what individuals do is supported by others. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who would claim otherwise. To take that statement to the absurd extreme that this means that people's individual actions are irrelevant is entirely false.

I didn't say any such thing. My point was, you can't really say who's paying for things.

The generation before mine fought a war. It was financially disastrous nationally, and interrupted many individual careers as well. But I expect they thought they were doing their bit. They could argue that they made post-war prosperity possible. Of course we might have been better off if they'd lost, or hadn't bothered, who knows. We can't pursue all the what-ifs.

And if the Thatcherite decimation of industry was necessary for the future economic health of the nation, then those who lost their jobs did their bit too.

And what of all the people losing their jobs this time round? We tell them their sacrifice is necessary, and then call them layabouts and scroungers.

N1AK

pqrdef wrote: »

I didn't say any such thing. My point was, you can't really say who's paying for things.

Yes you can. It is not exactly complex to look at the net contribution to government by birthdate range and net expenditure against those ranges. By doing so you will see that we as a country built up a massive liability in pension and medical expenses without funding it.

If we voted to drop all taxation now and gave everyone £50,000pa from the public purse I don't think anyone would argue that we were doing so by placing a lodestone of debt on future generations. That is an extreme example, but it emphasises that even if you can't account for everything on the level of a dual ledger accounts department you can attribute costs.

I intentionally avoided the war generations because of the controversy that invariably brings. However, I think it's fair to say that they didn't leave the children of the 40s and 50s with anywhere near the countries current liabilities.

N1AK

pqrdef wrote: »

And what of all the people losing their jobs this time round? We tell them their sacrifice is necessary, and then call them layabouts and scroungers.

We've got a government at the moment that is committed to stopping the increase in our deficit; if we continue to choose governments who pick affordable economic options, rather than borrow from future generations then we'll have that to our credit.

chewmylegoff

Conrad wrote: »

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.

the jobs aren't going abroad, they're part of global cuts across HSBC's businesses - it has been reported that they are looking to axe up to 30,000 jobs globally. the UK jobs appear to be (i) cutting out what they deem to be unnecessary middle management and (ii) getting rid of their tied advisers on the grounds that they aren't making any money and will make even less when commission is banned.

pqrdef

N1AK wrote: »

Yes you can. It is not exactly complex to look at the net contribution to government by birthdate range and net expenditure against those ranges.

Nonsense figures. What's "net contribution" if it doesn't take account of expenditure?

A._Badger

pqrdef wrote: »

The generation before mine fought a war. It was financially disastrous nationally, and interrupted many individual careers as well. But I expect they thought they were doing their bit. They could argue that they made post-war prosperity possible. Of course we might have been better off if they'd lost, or hadn't bothered, who knows. We can't pursue all the what-ifs.

If we fail to learn from history we are little better than chimpanzees. We can, in fact, learn a lot from the socialist/collectivist policies of FDR, whose 'New Deal' manifestly failed in its (supposed) aim of pulling the USA and the West out of the Great Depression..

It was, indeed, WWII that dragged us out of the slump - at a terrible cost. No one can imagine we would have been better under the Nazi heel.

pqrdef wrote: »

And if the Thatcherite decimation of industry was necessary for the future economic health of the nation, then those who lost their jobs did their bit too.

So, some history is meaningless and 'what ifs' pointless, yet a grotesquely mangled version of events is grist to the mill?

All the rigour of a Guardian editorial meeting. Or a staff room powwow.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A._Badger wrote: »

It was, indeed, WWII that dragged us out of the slump - at a terrible cost. .

Proof that you can indeed borrow and spend your way out of a depression though. Even if most of what you spend money on you then destroy.