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!
Should automatic benefits be cut for those who "don't need them"?
Comments
-
You have every right to criticise past government decisions but successive governments have had the chance to change things and chose not to do so. Like most voters I do not claim to be an expert economist, we rely on politicians to do the right thing. The idea that we (voters) knew that we were part of a ponzi scheme and did nothing is nonsence. They may have been wrong but successive governments have taken the view that unfunded approaches cost less to administer than funded ones.
I've already said that I think the most likely reason was ignorance
but I'm not overly inclined to encourage ignorance as a defence against the consequences of your actions.
You say you're not an expert then suggest you know why successive governments chose not to fund future liabilities. You aren't and you don't
they didn't fund them because they knew they could ignore it and kick it into the long grass as a debt for someone else to deal with. Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
Just about every Act passed by Parliament creates unfunded liabilities. The Act creates an obligation on the government to do this or that or the other, not usually just once, but on an ongoing basis. And by implication the Treasury is obliged to keep coming up with the money to pay for whatever it is, year after year.They voted for governments that built up unfunded liabilities; it was either ignorance or selfishness. They used the nation as a ponzi scheme to fund a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford and most didn't even realise they were doing it.
There's no particular distinction between paying money out to pensioners and spending money in other ways.
And most of the entire budget goes on unfunded liabilities. Unless you think the government can suddenly drop education or healthcare overnight, or dispense with the Army, or cut the Scots off without a penny.
Open-ended commitments, to be funded as and when, are the way governments work. You'll have to find a better reason to pick on pensioners."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 -
I
You say you're not an expert then suggest you know why successive governments chose not to fund future liabilities. You aren't and you don't they didn't fund them because they knew they could ignore it and kick it into the long grass as a debt for someone else to deal with.
Take it you are voting and a promoting a party that will sort all this out?;)"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 -
Open-ended commitments, to be funded as and when, are the way governments work. You'll have to find a better reason to pick on pensioners.
I've got a plenty good reason and as it's the actual reason I'll stick with it. There's just about nothing that can't be accounted for and funded, certainly none of your examples are particularily tricky.
If you don't do it then you can't weigh up whether by funding a certain cancer drug now you'll leave youself unable to fund other cancer treatments in future etc.
Businesses budget and forecast for long term liabilities. They have to because if they don't they are completely reliant on the markets to make up for their lack of planning. Governments could operate that way but voters want them to give them what they want now and defer judgement day until it's someone elses problem.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Take it you are voting and a promoting a party that will sort all this out?;)
You'd be hard pushed to find one that will really sort it out to vote for. Personally I don't think I could make a noticable difference in persuading people that they're strealing from future generations. Just look at this thread to see the struggle anyone who tries would have.
Even if I don't do anything I fail to see how it changes much. It would just mean my generation were just as incompetent at being a democracy as the generation before
I'm pretty much certain I'll end up emigrating at some point to a country that I believe manages its economy for the longer term. Germany is a possible example. I figure that's me 'voting' for the responsible option in the only way that'll actually work.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
I'm pretty much certain I'll end up emigrating at some point to a country that I believe manages its economy for the longer term. Germany is a possible example. I figure that's me 'voting' for the responsible option in the only way that'll actually work.
As you doubtless know, Germany uses the Bismark model for pensions i.e. unfunded and paid from current income (like most sensible countries) and with a higher state pension than in the UK.0 -
You'd be hard pushed to find one that will really sort it out to vote for.
Even if I don't do anything I fail to see how it changes much. It would just mean my generation were just as incompetent at being a democracy as the generation before
The feelings of many in earlier generations too:wall:
I agree that things should be accounted for etc but running a country isn't quite the same as business for also sorts of reasons."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 -
I've already said that I think the most likely reason was ignorance but I'm not overly inclined to encourage ignorance as a defence against the consequences of your actions.
You say you're not an expert then suggest you know why successive governments chose not to fund future liabilities. You aren't and you don't they didn't fund them because they knew they could ignore it and kick it into the long grass as a debt for someone else to deal with.
Ignorance may not be a desirable excuse but the alternative is that only those who have all the answers get to vote. I do not claim that unfunded approaches are a good solution (clearly we have recent evidence that they are not) or that I understand the reasons why they decided to do it but that was the explanation given in the past in the example I used. You may be correct, but I was just pointing out that successive governments, advised by experts, have done this. You see this as passing the problem to your generation. But its only in recent years that these comments have surfaced.
When you reach retirement age maybe you will take a different view of what your generation has left those not yet born to deal with. I do not know what these issues will be but I predict there will be some and there will be people of your age complaining about your generation has done.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
As you doubtless know, Germany uses the Bismark model for pensions i.e. unfunded and paid from current income (like most sensible countries) and with a higher state pension than in the UK.
and like the UK time is running out. As the number of people in work is going to be insufficient to fund those in retirement.
A problem throughout Western Europe.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »and like the UK time is running out. As the number of people in work is going to be insufficient to fund those in retirement.
A problem throughout Western Europe.
if the number of people in work will be insufficient to produce goods and services required for those in retirement (and the young, sick, disabled etc) then how do funded schemes make any difference?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards