Bull market, how long for?

BananaRepublic

iro wrote: »

As many are taken into care at birth not widely reported, the reaction to losing a child to adoption because of a lack of capacity to look after it is quite commonly to get pregnant again and again and again as each child is taken away.

Given the potential fecundity of a female over her lifetime the figure might even be greater than 12 for all we know.

The State is complicit in this IMHO.

The number of !!!!less wasters who father multiple children from multiple mothers and scrounge off the state is small, but they provide a nice scape goat for the more extreme right wing.

BananaRepublic

iro wrote: »

I DONT care what you think, this thread is about investment duh!

I suggest if you wanna go virtue signal there are better places for you to go and tell people that you have a right to spend their money on things you seem to think are important.

It is called the Money Saving Expert Forum
NOT
the Money Spending Expert Forum

Geddit?

Basic housing and FS the extent of state aid, any more should come from contributions to insurance schemes whilst in work. Anyone receiving state aid should be required to make themselves available for community based work (cleaning parks etc.).

You see I do care about society.

People on state aid include those who were born with mental or physical disabilities that make it hard for them to find work and people who through no fault of their own are unable to work. The father who loses his job due to disability resulting from a car accident that was not his fault, and his wife is looking after a young child. Would you call them scroungers? The mother who loses her husband to cancer, and has several young children to support. Are they scroungers? Should the children be forced to live a life of penury? The older man and woman who lose their jobs because the factory goes bust, and their skills are out of date. No-one wants to employ older people when they can get keen youngsters. Are they scroungers? No you don’t care about society.

Yes there is a problem with a minority of claimants who exploit the system. That is the nature of a welfare system, and there are issues associated with forcing the shirkers into work. I’ve met some, and they are despicable. But you don’t withdraw support from the deserving majority because of the minority.

Carrieanne

You'd never guess from viewing Channel 5's myriad of benefit programming that fiddling isn't a major concern. The official figures suggest £3.3B was lost to fraud and error in 2015-2016: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575407/fraud-and-error-stats-release-2015-16-final-estimates.pdf

Some context to £3.3B - UK gives away fourfold that amount annually in Foreign Aid.

The real problem is entitlement. The great majority of UK households are in receipt of benefits. It's because Tax Credits, the State Pension and many other payments which doesn't have Benefit in their title are, nevertheless, benefits.

le_loup

Carrieanne wrote: »

The real problem is entitlement. The great majority of UK households are in receipt of benefits. It's because Tax Credits, the State Pension and many other payments which doesn't have Benefit in their title are, nevertheless, benefits.

Thanks for that.
The pension I paid in for, for 40 years gives me a "benefit" today. I never realised I was a scrounger and will hang my head in shame for ever more.
On the other hand you can go and educate yourself by watching other than Channel 5, reading other than the Daily Mail and other such society dividing c**p.
Oh! Sorry - you don't believe in society do you?

Voyager2002

economic wrote: »

How much more violence is there in the US compared to the UK?

Im not saying we should give zero help to people who need it. I am just saying there is a limit to how much we should help. That limit is basic shelter and food. I suspect we give a lot more then the limit and we also give to those who scam the system as well.

I live near to Morecambe, and I can confirm that we give a good deal less than the 'limit' that you suggest.

Anyway, let us think about 'welfare' in strictly economic terms rather than moralising... an unemployed adult represents a considerable investment in education; training and work experience; as well as the healthcare and other resources that the person will have received over the course of a lifetime. It is rational to maintain that investment so that if the economy changes the person is ready to accept any job that is offered in the future. That means sufficient 'benefits' to keep the person in reasonable physical and mental health and to maintain any skills that could be used in the workplace. Furthermore, the children of unemployed parents need a sufficient degree of physical security to benefit from their education, acquire skills and go on to become productive workers... None of that is going to be cheap, and the current regime of 'sanctions' and the unpredictable withdrawal of benefits is a very effective way to liquidate all this investment and drive people into mental and physical illnesses from which they are unlikely ever to recover.

Furthermore: people are more likely to be entrepreneurial and take risks if there is some kind of safety net. I suggest that these safety nets -- including insurance against unemployment and long-term sickness -- should be regarded as an essential part of our infrastructure, along with electricity and rapid internet access.

Voyager2002

le_loup wrote: »

Thanks for that.
The pension I paid in for, for 40 years gives me a "benefit" today. I never realised I was a scrounger and will hang my head in shame for ever more.

The cost of providing state pensions is a good deal greater than the income from NICs that supposedly pays for them. (And note that when politicians refer to the total "Welfare" bill, pensions make up the bulk of the figure they quote.) So the vast maority of us benefit from funds paid in taxes, just as most of us do when we go to see a doctor trained at the tax-payer's expense.

Voyager2002

iro wrote: »

As many are taken into care at birth not widely reported, the reaction to losing a child to adoption because of a lack of capacity to look after it is quite commonly to get pregnant again and again and again as each child is taken away.

Given the potential fecundity of a female over her lifetime the figure might even be greater than 12 for all we know.

The State is complicit in this IMHO.

When we talk about someone "having 12 children", we mean someone who accepts responsibility for them... probably we mean someone who claims money from the state in order to sustain 13 lives. That is completely different from someone who may have given birth 12 times and then provided babies to loving couples who accept responsibility for them.

economic

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The cost of providing state pensions is a good deal greater than the income from NICs that supposedly pays for them. (And note that when politicians refer to the total "Welfare" bill, pensions make up the bulk of the figure they quote.) So the vast maority of us benefit from funds paid in taxes, just as most of us do when we go to see a doctor trained at the tax-payer's expense.

Do the vast majority really enjoy the state pensions at the expense of NICs of the working population?

Last time i checked there were about 8% aged 55 or more. Is it really the vast majority who are enjoying state pensions now?

What about in the future, those who are say 30-40 years of age now who are paying for the state pensions, will they get to see the same benefits? the answer is we have no idea. No one knows what economic conditions and productivity will be like in 5, 10, 20, 30 years etc. Although we can only guess technology will enable productivity to be pretty damn good.

Sure we all benefit from the NHS but how do we know the money is being spent wisely? How do we know:
- the future doctors are trained properly
- money is allocated properly to various places within the NHS
- that private sector healthcare would be better or worse then NHS
- healthcare service is at a good standard

jimjames

iro wrote: »

Thank god the POTUS is reducing this gross inequity, not only a Bull market but a resergence of the 'strivers' and economic growth is the most likely result for the US.

How is he reducing inequity when he's giving away so much to his richest mates?

elephantrosie

the answer to your question is forever! lets go against the gravity!