Bull market, how long for?

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!

economic

Voyager2002 wrote: »

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.

What evidence do you have that less is given to those where you live compared to the "limit"?

Someone who is unemployed after being trained and educated and has experience is very unlikely to need anyone's help. They will find another job. If they can not find a job after looking hard it means one of two things in general:
- the person has a dysfunctional issue like mental illness
- the person is not good enough for the current job market

In the later, the person has a chance to improve himself. If they have little to no savings they will receive help through the benefits system (which i don't disagree with). Lets hope the benefits are not too generous so that the person decides to not look for work.

In the former, if the person can not get back to work (or has never been in work) due to dysfunction (mental pr physical even) then that person will likely depend on the state for benefits long term. Its in these cases where it becomes a burden for the state as there is no productivity to show for the dysfunctional person to receive state funds. What i would suggest is that they do receive basic state benefits for food and shelter (and that this is in the form of vouchers so only rent and food can be bought and no things such as alcohol, gambling, drugs, hookers etc). some money should be invested PROPERLY in research and eventual services to help these people recover from their dysfunction and get them back to work.

Education for the sake of education is not the answer to everything, in fact most degrees out there offer no real skill/knowledge that is applicable to the real working world, degrees are done simply as a ticket and nothing more. And all meanwhile racking up debts of 50k. But this is a whole different topic for which there is another thread for.

Sure people may put off by business before they get a safety net but really how many are there? If someone really believes in a business they would do it now safety net or not. Usually people work before starting a business not only because they have some cash to invest in the business (i would not call this a safety net), but they develop experience that can be used in the business - in fact many start businesses in the field they have a career in, they wouldn't have got the idea without the experience, so you have to question was the job for the safety net or was it because they had no idea of a business idea and only got the idea after some years of work experience?

someone who is long term sick or long term unemployed is not going to be entrepreneurial material. If they were they would have already started something. As for insurance against sickness and unemployment, hahahaha, i already made my case above.

economic

jimjames wrote: »

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

How is he giving away to his rich mates? Please explain?

reeac

economic wrote: »

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

Read it more carefully. It means that the vast majority of the population get some benefit (in the non-pejorative sense of the word) from HMGs income from various taxes e.g. NHS, police, roads, education etc. It doesn't mean that the vast majority are getting state pensions.
With reference to the NHS there was a recent report from a US based organisation that found the NHS to give much better value than systems in place in other countries. Not surprising as it doesn't need that extra layer of admin., fine print Ts & Cs and dividend payouts associated with insurance.Yes, the NHS is undoubtedly abused by some eg. A&E visits for trivial complaints as it's free at point of use but overall it's still better value. It's interesting that whilst the present government would undoubtedly love to hand the complete operation to one or other of their favourite big companies they know full well that that would be political suicide so they just nibble away at the edges instead.