Why Britain's debt is on a dangerous trajectory

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you have a citation for that? 60% seems pretty high.

Can't help with the citation, but it doesn't sound high to me. The starting point for any redistributive economy would be 50%. In an economy in the earliest stage of development, where 90% of the population were subsistence farmers and the remaining 10% of middle-class urban dwellers paid for them to receive some form of healthcare, education etc, you'd be looking at 90% net takers.

The more prosperous the society, the more it will gradually tend back towards 50%, contrary to the black-is-white beliefs of Marxists who think that more prosperous societies are more unequal.

We live in a society where you can go to school for free for 21 years, live in comfortable housing with broadband and central heating, enjoy state-subsidised culture and art, raise a large family and live until 70 or longer with high-quality free healthcare, all without ever having done a stroke of work - praise be. 60% net-takers is a remarkably low percentage.

LHW99

Well DWP figures indicate around 41% of the population (27million of 66million), adding up the numbers on the graphs on p.3 of this booklet
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734667/dwp-quarterly-benefits-summary-august-2018.pdf
However this apparently doesn't include Widow’s Benefit and Bereavement Benefit, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and maternity Allowance It does include housing benefit, but I don't think council tax support is included. So it seems likely levels must be at least approaching 50%, if not above.

antrobus

Malthusian wrote: »

....
We live in a society where you can go to school for free for 21 years,

I make it 13 years. 5 to 18 years. University ain't free any more. And before 5 is pre-school.

Malthusian wrote: »

....
live in comfortable housing with broadband and central heating, enjoy state-subsidised culture and art, raise a large family and live until 70 or longer with high-quality free healthcare, all without ever having done a stroke of work - praise be. 60% net-takers is a remarkably low percentage.

Most housing is comfortable. some is pretty carp, and there ain't enough of it. Broadband and central heating has to be paid for. The state has never subsidised my culture and art. Leastways, I don't think the government gave the Jesus and Mary Chain any money. People are living to 85, healthcare would be consistently high quality with another few billion or so.

I must admit I don't now what percentage of the population has qualified for these goodies without ever having done a stroke of work. I'd guess there must be some unlucky sids who are incapable of work, others who manage to play the game, but I'd have thought that the overwhelming majority must have done some work at some time, even if it wasn't paid work,

lisyloo

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you have a citation for that? 60% seems pretty high.

Actually I thought it was higher.
Old ones but institute for fiscal studies and center for policy studies.
A little dated but not aware of any massive sea change in taxation over the last couple of years.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1760/over_half_of_uk_households_are_net_beneficiaries_of_the_state

Malthusian

antrobus wrote: »

I make it 13 years. 5 to 18 years. University ain't free any more. And before 5 is pre-school.

Pre-school is school, but fair point - I'm not sure state pre-school provision is universal, so 16 years would be the correct number. Yes, university is free. Literally anyone can apply to a poly, take out a student loan, doss around for at least three years, and if you never do a stroke of work you will never have to pay it back. The taxpayer pays. Individuals only pay if they choose to enter employment.

The state has never subsidised my culture and art. Leastways, I don't think the government gave the Jesus and Mary Chain any money.

That was a choice you were able to make because you worked (I assume) and therefore could spend your money on non-subsidised culture. That doesn't alter the fact that there is extensive culture and art available to those with no income. If you have income you get more choice, as in anything.

People are living to 85, healthcare would be consistently high quality with another few billion or so.

Not many lifetime benefit claimants will live to 85 - I think 70 is a reasonable target.

Obviously only a tiny minority of people go through their entire lives without ever working. Even those who appear on the government's books as lifetime unemployed will in fact be earning some cash on the black market. My point is that 60% net takers isn't an unbelievable figure given what is available to be taken. The majority of people are able to access services that they would never be able to afford on their own as an unskilled or semi-skilled labourer - that's the point of living in a developed, civilised society.

Filo25

I'm actually surprised the 60% isn't higher.

lisyloo

I must admit I don't now what percentage of the population has qualified for these goodies without ever having done a stroke of work.

As an example my MIL has worked all her life (14 until 74) but her tax payments would have been low as she worked in supermarket/shops probably near min wage.

She was in hospital for 3 months @ £3000 per week this year and has been in a nursing home @ £825 for about 1 year (with LA paying).

Point of the anecdote is that the "take" can be a lot greater than the "give" especially for NHS treatment. £3000 per week is just the cost of a hospital bed, not any operation/treatment.
She was in intensive care for 3 weeks and I think that's much higher cost.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

She was in intensive care for 3 weeks and I think that's much higher cost.

£3k would barely pay for the consultant. Let alone the other staff members plus the huge amount of equipment and drugs utilised.

lisyloo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

£3k would barely pay for the consultant. Let alone the other staff members plus the huge amount of equipment and drugs utilised.

I vaguely remember someone quoting £10K per week for the intensive care bed but I can't back that up.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

I vaguely remember someone quoting £10K per week for the intensive care bed but I can't back that up.

When my friend was in IT a few years back. A four bedded ward was staffed by 18 nurses, a matron and a consultant. To keep her alive, 9 drug pumps were running, plus a ventilator and a kidney machine. Totally changed my perception of the NHS.