A Conversation for Ask h2g2

Where does the axe fall?

Post 21

TRiG (Ireland) A dog, so bade in office

Here in Ireland, many social provisions have been cut or reduced. One interesting thing is that pay for ministerial aides has been capped, but ministers can apply for exemptions, to have their aides paid more than the cap. I think the latest report was that the vast majority of aides and government advisors are paid more than the "cap". So it goes.

TRiG.smiley - shrugsmiley - sigh


Where does the axe fall?

Post 22

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

smiley - huh So, what on earth was the point of putting in place a cap then? smiley - huhsmiley - doh hmmm... when is a cap not a cap... smiley - weird
I assume the number I heard on BBC radio four the other day was correct, and if it was, it'd be a nice place to start in the UK, curtailing stupid expendature; the £4 billion per year, the tax payer, via the government, uses to 'support', the privitised railways in the UK... essentially, giving money from tax payers to share holders... seems utterly insane its either privitised, or public, and if the former, especially given how poor rail provision is, it certainly doesn't deserve tax payers money, to help ensure healthy dividend payouts and share prices for its share holders... smiley - huh


Where does the axe fall?

Post 23

swl

I have *never* been able to fathom what the hell was going on with the railways. Luckily, others did - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uMcM7Wlql0


Where does the axe fall?

Post 24

CASSEROLEON

Re "Shareholders" I think it is important to realise that these are by and large no longer actual people.

The largest "shareholders" are the great Pension Funds that are trying to place all the money that people saving for their old-age hand over to them for the funds to fructify in order to provide for their old age.. The alternative is obliging the working generations to pay the pensions directly out of their taxes..

Incidentally in France it has been the case for some time that parents of adult children can take their own children to court and get court-orders obliging the children to pay them maintenance.

And re the "Public-Private" debate, there are very important implications for "Big Money".

In a very real sense things that are "public" have more or less no clear value, not least since generally few individuals or groups really commit themselves to making the real input needed to keep them "up to scratch"- either through idealism or self-interest.What belongs to "everyone" often in effect belongs to no-one.

People who own things have both motives. They feel a sense of inter-active belonging with the things they care for, and they can either be sold or used as security for loans. But things that are "Publicly Owned" usually only get sold off when they are so run down, or require such huge investment that the tax-payer/voter will not fund, that they are sold for more or less a nominal price. And as "Big Money" counts the monetary value of the whole of an economy's assets, in effect Nationalisation just takes these assets off the market.

Mr Livingstone used to argue for raising "State" loans to fund improvements in London Transport. But we are all now very much aware of where the whole market in State loans can lead, much depending on the security rating of the State concerned, or its component. During the "Golden Years" of Gilt Edged Securities when some States were "safe as houses", it is true that States and components of States- like London, backed by the taxpayer who must eventually "carry the can", could often borrow much more cheaply than Private "organs". But through the action of the Monetary System this is likely to have an inflationary impact.

The State/State Corporation loaned £1m could spend it in return for Gilt Edged Securities. But those holding £1m worth of State Securities could borrow £1m using them as collateral. Thus £1m worth of economic activity would result in injecting £2m of money into the Economy - result Inflation, which was for some time the "great evil" to be "killed off".

Cass


Where does the axe fall?

Post 25

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

Yet, the alternative, in the UK at least, is that we have a rail system, no one can afford to travel on, but which we each pay for in tax. if that tax is funding the shareholders which are the pension funds, then surely the money would go further in supporting pensions, were it to go direct from tax, to pensions, without passing through the hands of the company directors who cream off their millions first.
Without a government controled infrastructure within a country, transport, water, power, etc., its enigh on impossible for the government to make policies with any real teeth to address any national issues which ultimately are then reliant on the private bodies controlling the countrys infastructure... smiley - 2cents


Where does the axe fall?

Post 26

CASSEROLEON

Of course the UK Railways were not designed and or built as a national system.

They were built from the Stockton-Darlington and Liverpool-Manchester era on the age-old basis of the economic dynamism associated with entrepreneurial local activity joining thriving Cities to important local and international markets providing Supply and Demand as British cities took advantage of the developing global economy.

But that whole era of "economics at a Human level" gave way in the late 1860's to a new "Darwinian" Struggle for the "Survival of the Fittest" era, and that seemed obviously to mean monstrously powerful. Many people seized upon the inhuman potential offered by Nationalism and Imperialism. States and Empires suddenly became THE units of Economic and Social Life- hence the ultimate logic of "National Socialism".. It led to protectionism, the European "Grab for Land" in the real period of Imperialism, world wars and protectionism.


George Bernard Shaw observed as this "statism" developed that everything that is not prohibited must become compulsory: but, while in "National Socialism" paying taxes was/is compulsory, as it is in our Parliamentary Democracy, so too was the obligation to Labour- something only imposed in the UK during the extremity of war.

Perhaps under M. Hollande France will rediscover the old French "Labour Tax" in which people worked for the State, as happened in Labour Camps and suchlike under the "National Socialist" regimes in Germany and the USSR. The "work-shy" were one of the categories of people sent to Nazi Concentration Camps to be re-educated.

But under our Parliamentary Democracy politicians prefer to argue that it is moral for some people to work two or three days per week just to pay their taxes*people at income levels where what the get from the State in terms of benefit is c one-third of what they pay-in, while the least affluent 30% (increasingly dropped right out of income tax) actually get-back in cash or kind three times the value of what they pay in.

[*Most developed economies seem to get up towards the State spending c40% of National Income, which means that assuming a 5-day working week the "Average Citizen" works 2 days a week for the State; which means that many work much more]

I did write to Mrs T at the time when she was trying to reconnect with the idea that everyone should be expected to make a positive contribution to the life of their locality, suggesting that the historical precedent of a Poll Tax was not encouraging, and that those 18+ and 65+ would resent the Community Charge. The 18+ category, I suggested, could be asked to make a contribution of energy to their local community, while pensioners might be asked to give some time.

But of course people picked up Mrs T's "There is no such THING as Society" comment no doubt very much aware that the old ways of Society, that had been especially very strong in England before the Industrial Revolution, had largely "died the death" since c1870 State action had taken over from all attempts to operate at a Human Level.

This does all eventually relate to the railways.

The monstrous National Perspective after 1870 [that destroyed the Municipalism that rescued the Victorian Era from "Hard Times" and produced "Great Expectations"] ended up encouraging a "flight from the Cities"- something that became a fatal source of Social and Political Apartheid.

A main challenge of the British rail network ,therefore, that was built to join thriving cities which were centres of Social and Economic Life, became that of having sufficient capacity just to cope with the twice-daily tidal flow of the "Rush Hour"- associated with the gradual death of the City- as Cities became undesirable places to live and bring up families.

Having come to teach in the Inner City in Lambeth in 1967 the local demographic studies were already showing the impact of the Flight from the City. Ken Livingstone, an old-boy of my first school, commented recently that in that 2,200 strong boys comprehensive all the boys found work. But as Afro-Caribbean immigrant workers increasing came to occupy the places in Brixton left vacant by the Flight from the City the situation changed quite dramatically, as more and more people took the "Stop the world I want to get off" option.

The City, which has been the great dynamo/generator of Human Economic activity for thousands of years has become a place from which all who can afford to do so escape from back to dormitary suburbs. Dormant and dormitary suburbs have become places of boredom and depression for teenagers and "housewives", while residual Inner City populations have all the problems of the City having become a place where many people just commute in to work or just to "have a good time": but commute out again every day to escape from the povery and desperation of a City environment left with an unnaturally polarised population of the struggling poor and the super-rich.

Of course one benefit that I rarely use is that as a London OAP I have a free travel card that gives me free use of the largely redundant capacity outside of the Rush Hours.

Cass


Where does the axe fall?

Post 27

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

A lot of the problem now, though, with big ... or expensive citys, is that its a financial imperitive that people can't afford to work in the city, and* live there...
The last time I told my Father, a rent for a property near mind, he thought the figure I quoted was per month, as that would be a little* expensive where he lives for a monthly rent, and I had to tell him it was the weekly rent for the property here... Of course, its slightly cheaper, apparently here than in London, so a lot of people commute in every day to work in London... But havening investigated the possiblitiey of this myself, you'd have to be on one hell fo a wage for it to make any sense, as the season ticket price is more per year than I earnt before tax in my last job smiley - huhsmiley - weird
Tackling the problem with the rediculus housing pricing in the UK, in some areas, would be sucha big help to facilitating people being able to work in places wehre now it must be nigh on impossible, in some lower paid jobs, unless you've got property to start with smiley - huhsmiley - weird
It always seems strange in the UK how a lot of people think its 'right' that they should buy a house and expect to get huge returns on it... I just find it insane that I've seen 100% or more increase in the 'value' of this place I've got, in... err well since I bought it in 1999 however long ago that might be smiley - dohsmiley - huh Of course, having cheaper, or affordible and working transport might enable commuting to work better, for more people, in a wider range of jobs, and, dunno... maybe it could even have an affect on the inflated house prices and extortonate rents in the country... I'm getting what, about 3% on my ISA, if I had a bit more in there, and converted it to a house, 12% would be a monthly return on renting a bedsit, or small flat out smiley - huhsmiley - weird And that, even buying the bedsit/flat in a part of the country where house prices are hugely stagnent compaired to round here... smiley - weirdsmiley - ufosmiley - bus


Where does the axe fall?

Post 28

swl

What's that you say? City life is expensive? It seems t'was ever thus -

"If you can tear yourself loose from the Games, a first-class
house can be purchased, freehold, in any small country town
at the price of a year’s rent, here, for some shabby, ill-lit attic. D. Iunius Iuvenalis 2nd Century AD smiley - winkeye

More complaints that could have been in yesterday's London Evening Standard can be found at http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/the-seven-plagues-of-the-ancient-roman-city-dweller/


Where does the axe fall?

Post 29

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

I think the rate of house price increase we've seen though, particularly but not limited necessarily to citys, in the UK has been a lot more than it had been previously... Was talking to someone near here, who inherited his house, from his parents... they'd paid a few hundred quid for it... in an area designated for slum clearance in the 60's, but which in the end wasn't demolished... now for the crapy little two up two down tiny victorian terraces they are, they are beginning to creap to nearly half a million pounds a pot.. that is seeming a little over expanded on the price front smiley - huhsmiley - weird Its turned a lot of properties in this area, not into places for people to own and live, but instead made them into investments for those with a few half a mills in their back pockets and in need of somewhere to put it.. smiley - weirdsmiley - ufo


Where does the axe fall?

Post 30

CASSEROLEON

I believe that the High Price of Housing in the UK is quite closely associated with the heavy concentration of State and "national" activity in London and the London area, and its hinterland. Therefore this is not really a feature of "urbanism" but of "statism".

This seems to be generally reflected in drives and demands for increased devolution so that other UK cities become more vibrant and active... On BBC Radio 4 yesterday Miriam Margoles was "complaining" about the BBC being sent to Salford.

So- to go back to the OP and Sweden, and the question of where the axe should fall- over recent decades surely the debate about the Future has often highlighted regional differences rather than "Social" or "systematic" ones.

I do not know what regional pressures there are within Sweden to radically change what I have called a tradition of "National Socialism", but when things come down to practicalities debate within the UK often comes down arguments about the disparities within the regions within the State and the need for change in the way that "The North", Wales and Scotland fit into a statist system that just increases and accentuates the importance of Greater London and the City of London. But then the whole UK seems to want to say that the London Olympics is "theirs". Perhaps this is historical rather than geographical inertia.

Interesting the "flight from the city" seems to have been popular in some quarters ever since the "Versailles Effect" in France, or perhaps Charles I's flight from London to Hull as England drifted towards his declaration of Civil War against the power of London. But the idea of separating the role of Capital City from that of the Metropolis has been tried- Washington not New York, Canberra not Sidney, and Brazilia not Sao Paulo. The Germans, however, keep coming back to Berlin whenever they get the chance- Weimar/ Bonn and the Germans often get quite a lot of things right.

Cass


Where does the axe fall?

Post 31

CASSEROLEON

More recently the Financial Crises of recent years have been closely connected with the "toxic debt" of banks that had loaned money that fuelled a real-estate "boom" as part of a Consumer Boom encouraged- among other things- by a general reaction after 9/11 of encouraging Western Consumers "Spend Spend Spen" as an act of collective defiance and to borrow money in defiance of an Islamic Fundamentalism that had expressed total hostility to self-centred, selfish and "bling" orientated Western Consumerism, a culture in which consumers were told "You can have it all".

My Swiss brother-in-law, a businessman, disagreed with me about this recently. But also could not believe that there were people who ran up debts of up to £40,000 on various Credit Cards. Soon after our conversation I heard on Radio 4 that AVERAGE household debt in the UK in 2012 is £55,000.

The consequences have been especially hard for the "PIGS"- Portugal Ireland, Greece and Spain- where that Consumerist "Good Life" had produced a speculative building boom in holiday Homes, Second Homes and new homes and lives in "Places in the Sun" funded by pensions and the sale of UK property, cashing in on UK property price increases.

But in 2008 the Financial Crisis reduced the international value of the pound by about 32% and suddenly the Bubble Nature of that increased spending based upon credit rather than genuine earnings was revealed.Leisure, tourism and moving abroad suddenly did not seem such a good idea.

Mr Cameron's suggestion about withdrawing the Housing subsidies from the under 25 is in line with other Government initiatives that have tried to diminish the "Price Effect" on Housing prices- rental and purchase- of injections of State money into the market: often economically "toxic spending".

An Eighteenth Century anecdote- The King of England travelling through Holland saw some of his staff arguing with a landlord.

"Sire. They are asking ridiculous prices for eggs".
The King (perhaps William III who was Dutch and therefore a Dutch-speaker) asked the landlord:
"Are eggs scarce in this region?"

The reply:
"No. Your Majesty. But Kings are."

Unfortunately whenever things are supposed to be for the "public" or the "greater" good, there are those who feel entitled to put up their prices.

I recently encountered the Treasurer of the French Rowing Association who has had to handle arrangements for the French team at the Olympics. He said that London hotel prices had gone up a hundred fold- Fortunately he had been an "early bird".

Cass


Where does the axe fall?

Post 32

swl

How do people feel about plans to stop the wealthy receiving child benefit and to restrict child benefit to 3 children?

Is it right that the wealthy should be denied what has been until now a universal handout?

Is it right for a government to set limits for the money available in benefits?


Where does the axe fall?

Post 33

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

A previous torry government in the UK though, already did the experiment they now want to do, making people homeless, which at least the last time around was good to boost the squatting market... smiley - groansmiley - weird
I still find it very weird and strange that so many people semingly thought running up such huge personal debts was a good idea... Whenever I get the stupid phonecalls trying to sell whatever it is, they're always mythed when I say I don't have any credit card debs, personal loan debs, morgage debts etc... I always save to buy something, and can't quite fathem the expectation of so many people that its sensible or the right thing to do, to just buy whateve ryou want, wheather there's any money for it or not coming in smiley - huhsmiley - weird


Where does the axe fall?

Post 34

Storm

I keep looking at the houses in our street thinking...this is where the super-rich live, you with your semi-detached houses, 10 year old cars on the drive and annual gardening competition. Stamping on the faces of the poor...


Where does the axe fall?

Post 35

swl

That's a fair point. Where exactly is the line of opprobrium to be drawn? Is it people on £50, 60 or 70k a year? What about the £100k some doctors are on - does that qualify them as wealthy?


Where does the axe fall?

Post 36

CASSEROLEON

Well I have a fondness for the writing of William Cobbett who described the passing away of "Englishness"- that tradition reflected in Tudor laws that prevented economic changes that were damaging to the "Commonweal" and then- realising the Social losses involved with the dissolution of the monasteries- passed the Elizabethan Poor Law that made the plight of the poor and destitute the responsibility of their own communities, as Cobbett pointed out at a time when the whole thing was becoming systematised and run with Benthamite efficiency by alien paid overseers who knew nothing about the people for whom they were responsible.

As a friend of Daniel O'Connell he visited Ireland in 1834 and tried to recruit the Irish to his campaign to save the Poor Law, for the plight of the Irish (and Scots) owed much to the fact that they had no such rights to claim. In 1834 the English People also lost that right, the New Poor Law deliberately NOT offering any help to the poor, reserving all aid for the destitute.

By the time that Poor Law policy changed the whole idea of "Care within the Community" was being replaced by the idea of Welfare State and alien paid overseers doing "missionary" work amongst people in "far off lands" (spiritually and culturally) "of whom they knew nothing"- in the "connaitre" rather than "savoir" sense.

Cass


Where does the axe fall?

Post 37

Orcus

>What about the £100k some doctors are on - does that qualify them as wealthy? <

That's a very disengenuous figure where GPs are concerned at least. That's a nominal salary from which they also have to pay staff and generally run their practice from what I have heard...

What do people think about Cameron's latest wheeze - no housing benefit for the under 25s...

My take...

If it wasn't so crass it would be smiley - rofl

OK, so let's make everyone in that bracket homeless then smiley - rolleyes
I dare say a fair proportion of them could go home to mummy but there is also a significant proportion who got chucked out of care when they were 16 - what are they supposed to do if they have no work and have kids?


Where does the axe fall?

Post 38

swl



Which is why I said "some". The point stands, is someone on £100k+ a year "wealthy"? Or is it more important how that wealth is earned?

ie a Doctor saves lives and generally makes things better for lots of people therefore good person.

But a banker on the same money running pension funds earning returns for lots of people in their old age is a bad person?

In debate after debate be it online, on the radio, in the press or on the telly, whenever any cuts are proposed the kneejerk response is to shout about the rich not paying and the evil bankers. It's classic whataboutery and I think it would be interesting to see where the line is drawn regarding wealth and evilness of profession.

As has already been referenced here, most of us are rich beyond the imaginings of the bulk of the world's population but instead of seeing things in that context, some people still seem to be outraged that there are a tiny number of people even better off than themselves.

smiley - shrug


Where does the axe fall?

Post 39

Z

Are they going to extend the age a parent has to legally provide for a child until the age of 25?

Currently you can get housing benefit at the age of 18, and your parents have to provide until the age of 18. If you are under the age of 16 and your parents ask you to leave home the state has to provide for you (ie foster carer or children's home), if you are 16 or 17 and homeless social services still have to provide emergency support. This is actually more expensive for a social services department than just housing benefit.

So what is going to happen when someone aged 18-25 can't go home to their parents, because their parents refuse to have them. Are they going to be covered by the same arrangements as currently apply to 16-17 year olds? Probably not I think the government is going to see a lot of them being on the streets. But what about those 18-24 year olds whose are parents themselves and become homeless as a result of this? Are those children going to have to go into care? It's considerably cheaper to pay housing benefit for a parent than to put children in care.


Where does the axe fall?

Post 40

Storm

People in that age bracket already get assessed for less housing benefit than older people as there is an assumption of shared living spaces (bathrooms, kitchens etc). The new system is or will be stupid and unnecessary and is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. One of my many brothers left home at 16 and was unable to claim housing benefit and therefore unable to get a home and had to live no fixed abode; is this what we want? More homeless people who can't get jobs or go to college because they have no proof of address?

The child benefit thing is also a bit dumb, we were going to lose it but now aren't. I think we should but I think basing it on one salary is dumb. It should be based on family income. A friend of mine said 'oh but I use that to pay for my gym membership'.

When it was first introduced it wasn't paid for the first child.


Key: Complain about this post