tzijlstra Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'm confused by your assertion. How is an increase from 8.9% to 10.8% a quadrupling? It looks more like an increase of about 20% (not 400%). Even if you add together the pension and healthcare %'s, it goes from 15.7% to 19.9%, and increase of 25%. I am not a mathematical genius so find it hard to explain this, but it is to do with the fact that the cost in GDP is going up by some 2% (Projected) that is a GDP that has corrections in it for expected inflation and economic growth etc. so a GDP that between now and 2060 can reasonable be expected to grow significantly (for example 100%) than there is the continued growth of the costs of pensions (which is that 2%) in relation to that already growing GDP, if you than take the absolute figures for costs now and projected costs then you are talking about a quadrupling. Hope that explains it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Absolute figures are meaningless though, the comparative cost to GDP (or tax income which is related to GDP) are the ones that matter. So the cost of pensions and healthcare will go up by 25% from 15.7% of GDP to 19.9% of GDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 Absolute figures are meaningless though, the comparative cost to GDP (or tax income which is related to GDP) are the ones that matter. So the cost of pensions and healthcare will go up by 25% from 15.7% of GDP to 19.9% of GDP. True about the absolute figures, I used them because that is what the article referred to. Regarding the cost of pensions and healthcare you are not quite right though, The increase in percentage of GDP does not equal the increase as part of the national budget - the national budget is about 45% of GDP at the moment. Now don't ask me to calculate that, but you can see that if it goes up with 25% of GDP it will go up significantly more as a percentage of the national budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 But it is a weird conundrum, it is improvements in health science that keep us alive for longer, yet we aren't properly prepared for the cost of that. And when are people supposed to pass away?.... If we were in primitive circumstances most of us would be lucky to see 35. Look at The Island on Channel 4, most of those guys would be dead in months! I know well. I have had major surgery on two occasions, lots of major cardiology, and should indeed have died at 35 in "primitive circumstances". Some of the cost has come from my medical insurer, a return for the premiums I still pay; but the government are subsidising the expensive medicines I take. I can't really claim I'm contributing to the national wealth anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Carol Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 The rise is in state pensions, not public sector pensions which have already been farmed out and are being paid for by public service workers themselves (although they will likely need shoring up, this is what a lot of the bail-outs over recent years were really about). The pension age going up is a given, but it will cause even more frustration over coming years, we will hit a point where it is simply impossible to issue state pension before the age of 75 and it isn't even 15 years away. Getting more people into work is crucial indeed, the economy will have to grow extraordinarily fast over the coming half century, more wobbles of the kind we have just seen will cause an increasing amount of panic over these costs. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done about the increasing state-debt until then. .We are not the only ones!! About 50% of the German municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy. The pensions have been unfunded and are absorbing everything. As we saw in Detroit with more than 50% of current revenue going to pensions, taxes either rise, they borrow more, or they are out of business. We are in a giant bull market for taxes increases on every level. This is the real downside of Marxism – they theory that just keeps taking. The German municipalities currently need more than 100 billion euros to renovate their dilapidated infrastructure. Government has been mismanaged on a grand scale and all politicians can do is think it is the public’s fault for not paying more taxes. They refuse to ever look at how they are running government on every level. It would be nice if there really were smart elite people in charge for only someone without any common-sense would have designed a political system that currently rules the world. God never promised honest politicians nor did He promise qualified ones. Society votes for people who smile nice and we think that there is an honest politicians in the every corner of the world. The problem is, God made the world round and he has been laughing ever since. German municipalities face rising debt levels that mimic Greece. They cannot afford the investment to even maintain schools and roads any more. We are headed into an economic abyss beyond contemplation. And people worry about hyperinflation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 I know well. I have had major surgery on two occasions, lots of major cardiology, and should indeed have died at 35 in "primitive circumstances". Some of the cost has come from my medical insurer, a return for the premiums I still pay; but the government are subsidising the expensive medicines I take. I can't really claim I'm contributing to the national wealth anymore. Nor would I want you to, it is amazing you are alive and (hopefully) well and you deserve every ounce of it. .We are not the only ones!! About 50% of the German municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy. The pensions have been unfunded and are absorbing everything. As we saw in Detroit with more than 50% of current revenue going to pensions, taxes either rise, they borrow more, or they are out of business. We are in a giant bull market for taxes increases on every level. This is the real downside of Marxism – they theory that just keeps taking. The German municipalities currently need more than 100 billion euros to renovate their dilapidated infrastructure. Government has been mismanaged on a grand scale and all politicians can do is think it is the public’s fault for not paying more taxes. They refuse to ever look at how they are running government on every level. It would be nice if there really were smart elite people in charge for only someone without any common-sense would have designed a political system that currently rules the world. God never promised honest politicians nor did He promise qualified ones. Society votes for people who smile nice and we think that there is an honest politicians in the every corner of the world. The problem is, God made the world round and he has been laughing ever since. German municipalities face rising debt levels that mimic Greece. They cannot afford the investment to even maintain schools and roads any more. We are headed into an economic abyss beyond contemplation. And people worry about hyperinflation? It isn't just Germany, or the UK, it is in every 'Western' nation - it is a convolution of circumstances, politicians to scared to take action when needed and an unparalleled increase in science enabling us all to live for a lot longer. Add to that the post-war "baby boom" and the fact that people still had large families well into the 50's/60's which suddenly dropped off to people having one or two children (I believe the average these days is 1,79 per couple!) and with the benefit of hindsight it is obvious we were going to run into this conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 The OECD have done a lot of work on ageing society and healthcare costs. Look them up http://www.oecd.org/general/searchresults/?q=ageing%20and%20employment%20policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutlandFlyer Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 If my parents were alive I would keep the £1,000 and do the caring myself. I don't think I'd want my children giving up their careers to look after me full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 I don't think I'd want my children giving up their careers to look after me full time. What if we actually made it law that people should be able to have a career break to look after their elderly relatives without impunity? Obviously it might be difficult in some cases, but a construct to make it valid could and perhaps should be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutlandFlyer Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 In quite a few fields (something like IT or computer programming) that would be career suicide even if it was just for a couple of years. For many people it could be a decade or more. I have a colleague in Ireland who takes every eighth week off to care for her mother, but if you have much fewer than seven siblings that's not going to work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.