Julian Morrison

I've heard a lot of talk here recently about pensions, but all going in the wrong direction, towards larger handouts.

Socialist pensions are failing in the same way that tax-and-freebies always fails: they cannot create money, only move it around. Money handed out must first be taken away from someone else. Tax handouts do not create the ability to afford to look after an ageing population. They merely force everyone to pay, even if they can't really afford to. And in so doing they "eat the seed corn" - that money can't be saved, can't be invested. Less savings to provide for your own old age. Less investment that would have grown the economy and made it that much easier to afford to look after your ageing relatives.

There is a solution to the pensions crisis, but it isn't government spending. The solution is explosive economic growth. Everyone would be richer, it would simultaneously be cheaper to look after others, and quicker to save for yourself.

I believe such growth is achievable. The reason being: the economy is not performing at its natural maximum. It is weighted down with taxes, red-tape, regulations, and a market-distorting "public sector". Make a bonfire of all of those, and like an opened cola bottle the economy will go immediately from quiescent to fizz.

Dumping the EU is a good start. But only a start! Combine it with massive deregulation, de-taxation, public sector privatization. View state pensions not as a thing to increase, but rather as a thing that ought to dwindle and vanish, as ordinary people become wealthy enough not to need them.

mkpdavies

What happens to the people who are any of the following :

Not bright enough to earn a decent wage, in this knowledge based world we live in now. Manual labour no longer seems to be an option, so how do they survive?

People who have a major set-back in their lives. Handicapped in an accident, or conned out of their money by frauds. Is that tough titty for them?

A husband or wife who loses his business after years due to whatever problems, his wife leaves him taking a lot of his cash and he becomes unable to afford a home.

Do we want to let these people suffer, or do we want to all agree to put in a minimal safety net at least.

I know which one I would choose! Relying on charities just won't cut the mustard!

My personal belief, is there does need to be a welfare state, but it has to be as small as possible and only act to provide a bare minimum to stop people falling INTO phpbb_abject poverty. That way we all have the interest of working hard and providing for ourselves, but no-one will be left to suffer, unless they really deserve too!

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

I agree with Matt. It isn't about socialism, it is about providing for people in need. There is no need for our pensioners to live in poverty, so let's fix it.

Julian Morrison

Well, actually, manual labour is an option. I do it, for example. I'm sorta on hiatus from my computer career ATM, working nights filling freezers at Tescos. Not such a bad job actually. Pays a living wage. It's a job that wouldn't exist, or wouldn't pay anywhere near as much if it weren't for the economic growth that has already happened - even in this tied-down economy. That is what a general increase in wealth does - make more jobs, make all jobs pay a better wage, expand the range of jobs that are even concievable.

A safety net, yes, but not a tax-funded one. In order of likelihood, first as most likely:
- personal savings.
- insurance against loss of job, injury, illness.
- relatives helping one another out.
- mutual aid societies, unions, and other organised self-help.
- religion and charity to pick up those who fall through every other net.

Charities are not the only solution, as you can see from the above. There were "safety nets" before the welfare state was invented. There will be after it is dismantled.
I don't believe anyone should be let to suffer either. But I believe that big government creates a lot of that poverty. It's only common sense, when you consider how much the state takes openly and stealthily, and how much it prevents ever being created! Thus taxed welfare the disease posing as its own cure.

B.A.Ware

Why was the welfare state introduced because like today even under a labour government the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Unemployment benefits, child and family allowances and National Assistance payments have helped prevent widespread poverty in the United Kingdom. (1995: 32% of the UK revenue is spent on social security benefits)

Anthony Butcher

Are they? I don't think that is true. Although the "wealth gap" is increasing, that is just because rich people are getting much richer. It doesn't mean that poor people are getting poorer.

B.A.Ware

Sorry, I agree the gap is getting wider ops:

C_steam

Depends then on how you define 'poor'. If (as is the case with Labour I think) 'below average' is poor, then there are more poor.

Very few of them though live in true poverty (lets exclude pensioners from this argument!). Thats what galls me about redistribution of wealth.

Have a true safety net for the few unfortunates, since there but for the grace of god go all of us.

Subsidising those who still manage to have 'sky' and go to spain each year is pushing it.

gimlet

I think we also need to be careful about definitions, these are part of labours spin. Poverty (main indicator) income below 60% of average earning, therefore there will always be poverty. Deprived area - I live in one, we have a pub between 100 odd houses, few buses, no shop but a great place to live in the countryside - it is NOT deprived in my view.

But there again, blair calls an adulter a man of integrity! So have new labour rewritten the dictionary definitions?