Research on life expectancy and birth rates shows that ill health makes status quo unsustainable

The way I see it there are three realistic choices a country can make.

  1. Raise the pension age. Not very popular with the public as illustrated by protests everywhere this has been mentioned.

  2. Increased migration. Not very popular with the public as seen by the rise of far right parties in both Europe and outside.

  3. Lowered living standards. Not very popular because who wants to pay the same taxes but get less out of it?

This isn’t a UK problem. It’s the entire western world. And no, the populist idea of “just have more kids” doesn’t solve it.

Any ideas?

  • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    125·
    10 months ago

    UK billionaires have total a net worth of about £170 billion. Would it be nice to have some of that? Sure, but it’s less than two years of pension spending (£120 billion, and going up by the minuite).

    We can tax the millionaires too, but eventually you get to the upper-middle class who are already paying a 45% marginal tax rate.

    A dose or two of socialism might get us from 71 to 69 (nice), but honestly I think we’re all going to have to suffer from the economic mistakes made over the last 14+ years.

    • Dendrologist@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      10 months ago

      Upper middle class is a made-up term to make those in the working class who earn the most think they’re not in the same boat as “the poors”. If everything comes crumbling down, they’ll be waiting in the food lines like the rest of us. Millionaires and billionaires will not have the same problems.

      We’ve seen from things like the Panama Papers that the rich are far richer than they’d have you believe. I’m sure they’ll be just fine being taxed a bit more.

      Also, £120 billion of pension money is likely to wind up straight back in the pockets of the same billionaires anyway as they own the major companies that pensioners are going to be buying everything from anyway.

      Spreading doom and gloom that we’ll just all have to suck it up and suffer the consequences of past decisions is a shite position. Don’t repeat past mistakes of letting the rich off with it, eat the rich, enjoy retirement at a reasonable age, spread socialism.

      • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        33·
        10 months ago

        Ok, then what do you call a professional wage-labourer (“working class”, in the marxist definition) who is nonetheless a millionaire? A high-paid professional on 100k can quite easily become a millionaire in their lifetime. If they are mere workers, same as the rest of us, that just strengthens my argument because a socialist regime would have to tax them less.

        On the Panama Papres: double it, triple it. Doesn’t stop eating the rich from not being a panacea, that’s all I’m saying. At the risk of “englightend centrism” there’s a middle-ground between rothbardian economics and utopian thinking.

        That is… not how money works. In order to tax the Billionaire wealth (which primarily is the companies they own) you are either forcing them to sell (by taxing them x% of wealth, leaving them without liquid assets to pay the tax) or seizing assets and re-selling. You can’t tax the rich and expect them to stay rich forever by virtue of taxing them.

    • Lmaydev@programming.devEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      They just need to redo the tax brackets to account for people earning much more at the top. Currently tops out at 125k but there are people earning millions.