egafd.com

warren zevon rip wrote:

> What "eh?". It stands to reason that if we diverted resources
> from the snooper squads to tax fraud, the Treasury would make
> much more cash back to spend on cancer treatments and
> education. But it would not be tablod heaven.

What's your "beef" about 'snooper squads'? Are you referring to HM Customs & Excise?

Yes, I?m aware that there are improved survival rates and outcomes nowadays. But I was thinking much more of the ?demographic time bomb?. The fact that in the 50?s and 60?s there was huge increase (or boom) in the birth rate. Those ?baby boomers? are now middle aged or growing old. However, the birthrate has decreased in the last 30 years or so, which means there will be a much lower ratio of working age people to retired people. This inevitably means that the younger generation is going to have shoulder a much greater burden (both physical and financial) than those of pervious generations. I don?t think they are going to like that. I don?t think they will want to shell out huge chunks of their income to finance OAP care or even spend time with them. They?re going to want to continue to roll around in the gutter of a Saturday evening and go on shrieking chavy trips to Tenerife (or even ethical tours of the Amazon rainforest). But there?s no evidence that they will want to spend their time and money caring for aged relations. And if they are obliged to (by Government) they will be resentful. I fear his will present society with huge problems in future.

It?s already happening. Councils are closing care homes right now. They want to but the burden back in YOUR lap. It will be impossible for government to finance care of the baby boomers. There are to many of them. That is unless you simply want to hand over ALL your wedge to the Chancellor come pay day.

People should wake up and get real. Theses are real issues that won?t go away.





Officer Dibble

warren zevon rip wrote:

> No, I mean those folk that do "junkie Trumpton" for ripping off
> the DSS of ?2K or "single parent Sammikins" for claiming for 2
> kids instead of 1. I am all for these folk getting checked up
> on, but pound for pound it is a waste of money compared to the
> tax fraud returns.

Ah, I see. The tax fraud would certainly outweigh the cost of staffing 'snooper squads' and the cost of any subsequent court cases.

"It's all about "meeting targets" and creating new tiers of bureaucracy, while at the same time farming out essential services like cleaning to profit-orientated contractor companies employing a large proportion of low-wage Third World staff (with their Third World hygiene standards). Fucking scandalous."

I understand that MRSA infections in Welsh hospitals have been significantly reduced since cleaning services have been de-privatised.

Mart

Ahh, in this you have a point then, but I see no proper answer. One hundred years ago, people of pension age were less than 10% of the population, and now, because of better diet, living/working conditions, and medical advances, pensioners equate to 1/3rd of the population......and rising.

Families one hundred years ago took in older parents, but then again it was only usually a commitment for a few years until they died. Taking in a grandparent in the 21st century could mean 20 years of care, rather than 3, 4 or 5 years as in the past. We're living so long, that looking after our parents will become a bigger, longer term commitment than raising our own family.

There is no easy answer. Putting these people in care homes means more tax, but caring for them at home means one has to spend more time at home, which means less workers paying taxes..........and less people working means higher taxes anyway. We're in a catch 22 situation.

Raising the birth rate just means bigger stresses on transport, the nhs and education, along with higher crime, more rubbish, disease and pollution.

You've mentioned white elephants before, and the biggest elephant no one wants to talk about if over population. Capitalism is great when a population is growing, but when it slows, or stops, that's when the shit hits the fan. Only wars will keep knocking the population down, for periods of recovery and regrowth.

I know I'm going off topic, but they all relate to eachother Capitalism is something that's unsustainable, and this fact will only become more obvious as time goes on.

Well, yes, we all know it's going to Hell in a handcart- but what are YOU
going to do about it? Where's the policy?
Of all people, I'd be AMAZED if you didn't have a personal health-plan-
probably one involving dolly-birds and beef-smoking somewhere amongst
the small print :- )

[quote]There ARE no limits to growth of population or wealth.[/quote]

But capitalism relies on consumption, and taking advantage of people living in poverty.

Without poor people who'll work for less than a dollar a day, prices will skyrocket, which means less consuming. Capitalism has prospered so well over the last 200 years due to a booming population, and newly discovered lands that needed filling/natural resources discovered/exploited etc.

The size of the planet is finite.