*I LIVE IN BULGARIA* the poorest country in the EU. Unemployment benefit here is HIGHER than in the UK, £140 a week on average in my city 4 X as many hospital beds per capita as the UK. Mobile MRI & Health clinics visit every village in the country at least 1 time per year. ALL kids get FREE school meals - so why can the poorest country in the EU afford what the UK cant...???
@@piccalillipit9211 Your reason for Bulgaria being so poor? BTW, the average UK payout to families receiving benefits (10 million of them) is £14,000 per year (£140B total last year). Still look bad?
It's when are people going to wake up and understand the deceit and trickery being used against them what is money theirs is none your paid with paper your time Labour energy gifted away for food tokens you own nothing then we're told that FIAT money not backed by anything is debt paper your house you worked 30 years for and paid by debt notes is not yours who's the chump you will own nothing until you claim the Estate back from the CROWN
You don't pay interest on the money the government borrows because it doesn't borrow from anyone! - it creates the money from nothing! - QE- it doesn't owe anybody anything! The same amount of money it created has to be taken out of the economy through taxation and destroyed to avoid inflation.
This is not correct. We can afford both, but some restructuring of the welfare state is need. The super rich pay tax in various forms but they don't take from the state in the form of welfare.
@@OneAndOnlyMe Yes they do. If they go to a hospital, they also profit from the NHS. Unless they use their ill gained wealth for a private health care. Please, don't be an apologist for the rich, they don't need your help.
@Darren-i1w The UK needs the welfare state and all government spending is from money from the government owned Bank of England. Taxpayers money has never been used to fund welfare and public services. Richard J Murphy has videos on his RUclips channel that explains government finance in detail.
The OBR's 2022 Fiscal Sustainability Report does not paint a much better situation. In Table 4.11, it projects that the deficit would move above 10% of GDP in the 2050s and even move above 20% by the 2071-72. Outside of major wars, the UK has never run a deficit in excess of 10 per cent of GDP, but that is our current trajectory. Similarly, Table 4.13 illustrates the unsustainable path that our current debt projections are on.
Ditto in NZ; right wing coalition govt tell us they have to cut back on school lunches, well-fare benefits & health care etc. as they 'have no money' So we are all suffering punitive austerity. (Though our PM did manage to sell one of his 7 rental properties recently for nearly a mill!!)
@@adenwellsmith6908 Well, that's a bit Yes-and-No. It was Bill Whittle, I think, did a piece years ago about how utterly liquidating the wealth of the super rich would not even cover the USA's 'costs' for a year. And that is true. But the problem that needs to be solved is not paying for a single years 'welfare' but rather that the economic setup we currently have is what creates the need for welfare in the first place. You see, the ultra rich are, surprisingly enough, on the whole not innately evil. They are just the beneficiaries of a couple of generations of being *asset* owners. Assets generate wealth ... for those that *own* them. The rest of us pay the asset owners for the use of what they own. On the surface that is not so bad - someone owns something and you pay them to hire it out to do what it is you want to do. Actually kind of a fair exchange. But there is a problem that grows worse over time. Asset owners rent out their assets to nearly everyone else and nearly everyone else pays the assets owners. The asset owners end up with far more money than they can 'use' in daily life; so what do they do? They seek to buy *more* assets. As more and more asset owners reach that point, the price of assets becomes higher and higher through demand and, soon enough, only the richest asset owners can afford to buy more assets i.e. everyone else is locked out and stuck paying the asset owners 'rent'. As this spiral goes on, the wealth disparity in the economy grows and grows and, in a relatively short time, it becomes dysfunctional and all the money pools, stagnantly, at the top. That's when you end up with a non-flowing circular flow of income and an 'aristocracy' in inconceivable luxury with peasants 'starving' in the streets. Taking the assets of the Aristo's won't cure the problem at that point. That will dissipate the wealth to no good effect. But taxing the assets returns, over time, will. It is a case of siphoning off sufficient of the wealth generation and putting it back into the 'machine' at the bottom that keeps things running. And maybe, over a long enough period, those lower down the wealth hierarchy will get to the stage where they can afford to buy assets too. That is the ideal aim. The asset owners will not, of course, be happy to have their incomes taxed in this fashion but, to be honest, if the rate is pegged decently enough, they will not suffer and, given that the alternative is economic collapse and probably revolution, there is actually an upside for them. Getting the rate right is the trick - after all it was too stiff an inheritance tax on non-productive assets (Stately Homes) that destroyed our previous Upper Class here in the UK.
@@adenwellsmith6908 Well, that's a bit Yes-and-No. It was Bill Whittle, I think, did a piece years ago about how utterly liquidating the wealth of the super rich would not even cover the USA's 'costs' for a year. And that is true. But the problem that needs to be solved is not paying for a single years 'welfare' but rather that the economic setup we currently have is what creates the need for welfare in the first place. You see, the ultra rich are, surprisingly enough, on the whole not innately evil. They are just the beneficiaries of a couple of generations of being *asset* owners. Assets generate wealth ... for those that *own* them. The rest of us pay the asset owners for the use of what they own. On the surface that is not so bad - someone owns something and you pay them to hire it out to do what it is you want to do. Actually kind of a fair exchange. But there is a problem that grows worse over time. Asset owners rent out their assets to nearly everyone else and nearly everyone else pays the assets owners. The asset owners end up with far more money than they can 'use' in daily life; so what do they do? They seek to buy *more* assets. As more and more asset owners reach that point, the price of assets becomes higher and higher through demand and, soon enough, only the richest asset owners can afford to buy more assets i.e. everyone else is locked out and stuck paying the asset owners 'rent'. As this spiral goes on, the wealth disparity in the economy grows and grows and, in a relatively short time, it becomes dysfunctional and all the money pools, stagnantly, at the top. That's when you end up with a non-flowing circular flow of income and an 'aristocracy' in inconceivable luxury with peasants 'starving' in the streets. Taking the assets of the Aristo's won't cure the problem at that point. That will dissipate the wealth to no good effect. But taxing the assets returns, over time, will. It is a case of siphoning off sufficient of the wealth generation and putting it back into the 'machine' at the bottom that keeps things running. And maybe, over a long enough period, those lower down the wealth hierarchy will get to the stage where they can afford to buy assets too. That is the ideal aim. The asset owners will not, of course, be happy to have their incomes taxed in this fashion but, to be honest, if the rate is pegged decently enough, they will not suffer and, given that the alternative is economic collapse and probably revolution, there is actually an upside for them. Getting the rate right is the trick - after all it was too stiff an inheritance tax on non-productive assets (Stately Homes) that destroyed our previous Upper Class here in the UK.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Well, that's a bit Yes-and-No. It was Bill Whittle, I think, did a piece years ago about how utterly liquidating the wealth of the super rich would not even cover the USA's 'costs' for a year. And that is true. But the problem that needs to be solved is not paying for a single years 'welfare' but rather that the economic setup we currently have is what creates the need for welfare in the first place. You see, the ultra rich are, surprisingly enough, on the whole not deliberately breaking the economy. They are just the beneficiaries of a couple of generations of being in the possession of assets. Assets generate wealth ... for those that own them. The rest of us pay the asset owners for the use of what they own. On the surface that is not so bad - someone owns something and you pay them to hire it out to do what it is you want to do. Actually kind of a fair exchange. But there is a problem that grows worse over time. Asset owners rent out their assets to nearly everyone else and nearly everyone else pays the assets owners. The asset owners end up with far more money than they can 'use' in daily life; so what do they do? They seek to buy *more* assets. As more and more asset owners reach that point, the price of assets becomes higher and higher through demand and, soon enough, only the richest asset owners can afford to buy more assets i.e. everyone else is locked out and stuck paying the asset owners 'rent'. As this spiral goes on, the wealth disparity in the economy grows and grows and, in a relatively short time, it becomes dysfunctional and all the money pools, stagnantly, at the top. That's when you end up with a non-flowing circular flow of income and an 'aristocracy' in inconceivable luxury with peasants 'starving' in the streets. Taking the assets of the Aristo's won't cure the problem at that point. That will dissipate the wealth to no good effect. But taxing the assets returns, over time, will. It is a case of siphoning off sufficient of the wealth generation and putting it back into the 'machine' at the bottom that keeps things running. And maybe, over a long enough period, those lower down the wealth hierarchy will get to the stage where they can afford to buy assets too. That is the ideal aim. The asset owners will not, of course, be happy to have their incomes taxed in this fashion but, to be honest, if the rate is determined decently enough, they will not suffer and, given that the alternative is economic collapse and probably r3v0lut1on, there is actually an upside for them. Getting the rate right is the trick - after all it was too stiff an inheritance tax on non-productive assets (Stately Homes) that destroyed our previous Upper Class here in the UK.
I think you are paying "The Hardman of Brexit" an absurdly over-generous compliment by supposing he has put any thought whatsoever into what he said. He's a loon.
We cant afford not to have a welfare state what we also cant afford is neo right wing Conservative ideology. The wealth gap proves that beyond any argument.
Running out of other people’s money my friend. No welfare in this country would mean millions of people loving under bridges!, children included! Even taxing at 70/80% it’s still not enough to pay for what goes out!
@@jamesgould7373 But its not other peoples money is it? We all have to pay our way the system is set up to ensure that even when we never get any benefit from it. Its an INSURANCE POLICY for ALL OF US. We ALL PAY IT whether we want to or not so why take away the insurance in spite of the payment in advance? GET IT YET?
@@jamesgould7373 Thats a bare faced lie BTW we pay more than enough in taxation to cover every public service the problem has never been the amount of tax its been the corruption in the spending of it. The VAST bulk of our taxation is scalp by corrupt Government and handed over to the Private sector in many ways including bank bail outs PFI PPP contracts procurement contracts loans and tax breaks. Really tired of these fake accounts spewing lying shite set up by party political propaganda departments.
@@takenoprisoners-u3xAgree. I am more than happy to pay in, I am more than happy to pay my share, and if I make more then I am _very_ happy to be _able_ to _pay_ more. Also I hope I, or my family, never have to access welfare ever!!! (as you say, its an insurance policy) That said I benefit _knowing it's there_ for me, my family, my friends and their families, _just in case._ Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional, and probably argues irrationally with their insurance company that they should _only_ pay _after_ running a pedestrian over, or only _after_ their house catches fire.... etc.
@@jamesgould7373 I LIVE IN BULGARIA the poorest country in the EU. Unemployment benefit here is HIGHER than in the UK, £140 a week on average in my city 4 X as many hospital beds per capita as the UK. Mobile MRI & Health clinics visit every village in the country at least 1 time per year. ALL kids get FREE school meals - so why can the poorest country in the EU afford what the UK cant...??? Income tax is a flat rate 10% as are all taxes. So tell me again why the UK cant afford it...???? *STOP BELIVING LIES*
@@billB101 Got off their mattress and at least attempted to get a job. Oh, I've got a degree in golf course management and you expect me to wash pots!!! It's coming just like a snowball down hill. It will be ironic if Labour removes benefits.
@@mikemines2931what about those who can't afford to pay for it because their countries were ransacked and their assets stolen by the powerful and rich countries.lf someone broke into your house and stole your property and you found out who did it you would expect some recompense no matter how long ago it happened.
Without social security, modern UK society will face even more poverty and inequality, similar to the Victorian period, where many relied on charity or workhouses for survival. The Victorian era was characterized by a lack of safety nets, leading to widespread hardship for those unable to work or earn sufficient income.
Steve Baker was not making a prediction but saying what he wants to make happen ie he wants to go back to the conditions of Victorian Britain. This has been the ambition of the Tories since Thatcher.
The UK is the 5th largest GDP in the World and in UK there is huge economic inequality. The Tories are interested in the self-interest of class they represent.
When politicians tell us that we can't have this or we can't afford that it does not mean that it is not possible it only means that THEY don't want us to do or have it those things.
The point here is we elect these people to deliver wat we want/need and we pay for it through taxation. Not the other way round. This is not a democracy. We are lorded over by a bunch of self serving leeches.
I agree. The problem as I see it is that we recognise that there is a growing wealth inequality in the UK and the wealthy have political influence. I think that the problem is political rather than economic. The wealthy will clamour for a low tax, small state with false economics and if they succeed then the UK economy may grow but the amount available to the public at large may shrink. I think we have seen this in action over the past decade or so.
They give it to their buddies. Are you braindead? Dido Harding £38bn for only one example. Where did you get your made-up figure by the way?@adenwellsmith6908
@@adenwellsmith6908 I think you have the wrong idea. That isn't what has happened. Have a look at what happened with QE for example. Gary Stevenson has done some good coverage on this and it is available on RUclips.
We can always afford massive sums on wars, a vast army of overpaid civil servants, unelected european parliaments, mass migration, overseas aid: the list is endless - all riding on the backs of those who Actually produce something
As an ex-civil servant I'd like to know where these overpaid civil servants are. There are undoubtedly a few heads of government departments etc. who will earn a reasonably high salary which I suggest would be equivalent to or less than a similar role in industry. The civil service workforce, which has shrunk significantly since I left in 2008, are not earning vast sums of money and have to budget carefully like others, especially if they have a family to support. What I did see happening when Thatcher was in control and privatising everything was layers of bureaucracy caused by private companies sub-contacting functions in highly inefficient chains to do work formerly done in house and quickly. Also the rise of the grossly overpaid consultants who frequently left without achieving anything other than a trail of destruction which had to be cleared up by the civil servants.
@@debbiegilmour6171 Water privatisation has raised £85 billion for shareholders and this money could instead have greatly lowered bills, upgraded infrastructure and improved water quality.
Well said Mr Murphy! Baker and his cronies are motivated to preserve British capitalism, with all the inequalities and hardships that implies for the rest of us. Do Starmer and Reeves offer a robust alternative? Probably not.
A friend of mine has FND and benefits and 5 years ago met a gent who was anti- welfare etc, but they became friends. The gent got a cancer diagnosis and used to appreciate the care and companionship that my friend gave him. One thing that's overlooked is that many of those people so despised by Baker and his ilk, are doing the basic acts of kindness and care that others haven't got time for when they are doing their daily grind. Unfortunately the gent died recently, but in his last few years he had someone who gave a damn about him, and who provided some solace in his darkest hours of facing his end.
My grandson is 30. At 18 he went to University and attended several lectures. One such lecture spoke about State Pensions. Students were told they should not guarantee getting a state pension upon retirement. So what do academics know what we're not being told? A more open honest and transparent government Blair claimed back in 1997...
I’m not sure if you’re from the states but our most cliche argument against this mindset is bringing up the funding for military operations. It’s in the trillions and if we divert some of that bread to welfare we would have the bare minimum to literally survive. Nobody seems to have a reaction to the military operation; that may sound silly and overstated but it’s true. Nobody is fighting the military operations because it costs them tax dollars and, once again, they shouldn’t be arguing against programs, especially if we can divert some of the funding which is only a few billions RUclips could argue that when we spend a trillion dollars on warfare no one bats an eye but when we spend a billion dollars on welfare everyone loses their minds
Very well presented argument that clearly demonstrates what the national debt really means for ordinary people. Printing money or issuing bonds that have to pay a return to those buying them is burdening our state in ways we are slow to understand!
So good to hear that all those poor people coming here to escape poverty, war, climate change, political oppression etc. etc. are actually wealthy, well educated, hard working, economically productive citizens who will ensure that all the wealth they create will stay here.
16 million on benefits, 52 percent of the population. Labour are telling the young if you save for being old we’ll tax you to give it to people who haven’t. 🤔
I usually support your ideas, but you have got this wrong. Birth rates are plummetting across the Western world. This means the tax burden on those that are left working, as a whole, will increase. There is no govt in the world that has solved this problem and many have tried. It is a natural consequence of educating women and providing control over reproductive rights. Current modelling demonstrates that the world population will peak around 2045. At this point there will be intense competition for educated migrants to replenish the declining workforce in developed nations. Welcoming in migrants now helps offset the problem for a generation but it's sticking plaster for a problem that extends well beyond the normal 5 year political cycle. There would need to be major international cooperation on taxation of the rich , and aI companies that will put people left out of work, to fix this.i dont see the US agreeing to this. So Baker actually has a point, but for all the wrong reasons.
From $9K to $35K that's the minimum range of profit return every week I thinks it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family
Creating multiple income streams that doesn't depend on gov't should be on every individual list. Thanks to Stacey Macken, the lady that changed my financial life.
Stacey Macken is a retirement manager and investment/savings expert, in ranks with Cathie woods and Warren, has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing and providing financial guidance globally .
I agree with you.I was 35 when I finally educated myself and started taking steps. I went from $176,000 in debt with zero savings or retirement to now, 2 years later, fully debt-free and over $1000,000 net worth. I know that doesn't SOUND like a lot, but I'm incredibly proud of it. Now I'm fast-tracking my wealth building (investing $400,000 annually) and don't owe a dime to anyone. It's a good feeling!
Stacey Macken guided me through budgeting, highlighting areas where I could optimize spending and increase savings. She also provided insights into smart investments to grow my wealth over time, ensuring financial stability even with the higher income
The welfare state was never considered as a sustainable venture by those who controlled the wealth as it encouraged slackers and lay abouts who often lived in squalor and died in their mid forties and were the canon fodder that built the biggest empire that the world has seen but never lived long enough or were paid enough to enjoy its fruits. It has been under attack by "Bakerites" since its inception even in its charitable formative years dating back to the 1900's. The government can "afford" what it wants to afford being the guarantor and lender of last resort. it can and often does create money out of nothing ie Quantitative easing just as the banking system does through debt. There is no evidence that climate change will, at least that driven by Co2, will cause any imminent population shift.
"climate refugees" are already a thing, and there is absolutely evidence to suggest that a not insigificant number of places will become unlivable without reliable access to things like air conditioning, which is contingent on a stable electrical supply so I guess the word imminent is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your last comment? The instability caused by climate change is really the true culprit as the predicted 1.5-2 degree temperature rise is not uniformally applied so regions disproportionately impacted are likely to see people migrating out of them. Spain is already experiencing droughts fires etc it wouldnt be surprising for it to get worse over the next 20-30-40 years. Older people may be more likely to stay in these areas but young people with little tying them down?
The political message to pensioners is clear - the country needs you to die. Of course, it won't be put in such stark terms when the various 'corrections' are made. Can we afford a welfare state which is operated as it currently is ? Probably not. However, almost all European countries operate comparable services with a much smaller workforce being paid reasonable wages and with a minimum of bureaucracy. We need to lose the quangofluff, define realistic goals and agree an all-party model which is not used as a convenient political football.
The simple but unavoidable fact is that when the most costly element of the welfare state was introduced; the state pension there were 33 working age people paying for each pensioner and each pensioner was expected to live between 2 and 10 years on the pension. Now there are 2.3 working age people paying taxes and NI to pay for pensions and pension benefits and most pensioners can expect to live 20 years plus on their pension. remember that the first pensioners had no NI payments so pensioners do not live on some mythical savings laid down when they were working(or in the case of baby boomers in the 70's and 80's on strike)they live on the NI and tax contributions of the working age population. This is before we get into the issues of the NHS where 80% of all NHS spending goes on the elderly
@@northwestcoast The big issue is that there are more people over 70 in the UK than under 25 and as I stated there are simply not as many people of working age compared to pensioners as there were. We need migration into the UK not only to do the jobs there are no British people either available or willing to do just to keep paying taxes and NI to keep the pension system afloat;at least until the baby boomers the largest generation in human history are thinned out considerably. This of course is the same age cadre that by voting overwhelmingly for Brexit put the kybosh on any economic recovery in the UK for decades
@@northwestcoast As to the NHS over one million NHS hospital beds are permanently"blocked"by pensioners who should be in a care home but due to government cuts cannot get a place. Finally I spent my youth completely without smoking or sniffing glue
Why can't Prof. Murphy and Martin Lewis job-share as Chancellor of the Exchequer? It would solve a lot of problems and run the national economy for the benefit of the whole population not just the privileged few.
We cannot make it up . The very people who need help are mainly people who have worked all their lives. The reward for that is a state Pension. The only paid for benefit the state provides. The very people who don’t want to pay for current pensioners will, in 20 years time, be pensioners sing a different tune.
There has never been so much money in the world as there is in 2024. This question should be restated as «can we afford welfare when our true goal is to make a tiny part of the population insanely rich?»
Can the UK afford U.S tech giants employing people in the gig economy at as little as £5 per hour, less than half the minimum wage, with no benefits. Can the UK afford those tech giants sucking money out of the country, or billionaire and tax evading rich people, corporations and hedge funds avoiding taxes and transferring billions into tax havens? Money that was generated in the UK but will not pay taxes here or be spent here in any quantity?
In New Zealand everyone gets the pension ( as an election bribe). This includes people retiring with a second professional superannuation. These people live 15 years longer than the rest of us because they can afford food while the rest of us can hardly afford to eat because nearly all of New Zealand's food is exported.
ON DAVID AARONOVITCHS BBC R4 SHOW PAUL JOHNSON (IFS) AND ANOTHER TELEGRAPH COLLEAGE ALONG WITH MADLEEN KAHN SAY THAT INCOME INEQUALITY CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF ISNT INCREASING IN THE UK.
I struggle with the notion that QE can fix government debt. QE is inflationary and therefore doesn't improve the actual fiscal position of a country. Rather it will transfer spending power from workers to asset holders, the disparity in this is already at breaking point (see stagnant wages and crazy housing costs) and arguably this (due to post 2008 QE) was one of the principal drivers behind the rise of populist politics and Brexit. This political trap, is exactly why government are attempting to reduce the deficit, without squeezing workers. If we let QE based deficit spending rip, the outcome will be rampant inflation, and likely someone like Nigel Farrage becoming prime minister. Look what just happened in the USA.
If we can afford to send approximately one billion pounds abroad every month in foreign aid, fund wars abroad, pour billions into net zero, we can afford the welfare state.
The costs are rising. Not just the retired. Working age families are receiving £140B a year at the moment. That is an average of £14K per family for approx 10M families (29%). And it is rising- fast.
@@adenwellsmith6908how is a sovereign state run health insurance system not cheaper better and more cost effective than a group of private companies with shareholders? How much is an agency nurse? How much is an NHS nurse?
@@adenwellsmith6908 They are not wrong- direct quotes from IFS. I was only covering working age families universal credit (or equivalent) payments. This includes housing benefit and income support. Yes, they receive more from the state, but this can be regarded as direct wealth transfer. Twice the education budget, three times the defense budget...
@@Redf322 Your question can be generalized. Why are state run countries (Cuba etc) not better and more cost effective? The capitalist method relies on competition, and that failing companies die. It is Darwin for companies. And it is the most successful system man has come up with.
But your answer is not answering the question. And as for costs rising. I've lived long enough to see a 2p bus journey now cost £2.50. And benefits have not kept up with that rate of increase. But working people who are paid a true living wage can afford to pay that fare. And isn't that the real issue? Britain is a low paid economy relative to its peers, and that occurred over the last 5 decades of mostly Conservative "small state" policy and privatisation. Whereas real GDP has gone up like a ski slope, the Labour share of Real GDP has plateaued, and it has been left to the Welfare State to make up the difference. That is not the case with our peers. And that is on us. We have allowed a huge transfer of wealth to the mostly already asset wealthy, and have not invested in our workforce skills and health, to the extent that our productivity is far below that of our peers. The short-sighted "small statists" policies have left us with an over large financial service sector dominating the whole economy, and not providing well-paid jobs. We need to invest and return to a mixed economy, instead of one vampirised by wealth extractors. That means the asset wealthy should not be favoured more than those relying on a wage for a living, and that the welfare state should be geared to keeping people healthy enough to work to to the best of their ability, and to be able to afford their basic needs without the need for their wages to be subsidised. Yes we have the most vulnerable in society, and they should be looked after, because everyone potentially will suffer sickness or ill-health, or old age. How we treat them is the minimum level of civilisation we have. Cut that down any further in favour of the asset wealthy, and we will have more diseases of poverty and more people not working because of illness. Our problems reflect our priorities. If we don't like managing our problems, we neeto look at our priorities that put them in our lives. We better priorities than making a few people even richer.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Governments attempt wealth transfer, because some will always generate more wealth than others. It is, as usual, an onion shaped distribution with a long tail. Focusing on the few very rich is not helpful, as they do not diminish the rest. It is only 'unfair' if there is rent-seeking involved. If someone invents a better gizmo, and it sells well and he gets rich, who suffers? Not those that make them- they get a job. Not the country- they get the tax, which they can re-distribute. All tax is, however, a disincentive. The balance is crucial. Envy enters the equation. Swedish tax revenues would rise if they lowered the tax rate- and they know it. Communism is specifically designed to give total equality- and fails miserably. It levels down. More- if everyone received the same income it would not give equality; some are better at how they spend money. The real problem is that we have an increasing number of citizens (with a vote) that are not worth the price of their labour. AI will accelerate that process. Perhaps we will end up with warm-body incomes - but it will be a rocky ride.
Only 18% of the legal immigrants came here on a work visa. So expecting immigrants to work and pay for dependents is for the birds. Your yhe one talking crap.
What shocks me about the benefits system is how dehumanizing it all is... and more so, those willing to do the job. I know a few people who through no fault of their own have ended up on Universal Credit. They have to jump through hoops and every week agree to find full-time employment, even though some have had their hours cut due to circumstances such as the high electric/gas costs, lack of customers, etc... all a consequence of the Tory and now Labour Government. One guy, who is 63 and already works 24 hours per week, is expected to give up that job if he can find one of a minimum of 38 hours per week. Now what if that company fell into trouble, he's back to square one, and has lost all the accumulated loyalty payment from his original job where he's been for over 30 years when he retires in a few years. They expect people to travel 90 mins to a job. Now, to me, that is simply not economic sense. Maybe for this greedy Country as it would mean train fares or petrol/deisel costs to the worker, and thus tax revenue for the Government. 90 minutes is like from Glasgow to Dundee, insane. Then of course there are those who are sick, and have to agree to find a job, even if they are in a job, to get their earned benefit. Again, I know a guy who broke his arm and leg, and was laid off work for a few months. The Universal Fascists wanted him to go in every week to "renew his commitments", and expected him to be "actively seeking full-time employment". Totally ludicrous system. And now Labour are trying to demonise the pensioners in every way possible. The sick part of the benefits system is that all these MP's, Councillors, royals, civil servants, universal credit workers, etc, these are all supping from the pot as the so-called scroungers, lazybones, etc... it's all our money they are taking. Now, I don't know about you folks, but I'd rather give a helping hand to those in actual need due to the nature of the economic system we live under than all these people who provide little or no benefit to society as a whole.
Was listening up until the point of the unabated pro-migration narrative. Stopped after that point. The OBR has recently published data on this, and urgent substantive reform is needed to inward migration. Migration should only be permitted if it is targeted and raises the overall benefit at the local and national levels. The fact we are also losing substantial numbers of people who are more experienced than those coming in and this seems to be increase again is not good sign. There would be an idealised absorption/net benefit mark, which we unfortunately most people who are unbiased believe we have overstepped a little while back.
You can't afford not to have a welfare state! The alternative is a socialist totalitarian state! It was the welfare state that vanquished communism after WWII. By the beginning of the 1960's communism had lost in Western Europe and by the late 1970's there was not even one country in Western Europe that was at risk of becoming socialist through the ballot box or through an internal revolution! Socialism was beaten. Today Western countries must abandon free trade and globalization and re-industrialized! The welfare state can be maintained only in an industrialized society! And that society must protect its economy from foreign predatory investors and predatory competitors.
It may change ,I think it may change into something like a "rite to live charter" that gives people a basic living income ,with the ability to earn further credits working in the community . It's only what I think may happen
@@adenwellsmith6908 'Oh, noooo! The state's debts are too large to pay itself. It must sacrifice some of it's weaker members to the gods of household finance'😹
We have be3n doing that for the last 14 years.the torys want to spend as Little as possible on the state.therefore they had the option of recruiting people to chase either benifits fraud or tax fraud or both if they put more resourcesThey made the decision to go the benifits fraud route egged on by the daily hate mail and the gammon express.this is despite the fact that chasing tax fraud brings in 4 times the receipts that the same effort on benifit fraud does. Despite the fact that would have helped the economy much more they did not do so because its the tax fraudsters who are their donors.one of the recent tory chancellors of the exchequer, the mp for Stratford upon Avon at the time was investigated for tax avoidamce(evasion or whatever the torys have made legal)and had to pay back 5 million in total including penalties.he had to resign as a minister,lost his job at the last election but is still doing alright for himself.l fact he recently on the panel of the BBC,so being dodgy is totally OK with our still dominated tory bbc management. Fiddle your taxes etc and no consequences. Ion
It’s just a question of correct taxation and targeted budgeting. The government sets priorities and the last 14 years have shown blatantly deliberately terrible choices on tax spends (indeed massively wasteful like no other point in modern uk government history). If we can’t afford it in 20 years we’re not taxing properly. Tell the wealthy to get stuffed and send in the bailiffs, if we’ve got nothing then there’s nothing to take. “We have to keep progressively more of your tax money and pay the debts you’ve run up” “but I never took out a loan” “yes, don’t worry, we took care of all of that for you. Now if you’ll just hand over 50% of your wages in return for no public services at all. Good news is we have record low taxes. Bad news is that’s only for employers, not employees, but we asked the daily mail not to mention employees so most of them won’t realise anyway”
The welfare state is about power, not about protecting people with scare resourses. When you take from the rich, you have the power to do it. When you give to the poor, you show them they are incompetent. This reenforses the slave metality. It is all about power.
One major issue is that social housing has been securitised and every house or flat that isnt still owned by the council is on a balance sheet with investment income expected. There is no incentive to get social housing cost down to a level to what proportion of income was being paid in 1980.
The money from selling off property was not allowed to be re-invested in building more. Social housing can easily pay for itself. Build it rent it build more.
How things have changed since the 1980 Housing Act. 1980 average pay £140 per week. Average UK council house rent £7.50 per week. A year later unemployment rate had gone up to 10% and council rent average rose to £11.00 per week. Housing has been replaced with credit!
Now? The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. 32nd US President Franklin D Roosevelt
_"That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."_ Wrong. That is the opposite of Fascism, known as Corporatocracy.
Question isn't can we afford it's what effect it has on society. Currently many aspects of it are utterly abused. Almost every single mother I know is not single but gives that appearance. Want a house... have a baby. Then we have the utter inefficiency of the NHS where 10 extra pounds in is lucky to buy 1 in value. More thought needs to be given as to how such systems are run & reform them.
I find it baffling that this is the assumption that all leading parties in Sweden has been going on about sinse the 1990:ies, that increased life expectancy explains our underfunded welfare state, not their actual underfunding of it by reallocating our wealth to industry and property owners...
Are we talking about the same immigration that due to allowing the continuation of cultural differences i.e. marriage between first and second cousins), cause 1/3 of all child birth defects to come from just 3% of the population?
@@t1n_0men You may have numeracy issues, but royal family does not constitute 3% of the Uk population. It would be several orders of magnitude less. what I'm talking about is a very real issue with immigration being allowed unfettered access to social services without changing their cultural behaviour to align with the norms upon which the funding and provision of those services are based. Is that clearer?
@@voonyboy No, it's not particularly clearer, other than clarifying you racial prejudice. Equally unclear is why your concern with "inbreeding" in one comment becomes a concern with benefits etc another, showing a broader picture of where you're coming from. All that being said, I would be interested in the sources for the figures you quote if you'd be willing to share please? Many thanks
The state pension seems to be the main aim from these self appointed "experts". "we" cannot afford it. This is all subjective largely dependent on self interest. However there are relevant facts. There are many but just picking one,life expectancy. The UK has one of the lowest levels of life expectancy amongst advanced countries. If they die earlier they are not paid pension. For example UK women have life expectancy of 81. France has life expectancy for women of 86 paying pensions(higher anyway) for 5 extra years on average. Also the start age in France is 62,in UK is 66. Outrageous.
@@adenwellsmith6908 We do not need gimmicks which costs to administer. Just have free medical attention at point of delivery. It works and always has done. It also cuts down on wasteful admin costs.
Can welfare can be thought of government creating employers (the people on welfare) to hire local businesses to supply consumable goods on a rolling basis? As this creates demand for business activity, is it actually a liability?
@@howardosborne8647What if immigration stops as, finally, the west realises that helping the counties where immigrants are fleeing is the more ethical way of helping them, instead of brain draining those places.
@howardosborne8647 Britain has thrived on financial services....maybe I'm wrong, but with the rise of brics and decline of western dominance UK have grime future....I hope I'm wrong....I'm a migrant myself in this country and along this 22 years since I arrive I see a continuous decline of life quality....working more for less
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
We cannot afford Steve Baker
*I LIVE IN BULGARIA* the poorest country in the EU. Unemployment benefit here is HIGHER than in the UK, £140 a week on average in my city
4 X as many hospital beds per capita as the UK. Mobile MRI & Health clinics visit every village in the country at least 1 time per year. ALL kids get FREE school meals - so why can the poorest country in the EU afford what the UK cant...???
Perhaps that is why it is poor?
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Im sorry the education system failed you so badly
@@tancreddehauteville764So does this mean that it’s immigrant and foreign aid spending that needs to be cut completely then?
@@piccalillipit9211 Your reason for Bulgaria being so poor?
BTW, the average UK payout to families receiving benefits (10 million of them) is £14,000 per year (£140B total last year). Still look bad?
@@tancreddehauteville764 Your point? It was not I that said they were poor.
We can't afford Steve Baker and his ilk.
Is that the same Steve Baker who was sulking at that point cos he lost his seat -- Poor Me Poor Me.
It's when are people going to wake up and understand the deceit and trickery being used against them what is money theirs is none your paid with paper your time Labour energy gifted away for food tokens you own nothing then we're told that FIAT money not backed by anything is debt paper your house you worked 30 years for and paid by debt notes is not yours who's the chump you will own nothing until you claim the Estate back from the CROWN
Can you support those less fortunate? Yes.
Do the Tories and billionaires want to? No.
We cannot afford billionaires.
We are borrowing money and paying interest on it to fund the welfare state.
We can either afford a few percent of the population to be super rich, or a welfare state for all. Take your pick.
@@adenwellsmith6908there are not enough poor peoples benefits to pay for it either.
So if a few thousand multi-billionaires decide to migrate to the UK tomorrow the welfare state will collapse?
You don't pay interest on the money the government borrows because it doesn't borrow from anyone! - it creates the money from nothing! - QE- it doesn't owe anybody anything!
The same amount of money it created has to be taken out of the economy through taxation and destroyed to avoid inflation.
This is not correct. We can afford both, but some restructuring of the welfare state is need. The super rich pay tax in various forms but they don't take from the state in the form of welfare.
@@OneAndOnlyMe Yes they do. If they go to a hospital, they also profit from the NHS. Unless they use their ill gained wealth for a private health care. Please, don't be an apologist for the rich, they don't need your help.
The UK cannot afford to lose the welfare state.
Life would become much more expensive for all if we did, so you are correct.
@Darren-i1w The UK needs the welfare state and all government spending is from money from the government owned Bank of England.
Taxpayers money has never been used to fund welfare and public services.
Richard J Murphy has videos on his RUclips channel that explains government finance in detail.
Of course not
It didn’t work out when Ronny Boy dismantled here in the states
Reagan REMOVED the help though
That’s the problem
The OBR's 2022 Fiscal Sustainability Report does not paint a much better situation. In Table 4.11, it projects that the deficit would move above 10% of GDP in the 2050s and even move above 20% by the 2071-72. Outside of major wars, the UK has never run a deficit in excess of 10 per cent of GDP, but that is our current trajectory. Similarly, Table 4.13 illustrates the unsustainable path that our current debt projections are on.
England was big enough to cover its own needs,
But not politicians greed ,and personal views
We can’t afford to keep overpaying the rich for doing next to nothing.
Ditto in NZ; right wing coalition govt tell us they have to cut back on school lunches, well-fare benefits & health care etc. as they 'have no money' So we are all suffering punitive austerity. (Though our PM did manage to sell one of his 7 rental properties recently for nearly a mill!!)
This is because you are paying higher interest on loans for money borrowed by the local gov and central gov without your consent. IMF.
Can we afford Neo liberalism? Tax the super rich.
well put
@@adenwellsmith6908 Well, that's a bit Yes-and-No. It was Bill Whittle, I think, did a piece years ago about how utterly liquidating the wealth of the super rich would not even cover the USA's 'costs' for a year. And that is true. But the problem that needs to be solved is not paying for a single years 'welfare' but rather that the economic setup we currently have is what creates the need for welfare in the first place.
You see, the ultra rich are, surprisingly enough, on the whole not innately evil. They are just the beneficiaries of a couple of generations of being *asset* owners. Assets generate wealth ... for those that *own* them. The rest of us pay the asset owners for the use of what they own.
On the surface that is not so bad - someone owns something and you pay them to hire it out to do what it is you want to do. Actually kind of a fair exchange.
But there is a problem that grows worse over time.
Asset owners rent out their assets to nearly everyone else and nearly everyone else pays the assets owners. The asset owners end up with far more money than they can 'use' in daily life; so what do they do? They seek to buy *more* assets. As more and more asset owners reach that point, the price of assets becomes higher and higher through demand and, soon enough, only the richest asset owners can afford to buy more assets i.e. everyone else is locked out and stuck paying the asset owners 'rent'.
As this spiral goes on, the wealth disparity in the economy grows and grows and, in a relatively short time, it becomes dysfunctional and all the money pools, stagnantly, at the top. That's when you end up with a non-flowing circular flow of income and an 'aristocracy' in inconceivable luxury with peasants 'starving' in the streets.
Taking the assets of the Aristo's won't cure the problem at that point. That will dissipate the wealth to no good effect. But taxing the assets returns, over time, will. It is a case of siphoning off sufficient of the wealth generation and putting it back into the 'machine' at the bottom that keeps things running. And maybe, over a long enough period, those lower down the wealth hierarchy will get to the stage where they can afford to buy assets too. That is the ideal aim.
The asset owners will not, of course, be happy to have their incomes taxed in this fashion but, to be honest, if the rate is pegged decently enough, they will not suffer and, given that the alternative is economic collapse and probably revolution, there is actually an upside for them. Getting the rate right is the trick - after all it was too stiff an inheritance tax on non-productive assets (Stately Homes) that destroyed our previous Upper Class here in the UK.
@@adenwellsmith6908 Well, that's a bit Yes-and-No. It was Bill Whittle, I think, did a piece years ago about how utterly liquidating the wealth of the super rich would not even cover the USA's 'costs' for a year. And that is true. But the problem that needs to be solved is not paying for a single years 'welfare' but rather that the economic setup we currently have is what creates the need for welfare in the first place.
You see, the ultra rich are, surprisingly enough, on the whole not innately evil. They are just the beneficiaries of a couple of generations of being *asset* owners. Assets generate wealth ... for those that *own* them. The rest of us pay the asset owners for the use of what they own.
On the surface that is not so bad - someone owns something and you pay them to hire it out to do what it is you want to do. Actually kind of a fair exchange.
But there is a problem that grows worse over time.
Asset owners rent out their assets to nearly everyone else and nearly everyone else pays the assets owners. The asset owners end up with far more money than they can 'use' in daily life; so what do they do? They seek to buy *more* assets. As more and more asset owners reach that point, the price of assets becomes higher and higher through demand and, soon enough, only the richest asset owners can afford to buy more assets i.e. everyone else is locked out and stuck paying the asset owners 'rent'.
As this spiral goes on, the wealth disparity in the economy grows and grows and, in a relatively short time, it becomes dysfunctional and all the money pools, stagnantly, at the top. That's when you end up with a non-flowing circular flow of income and an 'aristocracy' in inconceivable luxury with peasants 'starving' in the streets.
Taking the assets of the Aristo's won't cure the problem at that point. That will dissipate the wealth to no good effect. But taxing the assets returns, over time, will. It is a case of siphoning off sufficient of the wealth generation and putting it back into the 'machine' at the bottom that keeps things running. And maybe, over a long enough period, those lower down the wealth hierarchy will get to the stage where they can afford to buy assets too. That is the ideal aim.
The asset owners will not, of course, be happy to have their incomes taxed in this fashion but, to be honest, if the rate is pegged decently enough, they will not suffer and, given that the alternative is economic collapse and probably revolution, there is actually an upside for them. Getting the rate right is the trick - after all it was too stiff an inheritance tax on non-productive assets (Stately Homes) that destroyed our previous Upper Class here in the UK.
And when you run out of other people's money?
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Well, that's a bit Yes-and-No. It was Bill Whittle, I think, did a piece years ago about how utterly liquidating the wealth of the super rich would not even cover the USA's 'costs' for a year. And that is true. But the problem that needs to be solved is not paying for a single years 'welfare' but rather that the economic setup we currently have is what creates the need for welfare in the first place.
You see, the ultra rich are, surprisingly enough, on the whole not deliberately breaking the economy. They are just the beneficiaries of a couple of generations of being in the possession of assets. Assets generate wealth ... for those that own them. The rest of us pay the asset owners for the use of what they own.
On the surface that is not so bad - someone owns something and you pay them to hire it out to do what it is you want to do. Actually kind of a fair exchange.
But there is a problem that grows worse over time.
Asset owners rent out their assets to nearly everyone else and nearly everyone else pays the assets owners. The asset owners end up with far more money than they can 'use' in daily life; so what do they do? They seek to buy *more* assets. As more and more asset owners reach that point, the price of assets becomes higher and higher through demand and, soon enough, only the richest asset owners can afford to buy more assets i.e. everyone else is locked out and stuck paying the asset owners 'rent'.
As this spiral goes on, the wealth disparity in the economy grows and grows and, in a relatively short time, it becomes dysfunctional and all the money pools, stagnantly, at the top. That's when you end up with a non-flowing circular flow of income and an 'aristocracy' in inconceivable luxury with peasants 'starving' in the streets.
Taking the assets of the Aristo's won't cure the problem at that point. That will dissipate the wealth to no good effect. But taxing the assets returns, over time, will. It is a case of siphoning off sufficient of the wealth generation and putting it back into the 'machine' at the bottom that keeps things running. And maybe, over a long enough period, those lower down the wealth hierarchy will get to the stage where they can afford to buy assets too. That is the ideal aim.
The asset owners will not, of course, be happy to have their incomes taxed in this fashion but, to be honest, if the rate is determined decently enough, they will not suffer and, given that the alternative is economic collapse and probably r3v0lut1on, there is actually an upside for them. Getting the rate right is the trick - after all it was too stiff an inheritance tax on non-productive assets (Stately Homes) that destroyed our previous Upper Class here in the UK.
Keep up this pace of re - education Richard J M! We all need to hear it. Very refreshing in this world of non -sense.
I think you are paying "The Hardman of Brexit" an absurdly over-generous compliment by supposing he has put any thought whatsoever into what he said. He's a loon.
We cant afford not to have a welfare state what we also cant afford is neo right wing Conservative ideology. The wealth gap proves that beyond any argument.
Running out of other people’s money my friend. No welfare in this country would mean millions of people loving under bridges!, children included!
Even taxing at 70/80% it’s still not enough to pay for what goes out!
@@jamesgould7373 But its not other peoples money is it? We all have to pay our way the system is set up to ensure that even when we never get any benefit from it. Its an INSURANCE POLICY for ALL OF US. We ALL PAY IT whether we want to or not so why take away the insurance in spite of the payment in advance? GET IT YET?
@@jamesgould7373 Thats a bare faced lie BTW we pay more than enough in taxation to cover every public service the problem has never been the amount of tax its been the corruption in the spending of it. The VAST bulk of our taxation is scalp by corrupt Government and handed over to the Private sector in many ways including bank bail outs PFI PPP contracts procurement contracts loans and tax breaks. Really tired of these fake accounts spewing lying shite set up by party political propaganda departments.
@@takenoprisoners-u3xAgree. I am more than happy to pay in, I am more than happy to pay my share, and if I make more then I am _very_ happy to be _able_ to _pay_ more. Also I hope I, or my family, never have to access welfare ever!!! (as you say, its an insurance policy) That said I benefit _knowing it's there_ for me, my family, my friends and their families, _just in case._ Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional, and probably argues irrationally with their insurance company that they should _only_ pay _after_ running a pedestrian over, or only _after_ their house catches fire.... etc.
@@jamesgould7373 I LIVE IN BULGARIA the poorest country in the EU. Unemployment benefit here is HIGHER than in the UK, £140 a week on average in my city
4 X as many hospital beds per capita as the UK. Mobile MRI & Health clinics visit every village in the country at least 1 time per year. ALL kids get FREE school meals - so why can the poorest country in the EU afford what the UK cant...???
Income tax is a flat rate 10% as are all taxes. So tell me again why the UK cant afford it...????
*STOP BELIVING LIES*
Outstanding debunking of greedy Tory ideology
"...greedy Tory ideology"
aka: incessant, systemic looting of the nation on behalf of the very wealthiest folks on Earth..
“A civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest members” So yeah, we need a welfare state.
For those that have paid for it yes couldn't agree more.
@@mikemines2931 define "paid for it"
@@billB101 Got off their mattress and at least attempted to get a job. Oh, I've got a degree in golf course management and you expect me to wash pots!!!
It's coming just like a snowball down hill. It will be ironic if Labour removes benefits.
@@mikemines2931what about those who can't afford to pay for it because their countries were ransacked and their assets stolen by the powerful and rich countries.lf someone broke into your house and stole your property and you found out who did it you would expect some recompense no matter how long ago it happened.
@@JohnPark-xf2gq Another puerile argument.
Without social security, modern UK society will face even more poverty and inequality, similar to the Victorian period, where many relied on charity or workhouses for survival.
The Victorian era was characterized by a lack of safety nets, leading to widespread hardship for those unable to work or earn sufficient income.
You've cottoned on to the plan from the capitalists. Now, unfortunately, you're one of the few. Most still remain in denial.
@@adenwellsmith6908we agree on that so tax the super rich.
@@adenwellsmith6908 We learned that in the 1970's, ended up people were wiping their backsides with pound notes.
@@adenwellsmith6908did you make this up all on your own or did gb news help you.?
Steve Baker was not making a prediction but saying what he wants to make happen ie he wants to go back to the conditions of Victorian Britain. This has been the ambition of the Tories since Thatcher.
@@adenwellsmith6908No you not listen to Mr Murphy
Can we afford not to have a welfare state is the question we should be asking.
The UK is the 5th largest GDP in the World and in UK there is huge economic inequality. The Tories are interested in the self-interest of class they represent.
We can’t afford politicians
This is Steve Baker the man that helped give us Brexit now he wants to drag us back to the workhouse.
The two are not related
@@MRW515 Brexit has been a disaster, of course it's related.
@MRW515 through Baker's ideology, they are.
When politicians tell us that we can't have this or we can't afford that it does not mean that it is not possible it only means that THEY don't want us to do or have it those things.
The point here is we elect these people to deliver wat we want/need and we pay for it through taxation. Not the other way round. This is not a democracy.
We are lorded over by a bunch of self serving leeches.
@@aficio698 Who has the power, if it is not the people then it is not a democracy.
@@pip3124 💩
I agree. The problem as I see it is that we recognise that there is a growing wealth inequality in the UK and the wealthy have political influence. I think that the problem is political rather than economic. The wealthy will clamour for a low tax, small state with false economics and if they succeed then the UK economy may grow but the amount available to the public at large may shrink. I think we have seen this in action over the past decade or so.
@@adenwellsmith6908ask your Tory mates where it is.
Limitarianism
They give it to their buddies. Are you braindead? Dido Harding £38bn for only one example. Where did you get your made-up figure by the way?@adenwellsmith6908
@adenwellsmith6908 if you elect Tories, as the UK has done since 1979, you will get rampant theft, a kleptocracy.
@@adenwellsmith6908 I think you have the wrong idea. That isn't what has happened. Have a look at what happened with QE for example. Gary Stevenson has done some good coverage on this and it is available on RUclips.
So why does the new government need to raid pension pots?
Buy now pay later (the cash is there can't resist to use it).
Careful you'll break Richard's narrative.
We can always afford massive sums on wars, a vast army of overpaid civil servants, unelected european parliaments, mass migration, overseas aid: the list is endless - all riding on the backs of those who Actually produce something
As an ex-civil servant I'd like to know where these overpaid civil servants are. There are undoubtedly a few heads of government departments etc. who will earn a reasonably high salary which I suggest would be equivalent to or less than a similar role in industry. The civil service workforce, which has shrunk significantly since I left in 2008, are not earning vast sums of money and have to budget carefully like others, especially if they have a family to support. What I did see happening when Thatcher was in control and privatising everything was layers of bureaucracy caused by private companies sub-contacting functions in highly inefficient chains to do work formerly done in house and quickly. Also the rise of the grossly overpaid consultants who frequently left without achieving anything other than a trail of destruction which had to be cleared up by the civil servants.
Nationalisation of privatised companies can generate revenue and reduce costs to government to fund public services.
Sort of but the revenue is a healthy, productive population which pays for itself many times over.
@@debbiegilmour6171 Water privatisation has raised £85 billion for shareholders and this money could instead have greatly lowered bills, upgraded infrastructure and improved water quality.
Well said Mr Murphy! Baker and his cronies are motivated to preserve British capitalism, with all the inequalities and hardships that implies for the rest of us. Do Starmer and Reeves offer a robust alternative? Probably not.
You should be leading the country You know what your talking about ,most in Power don't have a clue !
A friend of mine has FND and benefits and 5 years ago met a gent who was anti- welfare etc, but they became friends. The gent got a cancer diagnosis and used to appreciate the care and companionship that my friend gave him. One thing that's overlooked is that many of those people so despised by Baker and his ilk, are doing the basic acts of kindness and care that others haven't got time for when they are doing their daily grind. Unfortunately the gent died recently, but in his last few years he had someone who gave a damn about him, and who provided some solace in his darkest hours of facing his end.
My grandson is 30. At 18 he went to University and attended several lectures. One such lecture spoke about State Pensions. Students were told they should not guarantee getting a state pension upon retirement. So what do academics know what we're not being told? A more open honest and transparent government Blair claimed back in 1997...
My far-right friends tell me we can't afford the welfare state.
I’m not sure if you’re from the states but our most cliche argument against this mindset is bringing up the funding for military operations. It’s in the trillions and if we divert some of that bread to welfare we would have the bare minimum to literally survive.
Nobody seems to have a reaction to the military operation; that may sound silly and overstated but it’s true. Nobody is fighting the military operations because it costs them tax dollars and, once again, they shouldn’t be arguing against programs, especially if we can divert some of the funding which is only a few billions
RUclips could argue that when we spend a trillion dollars on warfare no one bats an eye but when we spend a billion dollars on welfare everyone loses their minds
Very well presented argument that clearly demonstrates what the national debt really means for ordinary people. Printing money or issuing bonds that have to pay a return to those buying them is burdening our state in ways we are slow to understand!
Poor journalism from whoever failed to ask Steve Baker what was the basis of his claim.
Well said and explained!
So good to hear that all those poor people coming here to escape poverty, war, climate change, political oppression etc. etc. are actually wealthy, well educated, hard working, economically productive citizens who will ensure that all the wealth they create will stay here.
@@ukmoshinist4595the tax they pay will.
@@ukmoshinist4595 listen to what is being said instead of making up things to suit your twisted logic.
16 million on benefits, 52 percent of the population. Labour are telling the young if you save for being old we’ll tax you to give it to people who haven’t. 🤔
I usually support your ideas, but you have got this wrong. Birth rates are plummetting across the Western world. This means the tax burden on those that are left working, as a whole, will increase. There is no govt in the world that has solved this problem and many have tried. It is a natural consequence of educating women and providing control over reproductive rights. Current modelling demonstrates that the world population will peak around 2045. At this point there will be intense competition for educated migrants to replenish the declining workforce in developed nations. Welcoming in migrants now helps offset the problem for a generation but it's sticking plaster for a problem that extends well beyond the normal 5 year political cycle. There would need to be major international cooperation on taxation of the rich , and aI companies that will put people left out of work, to fix this.i dont see the US agreeing to this. So Baker actually has a point, but for all the wrong reasons.
Can you imagine if we did not? Crime would be much worse.
From $9K to $35K that's the minimum range of profit return every week I thinks it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family
Creating multiple income streams that doesn't depend on gov't should be on every individual list. Thanks to Stacey Macken, the lady that changed my financial life.
I've seen different people talking about this Stacey Macken she must be very amazing for people to talk this good about her.
Stacey Macken is a retirement manager and investment/savings expert, in ranks with Cathie woods and Warren, has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing and providing financial guidance globally .
I agree with you.I was 35 when I finally educated myself and started taking steps. I went from $176,000 in debt with zero savings or retirement to now, 2 years later, fully debt-free and over $1000,000 net worth. I know that doesn't SOUND like a lot, but I'm incredibly proud of it. Now I'm fast-tracking my wealth building (investing $400,000 annually) and don't owe a dime to anyone. It's a good feeling!
Stacey Macken guided me through budgeting, highlighting areas where I could optimize spending and increase savings. She also provided insights into smart investments to grow my wealth over time, ensuring financial stability even with the higher income
The welfare state was never considered as a sustainable venture by those who controlled the wealth as it encouraged slackers and lay abouts who often lived in squalor and died in their mid forties and were the canon fodder that built the biggest empire that the world has seen but never lived long enough or were paid enough to enjoy its fruits. It has been under attack by "Bakerites" since its inception even in its charitable formative years dating back to the 1900's.
The government can "afford" what it wants to afford being the guarantor and lender of last resort. it can and often does create money out of nothing ie Quantitative easing just as the banking system does through debt.
There is no evidence that climate change will, at least that driven by Co2, will cause any imminent population shift.
"climate refugees" are already a thing, and there is absolutely evidence to suggest that a not insigificant number of places will become unlivable without reliable access to things like air conditioning, which is contingent on a stable electrical supply so I guess the word imminent is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your last comment?
The instability caused by climate change is really the true culprit as the predicted 1.5-2 degree temperature rise is not uniformally applied so regions disproportionately impacted are likely to see people migrating out of them.
Spain is already experiencing droughts fires etc it wouldnt be surprising for it to get worse over the next 20-30-40 years. Older people may be more likely to stay in these areas but young people with little tying them down?
Centenary of the welfare state in 20 years- of the centralized welfare state, perhaps. Before that, it was done at the Parish level.
The political message to pensioners is clear - the country needs you to die.
Of course, it won't be put in such stark terms when the various 'corrections' are made.
Can we afford a welfare state which is operated as it currently is ? Probably not.
However, almost all European countries operate comparable services with a much smaller workforce being paid reasonable wages and with a minimum of bureaucracy. We need to lose the quangofluff, define realistic goals and agree an all-party model which is not used as a convenient political football.
Most of Japan’s national is domestically held. A material fraction of UK government debt is held by external investors.
The simple but unavoidable fact is that when the most costly element of the welfare state was introduced; the state pension there were 33 working age people paying for each pensioner and each pensioner was expected to live between 2 and 10 years on the pension. Now there are 2.3 working age people paying taxes and NI to pay for pensions and pension benefits and most pensioners can expect to live 20 years plus on their pension. remember that the first pensioners had no NI payments so pensioners do not live on some mythical savings laid down when they were working(or in the case of baby boomers in the 70's and 80's on strike)they live on the NI and tax contributions of the working age population. This is before we get into the issues of the NHS where 80% of all NHS spending goes on the elderly
Help the aged, don't just put them in a home..one day they were just like you, laughing, drinking smoking, sniffing glue..
@@northwestcoast The big issue is that there are more people over 70 in the UK than under 25 and as I stated there are simply not as many people of working age compared to pensioners as there were. We need migration into the UK not only to do the jobs there are no British people either available or willing to do just to keep paying taxes and NI to keep the pension system afloat;at least until the baby boomers the largest generation in human history are thinned out considerably. This of course is the same age cadre that by voting overwhelmingly for Brexit put the kybosh on any economic recovery in the UK for decades
@@northwestcoast As to the NHS over one million NHS hospital beds are permanently"blocked"by pensioners who should be in a care home but due to government cuts cannot get a place. Finally I spent my youth completely without smoking or sniffing glue
only if we learn to manage effectively, but that will never happen, management in this country is a laughing stock
Clearly we can"t afford anything at the moment other than making the rich richer.
Why can't Prof. Murphy and Martin Lewis job-share as Chancellor of the Exchequer? It would solve a lot of problems and run the national economy for the benefit of the whole population not just the privileged few.
We cannot make it up . The very people who need help are mainly people who have worked all their lives. The reward for that is a state Pension. The only paid for benefit the state provides. The very people who don’t want to pay for current pensioners will, in 20 years time, be pensioners sing a different tune.
Brilliant reasoning and clarity. These short videos give a glimmer of hope.
There has never been so much money in the world as there is in 2024. This question should be restated as «can we afford welfare when our true goal is to make a tiny part of the population insanely rich?»
Can the UK afford U.S tech giants employing people in the gig economy at as little as £5 per hour, less than half the minimum wage, with no benefits. Can the UK afford those tech giants sucking money out of the country, or billionaire and tax evading rich people, corporations and hedge funds avoiding taxes and transferring billions into tax havens? Money that was generated in the UK but will not pay taxes here or be spent here in any quantity?
In New Zealand everyone gets the pension ( as an election bribe). This includes people retiring with a second professional superannuation. These people live 15 years longer than the rest of us because they can afford food while the rest of us can hardly afford to eat because nearly all of New Zealand's food is exported.
Can we afford not too?
Yes we can afford. What we can’t afford is thieves that steal from those that create the wealth.
Are you a school teacher buy any chance you talk a lot with out saying anything apart from what you have read in a book no practical savvy?
Yes - no brainer
We can afford it as long as politicians stop wasting money on nonsense vanity projects..
The is only 1 reason Steve Baker says anything and it has nothing to do with thought.
ON DAVID AARONOVITCHS BBC R4 SHOW PAUL JOHNSON (IFS) AND ANOTHER TELEGRAPH COLLEAGE ALONG WITH MADLEEN KAHN SAY THAT INCOME INEQUALITY CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF ISNT INCREASING IN THE UK.
Yes. We can't afford Billionaires.
I struggle with the notion that QE can fix government debt. QE is inflationary and therefore doesn't improve the actual fiscal position of a country. Rather it will transfer spending power from workers to asset holders, the disparity in this is already at breaking point (see stagnant wages and crazy housing costs) and arguably this (due to post 2008 QE) was one of the principal drivers behind the rise of populist politics and Brexit. This political trap, is exactly why government are attempting to reduce the deficit, without squeezing workers. If we let QE based deficit spending rip, the outcome will be rampant inflation, and likely someone like Nigel Farrage becoming prime minister. Look what just happened in the USA.
If we can afford to send approximately one billion pounds abroad every month in foreign aid, fund wars abroad, pour billions into net zero, we can afford the welfare state.
The costs are rising. Not just the retired. Working age families are receiving £140B a year at the moment. That is an average of £14K per family for approx 10M families (29%). And it is rising- fast.
@@adenwellsmith6908how is a sovereign state run health insurance system not cheaper better and more cost effective than a group of private companies with shareholders? How much is an agency nurse? How much is an NHS nurse?
@@adenwellsmith6908 They are not wrong- direct quotes from IFS. I was only covering working age families universal credit (or equivalent) payments. This includes housing benefit and income support. Yes, they receive more from the state, but this can be regarded as direct wealth transfer. Twice the education budget, three times the defense budget...
@@Redf322 Your question can be generalized. Why are state run countries (Cuba etc) not better and more cost effective? The capitalist method relies on competition, and that failing companies die. It is Darwin for companies. And it is the most successful system man has come up with.
But your answer is not answering the question. And as for costs rising. I've lived long enough to see a 2p bus journey now cost £2.50. And benefits have not kept up with that rate of increase. But working people who are paid a true living wage can afford to pay that fare. And isn't that the real issue? Britain is a low paid economy relative to its peers, and that occurred over the last 5 decades of mostly Conservative "small state" policy and privatisation. Whereas real GDP has gone up like a ski slope, the Labour share of Real GDP has plateaued, and it has been left to the Welfare State to make up the difference. That is not the case with our peers. And that is on us. We have allowed a huge transfer of wealth to the mostly already asset wealthy, and have not invested in our workforce skills and health, to the extent that our productivity is far below that of our peers. The short-sighted "small statists" policies have left us with an over large financial service sector dominating the whole economy, and not providing well-paid jobs. We need to invest and return to a mixed economy, instead of one vampirised by wealth extractors. That means the asset wealthy should not be favoured more than those relying on a wage for a living, and that the welfare state should be geared to keeping people healthy enough to work to to the best of their ability, and to be able to afford their basic needs without the need for their wages to be subsidised. Yes we have the most vulnerable in society, and they should be looked after, because everyone potentially will suffer sickness or ill-health, or old age. How we treat them is the minimum level of civilisation we have. Cut that down any further in favour of the asset wealthy, and we will have more diseases of poverty and more people not working because of illness. Our problems reflect our priorities. If we don't like managing our problems, we neeto look at our priorities that put them in our lives. We better priorities than making a few people even richer.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Governments attempt wealth transfer, because some will always generate more wealth than others. It is, as usual, an onion shaped distribution with a long tail. Focusing on the few very rich is not helpful, as they do not diminish the rest. It is only 'unfair' if there is rent-seeking involved. If someone invents a better gizmo, and it sells well and he gets rich, who suffers? Not those that make them- they get a job. Not the country- they get the tax, which they can re-distribute. All tax is, however, a disincentive. The balance is crucial. Envy enters the equation. Swedish tax revenues would rise if they lowered the tax rate- and they know it. Communism is specifically designed to give total equality- and fails miserably. It levels down. More- if everyone received the same income it would not give equality; some are better at how they spend money.
The real problem is that we have an increasing number of citizens (with a vote) that are not worth the price of their labour. AI will accelerate that process. Perhaps we will end up with warm-body incomes - but it will be a rocky ride.
Yes . We paid for it .
Only 18% of the legal immigrants came here on a work visa. So expecting immigrants to work and pay for dependents is for the birds. Your yhe one talking crap.
We definitely need to resolve the issues here but we have a massive black economy that employers rely on to keep wages depressed try listening .
What shocks me about the benefits system is how dehumanizing it all is... and more so, those willing to do the job. I know a few people who through no fault of their own have ended up on Universal Credit. They have to jump through hoops and every week agree to find full-time employment, even though some have had their hours cut due to circumstances such as the high electric/gas costs, lack of customers, etc... all a consequence of the Tory and now Labour Government.
One guy, who is 63 and already works 24 hours per week, is expected to give up that job if he can find one of a minimum of 38 hours per week. Now what if that company fell into trouble, he's back to square one, and has lost all the accumulated loyalty payment from his original job where he's been for over 30 years when he retires in a few years. They expect people to travel 90 mins to a job. Now, to me, that is simply not economic sense. Maybe for this greedy Country as it would mean train fares or petrol/deisel costs to the worker, and thus tax revenue for the Government. 90 minutes is like from Glasgow to Dundee, insane.
Then of course there are those who are sick, and have to agree to find a job, even if they are in a job, to get their earned benefit. Again, I know a guy who broke his arm and leg, and was laid off work for a few months. The Universal Fascists wanted him to go in every week to "renew his commitments", and expected him to be "actively seeking full-time employment". Totally ludicrous system.
And now Labour are trying to demonise the pensioners in every way possible. The sick part of the benefits system is that all these MP's, Councillors, royals, civil servants, universal credit workers, etc, these are all supping from the pot as the so-called scroungers, lazybones, etc... it's all our money they are taking. Now, I don't know about you folks, but I'd rather give a helping hand to those in actual need due to the nature of the economic system we live under than all these people who provide little or no benefit to society as a whole.
Well put. thanks
Was listening up until the point of the unabated pro-migration narrative. Stopped after that point.
The OBR has recently published data on this, and urgent substantive reform is needed to inward migration. Migration should only be permitted if it is targeted and raises the overall benefit at the local and national levels. The fact we are also losing substantial numbers of people who are more experienced than those coming in and this seems to be increase again is not good sign.
There would be an idealised absorption/net benefit mark, which we unfortunately most people who are unbiased believe we have overstepped a little while back.
BTW I think you, Richard, are quite right.
You can't afford not to have a welfare state! The alternative is a socialist totalitarian state! It was the welfare state that vanquished communism after WWII. By the beginning of the 1960's communism had lost in Western Europe and by the late 1970's there was not even one country in Western Europe that was at risk of becoming socialist through the ballot box or through an internal revolution! Socialism was beaten.
Today Western countries must abandon free trade and globalization and re-industrialized! The welfare state can be maintained only in an industrialized society! And that society must protect its economy from foreign predatory investors and predatory competitors.
It may change ,I think it may change into something like a "rite to live charter" that gives people a basic living income ,with the ability to earn further credits working in the community .
It's only what I think may happen
hopefully they can buy something with the benefits with where prices are going!
No we can't
How can we afford NOT to have a welfare state?🙃
@@adenwellsmith6908 'Oh, noooo! The state's debts are too large to pay itself. It must sacrifice some of it's weaker members to the gods of household finance'😹
I would love to see a debate between you and Steve Baker…
Answer: Not if is paid for by taxes on wages, goods and services. It's in a doom loop. Sweden is further down the path along the death spiral.
Can we afford to let the rich get away with dodging paying tax is the answer !
We have be3n doing that for the last 14 years.the torys want to spend as
Little as possible on the state.therefore they had the option of recruiting people to chase either benifits fraud or tax fraud or both if they put more resourcesThey made the decision to go the benifits fraud route egged on by the daily hate mail and the gammon express.this is despite the fact that chasing tax fraud brings in 4 times the receipts that the same effort on benifit fraud does. Despite the fact that would have helped the economy much more they did not do so because its the tax fraudsters who are their donors.one of the recent tory chancellors of the exchequer, the mp for Stratford upon Avon at the time was investigated for tax avoidamce(evasion or whatever the torys have made legal)and had to pay back 5 million in total including penalties.he had to resign as a minister,lost his job at the last election but is still doing alright for himself.l fact he recently on the panel of the BBC,so being dodgy is totally OK with our still dominated tory bbc management. Fiddle your taxes etc and no consequences.
Ion
It’s just a question of correct taxation and targeted budgeting. The government sets priorities and the last 14 years have shown blatantly deliberately terrible choices on tax spends (indeed massively wasteful like no other point in modern uk government history). If we can’t afford it in 20 years we’re not taxing properly. Tell the wealthy to get stuffed and send in the bailiffs, if we’ve got nothing then there’s nothing to take. “We have to keep progressively more of your tax money and pay the debts you’ve run up” “but I never took out a loan” “yes, don’t worry, we took care of all of that for you. Now if you’ll just hand over 50% of your wages in return for no public services at all. Good news is we have record low taxes. Bad news is that’s only for employers, not employees, but we asked the daily mail not to mention employees so most of them won’t realise anyway”
Unaffordable or unwanted ? It isn't prediction, it's planning.
Planning LOL.
NO!
we can't afford to let the welfair state go. We saw the side effects in rioting last month.
Fuck the capitaliist system
Well said. It's all about resource management and the willingness to do so.
The welfare state is about power, not about protecting people with scare resourses. When you take from the rich, you have the power to do it. When you give to the poor, you show them they are incompetent. This reenforses the slave metality. It is all about power.
Exactly,they shoukd be left to fend for themselves.
NHS needs scrapping aswell.
Remove the present government put JEREMY CORBYN in 10 and then join BRICS 😉 😊🙏🏻👍✌
One major issue is that social housing has been securitised and every house or flat that isnt still owned by the council is on a balance sheet with investment income expected. There is no incentive to get social housing cost down to a level to what proportion of income was being paid in 1980.
The money from selling off property was not allowed to be re-invested in building more. Social housing can easily pay for itself. Build it rent it build more.
How things have changed since the 1980 Housing Act. 1980 average pay £140 per week. Average UK council house rent £7.50 per week. A year later unemployment rate had gone up to 10% and council rent average rose to £11.00 per week. Housing has been replaced with credit!
Now?
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
32nd US President Franklin D Roosevelt
_"That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."_
Wrong. That is the opposite of Fascism, known as Corporatocracy.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.Sorry what tf did you just say.
So it can be afforded with climate refugees, and QE.
Question isn't can we afford it's what effect it has on society. Currently many aspects of it are utterly abused. Almost every single mother I know is not single but gives that appearance. Want a house... have a baby. Then we have the utter inefficiency of the NHS where 10 extra pounds in is lucky to buy 1 in value. More thought needs to be given as to how such systems are run & reform them.
I find it baffling that this is the assumption that all leading parties in Sweden has been going on about sinse the 1990:ies, that increased life expectancy explains our underfunded welfare state, not their actual underfunding of it by reallocating our wealth to industry and property owners...
Are we talking about the same immigration that due to allowing the continuation of cultural differences i.e. marriage between first and second cousins), cause 1/3 of all child birth defects to come from just 3% of the population?
Except that is not just misinformation (i.e. a LIE) but racist as well. Reported.
Are you talking about the royal family?
@@t1n_0men You may have numeracy issues, but royal family does not constitute 3% of the Uk population. It would be several orders of magnitude less. what I'm talking about is a very real issue with immigration being allowed unfettered access to social services without changing their cultural behaviour to align with the norms upon which the funding and provision of those services are based.
Is that clearer?
Eh?😂
@@voonyboy No, it's not particularly clearer, other than clarifying you racial prejudice. Equally unclear is why your concern with "inbreeding" in one comment becomes a concern with benefits etc another, showing a broader picture of where you're coming from. All that being said, I would be interested in the sources for the figures you quote if you'd be willing to share please? Many thanks
Yes . but not the corruption it takes to be able to have no control,over ?. Greed ruins every good idea .
Politics makes strange bed fellows as the old saying goes
The state pension seems to be the main aim from these self appointed "experts". "we" cannot afford it. This is all subjective largely dependent on self interest. However there are relevant facts. There are many but just picking one,life expectancy. The UK has one of the lowest levels of life expectancy amongst advanced countries. If they die earlier they are not paid pension. For example UK women have life expectancy of 81. France has life expectancy for women of 86 paying pensions(higher anyway) for 5 extra years on average.
Also the start age in France is 62,in UK is 66. Outrageous.
1000^
@@adenwellsmith6908 the basics are how much of a countries GDP is used to pay pensions.
@@adenwellsmith6908 the basics are how much of GDP is used to pay pensions
Then make a comparison between your country compared with similar economies of the per cent of GDP used to pay pensions.
That's nine years then.
Of course we can afford the Welfare state. It boosts the economy within itself.
@@adenwellsmith6908
We do not need gimmicks which costs to administer. Just have free medical attention at point of delivery. It works and always has done. It also cuts down on wasteful admin costs.
@@adenwellsmith6908we went from a system of bartering to using money centuries ago .
Can welfare can be thought of government creating employers (the people on welfare) to hire local businesses to supply consumable goods on a rolling basis? As this creates demand for business activity, is it actually a liability?
There quite happy giving it to immigrants and foreign countries
People coming in are well educated 😂....
Problem is all the uneducated fools vote for the Tories.
Britain's economy has always thrived on immigrant workers and there is no logical reason why that won't continue to so in future decades.
@@howardosborne8647What if immigration stops as, finally, the west realises that helping the counties where immigrants are fleeing is the more ethical way of helping them, instead of brain draining those places.
@howardosborne8647 Britain has thrived on financial services....maybe I'm wrong, but with the rise of brics and decline of western dominance UK have grime future....I hope I'm wrong....I'm a migrant myself in this country and along this 22 years since I arrive I see a continuous decline of life quality....working more for less
We actually need unskilled workers
It comes with the central banking scam.
Can we afrrd to have millions of homeless? What about all the billionaire and corporate welfare?