Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @01:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the imagine-that dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

London, United Kingdom - A decade of "austerity" - a political programme of slashing public spending on services in a bid to reduce government budget deficits - has seen significant effects on the health and wellbeing of Britons, new research has reported.

Life expectancy has stalled and mortality rates have increased, especially for the poorest in the United Kingdom, according to a report commissioned by the Institute of Health Equity.

The report, Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review Ten Years On, was launched on Tuesday and sees Sir Michael Marmot, a former president of the World Medical Association, updating his influential 2010 report, having been asked by the then-Labour government to study the question: "Is inequality making us sick?"

Marmot's latest research analysed a wealth of data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Public Health England to explore what has happened since his last landmark report. And the answer can only be summarised as: Not only is inequality making us sick but it is killing us quicker.

In the past decade - for the first time in 120 years of increasing life expectancy in England - life expectancy has stalled for those people living in the UK's 10 percent most deprived areas, particularly in the northeast.

Among women from the most deprived areas - especially British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin - life expectancy fell between 2010-2012 and again between 2016-2018.

Mortality rates have meanwhile increased for people aged between 45 and 49 - the generation that grew up under former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's administrations. The report details how life expectancy follows the social gradient - the more deprived the area, the shorter the life expectancy.

Marmot's data analysis finds that, as the social gradient has become steeper, so inequalities in life expectancy have also increased.

Austerity has adversely affected the social determinants that impact on health in the short, medium and long term. Austerity will cast a long shadow over the lives of the children born and growing up under its effects

:- Professor Sir Michael Marmot


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:21PM (55 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:21PM (#963481) Homepage Journal

    Taking all of the above as a given for the moment, what does the sustainability of government spending look like compared to a decade ago? It does kind of matter. I mean, sure, you can spend money you can't afford to bump the living conditions, health, and life expectancy of everyone up fairly quickly but you can't keep doing it. If you're going to go the route of large government programs, the target should be the maximum you can reliably do year after year not what will make everyone happier in the short term but force you to either make drastic cuts or let the economy tank a decade or two later.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:36PM (9 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:36PM (#963493) Journal

      Third way labour dipshit gordon brown lowering taxes on the highest tax brackets by 15% probably had more to do with the shortfall that imaginary infinite expense balloons.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:52PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:52PM (#963595)

        Third way labour dipshit gordon brown lowering taxes on the highest tax brackets by 15% probably had more to do with the shortfall that imaginary infinite expense balloons.

        Something else the Labour government did may be a large non-imaginary expense. [telegraph.co.uk] If only we had some idea what it was...

        especially British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin

        ... I have no idea, what could it be?

        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:02PM (4 children)

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:02PM (#963604) Journal

          Yep, those expenses are entirely in your imagination, or at least not discussed even in passing in your article.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:13PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:13PM (#963614)

            They are in the summary above...

            Among women from the most deprived areas - especially British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin - life expectancy fell between 2010-2012 and again between 2016-2018.

            If women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin aren't disproportionately reliant on social care, why is their life expectancy falling disproportionately? More importantly, why would the British taxpayer be footing the bill for "British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin"? By what percentage has that population increased since 1997 and if public funds are disproportionately expended on this population segment why was it not in any of Labours election manifestos?

            • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:32PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:32PM (#963723)

              Jesus Fucking Boogitty Christ

              You racist fucktards just can't get it through your thick heads that community is an all-inclusive concept.

              "if public funds are disproportionately expended on this population segment why was it not in any of Labours election manifestos?"

              Umm, because no one wants a dystopian future like Logan's Run where death is mandated. That is the end-goal of your type of thinking. Old people get sick easier and require more expensive on-going care, why not just kill them off before that becomes a problem? /sarcasm

              Same sort of deal for your attempt to persecute a specific population for health issues.

              "More importantly, why would the British taxpayer be footing the bill for "British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin""

              The FUCK is WRONG with you? Because they are BRITISH WOMEN! Racist, religion persecuting motherfucker. Rot in hell dipshit.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:41PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:41PM (#963862)

                You racist fucktards

                Ahh, "Muh racism". Was it "Muh racism" when I squared off against a group of white lads hurling racist abuse at a Chinese woman on Friday night? Just wondering if that elicits the "Muh racism" argument like everything else does these days?

                Nothing in my comments here has been racist, the article inadvertently makes the case that Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are overrepresented in social welfare dependence (Bangladeshi men are also often dependent on something [researchgate.net]). Do you know where Bangladeshi and Pakistani men are really overrepresented? [quillette.com]

                community is an all-inclusive concept.

                Ahh yes, "all-inclusive". Is that why a muslim womans word is worth is half that of a man? Is your usage of "all-inclusive" here a codeword for wife-beating or racially motivated child rape? Or is it not in the public interest [independent.co.uk] to discuss how such things were aided and abetted [wikipedia.org] by the police and political establishment? The majority of the vulnerable girls who were raped were in the care of social services, costing the British taxpayer multiples of the best boarding school education money can buy. [thetimes.co.uk]

                This is what I'm paying 18% corporation tax and 40% income tax for is it pal? For British people to wait 6 months for life saving surgery or mental health treatment while flying incubators full of African women touch down daily for free NHS child birth? And if I object to any of it or treat dickheads like this [twitter.com] to an NHS supper (once again at my own expense) I'll be called a "racist"? That's very funny - fuck you! As to the public servants responsible for this criminal shit show, either they lose their pensions or the day of the rope approaches.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @11:23AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @11:23AM (#964064)

                The FUCK is WRONG with you? Because they are BRITISH WOMEN! Racist, religion persecuting motherfucker. Rot in hell dipshit.

                From personal experience, they are Bangladeshi and Pakistani women living in Britain. Note they didn't mention Indians? I've known Indian women who're more English than the native English, in Scotland and Wales, again, the situation is different to an extent but the Pakistani & Bangladeshi 'communities' are more Pakistani & Bangladeshi than 'British' or 'Scottish' or 'Welsh', and that includes their children, in some cases, their grand-children....yes two generations born in the British Isles and they're more 'Pakistani or Bangladeshi' than British, not racism, just a statement of fact.

                And it's funny you bring religion into it....I'll leave it up to you, dear readers, to figure out which religion is predominate in both the the Pakistani and Bangladeshi 'communities' (Though, in fairness, I have to add, the Bangladeshis aren't, on the whole, as dangerously fanatical about it as the Pakistanis..again, from personal experience over a couple of decades).

                Besides, let's not be distracted from the truth, it doesn't matter what race or religion you are, if you're poor in the UK, despite the alleged safety nets of the welfare state, you're fucked, and 'They' want rid of us...and, I say that from current bitter personal experience.

                Umm, because no one wants a dystopian future like Logan's Run where death is mandated.

                Really?, is that like 'no one wants to live in the world of 1984?', if so, I hate to break it to you, but have you seen what the UK has become over the past couple of decades?

                Let me tell you a story of the dying years/months/days of the Thatcher regime, a little outfit called the R@yne Institute down in London were evaluating software for the NHS which 'scored' patients for treatment, if said patient was aged, unemployed or in a low income job, then their starting score was very very low...no effective or expensive drugs, treatments or procedures for you then, little peon, swallow these cheap co-codamols, go away and quietly die (saving us having to pay you the state pension you contributed to and cover your geriatric care) And that wasn't the only 'endlösung' to the problem of how to rid themselves of the great unwashed they were evaluating.

                Of course, then we had the 'Red Tory' Blair regime, the assumption by the great unwashed was that all these Thatcherite schemes were shelved..were they fuck, they were just more circumspect about their deployment (rather than the software sitting on GPs desktop computers as the Thatcherites planned, it sat on 'policy planners' machines, safely away from scrutiny), fast forward to the now, the Tories are fully back in control..expect more of that shit.

                Logan's Run, eh? funny you mention that, for years I've said the Tories (both Red and Blue) are the parties of 'Renew! Renew!', very few (less than one handful) people got the reference...

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 28 2020, @03:39AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 28 2020, @03:39AM (#963938) Homepage Journal

        Imaginary? Every single election cycle the "I'm for the little man! We demand $freeshatoftheday!" party attempts to increase spending. And about every other time on average, they succeed. But, yeah, it's totally my imagination that new or more highly funded programs cause a spending increase.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @04:29AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @04:29AM (#963947)

          I don't really agree with this assessment, mostly because there aren't a lot of political parties that support austerity. Your typical left and right parties tend to support a lot of government spending but disagree on where it should be spent. In the US, the Democrats and Republicans worked together to end sequestration and increase spending levels across the board. If spending is going to be reduced, it's probably going to come from a classically liberal party like the US Libertarian party. Unfortunately, we're stuck with typical left and right parties wanting to increase spending in different areas. Whoever has a majority decides what type of spending to increase. Left-leaning parties tend to support more spending on social programs while right-leaning parties tend to support more defense spending and reducing revenue through tax cuts. I don't like taxes any more than you do, but it seems irresponsible to cut taxes while already running large deficits. But if you want to actually cut spending and reduce deficits, you probably need a classically liberal party in power.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:46PM (13 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:46PM (#963498) Journal

      you can spend money you can't afford to bump the living conditions, health, and life expectancy of everyone up fairly quickly but you can't keep doing it.

      Why not? The United States certainly behaves as if this was possible. The only answer is trade deficits, because Governments are not businesses nor individuals. As long as the confidence in the economy continues a government can do many things that individuals cannot including continuing to run up an infinite deficit. This breaks only as a nation needs resources that are not within the government's ability to regulate or appropriate, that is, international trade.

      I don't know if I really believe that, but I found it an intriguing idea when it was posed to me in economics class some decades ago. And it does parallel an idea in private finance, also, in that as long as there are financial institutions that have confidence in lending to you your resources are only limited by your credit. (The difference being your creditors will eventually expect repayment, again, not necessarily a constraint upon Government as the can appears to be able to be always kicked down the road. Until revolution.)

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:57PM (6 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:57PM (#963512) Journal

        Need I point out that faith in the US government is not a universal thing? Starting with the 1976 oil embargo, more and more people have been looking for an alternative to trading in US dollars. China and Russia are leading the way, hammering out their own alternative, for Asia and beyond.

        Remember, no empire lasts forever.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:56PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:56PM (#963627)

          And roubles turned into empty paper even more times than the empire itself fell.
          Some people learn from history. Other people occasionally lose all their money.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:26PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:26PM (#963757) Journal

            You look to recent and current events, and claim to learn from history? How valuable are your Roman and Greek investments today? Or, how about those sticks, with notches cut into them, that predated English pounds sterling? Deustch Marks?

            So, uhhhh, the US dollar has been the de facto exchange currency for ~80 years now, and you expect that to continue, because you, a short lived human, have never known anything else?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:48PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:48PM (#964138)

            Greek ruled the ancient world until Roman took over
            Roman rules much longer and their power disappeared and break out
            Byzantine ruled much longer and was slowly losing power to the Ottomans
            Ottomans ruled for a long time, in partnership with Venice in the market, but Venice economic power went to smoke when the Portuguese start the age of discoveries and took the spice market by sea. Ottoman slowly lost they power and almost nobody cared about then until they disappeared.
            The Portuguese ruled half of the world and to avoid war, shared it with Spain (the other half)... until the Portuguese king died young and the Spanish also got the Portuguese crown
            Spain ruled the world, but Ducht and English started to expand their power, as Spain (and Portugal) hadn't human resources to control all world.
            English and Dutch raised their economic power until so many countries also started to trade and their power slowly got dissolved.
            English still manage to got many of its power due to the industrial revolution, but WW1 stress then and pushed part of this power to the USA, France and Germany.
            WW2 destroyed the economic and industrial power from France and Germany and English borrow so much money that never again could recover their power. (they just finally finish paying the loans a few years ago) USA and Soviets pushed their industrial production to much higher values.
            Soviet power slowly faded due to bureaucratic communism and too much focus in cold war
            USA power are slowly fading away due to their aggressive "profit first" target, the rise of big companies having more power than countries and the rise of cheap china industrial power

            As you can see, no empire lasts forever, sooner or later internal and external problems will eat the "empire"
             

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 29 2020, @02:22PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 29 2020, @02:22PM (#964591)

              The "Byzantines" were the Eastern Roman Empire.
              Only the Western half of the Roman empire fell.

            • (Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday February 29 2020, @05:22PM

              by quietus (6328) on Saturday February 29 2020, @05:22PM (#964627) Journal

              Maybe first read a history book before posting.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:26PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:26PM (#963822) Journal

          Starting with the 1976 oil embargo, more and more people have been looking for an alternative to trading in US dollars.

          So? The United States has an insurmountable stockpile of the one true currency: ammo.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday February 27 2020, @03:05PM (1 child)

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday February 27 2020, @03:05PM (#963515) Journal
        A state could theoretically run a deficit forever, as you say. However what you're skipping is the cost of doing so.

        And there is a cost, a very real, very large cost. It's called inflation. This amounts to a tax on savings. All the extra value the government gets to spend has been effectively deducted from all the saved value everyone else in society has.

        We can pull heartstrings by thinking of Granny's retirement account, we can mute them by thinking of some blue chip wall-street fund; but both are hit just the same, savings is diminished across the board exactly enough to pay for your spending.

        So, anyway, you're effectively taxing savings, and what happens when you tax something? Simple, you get less of it. So the more savings is taxed, the less money will be saved. And the less money is saved, the more inflation is going to be required to keep covering your deficit spending, so you have a vicious circle here. You can juggle the balls easily enough at first, but the longer you do it, the faster the balls have to keep moving, until inevitably the juggler loses it and everything comes to a crashing halt. As happened, for example, in Germany during the 1930s.

        It may be attractive in the short term (which is why we have it, our politicians can only think in the short term) but long term this is just a slow disaster.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:49PM (#963786)

          Inflation may effectively be a tax on savings, but most government taxation revenue, for most governments, comes not from savings, but from spendings.

          Income tax is collected when money moves from employer to employee.
          Sales tax is collected when a person buys from a company.
          Stamp duty when selling real estate.
          Estate tax when capital is transferred to heirs.

          All from the transfer of wealth, not from the accumulation.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:06PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:06PM (#963660) Journal

        * offer only valid while (R)

        As soon as the Dems regain power deficits will resume being actual Satan.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 28 2020, @03:35AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 28 2020, @03:35AM (#963935) Homepage Journal

        Trade deficit, yes, but only very short term. Overspending can quickly devalue your currency to the levels where manufacturing picks back up and your export economy grows. Of course it also makes it impossible to afford anything not produced domestically, including raw materials. Also, when you devalue your currency too rapidly, people stop buying your bonds and using your currency. It's past my bedtime though, so I'm not going to go into why all that spells economic death for any nation.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:55AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:55AM (#963943)

          This is essentially correct. I'll add that devaluing the currency will probably lead to inflation. A small amount of inflation, say around 2%, is actually a good thing. Much higher inflation rates are harmful for reasons that should be obvious. Regarding the deficit spending that's been discussed in this thread, the only way it's really long-term sustainable is if the deficits are less than or equal to GDP growth. It's very unfortunate that both parties seem to have punted on any sort of austerity in the US, eliminating sequestration and dramatically raising spending levels. Rather than try to compromise on what we need to fund and make the difficult decisions, nobody had to lose on anything. We'll lose later on, though, but both parties are happy to kick that can down the road.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:48PM (#963500)

      In general for the whole of Europe what policics calls 'Austerity' is no such thing
      There has been no reduction in spending as a whole...
      There has just been a shift in what is being spend on from social programs to other stuff

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:15PM (20 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:15PM (#963561) Journal

      you can spend money you can't afford . . .

      But you can afford it if the wealthiest pay their fair share.

      Just look up some info graphics. The top most 1% have more wealth than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes. And they mostly hoard these resources.

      I'm not against anyone being able to become wealthy. Even very wealthy. Even inheriting it. But there is some point where it becomes obscene.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:42PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:42PM (#963587)

        What does it mean to hoard it? Are they taking huge percentages of farm harvests and piling them up in giant silos? What are they doing with it that you believe to be bad?

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:59PM (4 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:59PM (#963600)

          Not paying taxes to even out the deficit spending.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:59PM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:59PM (#963740) Journal
            Higher revenue won't prevent deficit spending. After all, developed world countries collectively are already collecting more in tax revenue per capital than ever, and they still run deficits.
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 28 2020, @04:05PM (2 children)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday February 28 2020, @04:05PM (#964148)

              Well sure, it's a multi-part approach--you can't keep increasing the amount you spend boundlessly, either. The Republicans do sometimes actually do as they claim they like to and cut spending, but often in the most moronic areas possible, like education and road maintenance.

              It's like how computers get more powerful every year, but software gets more bloated and complicated to fill up the extra hardware. (go ask Troutman [tomrobertshaw.net])

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 29 2020, @02:02AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 29 2020, @02:02AM (#964452) Journal

                Well sure, it's a multi-part approach--you can't keep increasing the amount you spend boundlessly, either.

                How come this acknowledgment never comes up until there's criticism of "we need more revenue"?

                It's like how computers get more powerful every year, but software gets more bloated and complicated to fill up the extra hardware.

                So what's the justification that we should increase tax revenue when we're not only not spending it well, but getting worse every time we actually do increase tax revenue?

                My take is that we already are spending too much and building up huge liabilities in the process. It's not just the debt. It's also the promises made. Here, this study purports to show that more social programs and the like means a healthier population. But it's only considering one side of the equation. The resources that go into backing those promises come from somewhere be it something concrete like someone's wealth and ability to contribute to society (such as employing people or making useful things), or something nebulous like confidence in the government and economy.

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday March 02 2020, @04:38PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Monday March 02 2020, @04:38PM (#965544)

                  It's one of those things I don't generally think to bring up because it's so bleeding obvious.

                  Or at least, it *should* be. At the scale of the federal government, apparently logic ceases to apply, e.g. "too big to fail."

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:36PM (4 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:36PM (#963644) Journal

          You did read the part about a hundred lifetimes?

          Such great resources should not be quite so concentrated into so few hands.

          I suppose you'll disagree. Maybe one person should be able to own the entire planet? Or at least the USA?

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:06PM (3 children)

            by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:06PM (#963661) Journal

            No matter how wealthy, there's only so much beer you can drink in a day. Beyond that the money goes to waste.

            You did read the part about a hundred lifetimes?

            Even the current pope noticed the dual problems of obscene wealth and cultivation of poverty [billmoyers.com]. He mentioned it explictly [npr.org] a few years ago:

            The New Mortal Sins

            1.) genetic modification

            2.) carrying out experiments on humans

            3.) polluting the environment

            4.) causing social injustice

            5.) causing poverty

            6.) becoming obscenely wealthy

            7.) taking drugs

            Notice list item #5 and #6 in particular, but #4 is also relevant if one uses the older, traditional definition of justice like he did in his encyclical.

            --
            Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:18PM (2 children)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:18PM (#963708) Journal

              Interesting.

              However you will never convince some people that corporations or the obscenely wealthy should pay their fair share.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:31PM (1 child)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:31PM (#963764) Journal

                I'm convinced. Corps and rich people should pay equivalent or greater than the working class. Every time that conversation gets started, the rightists pipe up with, "Well they don't have income!"

                If they are making money, they have income. That should be taxed. Only corruption in congress can create a false fact like, "Well rich people don't have income!"

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:45PM

                  by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:45PM (#963778) Journal

                  Corruption, rather than differences in public policy ideas, is the cause of a LOT of our nation's problems.

                  --
                  People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:35PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:35PM (#963826) Journal

        The thing about the wealthy that most people don't realize is that most of the wealthy are quite bad at making money. Study after study by outfits like the Harvard Business Review have shown that those who inherit wealth excel in squandering it, and that most who luck into it turn out to be just as poor at investing it as the general population (see: poor success among angel investors).

        That is why they work so very hard at rigging the game so they get huge windfalls at public expense. It's risk-free money. It is why they are fighting so very hard right now, because with Trump as a populist on the right and Bernie as a populist on the left, they are facing a squeeze play.

        So we don't need to implement socialism a la Bernie to revive the American project. Rather, we need to reprise the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that issued in the American Century. If we wrest control of our country back from shadowy figures in international banking and put a stop to regulatory capture the problem of wealth inequality will start to reverse itself as the ultra-wealthy begin to suffer the effects of their bad decisions instead of socializing their losses onto the rest of us.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @03:52PM (#964141)

          > because with Trump as a populist on the right

          Please 'splain to me how Trump is squeezing the rich?

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:02PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:02PM (#963844)

        But you can afford it if the wealthiest pay their fair share. Just look up some info graphics. The top most 1% have more wealth than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes. And they mostly hoard these resources.

        I'm not sure that tax cuts for the rich are the core of the problem. The problem is that spending continues to flow to the rich despite cutting the share they have to pay, and it is the rest of society, which really can't afford it, who ends up paying for it.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 28 2020, @03:19AM (5 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 28 2020, @03:19AM (#963925) Homepage Journal

        Dude, there is no possible motivation for that position except envy. We've known envy was a very bad thing since back when people were sure this whole "writing" thing was a fad. And you're here basing your economic views entirely on it. Rethink your shat.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 28 2020, @02:44PM (3 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2020, @02:44PM (#964115) Journal

          While I must admit at times being tempted to envy the wealthy, I have to say that it is not so. While wealth can "medicate" a lot of life's problems, and distract with comforts, it doesn't seem to fill the void inside. As observed by the lives of the wealthy. I think wealth, with no purpose in life, can be, well, something to not be envied. It seems, to me, that very few, like Elon Musk, can find something useful and consuming to do with such resources. Some others use it to have power over other people's lives.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2020, @04:12AM (2 children)

            Dude, you're wanting to punish them for doing better than you. You don't get to the decision that outstanding accomplishment and contribution to society should be punished instead of rewarded by anything resembling a virtuous train of thought.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday March 02 2020, @03:16PM (1 child)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 02 2020, @03:16PM (#965511) Journal

              I'm not wanting to punish them. I'm wanting them to pay their fair share. I just don't think we're going to agree that the wealthy should pay more than the poor.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2020, @02:07PM

                "Their fair share" is the exact same share, percentage-wise, as anyone else or you lose the ability to use the adjective in that clause. You don't get to redefine fair to mean "those assholes are doing better than us, so we're going to screw them".

                And please don't give me any of that "they benefited more from society so should pay more" idiocy. A man who works his way up to rich from not rich* had exactly zero benefits that were not available to everyone else. They benefited more because they contributed more. Full stop.

                * Yes, that is in fact the usual case. Dynasties are quite rare among the rich in US society.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday February 28 2020, @05:55PM

          by Dr Spin (5239) on Friday February 28 2020, @05:55PM (#964216)

          The left has made envy the basis of their election campaigns. It is not going very well for them.

          In reality, there is a fundamental problem: money is power, and there is positive feedback where having wealth
          gives you the power to squeeze the poor harder and harder, while the poor have less and less ability to
          defend themselves.

          Those with little or no "disposable" income are unable to climb the ladder of unearned income - of course the
          foolish manage to dispose of the whole their incomes foolishly too.

          It is the case that the wealthy are wealthy because they exist in in a society which includes poor people, and
          indeed, benefit from the work of the poor - eg teachers and nurses, rubbish collectors, Uber drivers and pizza
          delivery scum.

          However, if you oppress the poor excessively, you get the French (and American) revolution, or Isis or Boko Haram. The poor
          explode into a violent rage, killing and destroying with no specific objective - particularly if they are likely to die anyway.

          It is in the interest of all of society to provide some constraints on the flow of wealth to the rich.

          Here in the UK, we have the opposite:

          We have "National Insurance" which is actually a tax which falls dis-proportionately on the poor, and a lower tax rate on unearned
          income than on earned income.

          We also have an education system that totally fails to explain the concept of wealth creation, corporate structure, and, (certainly
          used to have) a lot of teachers that believed that Karl Marx' economic theories are "basically sound" when they are provably
          complete rubbish - no you don't need to own something to control it - a stolen car will still go which ever way the thief turns
          the wheel - an Uber will go where you pay the driver to take it. And no you don't need land for a business - loads of people
          these days run on-line businesses from rented accommodation.

          The average oik lives and dies with not the slightest idea of what investment is - partly because beer provides quicker results,
          and partly because "Spurs are playing on Saturday". ("Bread and Circuses" as they used to say in Rome). No - putting money
          is slot machines is NOT investment.

          Fortunately the web will save us ;-}

          Windows does not give you CoVID-19 (but only because Make-a-fee anti-virus is really effective).

          --
          Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:45PM (6 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:45PM (#963647) Journal

      I mean, sure, you can spend money you can't afford to bump the living conditions, health, and life expectancy of everyone up fairly quickly but you can't keep doing it.

      Of course you can, oh Bird of Fiscal Delusion! By spending on life, health, and delayed death, you will actually increase the tax base, thereby increasing tax revenues for the whole society, and enabling further progress! It's like the Republican tax-cutting myth, only the opposite, and it actually works. Put a little Keynsesianism in your life! Better than Goop!

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:35PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @09:35PM (#963767) Journal

        Your economics are worse than your philosophy that you seldom engage in. Old people are more expensive to keep around than young people. Young people bounce back from injuries, illnesses, and other calamities. Old people need extended care if they are to hobble along after an injury.

        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @04:34AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @04:34AM (#963949)

          Old people are more expensive to keep around than young people.

          Ok, Boomer! You should not generalize based on your own case so much, Runaway. While it is obvious that you are drain on the resources of society and a waste of medical treatment and food, not all old people are like you!

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 28 2020, @06:12AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 28 2020, @06:12AM (#963989) Journal

            My own case? I've been pretty low maintenance for all of my life, thank you very much for your concern. I take no meds, and my various conditions (color blindness, sore knees, allergy to work) cost nothing. And, I certainly don't plan on being warehoused in a hospital or nursing home for thirty years, where I WOULD BE a drain on society.

            I've always felt that people who require constant medical attention might be better off dead. I feel very strongly about it, in my own case.

            Fear not, youngster. You won't be paying to keep Old Man Runaway's heart beating for another day, another year, another decade.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 28 2020, @03:20AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 28 2020, @03:20AM (#963927) Homepage Journal

        Well, okay, if you insist. I'll be over to toss bricks through all your windows first thing after the weekend.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @02:50PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @02:50PM (#964122)

          This is pretty much the opposite of that, we are paying to keep the windows brick-proof so that people can spend money on things other than window maintenance.

          Also, the people saved from bricks by those windows will continue to work and make money that would otherwise have been lost.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:28PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @07:28PM (#963677)

      Not so fast. Improving the living conditions and health of working age people correlates with increased productivity. Spending to improve health and living conditions is probably a better way to increase productivity than Boris Johnson's desire to increase defense spending. The top UK tax band is 45% (or 46% in Scotland). Revenue issues could be addressed in part by creating another tax band above that with a rate like 70%. For a long time, the top income tax bracket in the US was 70%.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 28 2020, @03:27AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday February 28 2020, @03:27AM (#963932) Homepage Journal

        Man, you really understand nothing about how taxation works, do you? No matter how high you raise the top tax rate, nobody is going to pay it unless they just feel like doing so. Just like they don't now. Anyone in the top bracket has the means to easily structure their finances to where they pay little to nothing in taxes.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Captival on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:30PM (3 children)

    by Captival (6866) on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:30PM (#963488)

    How much was the life expectancy average affected by importing tons of third world poor migrants and terrorists?

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:32PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:32PM (#963491) Journal

      Being that Britain, like the US, has a fat problem. Probably raising the average by a few years. [nih.gov] Especially when considering it gives racist dimwits like you constant rage strokes.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:05PM (#963551)

      The life expectancy of Britain declined to next year.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @01:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2020, @01:48AM (#963897)

      What type of terrorists?

      Finance futures brokers?

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday February 27 2020, @03:12PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 27 2020, @03:12PM (#963523)

    Surely adding a bunch of tariffs and annoyances when trading with the EU until Boris Johnson gets the deal he wants is going to fix everything. And BoJo also wants to make further cuts to the NHS too, to really help things out. Or, if all those efforts fail, maybe he can cut a deal with the USA, famous worldwide for their super-cheap prescription drugs and medical devices.

    Who is dumber, the fool who demands everyone else walk off a cliff, or the fools who gladly do it?

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:04PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:04PM (#963605)

      Well Thex, this decline happened during the UK's time as a MEMBER of the EU. Clearly EU membership hasn't been that great of a benefit.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:41PM (3 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:41PM (#963622)

        And by that logic, the EU is also responsible for the UK's involvement in the Iraq War, and the Grenfell Fire.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:57PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:57PM (#963653)

          You've got nothing, Thex.
          EU membership is not something that makes everything better, and leaving the EU isn't going to result in the death of Britain.
          So much fearmongering and doom and gloom from the Left-- just like they did at the start of President Trump's term. The country is doing fine. Britain will do fine. Guys like you will probably continue hyperventilating regardless.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:02PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:02PM (#963804)

            I notice you refer to "Britain" and not "The United Kingdom".
            I wonder if that was accidental or intentional?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:18PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:18PM (#963856)

              Probably accidental as the AC appears to be American, and we think of you guys as "Britain".

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:20PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:20PM (#963617) Journal

      Who is dumber, the fool who demands everyone else walk off a cliff, or the fools who gladly do it?

      True Power. Use it or lose it. [twimg.com]

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:18PM

    by Bot (3902) on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:18PM (#963616) Journal

    > especially British women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin
    which, by the only act of crossing the border, magically acquire the right to the average age of British ladies huh? What BS is this.
    This summary clearly indicate that the average age can't be compared with the past, because it's about a different genetic mix of people having sustained different conditions.
    Plus, the average age depends not only on income, but on living conditions, kind of diseases, external factors. The youth nowadays look shitty, sleep deprived, less tall than gen X, at least around here, and I am talking about locals, not the immigrants (who btw seem better looking, which itself scores a point for welfare, even if it's not sustainable once the old gen of tax paying natives runs out of money)

    Now, I am sure austerity is a bad idea, and the enrichment of the already rich is another bad idea. But I don't subscribe to the equation: the rich are getting richer because we don't tax them enough and the poor are getting worse because that money doesn't flow to them. The rich that crave money are mere kapos. Should they deviate from the plan (to which the word 'progress' refers BTW) they would be dead meat in one second.

    The states do not need tax money to pay for services, at least, not here. My country prints money (the wrong way, by submitting to the EU central bank) to pay for services. Then taxes people, recoup for the money spent for the services (a little) the kickbacks (a little more) and the interest on the money printed (here be dragons, touch this and get JFKed).

    The progressive left barks against the rich, but that didn't help much in the past. In fact, here in Italy, unions helped killing the upper middle class and magically left the really evil ones (FIAT) live and prosper. I dunno about your countries, but I don't think the same stats they are using about what percentage of people own what riches represent a good track record for their action. If the 68 is of any indication, quite a lot of people shouting equality are just adopting the best ideology suited for the social ladder climbing. So, let's bring on the propaganda studies and let's ignore how the system works.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:36PM

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday February 27 2020, @08:36PM (#963726)

    > Institute of Health Equity

    They sound like a nice, politically neutral outfit.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:21PM (4 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday February 27 2020, @10:21PM (#963819) Journal

    Marmot, a former president of the World Medical Association, updating his influential 2010 report, having been asked by the then-Labour government to study the question: "Is inequality making us sick?"

    No, I'd say marmot is making us sick. Have you ever spread that stuff on bread? It smells like ass.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:24PM (#963859)

      That's your problem: you overcooked the marmot until it was pure mush. You want it just tender, medium-well.

    • (Score: 2) by Rich on Friday February 28 2020, @12:33AM (2 children)

      by Rich (945) on Friday February 28 2020, @12:33AM (#963880) Journal

      One would expect marmot to be part of a rural Chinese cuisine, but the German Wiki article on "Murmeltiere" (Marmota) explains that it's actually an Austrian specialty. Quite the opposite of sick-making, it is also used in natural medicine.

      You probably meant "Marmite", which is a very delicious yeast-paste to spread on toast, or spice other dishes with. Australians know a similar stuff named "Vegemite", which has a dual use down under to repel dangerous drop bears. In Germany, one can obtain "Vitam-R", which is even smoother than Marmite. Also, Natto with its fine and nutty flavour is very good for your intestinal tract and with its visual appearance saves you the effort to watch tentacle hentai during breakfast.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 28 2020, @04:39AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 28 2020, @04:39AM (#963952) Journal

        Well that deteriorated fast, despite the fact it was rotten to begin with. Any more racist puns on ethnic foods?

        And the Brits, whatever else cannot be said for their cuisine, at least do not have marshmallow/jello "salad" or "Baked Dish", the nauseating Midwestern American sources of declining life span.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 28 2020, @06:33AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday February 28 2020, @06:33AM (#963996) Journal

        Tomato, tomahto. Marmot says inequality is killing Britons, and I say no, Marmot, it's your repellent marmot sandwich spread. Vegemite does not kill Australians because, duh, it contains more vegetables & no marmot and Aussies are rendered invincible anyway because they drink Foster's (which is Australian for 'beer'). For the record, Germans, Swiss, and Austrians would never eat marmot because they prefer to chat them up at the kneipe at the height of karnival after the seventh and final round of singing "Da steht ein Pferd auf'm Flur."

        "Natto" is based on a Japanese acronym that roughly means, "I didn't have a tissue so I blew the mucus out one nostril at a time onto my bowl of noodles." Everyone knows that.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by pdfernhout on Friday February 28 2020, @01:51AM (1 child)

    by pdfernhout (5984) on Friday February 28 2020, @01:51AM (#963899) Homepage

    https://web.archive.org/web/20110912045258/https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/71/generation-fcked.html [archive.org]
    “The reason our children’s lives [in the UK] are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA,” he said. “So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.”

    So this has been going on for more than the past decade...

    --
    The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
    • (Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday February 28 2020, @06:08PM

      by Dr Spin (5239) on Friday February 28 2020, @06:08PM (#964225)

      the human face that New Labour has given it
      In the eyes of most voters, "the face of New Labour" makes the back end of 1950's buses look attractive,
      while old labour looks and smells like a pile of dung.

      If we had a half-decent (or even quarter) decent alternative to the nasty party, Boris would have achieved
      his ambition of dying in a ditch.

      --
      Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(1)