71–80 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.
Whether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And people keep saying that basic income is impossible. It's not impossible, but Americans voted against it overwhelmingly less than two months ago, well after this epidemic had already started.
I thought the election was in November?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.
Whether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.
I will happily pay 45% tax on my salary knowing the Gov has my back in difficult times like these. I'm fortunate enough to still have a job, but I'm happy I live in Europe.
I will happily pay 45% tax on my salary knowing the Gov has my back in difficult times like these. I'm fortunate enough to still have a job, but I'm happy I live in Europe.
In theory if you saved the difference in taxes...but then we don't generally save, but consume. max 2500 pounds. Say for 6 months? A Year? That's 15k to 30k. This is not enough to justify "45%" taxes for life...
It seems like there's two things where money is never an issue; war and the preservation of the status quo. This should be remembered when progressive reforms are rejected.
> It seems like there's two things where money is never an issue; war and the preservation of the status quo. Right. The government's policy should act counter-cyclically to counteract major issues like this. It's better to reserve our spending for when we need it than to spend indiscriminately when we don't. You want government monetary and fiscal policy to act as a counterbalance to natural instability, not as an a…
To save money in a large pile is not a proactive thing to do. It's reactive. The proactive thing is to have a far reaching social safety net and a stable social institutions.
Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here? The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses. 510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS. Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. Th…
> Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses
No idea what you're on about. Most people in the UK don't even make it to 79 as is, nevermind with a highly contagious and dangerous virus floating about.
> Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds
Again, what are you on about? The British government has definitely invested (invested, think about that word) a huge sum of our GDP at this problem, but everyone I've spoken to here has been more than happy with this decision even though we're all the fortunate ones that have managed to keep our jobs.
Thousands of people are already dying from this in one small concentrated area in Italy, in a matter of weeks. Shall we just say fuck it and let thousands more die here too? Should the whole world say the same thing? Shall we let the entire economy hit the sort of fucked levels we haven't seen since like WW2?
There are many problems in the world, sure. Not so many of them are as simple as a deadly virus plaguing the planet. You think we can just spend 15% of our GDP in a single year and solve obesity, climate change, and air pollution?
Also shouldn't you be celebrating since this has massively cut down on CO2 emissions and is already changing many people's commuting/working habits, possibly permanently?
> Is it just because Coronavirus does it spectacularly in 3 months and all of those other things take decades?
Yeah something that can fuck humanity in 3 months is definitely worth putting some more thought in to than something that won't be felt for decades away. How can you write a sentence like that and not understand it at the same time?
So, with all these people not working... when do our supplies start to run out? I mean, the stores are getting replenished now; but what happens when the supply chain dries up for a period of time? Will we be able to boot-strap the supply chain to keep the economies of the world rolling?
(UK) Shelves are already very empty. Oddly this time the fresh stuff is still there and the non-perishable has gone. "Luxuries" are widely available, necessities aren't. There's a lot of seasonal stuff in cold storage - the apples you buy are from last year.
Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here? The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses. 510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS. Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. Th…
Can you show me how you calculated the 3 trillion dollar cost? Are you for example counting loans to businesses as if none will be paid back? Are we talking about the economic impact or direct costs or both? To be clear the UK has 29 million workers who make an average of 28k pounds. If 60% of them are off work and can't work from home paying 80% of that wage to 60% of them would appear to cost about 32 billion pound…
I think we are going to see hyperinflation at some point, particularly if this is dragged on for the 18 months necessary for a vaccine.
Why would I go in to work and stack shelves when the Government will just give me money to sit at home? Why would I even go into the hospital to operate a Ventilator?
The point is that the UK (and many other countries) are essentially 100% oriented around COVID-19, to the extent that the entire resources of the country and its people are dedicated or impacted by it.
Lets reiterate the death rates, from Imperial College's own report:
0-9: 1 in 50,000
10-19: 1 in 16,667
20-29: 1 in 3,333
30-39: 1 in 1,250
40-49: 1 in 667
50-59: 1 in 167
60-69: 1 in 45
70-79: 1 in 20
80+: 1 in 11
The above is slightly less than the risk of death from any cause.
The cap is £2500 per month before or after taxes?