Sunday, September 23, 2012
DT got the DTs again
That is to say, yet another front page piece about how awful it is that old people might have to sell their houses so that they can pay to live in care homes.
On the off-chance that some DT readers might want to rise above the level of the redtops, I rehearse the simple argument.
The amount that governments have to spend is a complex product of the amount there is and the level of taxation. In most advanced countries this level has hovered around 50% for a long time, with the US being the odd man out, believing in reliance on self rather than reliance on state. Part of this stability arises from the fact that electorates are apt to punish governments that push the level up - electorates liking to get a pint out of a half pint pot, a liking which the irresponsible encourage.
Given other priorities in the UK, this amount does not run to paying for the care in care homes of the rapidly increasing number of old people who are no longer able to live in their own homes or with their own families. Reliance on state off.
So these people are going to have to resort to reliance on self, which is quite likely to mean that they will have to sell or mortgage their largest asset, their quite possibly empty homes. But what is so awful about this? Someone has to pay and, collectively, we have decided that this should not be the government, that this should not be a burden on central funds, that we do not want to collectivize or socialize this risk. We may change our minds on these points, but it seems unlikely that this will be any time soon.
PS: thinking of the US, I am reminded that I was puzzled that Obama, in the context of knocking Romney, referred to us as the oldest ally. I thought it was French power, arms & money which enabled the US to win their independence from us. That doesn't make us their oldest enemy but it doesn't make us their oldest ally either.
Even more puzzled that the US electorate seriously thinks of making a president out of a rich Mormon who presumably signs up for stuff like 'Mormons believe in a friendly universe, governed by a God whose work and glory it is to bring his children to immortality and eternal life. Mormons have a fairly unique perspective on the nature of God, the origin of man, and the purpose of life. For instance, Mormons believe in a pre-mortal existence where people were literal spirit children of God, and that God presented a plan that would allow his children to progress and become more like him. The plan involved the spirits receiving bodies on earth and going through trials in order to learn, progress, and receive a "fulness of joy". The most important part of the plan involved Jesus, the eldest of God's children, coming to earth as the literal Son of God, to conquer sin and death so that God's other children could return. According to Mormons, every person who lives on earth will be resurrected, and most of them will be received into various kingdoms of glory. To be accepted into the highest kingdom, a person must fully accept Christ through faith, repentance, and through ordinances such as baptism and the laying on of hands'. Lots more of this can be found for you by Mr. Google.
On the off-chance that some DT readers might want to rise above the level of the redtops, I rehearse the simple argument.
The amount that governments have to spend is a complex product of the amount there is and the level of taxation. In most advanced countries this level has hovered around 50% for a long time, with the US being the odd man out, believing in reliance on self rather than reliance on state. Part of this stability arises from the fact that electorates are apt to punish governments that push the level up - electorates liking to get a pint out of a half pint pot, a liking which the irresponsible encourage.
Given other priorities in the UK, this amount does not run to paying for the care in care homes of the rapidly increasing number of old people who are no longer able to live in their own homes or with their own families. Reliance on state off.
So these people are going to have to resort to reliance on self, which is quite likely to mean that they will have to sell or mortgage their largest asset, their quite possibly empty homes. But what is so awful about this? Someone has to pay and, collectively, we have decided that this should not be the government, that this should not be a burden on central funds, that we do not want to collectivize or socialize this risk. We may change our minds on these points, but it seems unlikely that this will be any time soon.
PS: thinking of the US, I am reminded that I was puzzled that Obama, in the context of knocking Romney, referred to us as the oldest ally. I thought it was French power, arms & money which enabled the US to win their independence from us. That doesn't make us their oldest enemy but it doesn't make us their oldest ally either.
Even more puzzled that the US electorate seriously thinks of making a president out of a rich Mormon who presumably signs up for stuff like 'Mormons believe in a friendly universe, governed by a God whose work and glory it is to bring his children to immortality and eternal life. Mormons have a fairly unique perspective on the nature of God, the origin of man, and the purpose of life. For instance, Mormons believe in a pre-mortal existence where people were literal spirit children of God, and that God presented a plan that would allow his children to progress and become more like him. The plan involved the spirits receiving bodies on earth and going through trials in order to learn, progress, and receive a "fulness of joy". The most important part of the plan involved Jesus, the eldest of God's children, coming to earth as the literal Son of God, to conquer sin and death so that God's other children could return. According to Mormons, every person who lives on earth will be resurrected, and most of them will be received into various kingdoms of glory. To be accepted into the highest kingdom, a person must fully accept Christ through faith, repentance, and through ordinances such as baptism and the laying on of hands'. Lots more of this can be found for you by Mr. Google.
# posted by Jim @ 12:19 AM 
