You need to find some flour and yeast first. Good luck with those!
I actually have plenty of those. My local petshop sells excellent flour, which they buy by the sack and weigh up in the back.
But the pizza will be from the freezer.
The stuff I struggle for at present is limes and lemons. I've just finished the stock from an overdone purchase for a cocktail party 18 months ago, and I can't find any more.
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
It's not as bad as that, it's a small percentage of a huge number of people being tested. We're down from 40% of people turning out positive to ~8%.
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
Doesn’t that depend on why people are being tested? If all countries are only testing symptomatic people then the percentage isn’t reassuring at all
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
Doesn’t that depend on why people are being tested? If all countries are only testing symptomatic people then the percentage isn’t reassuring at all
Given the very high proportion of people who can have symptoms but it turns out they have something else - or be asymptomatic and have the virus - then the quantity of tests and percentage of tests being positive both matter.
A month ago we weren't finding many cases because we weren't testing. Now we are testing more it is only logical that we are finding more.
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
It's not as bad as that, it's a small percentage of a huge number of people being tested. We're down from 40% of people turning out positive to ~8%.
REVEALED: The media's cunning plan to make Johnson look dumb by forcing him to rapidly increase testing and hence positive results.
Edit: if we're shifting focus from "people who probably have it" to a mixture of "people who probably have it" and "people who probably don't have it but let's check anyway to make sure and also because we have an arbitrary target to hit" then you would also expect the % +ve figure to drop, to some extent.
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
Doesn’t that depend on why people are being tested? If all countries are only testing symptomatic people then the percentage isn’t reassuring at all
Given the very high proportion of people who can have symptoms but it turns out they have something else - or be asymptomatic and have the virus - then the quantity of tests and percentage of tests being positive both matter.
A month ago we weren't finding many cases because we weren't testing. Now we are testing more it is only logical that we are finding more.
Nevertheless we are already near the top of the table and our case numbers are still growing relatively quickly.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
"Quote" rel="Philip_Thompson"> No! At no point is the debt alone unsustainable! We could sustainably have debt at 3000% of GDP if we were sustainably running a budget surplus and sustainably have 0.2% bond yields. At that point interest would be running at 6% of GDP and could be paid.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
*
Which illustrates my point. At some stage on the torrid journey of UK plc from debt of 85% towards debt of 3000% - and almost certainly well before such a level is reached - it will become untenable. Budget surpluses would hardly be relevant unless we are postulating coming down to 3000% from an even higher level. Which is not possible since if 3000% is unsustainable, anything higher would already have been unsustainable and thus never reached.
Botton line - both debt and deficit are relevant and significant. Pretend it's not me telling you if it helps. Pretend it's Sunak.
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
Doesn’t that depend on why people are being tested? If all countries are only testing symptomatic people then the percentage isn’t reassuring at all
Isn't the real question, why are we trying to draw comparisons between different data sets?
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You need to find some flour and yeast first. Good luck with those!
I actually have plenty of those. My local petshop sells excellent flour, which they buy by the sack and weigh up in the back.
But the pizza will be from the freezer.
The stuff I struggle for at present is limes and lemons. I've just finished the stock from an overdone purchase for a cocktail party 18 months ago, and I can't find any more.
We've been getting lemons and limes in our fruit box. We had a pineapple a few weeks back. Kiwi fruit this week. It is the surprise element that gets me up in the morning.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can raise the retirement age, and that helps.
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
Today’s growth in case numbers looks alarming, in percentage terms compared to other countries. We aren’t levelling off nearly as quickly. Only Russia looks worse at the top end of the table
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
Doesn’t that depend on why people are being tested? If all countries are only testing symptomatic people then the percentage isn’t reassuring at all
Given the very high proportion of people who can have symptoms but it turns out they have something else - or be asymptomatic and have the virus - then the quantity of tests and percentage of tests being positive both matter.
A month ago we weren't finding many cases because we weren't testing. Now we are testing more it is only logical that we are finding more.
Nevertheless we are already near the top of the table and our case numbers are still growing relatively quickly.
Our testing was appalling till recently, now it's fine. Seeing as we're looking more we'll find more.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can raise the retirement age, and that helps.
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
Might CV19 be helping? Oh dear, have I said something I shouldn't have?
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
Our house doesn't have a number, even on the deeds.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for). .
£1 in every £5 of council tax raised goes on council pensions.
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
Our house doesn't have a number, even on the deeds.
That's a bit posh ain't it? Like Buck 'Ouse you mean/
No! At no point is the debt alone unsustainable! We could sustainably have debt at 3000% of GDP if we were sustainably running a budget surplus and sustainably have 0.2% bond yields. At that point interest would be running at 6% of GDP and could be paid.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
*
Which illustrates my point. At some stage on the torrid journey of UK plc from debt of 85% towards debt of 3000% - and almost certainly well before such a level is reached - it will become untenable. Budget surpluses would hardly be relevant unless we are postulating coming down to 3000% from an even higher level. Which is not possible since if 3000% is unsustainable, anything higher would already have been unsustainable and thus never reached.
Botton line - both debt and deficit are relevant and significant. Pretend it's not me telling you if it helps. Pretend it's Sunak.
No it perpetually depends upon the circumstances. If we had 3000% borrowing but the Bank of England owned 2995% of the bonds and the 5% of the bonds owned by private investors had a 0.2% yield and we were running a budget surplus then how sustainable or unsustainable would that be?
If we had borrowing at 10% GDP but had a structural 33% of GDP budget deficit per annum then how sustainable or unsustainable would that be?
You need to find some flour and yeast first. Good luck with those!
Aldi has yeast or at least our local one had it yesterday as we bought 5 packets and sent 3 of them in various directions this morning
You only need one sachet to make the equivalent of a sourdough starter, which you feed for a couple of days. You then use some for a loaf, and keep feeding the rest to keep it going for future loaves.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
Taxing a falling asset value will necessitate an increase in the tax rate which will compound the loss in value and create a negative feedback loop. Wealth taxes only make sense to push behaviour change, not to raise money as people shift money into an untaxed asset class (and eventually overseas to tax havens).
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can raise the retirement age, and that helps.
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
Might CV19 be helping? Oh dear, have I said something I shouldn't have?
This is why I know CV-19 is not a disease created to wage economic war.
Because CV-19 - if left unchecked to wipe out the oldies - would be a massive economic boon, reducing pension payments, freeing up housing, and improving the dependency ratio.
Taxing a falling asset value will necessitate an increase in the tax rate which will compound the loss in value and create a negative feedback loop. Wealth taxes only make sense to push behaviour change, not to raise money as people shift money into an untaxed asset class (and eventually overseas to tax havens).
Could just be a function of the increased testing numbers. The percentage of positive tests are falling. How does our percentage of positive tests compare to other comparable nations in past 24h?
About triple Italy's. Germany is a bit trickier because the daily case count bounces about a bit, but let's say 5x. Spain we look kinda similar, but guessing a bit at their daily testing numbers, they don't announce them regularly.
We're possibly seeing some effects of a backlog in testing demand though? Other high-testing countries may be predominately testing unlikelies by now, having had spare capacity for a while.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
Why not just borrow the hypothecated pot to get over the short term hump in moving to DC ? You're paying out or less than DB anyway. Unfunded schemes are funny money anyway.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
I agree: defined benefit pension schemes are a ticking time bomb.
In the US, there are a large number of municipalities that are on the verge of bankruptcy due to pension obligations. There it's worse, because you have a negative feedback loop. Pension costs cause local income taxes to rise. Workers leave because other places have lower taxes. Proportion of municipality's spending on pensions rises. They cut the education, police and parks budget. More workers leave. It's a really horrible negative feedback loop that we need to avoid.
It's ok to consciously use one according to Fowler.
Does Fowler then claim to inadvertently split an infinitive is not OK?
IIRC no.
I donated my well-thumbed Fowler to some grad when I retired but I seem to remember he divided the populace into four: those happy souls who neither know nor care know about split infinitives, those who care but don't really understand them, those who know but don't really care, and finally the poor sods who feel they have to always (yes, I know) point out their superior knowledge by picking up any sign of a dreaded SI.
I don't feel that at all. If I did, PB would give me a full time occupation. I do think it is an inelegant and unnecessary fumble in a formal letter.
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
Our house doesn't have a number, even on the deeds.
Our address is based on the developer's favourite football team.
As far as I can see there is no useful statistical information to be gleaned from the test results. In England and Wales the population being sampled is changing daily as testing is increased and all countries have different criteria so cannot be compared.Testing may well be useful for managing individual cases and deployment of staff but that is a different matter.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can raise the retirement age, and that helps.
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
Might CV19 be helping? Oh dear, have I said something I shouldn't have?
This is why I know CV-19 is not a disease created to wage economic war.
Because CV-19 - if left unchecked to wipe out the oldies - would be a massive economic boon, reducing pension payments, freeing up housing, and improving the dependency ratio.
The economic war on the young to give the boomers the future they feel that everyone else should pay for will be with us for some time though.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
Taxing a falling asset value will necessitate an increase in the tax rate which will compound the loss in value and create a negative feedback loop. Wealth taxes only make sense to push behaviour change, not to raise money as people shift money into an untaxed asset class (and eventually overseas to tax havens).
That sounds like bollox to me, I'm afraid.
It sounds like it's fatal to your argument in other words.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can raise the retirement age, and that helps.
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
Might CV19 be helping? Oh dear, have I said something I shouldn't have?
This is why I know CV-19 is not a disease created to wage economic war.
Because CV-19 - if left unchecked to wipe out the oldies - would be a massive economic boon, reducing pension payments, freeing up housing, and improving the dependency ratio.
The economic war on the young to give the boomers the future they feel that everyone else should pay for will be with us for some time though.
Yeah, but the young understand TikTok, so it all balances out.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
with the caveat that all analysis needs a caveat 'so far'.
Everybody got their pots, pans, drums, fireworks, space-x sized rockets ready...remember you arent doing it properly unless you are within a few cm of everybody else....thats how they do it in London.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
You can raise the retirement age, and that helps.
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
It is difficult to gain support for increasing the state pension to 70 when many people still fail to reach that age simply because we haven't made any real progress against inherently deadly killers such as pancreatic cancer and continue to fail to diagnose other cancers at an early enough stage to be able to cure them.
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
Our comparators are the other major european countries.
Everybody got their pots, pans, drums, fireworks, space-x sized rockets ready...remember you arent doing it properly unless you are within a few cm of everybody else....thats how they do it in London.
All that cheering and yelling, sure-fire way to spread the virus.
You need to find some flour and yeast first. Good luck with those!
I actually have plenty of those. My local petshop sells excellent flour, which they buy by the sack and weigh up in the back.
But the pizza will be from the freezer.
The stuff I struggle for at present is limes and lemons. I've just finished the stock from an overdone purchase for a cocktail party 18 months ago, and I can't find any more.
We've been getting lemons and limes in our fruit box. We had a pineapple a few weeks back. Kiwi fruit this week. It is the surprise element that gets me up in the morning.
Why di you need a surprise? We order locally and they send us what we want...qed.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
If they all head to Tuscany, then the Coronavirus will get 'em, reducing our future pension obligations.
Everybody got their pots, pans, drums, fireworks, space-x sized rockets ready...remember you arent doing it properly unless you are within a few cm of everybody else....thats how they do it in London.
Here we have a guy playing the bagpipes at 8pm ........ which is fine, at a reasonable distance, when they're good. This guy isn't.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Having the best and brightest drain from the public sector sounds like things being better to me.
You need to find some flour and yeast first. Good luck with those!
Had some supermarket veggie pizza for lunch today - arrived with the rest of the shopping delivery yesterday
I take from that that you hadn't actually ordered it and I presume it wasn't a Margherita. But then you did clearly say you'd eaten it. Tut tut.
Oh I did order it - two in fact!
But they missed out a couple of things - substituting a second bacg of frozen beans for frozen broccoli. And not packing any carrots even though I ordered two bags. On the other hand when I checked our order online prior to delivery, they said we were going to be without pasta, but the delivery DID include pasta!
For ten years he complained about Tory austerity screwing over Liverpool council but in 2018 he managed to find £280 million to loan to Everton for their new stadium.
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
They should use what3words. It is what it was invented for.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
Update on London "clapping for carers": we have progressed to honking car horns, alongside the banging of saucepans. If it wasn't summer, we probably would have broken out the fireworks by now.
More exciting than the weekly fruit lottery, when I went to collect the bin earlier two men in a car stopped to ask directions. It's a nightmare for people making deliveries when houses have names and no numbers.
for those flowing US Presidential elections, basically everybody on here. US Congressman Justin Amash, who left the Republican party last year has joined the Libertarian Party, and will try to be its candidate for POTUS.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
You need to find some flour and yeast first. Good luck with those!
I actually have plenty of those. My local petshop sells excellent flour, which they buy by the sack and weigh up in the back.
But the pizza will be from the freezer.
The stuff I struggle for at present is limes and lemons. I've just finished the stock from an overdone purchase for a cocktail party 18 months ago, and I can't find any more.
We've been getting lemons and limes in our fruit box. We had a pineapple a few weeks back. Kiwi fruit this week. It is the surprise element that gets me up in the morning.
Why di you need a surprise? We order locally and they send us what we want...qed.
Our three suppliers have rationalised to standard boxes due to high demand. Ad-hoc options are slowly coming back, so we were able to add carrots and cucumbers for tomorrow.
We have found another supplier with an a la carte menu for fresh produce, but with a 3 week delay between order and delivery.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Just saw the time and realised we forgot to do the clap today but didn't hear any of our neighbours do it either. I think it raining probably pump a dampener on people's enthusiasm.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Padded pensions is just betraying the future and masking our current expenditure.
Just saw the time and realised we forgot to do the clap today but didn't hear any of our neighbours do it either. I think it raining probably pump a dampener on people's enthusiasm.
I lost track of time and missed it too.
To make up for it I'll do a Google image search for nurses...
The rising proportion of oldies means spending on pensions and healthcare rises, even while the number of workers providing tax income falls.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Raise the pension age.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
The first has a bunch of negative consequences (mainly screwing up the labour market, at a time when we really need it to remain unscrewed).
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
In the near term, it makes things worse because you need to start actually paying into a pot on behalf of public sector employees.
In the long term it saves you a lot of money. Hence start yesterday.
And results in massive brain drain from the public sector. Regardless of your views as to the competence of civil servants, removal of the gold-plated pension arrangements (the one obvious draw to a career there) is unlikely to make things better.
Better to pay staff the money they deserve at the time of employment rather than for 40 years after they have retired to Tuscany aged 55.
Strange. Almost all the rest of your posts paint you as a hard-nosed pragmatist. Where's this fluffy idealism coming from?
It is pragmatic - if certain public sector workers deserve more money then pay em - but now not a padded pension. But don't bloat the system
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Truth is I'm being disingenuous. I can see no reason for civil servants to retain access to a benefit that no-one under the age of 40 now has in the private sector. It should have been done years ago.
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.
I would suggest that countries/cities/states fall into one of three categories:
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
China, subject to an independent audit. That we will never get.
Equally I'm not sure 3 is a good group to be in. 3 weeks to a month ago Japan was definitely in group 3, it definitely isn't in that group any more.
Comments
Yet again.
Now where's my pizza and my tin of pineapple.
But the pizza will be from the freezer.
The stuff I struggle for at present is limes and lemons. I've just finished the stock from an overdone purchase for a cocktail party 18 months ago, and I can't find any more.
I spit* on your supermarket pizza!
(*Not literally obvs - that would get me arrested.)
Here's a question: which travels further and faster in the atmosphere, yeast spores or coronavirus?
And sae let the Lord be Thankit!
Pizza night tomorrow in the Pointer household... probably topped with fresh asparagus from the garden *smug face*
I bagsy the designer ones.
(Why does the time paramenter not work?). Try 2:37.
https://youtu.be/7vk5K-4PGYQ?t=157
A month ago we weren't finding many cases because we weren't testing. Now we are testing more it is only logical that we are finding more.
Edit: if we're shifting focus from "people who probably have it" to a mixture of "people who probably have it" and "people who probably don't have it but let's check anyway to make sure and also because we have an arbitrary target to hit" then you would also expect the % +ve figure to drop, to some extent.
Get with the programme.
That is the inevitable consequence of a TFR below 2, and rising life expectancies.
There is nothing any government can do about it, well nothing much, and it therefore means that either spending on other services is cut, or taxpayers need to reach into their pockets and pay more in taxes.
That is - however you cut it - austerity.
Forshame.
What is unsustainable is the deficit which causes debt to increase compoundedly and interest can't be paid.
Debt is relevant but insignificant. What is significant is our structural deficit, which is why our bond yields now are so much cheaper than they were a decade ago.
*
Which illustrates my point. At some stage on the torrid journey of UK plc from debt of 85% towards debt of 3000% - and almost certainly well before such a level is reached - it will become untenable. Budget surpluses would hardly be relevant unless we are postulating coming down to 3000% from an even higher level. Which is not possible since if 3000% is unsustainable, anything higher would already have been unsustainable and thus never reached.
Botton line - both debt and deficit are relevant and significant. Pretend it's not me telling you if it helps. Pretend it's Sunak.
Scrap remaining defined benefit pensions paid by the public purse.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/uk/britain-coronavirus-missteps-boris-johnson-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html
But it's also unbelievably unpopular. And labour participation rates drop off as people get older even with a rising retirement age.
You can offer no more defined benefit plans in future, but you can't change the ones that we already owe (and have not saved for).
I wrote a report a couple of years ago, showing the rising spend on healthcare and pensions in the UK. It's really scary, because you can't make the number go backwards easily.
The second: unless you plan to effectively steal from millions of current public sector workers and retirees, it will have precisely zero effect for several decades, since most of the schemes that matter are unfunded.
These schemes need frozen ASAP.
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/30/a-testing-target-why-does-the-100k-target-matter/
If we had borrowing at 10% GDP but had a structural 33% of GDP budget deficit per annum then how sustainable or unsustainable would that be?
Because CV-19 - if left unchecked to wipe out the oldies - would be a massive economic boon, reducing pension payments, freeing up housing, and improving the dependency ratio.
We're possibly seeing some effects of a backlog in testing demand though? Other high-testing countries may be predominately testing unlikelies by now, having had spare capacity for a while.
In the US, there are a large number of municipalities that are on the verge of bankruptcy due to pension obligations. There it's worse, because you have a negative feedback loop. Pension costs cause local income taxes to rise. Workers leave because other places have lower taxes. Proportion of municipality's spending on pensions rises. They cut the education, police and parks budget. More workers leave. It's a really horrible negative feedback loop that we need to avoid.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee: Stella Creasy, Angela Eagle, Darren Jones
Committee of Standards: Chris Bryant
Nominations close on Monday
(1) Totally fucked it up. Overloaded healthcare system. High death rates. Lockdown too late. Lombardy and New York City are the key standouts here.
(2) Locked down a little later than they should have done, but broadly did "OK". These countries - like France and the UK and much of the US - are mostly looking now to how they ease restrictions.
(3) Did really well, and have contained the virus. Which is a very small number of countries, like South Korea and some of China.
The UK is comfortably in the second group. We've done OK. We could have done better. But we've done OK.
Liverpool fans will now calling for EPL to not resume matches.
We know Liverpool deserve the League but they also deserve to smash past 100 points.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52484530
*paraphrased
But they missed out a couple of things - substituting a second bacg of frozen beans for frozen broccoli. And not packing any carrots even though I ordered two bags. On the other hand when I checked our order online prior to delivery, they said we were going to be without pasta, but the delivery DID include pasta!
He really is special.
For ten years he complained about Tory austerity screwing over Liverpool council but in 2018 he managed to find £280 million to loan to Everton for their new stadium.
https://what3words.com
Update on London "clapping for carers": we have progressed to honking car horns, alongside the banging of saucepans. If it wasn't summer, we probably would have broken out the fireworks by now.
Will he win, almost certainly not, but in these uncertain times, maybe, just maybe.
I will be chearing him on and wish him all the best, for what little that is worth.
Will it change the dynamics of the election, probably not a lot, but perhaps more than last time, after a legal battle, its more likely that he will be in at least one of the TV Debates.
any thoughts?
We have found another supplier with an a la carte menu for fresh produce, but with a 3 week delay between order and delivery.
Collective bargaining prevents the best public sector workers getting paid more.
Has anybody seen the rises in Bitcoin price? up about 18% in 48 hours or so.
Gland I heald on for the long hall.
Is the weather miserable where you are too?
To make up for it I'll do a Google image search for nurses...
The problem is that it won't make any difference until at least 2065. The private sector defined benefit industry has been effectively dead for years already, but it'll keep running around like the proverbial headless chicken for decades to come.