To think the UK is in terminal decline

[ThisOchreBiscuit]

Jobs Civil service to cut thousands of jobs

Nothing positive is happening in this country. It’s just cuts, cuts and tax increases but these arent doing anything to scratch the surface.

The whole country is being propelled up by a massive Ponzi scheme: house prices and immigration. House prices make all home owners feel richer and immigration makes the GDP figures look better.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain as I am a child of immigrants. My parents came here in the 70s from India. They were virtually penniless but they have now been retired for 15 years, earning a state pension from 65 and still getting their final salary pension. They own their home in London and have thousands in savings. They were able to achieve this whilst working in low skilled factory jobs.

Now, professionals with university degrees would struggle to achieve their life style.

I think we are heading to a social mobility and quality of life that is closer to India and than the traditional western view, with wealth in the hands of a small number of landlords.

A has just purchased a completely nice family home near me for £500k and added a back and loft extension and turned it into a 6 bed HMO charging £800 per room.

They will make a 15% return on their £250k investment.

Thing is a lot of people are "organising and taking positive action" by emigrating which isn't the outcome for the good of the country.

Other people are "organising and taking positive action" by planning their lives to take maximum advantage of our benefits system and do the least amount of work to contribute towards it - again not the best outcome for the good of the country.

For the good of the country, we need to nurture and encourage those able to grow the economy and pay taxes, and the only way they'll do that is if they see significant benefits to themselves for doing so. Increasing their tax as some kind of punishment for success really isn't the way to go!

I totally agree with you @ImAChangeling and with @mathanxiety above.

@SamphiretheTervosaur comment is obviously patronising but, at the same time, totally fails to grasp reality.
Sure, there has always been criticism by elders of younger people and visa versa, that's as old as time. However, the fact is that today's younger generations (middle aged as well) are worse off in many ways than their parents and grandparents. This is the first time that this has happened in many, many generations. It's not thoughtful or intelligent to dismiss people raising these points by saying things like 'it was tough for me too, what do you youngsters know', 'etc. I expect there are many reasons why older people dismiss the younger generations when the huge differentials in basic needs (eg housing) are raised but these people should reflect more.

Resources wars have been going on for many centuries. The difference now is that the limited supply or many things has been apparent and that we have massively over populated the finite planet earth.
We won't be populating other planets though. That isn't happening!

Other people are "organising and taking positive action" by planning their lives to take maximum advantage of our benefits system and do the least amount of work to contribute towards it - again not the best outcome for the good of the country
@taxguru
I agree with you that people on benefits game the system. But then again so do the wealthy. So does pretty much everyone these days since (thanks to digital communication) we can collaborate and share information on a much wider scale and anyone who wants to optimize their situation (aka game the system within which they operate) can easily access instructions on how to do so.

Well exactly
The wealthy (including the huge corporations) are by far the biggest gamers of the system. They write the rules!
This trickles down to the rest of the population, some of whom are gaming the system by grabbing some of the scraps.

Previously there was a certain amount of deference from the lower classes towards the wealthy, presumably (at least in part) due to an implicit belief in meritocracy, a feeling that the wealthy somehow deserved their positions.
Now we, the common people can collaborate online and see very clearly the various ways in which those with wealth and power use their wealth and power to work everything to their advantage.
We would surely be fools not to game the system as much as we possibly can?🤷🏻‍♀️

'We would surely be fools not to game the system as much as we possibly can?🤷🏻‍♀️'
Perhaps. The point I was trying to make is that the prevailing ethos (greed, selfishness) starts at the top so, of course, many other people in much less fortunate circumstances are doing their best to grab as much as they can.

Which huge corporations?

The thing that worries me is that during times of economic decline, global instability, people generally being poor and unhappy, this is when the authoritarian right wing governments swoop in and promise to fix everything by reducing immigration, cutting welfare, controlling the media, deregulation, etc. People vote for them because they're fed up and see them as having an easy fix (albeit a scapegoat), and that's how we ended up with Hitler, Trump, Mussolini, etc. I'm just concerned about the normalisation of anti-immigrant and anti-benefits rhetoric and extremely concerned we'll have Nigel Farage as our PM in 2029. And I don't think he'll be any good for the country in the long term (or the short term) because his policies rely on him as the "everyman" who gets real world problems, and his followers ignore that he's a millionaire stockbroker born into wealth and privilege. He's only out for himself and making himself and his cronies richer and if anyone believes he'll actually fix anything for us plebs, they're sorely mistaken.

The problem isn't immigrants, benefits, etc. The problem is the super rich (I'm talking multi millionaires before anyone jumps on me) are not pulling their weight and should be taxed more. I heard on the radio that a* *2% tax on extreme wealth over £10 million could raise £24 billion every year for the UK economy. But nobody's doing it, because the politicians don't want to tax their mates or themselves.

(Source - https://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-oxfam/tax-the-rich-protect-people-not-wealth/#:~:text=Instead%20of%20making%20cuts%20to,public%20say%20they%20support%20this.)

But. At least we can still criticise the government openly here I guess. That's something they don't have in China. Or America nowadays.

It's a general rather than specific comment. All the massive monopoly type companies. The type of companies who prioritise CEO salaries and dividends over services. There are so many examples of this in the media constantly.

WhatIsCorndogs · Today 14:07
The thing that worries me is that during times of economic decline, global instability, people generally being poor and unhappy, this is when the authoritarian right wing governments swoop in and promise to fix everything…..

I agree, that is a possibility, but if people get really fed up by the gap between rich and poor then there’s the possibility of revolution and a far left government being installed.

Obviously, neither is desirable.

I agree. Either is definitely possible while the current turmoil continues, which it will.

The thing that most people don't seem to 'get' is that the last 100 years has been exceptional in terms of wealth distribution.

1918 (WW1) - We ended up with a bunch of men, trained and ready to fight, who really weren't going to take no for an answer. Revolution in Russia and various other movements throughout Europe forced the issue. Something had to change for the ordinary working person.

1945 (WW2) - Another bunch of men, trained and ready to fight, who really weren't going to take no for an answer. It's actually Churchill who says 'From the cradle to the grave', and still he got voted out and replaced by, arguably, the first socialist government this country had ever seen. The ordinary working person was going to hold the politicians to account. Basically, still stuck on the slogan of those commie Ruskies: Bread, Peace and Land. We need to be fed, safe and have somewhere to live.

The 1960s and 70s were turbulent. Wilson (PM) wasn't lying when he talked about 'The white heat of technology'. Things began to shift. Different things to today, but broadly speaking it was a similar kind of industrial revolution - instead of AI think of automation in factories. Cracks started to show. The promises were beginning to be broken. And now we didn't have millions of men trained and ready to fight. The government could get away with it.

1979 through to the 80s - Thatcher tells us that 'There is no alternative' (TINA). Remember UB40's 1 in 10 and when interest rates were at 12%? But she offered something else, the old dream that 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. You can all be lords of the manor. A nice, little noble in your own right. And the idiots fell for it. So here we are, back in a kind of feudal system.

It's the feudal system that coins the phrase 'feckless poor'. Also, it's the feudal system that deliberately suppresses wages after a pandemic (Black Death 1348, Statute of Labourers 1351). Once again, it's the feudal system that introduces the idea of the unwanted foreigner. And who introduces the feudal system? William the Conqueror. Why? So the rich can get richer and the poor can get more subservient.

I don't think we're in terminal decline. I think we're heading towards another medieval period.

I doubt there were benefits paid in the medieval time. If everyone who could work was working how different things would be.
edit - also the rich needed armies to protect their land and riches so a fit, fed countryman was required with the money to pay them and to pay mercenaries

To an extent I get your narrative, particularly regarding the exceptional wealth distribution (comparitively). But I think that period has ended and, by contrast, we appear to be in a period where an increasing number of people want "something for nothing", in part because the State enables that (to a degree at least). There does seem to be an increasing reluctance to work unless it's large reward for little work and the population generally enables that, with an increasing number of "influencers" (for example) and other "non-jobs". Looking at the decreasing productivity in UK I tend to think we are in terminal decline unless there is significant change somewhere, perhaps politicians with genuine leadership (wouldn't that be good?) who don't promise the earth.

I don’t really get the moaning about wealth distribution - there are lots of private estates round here made their money in the 1800s legitimately or not. Must be worth millions if not billions.

I'm not sure you're right on this. It seems to me your point is suggesting that the public benefitted from the Thatcher Govt selling-off public assets. I don't recall that at all but I would agree that it was a very poor strategic decision to do so. In my experience, other things were significantly different. For example, not buying (a luxury) something until you could afford it and little use of credit cards to name a couple.

Most of the privatisations/demutualisations were offered to the general public, who eagerly voted for/bought shares and then virtually immediately sold them, usually at a decent profit, to institutional investors. We had all kinds of TV and media marketing such as "Don't tell Sid" for British Gas privatisation.

We had unprecedented house price inflation over that period, which obviously only benefitted home owners, not renters.

We had unprecedented increases in the stock market, fuelling massive endowment mortgage gains.

We also had income tax reductions over that period.

Certain voting demographical groups continued to vote for political parties who promised to continue reducing income tax, continue privatisations, etc. You have to remember that a majority of voters voted for Maggie and her election manifestos - if people didn't want her policies, they wouldn't have voted for her!

Thanks for the reply and I understand the points you make although those that choose to invest in the privatisations were taking quite a risk; there was no certainty at all. To an extent buying stocks and shares is still available but continues to carry risk - not the volatility as a consequence of the Trump administration. Who wouldn't vote for a party saying it will reduce income tax - that's not so different to today is it? I agree about house inflation but to be fair, it has always been up, certainly since 1975, but only a couple of significant peaks as far as I can tell. Even then, there are plenty of people in my generation who ended up in negative equity. On the other hand, mostly it was those who were being slightly speculative in the heady days of Buy to Let. I guess house inflation only ever benefits house owners but even then the house one hopes to buy has also an inflated price as has the house one is selling. Isn't the key here that, hopefully, one is progressing and, again hopefully, has more income to commit to a mortgage although I accept that's not universal.
Anyhow, thanks for you comments, very helpful and made me rethink my own comments.

Hi ,
The sell off led to tax reductions (rather than a boost to infrastructure) and although this disproportionately helped the better off , lower and middle incomes were affected. Income per person rose significantly in the 80s.

Although attitudes to spending may have changed, the gap between wages and house prices is so much more. The fact that you could save money to pay down your mortgage/save a deposit by tightening your belt actually belies the privilege of this generation.

House prices have gone up globally - I’m not sure what the reason is -Sydney,NY - partly rich foreigners buying property, and I would think millennials had as much to do with Chinese businesses becoming rich as boomers, and thereby having the money to buy London property. But the population has gone up hugely since the late 90s -I would say that started in Blair’s time so can’t be blamed on Thatcher -must increase demand and prices

The asset selling off in Thatcher 's era was very harmful. We're paying for it now.

If anything we need more young people in the UK. Not less. We have an increasing older population in the UK. Stopping immigration isn't going to help.

But nationalised companies were pretty poor - look at the doctors striking now and the civil service all working from home - that’s your nationalised industries.
edit and the young get old - to be much use they need good qualifications so that puts them late 30s ,40 not so long til they’re demanding their state pension

Awful generalisation.

We need the "right" kind of immigration, i.e. young professionals. What we don't need are lots more unskilled people (we already have enough) who are more likely to be a drain on resources if unemployed, working in the black economy, etc. We need to find a way to being more selective.