British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
It is what debated though. You can reduce the days lost to obesity etc related illness etc but in doing do you are likely to increase the numbers of age related illness days off. Whenever these arguemnts are presented it ignore the reality of all these older people - they will both have to work longer and become an increasing economic burden when they stop because theyr'e too old or no jobs for them.
If we're going to have nanny state polices then lets be honest and straightforward they we think
No one is arguing that the economic burden of old people is a problem. People are arguing that the economic burden of health and illness is a problem.
The amount of money lost to the economy through illness dwarfs the amounts paid to pensioners.
We already have nanny state policies, such as tax on petrol, alcohol and tobacco. The sugar tax had been very effective, and I'd be pretty happy to see the price of a cheeseburger double.
You can't argue an economic case without considering all the economic factors involved. That makes the economic argument for health andeconomic argument about old people. It's a terrible arguement not least because you quite possibly lose it (pensions are a tiny part).
The 'solid' argument against smoking etc is that it's bad for your physical health 'smoking kills'. It's not 'smoking is bad for the economy'. Stick to that and at least it's on solid ground.
You can't argue an economic case without considering all the economic factors involved. That makes the economic argument for health andeconomic argument about old people. It's a terrible arguement not least because you quite possibly lose it (pensions are a tiny part).
The 'solid' argument against smoking etc is that it's bad for your physical health 'smoking kills'. It's not 'smoking is bad for the economy'. Stick to that and at least it's on solid ground.
I've made this argument
Unhealthy behaviour and illness are bad for the economy and bad for the individual.
You only have to look back 3 years at the covid pandemic to understand the effect that ill health has on individuals and ultimately the economy.
It may well have been far better for the economy to just let covid rip.
These eonomic arguments are awful. And the main risk factor in just about everything is being old
It may well have been far better for the economy to just let covid rip.
These eonomic arguments are awful. And the main risk factor in just about everything is being old
I agree the main risk factor for illness is getting old. Getting fat is also a large risk factor for illness.
However, the difference is that getting old is not a modifiable risk factor.
Getting fat is.
They're correlated. If one is modifable then both are.
The difference is that living longer is considered to be a good thing. Nothing to do with economics
Living longer is considered to be a good thing unless poor health makes it miserable.
We value keeping ill people going
The main thing from my pov is that we absolutely have to keep away from the economics arguments. They would be be a disaster for old people.
This is true of much more but particularly stark for the elderly.
Of course arguments based purely on economics not on human needs are terrible. No surprises there.
Of course arguments based purely on economics not on human needs are terrible. No surprises there.
Easy here, fact is the economic-based argument goes strictly against the idea that taxpayers gain if people are healthier. Because it's simply false, for the diseases that happen in old age with chronicity and decrease life expectancy.
Keep in mind i answered a very specific argument: that regulations to mandate a healthy lifestyle are justified because the NHS exists and it saves money for the NHS.
That's utter bullshit, completly false, the opposite is true.
You wonna argue that you are justified mandating behaviour that increases life expectancy, you can't touch the taxpayer burden aspect at all.
You need to have the balls to claim "even if it dramatically affects taxpayers to the negative, we want to impose this regulation to improve lifestyles anyway because we want to decide in stead of the people, who we consider too bad at making personal lifestyle choices".
Because that's the only real argument
After you wasted everyone's time with trolling and easily disproved stupid claims about unhealthy diets in the 70's that you have no ****ing idea about whatsoever you'll have to forgive me if I don't bother to engage you much in future, apart from to laugh at your stupid trolling.
Can't believe they rejected the James Corden ban, it would put Keir's approval ratings sky high
the guy has no political nose AT ALL
Easy here, fact is the economic-based argument goes strictly against the idea that taxpayers gain if people are healthier. Because it's simply false, for the diseases that happen in old age with chronicity and decrease life expectancy.
Keep in mind i answered a very specific argument: that regulations to mandate a healthy lifestyle are justified because the NHS exists and it saves money for the NHS.
That's utter bullshit, completly false, the opposite is true.
You wonna argue that you are justified
Here's a professor disagreeing with you:
Studies look pretty in depth if you go i...
The studies look pretty thorough too.
And its consistent with what I hear everyone else saying
and doing
Here's a professor disagreeing with you:
Studies look pretty in depth if you go i...
The studies look pretty thorough too.
And its consistent with what I hear everyone else saying
and doing
The NHS might save money - although even this is not entirely clear - but the government as a whole (and therefore taxpayers) definitely won't. The reason is increased life expectency and costs associated with it (pensions and end of life care predominantly) far outscale the savings in direct healthcare costs for treating the related illnesses/diseases.
The only arguments that come close to justifying these sorts of things are based on lost productivity but at that point you're getting into societal costs, not purely economic considerations so it's a dubious argument.
As others have pointed out arguing in favour of vice taxes in purely economic terms is simply not a good idea.
This was the best paper I found that actually accounts for the alternative costs that would be incurred if people were not smoking rather than just considering the costs in the current situation and it estimates that the government benefits financially to the tune of ~£15billion a year from people smoking:
Here's a professor disagreeing with you:
Studies look pretty in depth if you go i...
The studies look pretty thorough too.
And its consistent with what I hear everyone else saying
and doing
Found the paper ungated , was previously published as an editorial (the links in your source are money gated and sci hub doesn't have them)
https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438...
He literally utterly disregards life cycle considerations and strictly only considers present time considerations. Ie, he doesn't address in the slightest the claim that costs increase later on in life.
Ofc if you only look at present time costs they get reduced somewhat, nobody claimed they don't, it wasn't the argument at all.
I am puzzled, did you check your sources or did you literally just google a finding that agreed with you without checking how they reached that conclusion?
Because this isn't a counter to our (me, chez, 57) claims in any way.
The NHS might save money - although even this is not entirely clear - but the government as a whole (and therefore taxpayers) definitely won't. The reason is increased life expectency and costs associated with it (pensions and end of life care predominantly) far outscale the savings in direct healthcare costs for treating the related illnesses/diseases.
The only arguments that come close to justifying these sorts of things are based on lost productivity but at that point you're getting into socie
Amen to your good faith on the topic but i mean, this isn't controversial at all:
it's incredible we have to discuss this, taxpayers gain massively from activities that decrease life expectancy in every country where there is a public health system and public pensions, it's incredible not to see how obvious that is. They would gain even with 0 vice taxes; with vice taxes they DOUBLE DIP on the people living in unhealthy way.
They take the excise taxes (which have NO pigouvian justification) AND they save on health & pensions.
They're correlated. If one is modifable then both are.
The difference is that living longer is considered to be a good thing. Nothing to do with economics
Age is not modifiable. Tomorrow I will be one day older than I am today, and there is nothing I can do about that.
Weight however, is modifiable. The number of calories I consume today, minus the amount of activity I do, will directly be reflected in how much I weight I gain or lose tomorrow.
The only way they are correlated is that as we age, our basal metabolic rate slows. However, this explains only a small amount of the variance of weight gain as we age, and of course can be modified by consuming less food or increasing activity.
We're talking about life expectancy and of course ifs modifable
My GP even tells me what mine is and how much I could increase it with by being less fat
We're talking about life expectancy and of course ifs modifable
My GP even tells me what mine is and how much I could increase it with by being less fat
Fair enough life expectancy =/= age
GP sounds like they know what they are talking about, except of course you can only increase the probability of living longer.
The NHS might save money - although even this is not entirely clear - but the government as a whole (and therefore taxpayers) definitely won't. The reason is increased life expectency and costs associated with it (pensions and end of life care predominantly) far outscale the savings in direct healthcare costs for treating the related illnesses/diseases.
The only arguments that come close to justifying these sorts of things are based on lost productivity but at that point you're getting into socie
Lots of this article make sense- except for wiping off the costs of lost taxation (which admittedly dont seem included) and it does include the revenues of the vice tax
Its not the best paper but addresses some of my concerns
Would you suggest no vice taxes?
One step at a time
we discussed the purported 2-tiering sentencing and here it looks very bad, is it all made up?
https://x.com/aaronsibarium/status/18259...
someone assumed to be a white supremacist getting jail for white supremacist stickers, when a proved pedo in possession of child pornography doesn't? same judge they say made the 2 decisions.
Article at the end of the thread has all the sources, did they make it all up or in the Uk it's actually considered a lot worse to be a white supremacist than to possess child pornography?
