The QUALITY of Life Issue
How would you define the quality of life? How can civilizations retain the highest quality of life imaginable? How does the correlation between socioeconomics & population to quality of life?Quality of life is a very individual animal.
It dwells in all of us and we all define it our own way.
For some it is the convenience of close distance to necessities for life, for some it is to live like independent eremits in remote places.
Some enjoy being TV couch potatoes and some enjoy a choice of concert halls and opera houses in close vincinity.
Quality of life is about the freedom of making a choice. This requires that you have choices and that you know about choices.
Quality of life is about balancing responsibilites and freedom with our own indiviual set of priorities. (This work/life balance stuff).
Chances and choices can overwhelm people and make their life miserable. These people probably find this discussion void.
And there is this cultural touch. Quality of life definition is probably perceived differently in America, in Europe, in Asia.
When an American collegue visited us at home, he asked why we didn´t have a pool. My answer, we don´t need one because it takes me 5 minutes by bike and i find a lovely lake or river to swim in. We all do it and it is our understanding of active quality of life - And there the responsibility part kicks in: On one hand no pool cleaning - on the other hand we had to teach our children and grandchildren to swim as early in life as possible, too much water and sandbeaches around without access restriction.
In central China i observed thousands of people in all ages in the evenings doing a mixture of line dancing and shadow boxing on public squares. I had the impression this improved their quality of life. Strongly individual Americans or Europeans would look at this as military drill.Wow, that sums it up very eloquently.
Thinking about your American pool vs German lake/river example, reminded me of when our Australian cousins visited us a few years ago, and in discussion how they stressed that in Australia you can’t go anywhere without a car, because it’s such a vast country; while in contrast I don’t drive because I don’t need to. If I want to go anywhere locally I just walk, cycle or hop on a bus, so I don’t have the hassle and stress of owning a car, or the stress of driving in busy city traffic – not driving, to me, is a good ‘quality of life’.Yes indeed - part of quality of life is that you have a choice. If you don´t have much to choose from (like your Australian relatives and cars) then where is quality of life? Then there is no freedom, at least not in this particular aspect.
Just to illustrate of what my view on quality of life is. I recently bought this leasure property on a river https://www.haus-am-weserstrand-elsfleth.de/bilder.html
And our immediate surrounding looks like this https://www.natur-erlebnis-kanutouren-h … b594cef055
What do we need a pool for?
Of course everybody can find his/her own quality of life.Nice, beautiful scenic views - which is what I call quality of life: It reminds me a bit of living in Uley, in the Cotswolds and roaming the hills as a kid; https://youtu.be/dX9tkYvHCSQ
My thoughts on the quality of life tend to be holistic. I tend to ascribe to the "comfortable in one's own skin" philosophy. Putting much emphasis on social, emotional, psychological, and physical well-being.
In my view, I feel in order for our civilization to thrive we need to respect individuals as having the right to be individuals, and not hope to create an all-for-one mindset. Let all find a level, that offers an individual quality of life... Promote education, self-reliance, and the rewards they offer. Set forth dynamics that stimulate growth, and development,
within our system.
relation between expectationsworth repeating:
" ... in order for our civilization to thrive we need to respect individuals as having the right to be individuals, and not hope to create an all-for-one mindset. Let all find a level, that offers an individual quality of life... Promote education, self-reliance, and the rewards they offer. Set forth dynamics that stimulate growth, and development,
within our system." Sharlee01.
From a European perspective it’s focused on the ‘work/life’ balance e.g. flexible working and plenty of paid annual leave so that people are not slave to their job but can balance it with their home, family and social life.
These videos help to sum it up:-
Creating a flexible working culture at John Lewis Partnership and Ford UK: https://youtu.be/2Qs0EL6JWD0
A new work culture - flexibility and unlimited vacation in the Richard Branson UK Business Empire: https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0
Richard Branson, a multi billionaire in 2020 is ranked the world’s 330th wealthiest person.The Quality of life is 100% subjective, and differs for every person.
A "starving" artist (figurative, not literal) may be ecstatic with only their basic physical needs met...as long as they can paint or carve to their heart's content.
Another person may feel that world travel is what keeps them happy, with a great quality of life.
A third may want a half dozen young voices surrounding them, with their "socioeconomic" plight at the bottom of their personal priority list.
All while a fourth leans back in his recliner, beer in hand and a TV blaring for 12 hours a day, and finds that "Life is good!"
And the fifth finds that only a boatload of money will keep him happy, with a good quality of life.
It is different for every person, and is not necessarily tied to how wealthy one is.Yep, spot on; the quality of life is 100% subjective, and does certainly differ for every person. I once got chatting with a tramp in Bristol, a friendly chap who was popular with the university students from the nearby Bristol University, and he was happy being a tramp, he wouldn’t want it any other way!
Yep, for most people, provided they have enough money to pay the bills then wealth has little to do with happiness.
A lot of my enjoyment (satisfaction) comes from growing enough vegetables organically in our back garden to feed us all year round, and from recycling material to be creative with DIY etc. Before I took early retirement, being able to take lots of time off work to do these things was a happy medium (well balance work/life experience).I love my time with family, and I very much enjoy travel, particularly off to nature and away from cities and towns. Although I used to backpack in, at my age a motorhome provides a better experience - something you Europeans would have a hard time matching. Just too many people and not enough open land, not to mention the price of gasoline over there!
Yep, family quality time is very precious, something to be valued.
Yep, a motorhome is a cool way to enjoy travel; and yes, the cost of petrol (gasoline) is very expensive in Europe – but that doesn’t stop people from traveling, including taking to the roads to explore the countryside.
Yeah, we may have a higher population density on an island much smaller than the USA, but you’d be surprised how much open space, void of people, that there is in Britain. We always take three holidays (vacations) a year - and that includes quiet countryside as much as it includes sea and sand.
You are right, it would be difficult to explore the English countryside in a motorhome, but that’s not because of the high petrol (gasoline) price (which people are prepared to pay), nor because of the lack of open land (because there is a lot of quiet open land in Britain); it’s because not only do you need a driving license to carry passengers in order to drive a large motorhome, but also because British roads (especially in the countryside) are very narrow.
The maximum size motorhome that you can drive on a car license in the UK is 3.8 tons in weight.
This short video is of two Americans touring Britain in a motorhome (quite entertaining to watch): https://youtu.be/mbqYNiTBEWQ
This is a video I did of a day trip we had, while on holiday, to a quiet beach in Cornwall: https://youtu.be/1QjzMsn5Iyw
And here, one of the nature reserves we visited in West Yorkshire; the only people you see on the video is my wife and son e.g. the English countryside is not seething with people as you seem to imagine. https://youtu.be/25u0rgB7jMoThe video of the Americans prompted a thought and a speculation.
Relative to the instances of vehicles pulling over for the RV on those really narrow roads: the thought was a nod to my general perception that you folks are a polite bunch. Of course, most of the instances were probably due to knowledge of the road and pull-over opportunities, i.e. self-interest, but still . . .
The speculation was about the same situation but with Americans in both vehicles. It brought some funny mental images.
GAI completely understood your comment, and giggled a little at it. But then reflection took over; I have been on many mountain roads that required a car to pull over, doubly so for an oncoming motorhome. And I've never had a problem on them, perhaps because the people that drive in those areas are a little different, and more likely to just want to get along.
I have the same experience. However, the roads in the video looked like they carried a lot more traffic than the roads you mention.
GAYeah, the country roads in Britain a fairly quiet, but they do get daily traffic. Your feedback reminded me of while on holiday in Cornwall a few years ago we made a day trip to a local fishing village (population 534) where the roads are very narrow and steep, and at one point my wife got temporarily stuck at the bottom of the hill in the village (and that was in a small car); but a local came to the rescue: As can be seen in this video clip: https://youtu.be/tLGCR6gEsgc?t=740
If you watch the video I think you might agree that it’s one village that you wouldn’t want to be driving in regularly; but if you lived there it certainly is scenic, quiet and peaceful.
We do get ‘road rage’ in the UK (like any other country); but yes generally, British people tend to be quite tolerant and polite.
In Europe (and Britain), as well as hand signals e.g. waving your hand to say “thank you”, drivers also use flashing headlights to communicate with each other - for example, to let you know that the other driver is stopping so that you can proceed at a junction, or on a narrow road; or the other driver letting you know that there are police ahead etc.
Do have a similar way for drivers to communicate with each other on American roads?Pretty much the same. Maybe a wave, maybe a headlight flash. That one is declining some as headlites are staying on all the time more and more, but is still there.
Thanks for the feedback; then I guess such communications are universal - which is a good thing.
In the distance past when a primary 5 school dropout went to driving school to learn driver-mechanic in Nigeria for a year, such modest hand or flash communication were taken seriously. But nowadays, when one went to learn driving for just 3 days or a week because of impatience, the result is accident.
Yep, same stuff—amongst us elderly. To 'channel' my grandfather; 'Young folks today are too busy to be bothered.' Their thing is the horn and the bird.
GAUsing your horn in Britain is considered to be ‘impolite/’rude’; so people tend not to use their horns over here.
Yep, in non-warning instances, I also think the horn is rude. My wife disagrees she thinks the horn is her voice.
GA
In Hawaii, there is an interesting custom. On the relatively unpopulated big island, the "main drag" roadway to and from Pahoa Hi. frequently had sobriety stops serviced by the police. The trick was that two flashes of the headlights from oncoming vehicles would warn you that there was a sobriety point ahead, so either be sober or take a back road off from the main road before you would reach it.
Hawaii reminded one of an extended family, so the kinds of violence my wife complains about here on the "mainland" is not as easily found there.We don't have sobriety stops as such in Britain, except for perhaps over the Christmas period. But yes, "two flashes of the headlights from oncoming vehicles to warn you that there are police ahead" is a common practice in the UK and across Europe.
One incident I remember well is when we were on holiday in France. These days, when on holiday we rely on our Sat-Nav stuck on the bottom of our windscreen; which is normally fine. But in France, it is illegal to use a Sat Nav that can identify speed cameras, which British sat-navs do do because it's not illegal in Britain.
So when driving along on a French road, several French cars in a row flashed us, we took the hint, pulled over in a layby, and hid our sat-nav from view; and sure enough, just a couple of miles further down the road was the French police doing spot checks - They stopped the French car in front of us, and waved us on.
Wilderness, I agreed entirely with you. The quality of life is always differdnt from each individual. Should it be defined academically cum scientiically, not enough open resources can go into the definition. For example, will the definitions taken into account the micro-nutrients in the forest ground, in the river bed, and certain veges in the plant kingdom? Did the quality of life took normal exercise into consideration? Some persons has live past 100 years and still going on strong, healthy, and keep their senses. When such not relate to me past away it worries me. We lost tremedous information into the grave. I at times only get few facts from their obituary flier.
Do you think that having freedom is also a factor in quality of life?
I once met a very wealthy man who felt rather trapped by his wealth. He was an interesting person to talk with about this subject. He told me he didn't feel he actually owned his cars and homes, but rather, they owned him. He worked insane hours to maintain his image and lifestyle.Yep, and I know people who have little income and wealth but very happy in life. It all supports the idea that "money can't buy happiness".
It all depends on the motivation factor of each individual.
We follow a stimulus from within ourselves. Each person has a different stimulus. A very unique stimulus.
No government can give quality of life directly. What gives "Quality of Life?"
Freedom
Without freedom, there is no stimulus, no interest, no ambition, no love, no joy.
Consider and respect the inner life of each and every person from birth on.
The government needs to protect its citizenry from injustice. Even the government must be held in check so tyranny does not threaten the people and when it does, tyranny must be hated ...
and dealt with.
Until then, The president and all the politicians who have been elected by the people must remember who elected them and W H Y !
Elected politicians must understand the people and their motivation factors.
Basically, we are all motivated to survive. The basics of life must be met.
The ability to survive on one's own is accomplished by freely networking, producing/marketing goods and serving others. The urge to survive for self and loved ones must be facilitated.
Freedom and Justice for All is the way.
Anything wrong with F R E E D O M and J U S T I C E ?Picking up on your point, where you say “The president and all the politicians who have been elected by the people must remember who elected them and W H Y !”
Why do ‘the people’ elect politicians? You seem to be inferring that ‘the people’ elect politicians for ‘freedom’?
Freedom and justice are issues that have to be fought for in the ballot box, in the courts and in the streets; but in a free democratic society they are not the main issues that politicians are elected on.
The reasons ‘the people’ elect politicians are wide and varied; and which issues you vote for, to varying degrees, depends on your politics and social class and age. Below (not including Brexit) are the main issues that were important to 'the people' when they elected their politicians in our last General Election in the UK in 2019; the table below gives the percentage of voters for each issue where they thought that issue was important, giving their politics and social stature.
As you can see, it’s a complex picture; and neither freedom nor justice appear as the 13 most important issues to ‘the people’ of Britain when they were electing their politicians. Being Britain, the NHS (National Health Service) was the most important political issue, and tax was one of the least important issues.
1. NHS = 40% (By politics: Conservative = 32%, Labour = 54%, Liberal Democrats = 52%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 42%, Working Class = 37%)
2. Crime = 28% (By politics: Conservative = 36%, Labour = 25%, Liberal Democrats = 20%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 25%, Working Class = 32%)
3. Environment = 25% (By politics: Conservative = 12%, Labour = 36%, Liberal Democrats = 46%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 29%, Working Class = 21%)
4. Economy = 25% (By politics: Conservative = 30%, Labour = 24%, Liberal Democrats = 28%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 29%, Working Class = 20%)
5. Immigration = 22% (By politics: Conservative = 33%, Labour = 7%, Liberal Democrats = 7%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 19%, Working Class = 26%)
6. Education = 14% (By politics: Conservative = 9%, Labour = 20%, Liberal Democrats = 21%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 16%, Working Class = 10%)
7. Housing = 14% (By politics: Conservative = 12%, Labour = 23%, Liberal Democrats = 13%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 13%, Working Class = 15%)
8. Welfare Benefits = 9% (By politics: Conservative = 5%, Labour = 17%, Liberal Democrats = 7%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 7%, Working Class = 10%)
9. Defence = 8% (By politics: Conservative = 12%, Labour = 2%, Liberal Democrats = 5%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 8%, Working Class = 8%)
10. Pensions = 5% (By politics: Conservative = 6%, Labour = 4%, Liberal Democrats = 5%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 5%, Working Class = 6%)
11. Family Life = 4% (By politics: Conservative = 1%, Labour = 5%, Liberal Democrats = 2%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 4%, Working Class = 4%)
12. Tax = 4% (By politics: Conservative = 3%, Labour = 6%, Liberal Democrats = 3%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 4%, Working Class = 4%)
13. Transport = 2% (By politics: Conservative = 2%, Labour = 1%, Liberal Democrats = 3%) (By Social Group: Middle Class = 2%, Working Class = 2%)
Very interesting.
So, in Britain, politicians are elected to bring about National healthcare, deal with crime and address these other issues as well: Environmental, economic, immigration, education, housing, welfare, pensions, defense, taxation and transportation.
The royal family does not have to worry about any of these things as they are provided for ...
Right?No, politicians are not elected in Britain to bring about National Healthcare; we already have it – it’s called the NHS (National Health Service).
According to opinion polls over 87% of the British public are proud of the NHS; in fact, as Britain is a ‘Secular Society’ the NHS has been called “the closest thing the British have to a religion”.
The reason the NHS is always the main issue in any General Election in the UK is because it’s ‘State owned and State funded (pure socialism) e.g. universal healthcare FREE to ALL at the Point of Use; and thus is contrary to right-wing political ethos, but for a Conservative Government to dismantle the NHS would be political suicide; because of the NHS's popularity with Conservative voters, it would be political suicide for any Conservative Government not to show support for the NHS.
So in any General Election the Labour Party can score political points with the voters by attacking the Conservatives on their handling of the NHS e.g. accusing the Conservatives of cutting public spending on the NHS; and so as to not loose votes the Conservatives have to defend themselves by convincing the general public that they are investing more in the NHS - Hence why the NHS is always the biggest issue in General Elections.
This short video may put things into perspective: https://youtu.be/bDdZCv5v2Rg
As regards the rest of your first point; yes, in Britain, politicians are elected to deal with issues relating to crime, Environment, economics, immigration, education, housing, welfare, pensions, defence, taxation and transportation (and other issues) – which is what politics is all about e.g. you elect the politicians who best represent your views and interests, which includes all of the above, and more.
As regards the royal family, that’s a different discussion; but one point of interest, FYI the royal family does use the NHS, and the present King is very keen on environmental issues (he always has been).Just curious, but do you see a fairly constant effort to expand the NHS to cover more, provide more services or more workers?
Or are the large majority of people satisfied and happy with what the NHS provides them (what percentage of people buy additional health insurance)? Are they pleased with what it costs them, or is that figure a virtual unknown to the majority of people?Less than 11% of the UK population has some form of private medical insurance. In the UK private healthcare only covers you for non-emergency treatment and care; so regardless to how wealthy you are (including the Royal Family), if you have a serious illness or need emergency care then there is only the NHS.
The average private health insurance in the UK costs £1,115 ($1,380) per year; but as it only covers non-emergency and non-serious illness most people think private health insurance is just a waste of money.
Yeah, there is always a fairly constant effort to expand the NHS to cover more, provide more services and more workers; which is why the NHS with 1.4 million employees is one of the largest employers in the world.
Examples of the NHS expanding to cover more services includes:-
• 1958 Dysphoria and Polio vaccinations were rolled out nationally.
• 1960 the contraceptive pill was given first to married women, then all women who wanted it; including under age children.
• 1978 the NHS did the world’s first test tube baby (Louise Brown).
• 1979 the UK’s first heart transplant.
• 1980 pioneering use of keyhole surgery.
• 2002 the first gene therapy.
And the NHS hospital (Southmead Hospital) where I spent three weeks in 2021 is a modern hospital rebuilt in 2014. The build cost to the Government of this new hospital in Bristol was £430 million ($533 million).
Tour of Southmead Hospital, Bristol, where I spent three weeks in 2021: https://youtu.be/741SRxcCozU
There are currently 1,257 NHS hospitals in the UK, and in the Conservatives Election Manifesto of 2019 they promised to build an additional 40 by 2030, currently 33 of the 40 promised new hospitals have completion dates; which for a Conservative Government is quite an achievement – But then, if they’re not seen in keeping their promise, they’ll lose valuable votes at the next General Election (which is less than two years away).
And yes, the large majority of people are satisfied and happy with what the NHS provides them e.g. in opinion poll after opinion poll around 87% of the British public is proud of the NHS. Albeit there is always room for improvement, and when the NHS doesn’t meet its targets e.g. keeping average waiting times for non-emergency patients at A&E (Accident and Emergency) to less than 4 hours, then it’s the Government that gets the blame from the public, not the NHS.
Long waiting times for non-emergency treatment at A&E is where the NHS is the victim of its own success; remembering that everything in the NHS is free to all at the point of use:
To briefly explain:-
In the UK A&E (Accident and Emergency) is a service most hospitals offer, whereby you can turn up at the hospital for any reason, and without notice, or without an appointment, to get medical treatment within 4 hours. A&E is also intended for Emergency e.g. an ambulance brings in a patient seriously injured in a car accident, or you hopping into A&E by foot because you’ve slipped on ice and broke your leg etc.
As soon as you report to reception in A&E the staff divide you into one of two groups; emergency and non-emergency; and emergencies are dealt with by the hospital immediately – while non-emergency patients have to sit and wait their turn.
The NHS would prefer it if people only turned up at A&E in a real emergency; and if it’s not an emergency that you instead visited your doctor or one of the walk-in centres that can deal with simple non-emergency accidents (without an appointment or notice), such as a sprained ankle.
But A&E will never turn anyone away, no matter how trivial the reason for visiting A&E.
This short humorous animation ‘public educational video’ by the NHS explains in more detail: https://youtu.be/ffT1orYXdcIAnother example of the expansion of the NHS service is the 111 service introduced in 2014.
111 is a free telephone service that operates 24/7, 365 days a year; that is designed for non-urgent medical advice e.g. in emergencies you would dial 999.
The medical advisors who operate the 111 service will give you sound medical advice, including whether you should see your doctor; and if during the course of your conversation with the operator on 111 they conclude that it’s an emergency, they will automatically call for an ambulance (which is free) for you.
The 111 is a great (free) service that I and my wife use a lot; and it saves us having to bother our doctor over trivial matters.
Call 111 when it's not a 999 emergency: https://youtu.be/UwYmC1YK1vE
Also, when I was fit and healthy I hardly ever saw a doctor; but now I’m retired, even when I feel fine I get annual letters from my doctor asking me to have my annual check-up – which when all the tests comes back negative gives me reassurance.
I would appreciate it if Harry could get it together and act like a real human being.
He has come this far, now come all the way.
Accept the freedom you now have in America.
Accept the justice you now have in America, find a job and enjoy yourself!
Your one simple Self.
Your mistake was to join up with an American social climber.
She is one who takes it all for granted, appreciates nothing and manufactures illusions for the sake of her ambitions and greed. There are no boundaries to her greed. If Harry wants to be happy, he better give his wife a good talking to.
Its the problem of freedom without the boundaries provided by love for goodness, fairness and God."The ability to survive on one's own is accomplished by freely networking, producing/marketing goods and serving others."
The government's true role is to protect each citizen's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
... see that word P R O T E C T ?In America, we expect our politicians to protect our rights, not give what we ourselves are able to provide for ourselves.
In America, we care about keeping taxes low and prefer not to give the government ALL of our profits.Why is it so important to keep taxes so low in the USA; and when all considered, is it really that much different anyway?
In previous forums I’ve tried to compare the two tax systems in context, and although in absolute terms you do pay less ‘income tax’ in the USA, when you take other factors into consideration the picture becomes murkier!
The highest rate of income tax in the USA is 37% if you earn over $523,000. In the UK, it’s 45% if you earn over £150k ($185,000). Although the average worker’s income tax in the UK is only 20%, and people’s earning less than $17,296 in the UK pay no income tax.
However, in many USA states you also have to pay State taxes, albeit some States pay nothing, but in New York for example the State tax can be an additional 8.8%. We don’t have State taxes in the UK; the only local government tax we have in the UK is a small tax on property if you own your own home e.g. equivalent to about 1% of the value of the property.
The UK equivalent to the USA Sale Tax is 20% on most (but not all) goods and services, albeit it’s only 5% on some goods, with some goods being exempt from tax; whereas in the USA, dependent on the State, the Sales tax can be anything up to around 8%.
Even after all that, the UK probably has only a slightly higher tax burden (unless you own a large property in a high property tax state like New Jersey). But, remember, in the USA, you’ve got to pay for healthcare on top of that, whereas in the UK healthcare is FREE - the tax we pay in the UK pays for the NHS, and the social services you can avail of in the USA are far more limited than those in the UK. And there’s far more ‘free’ cultural stuff in the UK that taxes pay for.
So in conclusion there probably isn’t a great deal of difference in the standard of living and quality of life, and freedom of choice between European/UK countries and the USA.
Although, while researching this subject, I did come across an interesting article on the Internet which most all Americans will no doubt disagree with vehemently, but as an outsider rings very true!
https://www.quora.com/Which-country-pay … -or-the-UKWhere I said above “And there’s far more ‘free’ cultural stuff in the UK that taxes pay for.” Just for a couple of examples, and only the first example is paid for by taxes:-
1. All national museums in the UK are Free, and
2. Most tourist attractions have generous concession rates; which typically are:-
• Concession rates for children, students and Pensioners, and
• Free entry for carers.
A carer in the UK is someone who gets paid by the government to take care of a disabled person. For example my wife gets disability allowance (which is not means tested) from the government because of her bad back, and because I look after my wife for more than 35 hours per week e.g. I do the housework and cooking etc., then I get paid by the government as my wife’s official carer; which means that when we pay to see any tourist attraction I get in free (and my wife gets in at a concessionary rate because she’s retired).
Not means tested means that anyone with a disability that makes mobility difficult e.g. a bad back gets the disability allowance regardless to income – which means that wealthy people also qualify for the disability allowance – which is a maximum of over $11,000 per year (for severally disabled people). Of course, with just a bad back my wife only gets half that – but even so, it’s not a trivial amount, especially considering that my wife is retired (early retirement) so not yet reached State Pension age e.g. just her works pensions, so she doesn’t pay any income tax.
UK Disability Allowance (Personal Independence Payment) Explained: https://youtu.be/njpi1zLUui4I don't think you are being realistic in your numbers. The median family income in the US is $70,000, of which the first $28,000 is not taxed. Each child can get a tax credit (reducing the tax owed) by about $2,000. So that family owes taxes on $42,000, or about $4600, less the $4,000 child tax credit. $4,200 total.
But then there are other deductions. Child care, mortgage interest, medical bills, etc.
So 4200 - for federal tax. Rather than taking the biggest state tax rates, look at more reasonable ones. My state wants 6%, after deductions, or about $2,400 for this hypothetical family. Sales tax is 6%, but does not include rent, house purchase or food - the total might be in the neighborhood of $2400 (if 40,000 is spent). Total tax is iin the neighborhood of $9,000 for a family of 4 earning the median wage of $70,000. Plus property tax - mine is under $2,000 per year for a common quality/size home. My income tax will be some $1,000 less because the wife and I are both over 65.
If I'm reading your numbers right the tax in the UK on that income would be about double that. And isn't there some kind of NHS tax as well?
And yes, we have free federal museums and such. The young and old generally get concessions as well.
But beyond all that I've worked on this before and gave up; the tax laws in both countries are so varied and so many that it becomes almost impossible unless that tax is calculated for a specific family in a specific location with specific spending habits.Yep, you are absolutely right in saying “the tax laws in both countries are so varied and so many that it becomes almost impossible unless that tax is calculated for a specific family in a specific location with specific spending habits.”
Nevertheless, I’ll work with the examples you’ve given and see what transpires for a UK comparison; it should be an interesting exercise:
Taking your example of a median family with two children (and with both couples in full time employment); in the UK their median family gross income would be £66,560 ($82,676). But more realistically, especially if the children were young, the mother would either be a full-time mother or working part time – so the family income is likely to be much lower than quoted above!
But assuming both were working full time on the mean average wage; then the first $15,631 of each of their earnings is ‘tax free’; thereafter they each would pay NI tax (for the NHS and State Pension) of 12% plus income tax of 20% (32% in total on that portion of their income that is taxable); so in other words, between them they would pay £13,254 ($16,463) in tax per year – Reducing their joint disposable income (income after tax) to $66,213 per annum.
So in your example, your hypothetical family would pay around $4,200 in income tax per year; whereas in my example the UK hypothetical family would pay around $16,463 in tax on income per year; but a big difference is that in the UK we don’t have expensive medicals bills e.g. universal healthcare in the UK is all free at the point of use. According to Google, the average means medical insurance in the USA is $13,824, and so when that figure is added to the equation taking health and tax into account, the overall tax difference between our two examples is just people in the USA paying $1,361 more in tax and medical insurance than people pay in the UK.
In the UK it’s not tax credit, but child benefit that parents get for their children e.g. the government pays the mother for the children she has; the child benefit in the UK being £1,133.60 for the first child and £751.40 for each subsequent child; so for two children child benefit would total £1,885 ($2,341). That is less than the $2,000 you quoted per child in the USA, but in the UK education is free until the age of 18, and although childcare is not free, in the UK the government will pay up to 85% of the cost of childcare, which makes it affordable for the mother to go back to work, in full time employment if she so wishes.
So taking child benefit into account, this hypothetical family’s disposable income then increases to $68,554. And taking into the $13,824 that it doesn’t have to pay in medical health insurance, so then the family suddenly becomes quite wealthy, even if they do have to pay 20% sales tax on their food bill.
As I own my own home my property tax is just under £2,400 per year, a little more than the $2,000 that you quote for the USA. But where you say “But then there are other deductions. Child care, mortgage interest, medical bills, etc.” – In the UK the government will pay up to 85% of the cost of childcare, and we have no medical bills (which in itself saves a small fortune). But yes, if you buy your own home (as we did) you have the mortgage interests, but if you rent there is no property tax to pay, and if you are on a low income or unemployed then your local government will pay your rent for you.
Your State want 6% on your net income, and sales tax is 6% (total 12%); whereas in the UK we don’t have anything like the State tax, but our sales tax is 20% on most goods, including food; but obviously doesn’t include house purchase or rent.
Like you, as my wife and I are retired we no longer pay the 12% NI tax on income (to cover the cost of the NHS & State Pensions), and thus the taxes we now pay on income is minimal; and of course we don’t have any medical insurance, or medical bills, or any co-pays to worry about either, as the NHS (including prescriptions) is free at the point of use.
Notwithstanding that, as with the USA, people on low income don’t pay any tax anyway; for clarity, the 12% NI tax on income paid for by the average wage earner drops down to 2% tax for high wage earners; unlike the income tax which increases for high wage earners.
But all things conserved, it all seems to be swings and roundabouts, making it very difficult to make any real comparisons, unless you’re someone who’s lived and worked in both Europe and the USA for any length of time.
But I guess, the important thing is that regardless to whether you’re American or European, we all enjoy a high standard of living that one expects these days in free democratic countries.
Low taxes is the ideal. Giving away your money to the government is not.
It's as simple as that.
Do the math.Yes, when I do the maths I don't have any hefty medical bills or medical insurance to worry about because it's all paid for through the taxes.
When I do the maths, I get FREE Healthcare; it's as simple at that.
Besides, now that my wife and I are retired (early retirement) we pay hardly any taxes, yet we still get all the benefits of the taxes we paid when we were working e.g. FREE Universal Healthcare, and now I've reached State Retirement age, a generous State pension on top of my excellent works pension - Plus my wife gets paid by the government because of her back back (disability allowance).
So when you do the maths, what you get in exchange for paying a little more in tax, when you're working and can afford it, is well worth every penny later in life when you most need help e.g. free universal healthcare, Good State Pensions, and other social and welfare benefits, including the disability allowance.I've said it before. Should I said it over and over again? Why? Because the British Conservative Labour government seems to be best as far as working and retirement benefits are concern.
Yeah, the Labour (Socialist) Government introduced the NHS and Welfare system we have in Britian in 1948; and as much as Conservative (capitalist) governments since have tried to undermine the social and welfare system, they've made little progress because the people (including the majority of Conservative voters) believe in the British Social and Welfare system.
Social welfare systems work better in small countries where distribution is more easily controlled and monitored. Not a big democratic republic like ours. The Federal government manages the tax money very badly beccause the money ends up getting being doled out to the doler-outers ... and the dolees end up with little. The dole-contributers only see a smidgen of what they were promised, when they voted for a tax increase for a particular benefit.
How many people are happy with the health system which has developed here?
Wondering.
In my case, before Obama, I had great healthcare which I was able to provide for myself/could afford. I chose exactly what doctor and where. I was motivated to stay healthy and steer clear of doctors/hospitals.
My daughter tells me everyone she knows is always going to the doctor and is on some kind of medication. How come?
Q. Are people in Britain VERY healthy?In answer to your question “Are people in Britain VERY healthy”.
It’s a relative question, but compared to the rest of the world, not too bad; for example:-
OBESITY
• 13% of the world population is obese
• 25.9% are obese in England
• 41.9% are obese in USA
Free NHS Digital Weight Management Programme to tackle obesity in England: https://youtu.be/tjQIQB3zBkc
LONGEVITY
The longevity is a sign of the health of the nation:-
• UK Longevity = 81.77 years (ranked 29th in the world)
• USA longevity = 79.11 years (ranked 46th in the world)
People in the UK live on average 2.66 years longer than Americans.
https://www.worldometers.info/demograph … xpectancy/Where you say: “I had great healthcare which I was able to provide for myself/could afford. I chose exactly what doctor and where. I was motivated to stay healthy and steer clear of doctors/hospitals.”
It’s the same in the UK, we chose exactly what doctor we want and where e.g. since we’ve been married we’ve changed our doctor’s practice three times (all within walking distance of where we live), and the current doctor’s practice we’re with, we are very satisfied with.
When I was younger I too was motivated to stay healthy and steer clear of doctors and hospitals. But now that I’m that much older (retirement age) I’m grateful for the medical service we have (all free), especially when I was rushed to hospital in an ambulance in 2021, and then spent three weeks in hospital recovering (all free). And because of my age e.g. over 60, I get lots of text messages and phone calls from my doctor’s practice asking me to pop in for various health checks; which is all reassuring when all the results come back negative (and it’s all free).
And none of it is what “I was able to provide for myself/could afford”; because in the UK it’s all free, and thus affordable to all.
This American, in the video below, gives an open minded view on the subject:-
American Reacts to the NHS: https://youtu.be/Bk8zKyQtcdQ
Well, yeah; under your present political and cultural system universal healthcare at the point of use wouldn’t work. But it’s not to do with size, such a system could be scaled up in a modular way, like it is in the UK e.g. we don’t just have a UK National Health, we have National Health England, National Health Scotland, National Health Wales and National Health Northern Ireland; and in the case of National Health Scotland the Scottish Socialist Government has impute into the running of the NHS in Scotland, including pay to some extent, but ultimately it’s the UK Government that has overall control.
The biggest expensive in the American health system is all the insurance companies creaming off huge profits for their shareholders; the NHS system cuts out the middle man (insurance companies) altogether, which cuts costs and increases efficiency at a stroke.
That would make everyone happy, whether rich or poor. Is not it? But tax as a tool to provide money to capitalistic, or democratic govdrnment, for development is not well understand by the average person.
Folks,
High taxes, low taxes, high income, low income, expensive health care, free education...
What is all this good for to evaluate quality of life for average working citizen?
Comes to mind how long people have to work to get their share of prosperity? Because if you only live to work and have no leasure time, where is the freedom of choice on what you do in your time off to improve your quality of life?
I ran into this link and i almost couldn´t believe the stats.
https://www.instarem.com/blog/are-you-w … ou-should/
If i follow the statistics, then average German or UK worker finishes his/her year work in the middle of october, while American friends have to work all year long.
Who has a chance of choosing his way of life? The person with little leasure time or someone with a 3 day work week.
I believe these average numbers mentioned in the link above are not coming out of nowhere. The numbers express the need for average employed persons in respective countries to meet ends with their monthly salary. If you don´t have enough then you work more, longer, on weekends, fewer holidays...
Just saying..Work is not something to avoid. It is the joy of life. Work is one's control over their life and prosperity. Work is the way to get what we want. Work is an expression of self, the fulfillment of ambition, the means to personal fulfillment and self actualization.
The reality is that WORK is the answer to so many problems.
If you don't mind having problems galore, don't work ...
and instead, hate it/avoid it.No one is suggesting we shouldn’t work; the message is that if people spend most of their waking day working, then they have little spare time outside of work to be with their family and to enjoy any leisure time.
In the UK and Germany, and many other countries, people spend far less time being a slave to their work than Americans do; and thus Europeans have far more leisure time to enjoy life – hence a better quality of life.
For example, when my wife and I were working full time, we used to have three holidays (vacations) each year; two 1-week holidays in England, and one 2-week holiday in France and Belgium; plus several long weekends away, and day trips - so when all added up that's 5 or 6 weeks vacation (holiday) per year.
How many Americans take 5 or 6 weeks vacation (paid leave) from work each year to travel? That's what I call a good 'quality of life' e.g. a good 'work/life' balance.Leisure time is wasted time, unless resting for more blessed work.
Vacations are work too, when you think about it.
"Slavery" is not when you yourself chose what you do and believe in what you do.
Conscious planning and choosing of one's life path is the important thing. Not paying the government to give you leisure time, free museum trips, free medical checkups when you are totally healthy and time off for quality of life, etc.!Kateryn, don't you make up time to go to the river and swim with a friend or two? Don't you ever visit the zoo to watch rare animals and birds? It's relaxing and a tonic for more work.
Of course! Why do you ask? I do not classify outings, holidays and camping and travel, etc. as leisure. I happily pay for my own outings.
I don't need the government to pay for my visit to the museum or what I chose to do in my free time. Leisure to me is lounging about doing nothing, which is the true nature of rest.But what's wrong in government in giving you a bonus for a vacation trip? It has it's history. In Nigeria, it all started with the British Government or British West Africa Civil Service. If I don't work in the Civil Service (CS) I wouldn't know. For example, some Ghananians, Sierra Leonenians, Gambians, and Liberians work in Nigeria, as part of CS under the British Government (BG). Leave bonus, in the form of travel grants were paid to facilitate these foreigners to travel to they home town and back happily as the leave ends. Actually, this benefits was copy and extended to the CS from the British Military Service. It's still applicable within the Nigerian CS. It's institute to keep workers happy and productive. But if you're self-employed as I infer, you're on your own and good to go. Thanks.
The government cannot be trusted with your money. You can trust yourself with your money. If not, I feel very very sorry for you.
where is all our tax money going?
illegal immigrants? Ukraine and war we have nothing to do with?
- all because the government wants to open the borders and empty the coffers? (coffers that WERE filled with the hard earned money of Americans.)
Yeah, our government is using my money wisely to my benefit.
Thanks for that. I am very thankful for what I am witnessing in America right now and it is not my doing. No, but it sure is someone eles'es.
Not sure who.
Some "Firm."If you want to know how your taxes are being spent, I suggest you start with this link:-
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/america … -spending/
... "Slavery" is not when you yourself chose what you do and believe in what you do. ...
If there are only rotten potatoes available, eventually you find them to taste deliciously.
If you have no choice (to meet ends) you make work a feature, not a necessity.
If you don´t know what chances and choices are available in other cirumstances, other countries and societies, you will not be able to test your own quality of life options."Give me liberty or give me death". It is not a meaningless phrase - it expresses a very valid viewpoint.
Yes. Freedom is essential to human happiness. I guess it needs to be spelled out clearly:
Human nature demands freedom.High taxes equates to being forced to work to pay those taxes. If we are demanded to work for the government, (or tricked into it, as they are in China,) yes, I would rather be dead.
In China, there is a movement where some "let it rot." They stop everything and do as little as possible because it all seems so pointless.
https://www.insider.com/chinese-people- … nd-2022-10
Guiding our fee wills toward our own dreams, goals, ambitions and hopes for the future is the stimulus and motivation factor of every individual. We are born to do it by and for ourselves.Where you say: “High taxes equates to being forced to work to pay those taxes.”
It doesn’t actually work that way. I think that most of us will agree that in general taxes in Europe is probably higher than in America; yet Europeans work far fewer hours and have more time off work for leisure e.g. more time for ‘family quality time’ and more time to enjoy vacations.
So if anything, in that respect, Europeans get more freedom to choose how they spend their time.Time they could have spent working toward some goal involving much higher profits than they ended up with. All they ended up with was a bunch of free stuff they don't even need.
PS. The Irish were tyrannized over by the British government:
"The Irish Potato Famine, also known as the Great Hunger, began in 1845 when a mold known as Phytophthora infestans (or P. infestans) caused a destructive plant disease that spread rapidly throughout Ireland. The infestation ruined up to one-half of the potato crop that year, and about three-quarters of the crop over the next seven years.
Because the tenant farmers of Ireland—then ruled as a colony of Great Britain—relied heavily on the potato as a source of food,( HOW COME?) the infestation had a catastrophic impact on Ireland and its population. Before it ended in 1852, the Potato Famine resulted in the death of roughly one million Irish from starvation and related causes, with at least another million forced to leave their homeland as refugees."
(Couldn't they have planted beets and carrots, broccoli and anything else that grows in Ireland to feed the people? Well, yes:)
"Complicating matters further, historians have since concluded that Ireland continued to export large quantities of food, primarily to Great Britain, during the blight. In cases such as livestock and butter, research suggests that exports from Ireland may have actually increased during the Potato Famine.
In 1847 alone, records indicate that commodities such as peas, beans, rabbits, fish and honey continued to be exported from Ireland, even as the Great Hunger ravaged the countryside." https://www.history.com/topics/immigrat … ato-famine
Interesting. The British government apparently used the Irish people to their own advantage, and the disadvantage of the Irish. What a very sad time for the Irish.I would take exception to the statement that "Europeans work far fewer hours and have more time off work for leisure e.g. more time for ‘family quality time’ and more time to enjoy vacations." as well.
According to Google, Europeans work an average of 40.6 hours per week, Brits work 36 hours and Americans 38.7 hours. That's not "far fewer" even if "Europeans" actually means "UK citizens".A fair working hours is all that is needed all over the world.
The International Labour Organization (ILO)
has specified a working hours for member countries. Some countries are yet to compiled.
At a global level, the differing working hours are bad. It only given room for inconvenience.
Nigeria, my country has already compiled some 15 years ago.
Although the potato blot or virus infection took place in the 17th Century, that date is relevant here.
Happy week everyone.The point you're missing is that paid vacation is far more generous in the EU & UK than in the USA e.g. in other words, although Europeans work slightly longer hours per week, once you've deducted all the paid vacation and paid public holidays the actual number of hours a European works per year is significantly less than the number of hours the average American works in a year.
By Law in the EU & UK, every worker has a legal entitlement to six weeks paid vacation from the first day they start a new job; and add a couple of weeks public holidays on top; and already Europeans only 10 months of the year; with two months off each year for leisure time. And that doesn't even include other legal paid time off from work e.g. to see your doctor or dentist and parental leave; in the UK paid maternity leave is 39 weeks (9 months).
Really???? - Where you say “Time they could have spent working toward some goal involving much higher profits than they ended up with. All they ended up with was a bunch of free stuff they don't even need.”
Why would we want to spend more time working, which would lead to less quality time to spend with our families and enjoying life.
Why would we want to earn more money when we already have a respectable standard of living; money doesn’t buy happiness.
Excuse me; the so called ‘free stuff that you say we don’t even need’ includes the NHS (universal healthcare), State Pension, and social and welfare benefits for when people fall on hard times; everyone benefits from these ‘freebees’ (paid for by taxes), including the wealthy. And such a system helps ensure that no one lives in abject poverty.
As regards the Irish Potato famine:
At that time, Ireland was part of the British Empire, and the Irish people were treated with the same disrespect that black people in the West Indies.
At that time the Irish people did not own their land, the land in Ireland belonged to England; and in spite of the famine in Ireland, killing over a million Irish people who died of starvation, all the English was interested in was exploiting the land in Ireland to feed the British during Britain’s war with France – the English grew the food they wanted in Ireland to export to England, and didn’t care that the Irish were left to starve.
The reason the Irish people, on what little land they had to themselves, is that crops such as beets, carrots and broccoli alone take too long to grow; whereas potatoes don’t need much space, don’t need fertile soil, and is a quick growing crop e.g. you can grow a crop of potatoes in just a large clay pot.
And while potatoes grew it was food for the Irish. But not having crystal balls to predict the future; there was no way that the Irish could know that their potato crops were going to be wiped out by disease.
Yes, with the English exploiting the Irish, like they exploited people across the world during the British Empire, it should come as a surprise that 70 years later (in the 1920s) the Irish would fight the English for their freedom, which resulted in southern Ireland gaining its freedom from England and becoming an independent country in its own right; the Republic of Ireland.
With freedom comes relevant choices. Choices taken positively, not as a default.
If it seems there are only rotten potatoes, I would search harder for what appeals.
If the only job in the world is cleaning dog poop in kennels at the humane society, I would rather be a dog walker. I would go to the owners of dogs and pass out my fliers.
Potatoes in Ireland were the only food for awhile because the Irish people were too lazy to plant other vegetables, I would surmise.
In what world are only potatoes available?
Some planet in the solar system where nothing but potatoes grow?
Surely, on that planet the residents know to eat the potatoes before they become smelly/putrid, mushy, rotten lumps.FYI, the reason “potatoes in Ireland were the only food for a while” was NOT “because the Irish people were too lazy to plant other vegetables”; the potato was the only food in Ireland for a while because of exploitation of the Irish by the English: Which within 70 years of the famine in Ireland led to the famous war between Ireland and England in the 1920s that led to the Irish people in southern Ireland gaining their freedom from the English and forming their own independent country – namely the Republic of Ireland.
The reason the Irish became dependent on the potato as their main diet is because the during the Napoleonic wars England used most of the fertile land in Ireland to grow crops to feed the British e.g. exploitation; which left the Irish people with little choice other than to become reliant on potatoes to feed themselves, in what little land they were allowed to use e.g. because the potato is a quick growth crop in a comparatively small space.
And it was unfortunate for the Irish, having become dependent on a single crop because of the exploitation by the English, that the potato crops were wiped out by the ‘potato blight’ (a fungus infection) causing wide spread famine in Ireland from 1845 to 1852.
What? You say “Leisure time is wasted time”, and in another comment above you say “I do not classify outings, holidays and camping and travel, etc. as leisure.”????? And then you go on to say “Leisure to me is lounging about doing nothing”?????
It would seem that we are talking two different languages.
Leisure time is “outings, holidays and camping and travel, etc.”
“Lounging about doing nothing” is NOT leisure time; that is being lazy, wasting your time.leisure
noun
lei·sure ˈlē-zhər ˈle-, ˈlā-
Synonyms of leisure
1
: freedom provided by the cessation of activities
especially : time free from work or duties
increase of leisure, diminution of hustle are the ends to be sought
—Bertrand Russell
Where you say “Not paying the government to give you ….free medical check-ups when you are totally healthy”:
Giving free medical check-ups when you are totally healthy is called ‘Preventative’ healthcare, the NHS philosophy being “Prevention is better than cure”. If the NHS can spot potential health issues before they even become an issue, then steps can be taken early to prevent the illness from developing in the future; which in the long run saves the NHS money and time, and in the process saves tax payers money – and could save your life e.g. if the NHS can detect that you are on the verge of becoming diabetic then they can give you help and advice on modifying your diet and lifestyle so that you don’t develop diabetes; or if the NHS detects heart issues early, likewise; or by giving you a free medical check-up when you are totally healthy they detect pre-cancer, it can be treated before you get cancer – saving your life.
For example I recently had my AAA (Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm) screening because I turned 65 e.g. all men over 65 are offered a free AAA screening. Fortunately it was negative, which is good; but if the scan had detected an issue they could have treated it before it became life threatening – So it’s a well worth while screening that saves countless lives.
Do you have AAA screening in the USA?
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening on the NHS: https://youtu.be/5yliqM7GpvUIn G. we have AAA screening from 60 on, same for gastrintestinal screening. As an example i had 2 aneurysms discovered and removed years ago when i was 60.
But besides this anecdotal personal experience the result of "nanny" governments taking care of its people can be seen in the average life expectancy. Just compare Europe with the USA. There is an astounding 5 year gap between Europe and Canada on one side and the USA on the other side. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
Just some provocative food for thought:
If people have no choice to live life their way, they turn to narcotics to at least dream their way of life. If people are told that they hold their freedom, their future in their own hands but in reality they experience the opposite, this will not create quality of life.Yep, a good food for thought. It's good to see that the Germany healthcare system is also practicing 'preventative healthcare'. Other (free) regular tests given on the NHS include:-
* From the age of 55 an invitation every 5 years for a complete medical health check; and
* From the age of 60, every 2 years a bowl cancer check
There are also a variety of other regular health checks for men and women given free on the NHS e.g. regular cervical cancer tests for women.
At the moment, because I was in hospital a couple of years ago (2021), both my doctor and my hospital consultant regularly communicate with me, sometimes by phone, sometimes by text, and sometimes to make a routine appointment; as I've made a good recover, and now back to near normal health my next hospital appointment will not be until the end of the year; but I'm sure that in the meantime my doctor will ask me to pop in to see her at some point before the summer.
I'm not the type of person to go the doctor unless I'm really ill, so all the attention I'm getting from my doctor these days, at times, does seem a little excessive to me; but I know that they are only looking after my interests, so I don't really mind.
As regards my hospital consultant; as I've made a near full recovery, the original reason for seeing him periodically no longer exists, so he could have discharged me. However, as there is nothing else wrong with me, rather than discharging me he switched his attention to my weight and cholesterol levels. Therefore, at my appointment with him last summer I agreed to modify my diet to a low cholesterol diet and to lose weight; which is what I did e.g. I lost 6kgs in six months (no longer classified as obese) - So when I saw him again a few weeks ago he was pleased with the progress I've made, and is no longer concerned about my weight, although I could do with losing a little more, which I've vowed to do by the time of my next appointment with him at the end of the year.
Where you say “Vacations are work too”???
I don’t consider vacations as work; I consider vacations are leisure time.
Where you say - "Slavery" is not when you yourself chose what you do and believe in what you do.”
• Beggars can’t be choosers - not everyone gets to do the job they want.
• But for those who do get the job they really want then for them it can become more of a vocation than a job.
• And certainly workaholics are slave to their job, and don’t care for vacations; but then not everyone is a workaholic.It takes a lot of work to have a fun/successful vacation.
Beggars are those who lost their chance to choose.
Workaholics are those who have lost their balance in life. They do not value anything else in life besides work. Its a compulsion which should definitely be avoided.
The way I See It.Yeah, "it takes a lot of work to have fun/successful vacation"; but the point I and Chris are trying to make is that people work longer hours and have less paid holiday (vacation) in the USA than in Europe e.g. Europeans have far more quality time away from work to enjoy life than Americans.
Yeah, the data seems to reflect all the paid leave (vacation) that we get in Europe, which they don't get so much of in the USA.
Taxes are best used for community benefits such as parks and forest services, trash and street cleaning, etc. Not individual benefits which you yourself can figure out. Why pay for Susie's numerous kids of several baby-dads? Why pay to solve other peoples personal issues when they can solve them for themselves? Why rob others of their challenges, when meeting those challenges would bring them joy? Why facilitate individual leisure which only leads to overeating and drinking? Why provide handouts which only facilitate dependence and not the glory of independence, for which we were born?
I would rather be a willing worker for myself and loved ones than for the government to use my money to help strangers I don't even know. Strangers who find themselves in a predicament of their own making. From their own negligence. Who probably did not have a good upbringing, where life was too easy ... because, after all, there's always the dole.
Social and welfare benefit is not quite like that in the UK. In the UK everyone, rich and poor, benefits from the British Social and Welfare system, for example:
• Even the Royal Family uses the NHS.
• Disabilities are not generally “a predicament of one’s own making”; if you have a bad back (like my wife does) then having a bad back is NOT her fault. But under the British Social and Welfare system she is entitled to ‘disability benefits’ because of her bad back, even though we are middle class e.g. disability benefits are NOT means tested, which means that even wealthy people with disabilities are entitled to the same disability benefit.
• Everyone who works full time for at least 35 years are entitled to the full State Pension when they reach State Pension Age; which along with the NHS, gives you security when you most need it.
"money doesn’t buy happiness."
Uh, apparently, it surely and certainly DOES!
- its just a matter of who controls your money. You are fine to let someone else control your hard earned $$$$$ and your life.
Have fun with that.
Some like crumbs, others like the whole entire delicious cake. (Part of that cake is the ability to help family members and others who fall on hard times.)
The Way I see It.No, money does not buy happiness.
I know people with money who are not content with life, and I know plenty of people who are less wealthy who lead very happy and fulfilling lives.
For people who are ‘not’ greedy for wealth, as long as you have enough money to pay your bills and have a good standard of living, what do you need any extra money for?
• I took early retirement over 10 years ago, when I was 55, and since then (until I reached State Pension retirement age) my main source of income was just my works pension.
• I made my last payment on my mortgage about 8 years ago, so I now own my own house outright, and have no more mortgage payments to make.
Yet, for the last 10 years, my works pension has been sufficient for me to pay all my bills, by any luxury items I desired and still have three holidays (vacations) a year travelling to various parts of Britain for a week at a time.
Last summer I reached State Pension retirement age, so now I have two good pensions; and far more money than I need – as my works pension covers all my living expenses, bills and holidays (vacations) and any luxury items I’ve desired; my State Pension is just surplus money, which I can’t do much with other than save, because I’ve got very little to spend it on that I need or want.
That’s not to say that I’m not going to splash out on a couple of expensive luxury items this year, as pure indulgence; as detailed – but beyond that the rest of the money that I get from my State Pension is just going to be piling up in the bank doing nothing other than earn a little interest over time: How is that extra wealth going to make me happier?
The two luxury items I’m splashing out on this year, using my surplus to requirement income from my State Pension are:-
1. Later this week we will be upgrading our TV’s surround sound system by buying a new $1,000 surround sound speaker system – a state of the art system that will give a cinema like experience when watching films on TV or Blu-ray.
2. And in the summer I will replace our existing home computer (which is a top range one anyway, that cost us over a $1,000 about 5 years ago) with an ultra-powerful, and ultra-fast, bespoke computer that will cost around $6,000 to build.
So in spite of what you might think; no one controls my hard earned cash, nor my life.
I’ll stress again; I’ve got all the money I need to live a comfortable life, with a high standard of living, and the freedom to choose how I spend my time – so extra money isn’t going to make me any happier; what would I need the extra money for, when I already have everything that I want or need in life?
I guess your last sentence sums up the fundamental difference in our two cultures, e.g. where you say, the need for cash to give you “….the ability to help family members and others who fall on hard times.”, amplified by your statement in your following post, where you say Americans “do not want to be taxed to the point where they lose control of their profits and the ability to build wealth for themselves in old age and for loved ones after they pass.
The whole point of the British social and welfare system, which you seem to fail to appreciate, is that we don’t need to worry about building up wealth for our old age because when we retire not only do we get the State Pension, but also medical care is free for all at the point of use e.g. we don’t have the same level of poverty in the UK that you have in the USA.I don´t quite understand. This discussion is on ... the quality of life... and you talk about ...hard earned money..
Isn´t the expression "hard earned" already contradictory to living a joyful and pleasant life?
Money doesn´t buy you happiness.
But money supports the ability to make a choice, to enjoy freedom. But there are societies where the freedom to make choices is not necessarily depending on money."Isn´t the expression "hard earned" already contradictory to living a joyful and pleasant life?"
No. I for one would much rather earn my own way through life than to sponge off of other people's efforts.Yes. Hard-earned means worked-for-sincerely with gusto and hope for return. Even the word hope is too weak here. Demand is better: Demand for return. We demand the ability to survive and survive well.
We step up to the plate and do not see ourselves as victims of anyone or any institution. Because we are not victims, unless by our own willingness and compliance.
(Note: Lawyers have helped many people secure equality in opportunity when necessary.)In Europe, people do work, and not only survive, but thrive with a high standard of living.
There aren’t victims in Europe, everyone in full time employment pay their taxes and if anyone falls on hard times e.g. redundancy, then the State supports them, to help them get back on their feet and find new employment where they can start contributing to society by paying their taxes again.
Personally i am with your statement.
But it is not about you and me and most fellow contributors to this discussion. We have probably all mastered half a century or more of life without too many wrong turns and wrong decisions.
Are we really in a position to judge all who barely meet ends?
All i can say is that societies with high social security and wellfare standards have lower stress levels and show higher levels ofwell being. Whenever i cross from Germany to Denmark or Sweden, i notice that people there are more relaxed than us in G. An indicator for quality of life?You asked if "hard work" was not contradictory with an enjoyable life. I replied it wasn't and gave a reason.
That others disagree I accept, but that does not mean that theirs is the only way to enjoy life.
As far as less stress, I would have less stress, too, if I knew I had no need to provide for my needs. But not all people are like that; some thrive on stress. Consider the downhill skier, the road racer, the mercenary military person. We are all different, that's all, and is all I intended to point out.Yep, we are all different, thankfully – It would be a boring world if we weren’t.
And in respect to this topic; what would be a quality of life for one person may not be another person’s idea of ‘quality of life’.Exactly the point. Some require wealth, servants, luxury, etc. Others are happiest with a small cabin in the woods.
Yeah, I think you are right; most of us in this forum have “have probably all mastered half a century or more of life without too many wrong turns and wrong decisions.”
As regards your next statement “Are we really in a position to judge all who barely meet ends?”
Out of our own personal choice, most of our close friends are either low working class or unemployed e.g. we tend to find that people with less wealth tend to have bigger hearts, more sincere, more friendly, and more reliable in times of need.
But also, although all my adult life I’ve been middle class, I do come from a poor background (in my childhood) and therefore know what poverty in Britain can be like from first-hand experience:-
When my parents got married (as teenagers) my father had a poor education and no proper job e.g. they lived from hand-to-mouth on any casual manual labour that my father could find.
When first married, they lived in a small caravan, which when they had their first child (my brother) was unsuitable, so the local government gave them a newly built Council House (financed by the UK Conservative Government). A council house being social housing that are built, financed and owned by local government (State Owned) specifically to provide housing to those who can’t afford to buy or rent their own home.
But for some bizarre reason, after I was born, my father gave up their council house, and borrowed money from his father-in-law (who was wealthy) to buy a derelict house for £738 (equivalent to $21,665 in today’s money) with an unrealistic vision of renovating and modernising the house himself?
An unrealistic desire as he had no DIY skills and no money! Especially considering the house, with just 4 rooms (living room, kitchen and two bedrooms upstairs), had no running water and no sewage.
Needless to say, without water and sewage the local government soon condemned the house as a slum, and tried to buy it off my father so that it could be demolished and the land redeveloped for modern housing. As my father refused to sell the local government threaten to slap a ‘Compulsory Purchase Order’ on the property, but for years my father held out, and the local government didn’t carry out their threat, they kept on making improved offers on the property!
Anyway, those years of living in a slum (as a young child) was happy days; I didn’t want for anything – we had a roof over our heads, food on the table most of the time. The highlight of the week was having my weekly bath in a tin bath in front of the coal fire, while watching Dr Who on TV. The tin bath being filled with hot water from the kettle, with the water coming from a Victorian cold water standpipe tap in an outhouse in the garden; and of course, being the youngest I was the last to use the water in the tin bath.
The house came with ½ acre of land, so during those years of poverty my father bought a complete set of Readers Digest Gardening books and taught himself gardening so that eventually we were feed predominantly from what he grew in the garden; although at one point, before he became a proficient gardener we did live on nothing but nettle soup for a couple of weeks (which I remember well).
Anyway after about five years of living in a slum, the local government made a generous offer of buy the slum for over £1,023, which in today’s value is equivalent to $24,383; which he accepted as in using his self-taught gardening skill he landed himself a job in the Cotswolds, England as ‘Head Gardener’ which came complete with a tied-house e.g. the house comes with the job; and as head gardener we had all the free fresh fruit and veg we wanted and a large supply of free organic eggs from the Lord of the Manor.
The tied-house was a 7 room house (three bedrooms) with water and sewage and therefore for the rest of my childhood we were living a life of luxury.
Below is first a photo of the condemned slum we lived in for five years of my childhood, and the second photo the tied-home we moved to when my father became a head-gardener.
Social and Welfare systems like the ones in the EU & UK is not “sponging off of other people’s efforts”; it’s more like an insurance for all e.g. I paid my taxes during my working life, and in return I enjoy free universal healthcare at the point of use and a good State Pension. And as an additional insurance, if I had ever fell on hard times, such as being made redundant, then I had the security that the State would provide until such times as I got on my feet again e.g. got another job.
And were your taxes sufficient to cover the costs of your future pension and your "free" health care along with all the rest that government provides (roads, education, military and police, etc.)? Are everyone's taxes sufficient to pay for what they get?
If not, then someone (perhaps you) isre indeed "sponging off the efforts of other people".No one is sponging; you’re spreading the costs so that everyone pays what they can afford and everyone is protected against risk – It’s a system that works well in Europe, and it’s a system that reduces poverty and helps prevent people living in abject poverty e.g. we don’t have the ghettos in Europe that you have in the USA. In Europe, our governments (regardless to their politics) care for all its citizens, not just the elite.
Repeating: Americans like to keep their taxes low and are careful to vote accordingly. They do not want to be taxed to the point where they loose control of their profits and the ability to build wealth for themselves in old age and for loved ones after they pass.
PLUS: No one here will go for a system where money is represented by digits in the digital system, which Biden et al is planning. We will resist. Cash must be King.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … al-assets/"1 The Executive Order defines 'cryptocurrencies' as 'a digital asset, which may be a medium of exchange, for which generation or ownership records are supported through a distributed ledger technology that relies on cryptography, such as a blockchain and digital assets.'
2 The Executive Order defines the term 'digital assets' as all central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), regardless of the technology used, and to other representations of value, financial assets and instruments, or claims that are used to make payments or investments, or to transmit or exchange funds or the equivalent thereof, that are issued or represented in digital form through the use of distributed ledger technology. For example, digital assets include cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and CBDCs. Regardless of the label used, a digital asset may be, among other things, a security, a commodity, a derivative, or other financial product. Digital assets may be exchanged across digital asset trading platforms, including centralized and decentralized finance platforms, or through peer-to-peer technologies.
3 The Executive Order defines the term 'central bank digital currency' or 'CBDC' as 'a form of digital money or monetary value, denominated in the national unit of account, that is a direct liability of the central bank.'
4 The Executive Order defines 'stable coins' as 'a category of cryptocurrencies with mechanisms that are aimed at maintaining a stable value, such as by pegging the value of the coin to a specific currency, asset, or pool of assets or by algorithmically controlling supply in response to changes in demand in order to stabilize value.'"
Maybe this topic should be for a new thread.
Others want more. Is it wrong to want and achieve more?
The rich provide jobs. The rich: who so many vilify and want to tax.
The rich who are savvy and motivated enough to rock and roll the economy and contribute to the very dynamic financial world.
Its all a matter of embracing the reality of abundance.
Observe the infinity sign. 8
Some have habits which do not bring about prosperity for self, loved ones and others.
Others do. Let the rich pursue their money generating habits and pursuits, I say.
And don't tax the rest just because they are obedient and compliant in nature. Let them rise to the occasion through opportunity through freedom, education, laws ...
and low taxes.
Why do the West connoted quality of life with a higher standard of living?
... because we are not living in the Garden of Eden.
Kateryn? I think they's a fellow writer right here with Hubpages, but living across your pond, and living the Garden of Eden life. What d' you say of that? I assume he may be a middle income earner, but he chosd to live in the Garden of Eden (GOE) in his backyard. So living before the TV and the freezer/fridge is a choice. Why is not the quality of life being read in a rural context by the West? D' you think the rural areas and villages are not being neglected in this? I'm going to beat some grains of wheat, soghum, rice, and milllet in a mortar, for a little cake as a pre-breakfast this morning. Thanks.
Absolutely
I grew up in a small village in the Cotswolds (countryside); and whenever we go on holiday (vacation) we always try to find holiday accommodation that’s way out in the countryside, and spend at least some of that holiday enjoying nature.
Likewise, one reason I like gardening is because our back garden is like a ‘Garden of Eden’, quiet, tranquil and full of wildlife, including our wildlife pond – most peaceful.
THE COTSWOLDS UK - WEST ENGLAND: https://youtu.be/-hVp2r574fs
This was our holiday (vacation) in the Yorkshire Dales 7 years ago: https://youtu.be/-sBfQhvuIc4
And last year we spent a week on the North Pennines – Our holiday video of Low Force Waterfalls in the North Pennines AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty): https://youtu.be/tkJkSuXxFdsArthur, you're in tandem with nature. I do always.
Granted, money is not everything, but there is a correlation between material well being and quality of life.
Do you have enough to eat?
Does your existence allow for sufficient rest and leisure time to do within our short lives some of what you desire?
Are modern conveniences available to reduce the time of drudgery work, freeing up time for a preferred pursuit or interest?
In America money equates with freedom, not with the mere accumulation of material goods but the freedom to live your life on your own terms, and that, Sir, is pricelessHere in my country Nigeria, and Africa, except where there's famine, drought,inter-tribal, and civil wars, people eat more than 3 'square meals' to 'bellyful thrice a day'. Add snacks plus delicacies. So the people are well fed. And what is this 'our short lives'? That's why I said the quality of life should be test along rural and village settings. People in these areas earn less income than the low income and working middle class. They live long lives in certain cases. They stay fit, strong, and healthy. But sickness is inevitable. But when it strikes, they go for roots, bark of trees, leaves io the woods, or edges of the village paths. They insists on 'old wives remedies' as a primary and preventive health care technique. The WHO has uphold such good health pointer. Rural dwellepqs havd much time for recreation than the city people....
Your last point is very true for Britain too e.g. "Rural dwellers have much more time for recreation than the city people":-
That was very noticeable when I lived in the Cotswolds as a kid; and it's very noticeable now whenever we take a holiday (vacation) in the countryside e.g. the pace of life for the locals in rural communities is far slower than for people who live in cities in Britain.
Yeah, there is correlation between material wellbeing and quality of life for most in the West, to point; but once you’re income far exceeds your needs (as in my case) that correlation breaks down.
Put in simple terms, as long as people have enough money to pay their bills and enjoy high living standards (as most people do in the West) then having extra wealth does not bring extra happiness nor improve quality of life further; especially in Europe where we have the security of healthcare for all and State Pensions in old age etc.
Yeah, I know that in America money equates with freedom, and Americans consider that priceless; but in Europe, money is less important – and we are just as happy in Europe, with just as good a quality of life as Americans, without being obsessive about money: And we have just as much freedom in Europe as any American.True, Arthur
Often times excess money makes subtle changes in values and attitudes. A sister of mine had married into a family of a prominent Department store magnate. Since that time, she had taken on “airs”, being stubbornly arrogant and selfish. Must it be true that for everything you gain, you have to lose something?
Money is less important in Europe because you can’t find yourself in the street once you have lost a job. Your safety nets allow you the confidence to live life without fear of events that here would be catastrophic, I.e. a medical crisis. From the standpoint of your employer, you are expendable. If you are a threat to the bottom line, you can be dismissed through no fault of your own and they do all of that through an e-mail so managers do not even have to see your face. You can believe me when I say that conservatives here would rather that those that are not wealthy work until its time for the grave.
I am far from being wealthy, but we have enough and in this world where our lives are short with the only constant being death, that is a good as it gets.
The fear and insecurity associated with that, losing your home, taking the kids out of college has got to raise your blood pressure. You are forever vulnerable. Perhaps, that is one reason why this is so violent a culture?
We have seen stories about people in remote parts of Alaska that bask in splendid isolation, where you are more likely to find a Cessna rather than a car in the garage. While I might find such a life a bit spartan for my tastes, to each his own. The point is that they are doing and living life as they wish to and not as they are compelled to.
Excerpt from a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode
It wasn’t just the gadgets and the incredible technology of the Star Trek era that caught your attention; it was the people, their character. It is no wonder that in a certain episode that dealt with 20th and 21st century persons taken from cryogenic freeze, it was said by prominent members of the crew that there was not much to redeem them. They were right. In a world of pattern replicators, where diamond tiaras can be easily reproduced, where is all the value of material things? We have people starving on this planet for lack of resources, where a few exploit the many. In today world, the accumulation of things is the measure of success. When one of the 20th century people asked what he was to do now that the mere accumulation of wealth was no longer a driving force, a way to exert power over others, Captain Picard said, “to improve yourself, enrich yourself with experiences and growth”. Now that I am retired, that is my path.
Based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, survival needs have basically been met, now it’s on to self esteem and self actualization. I never believed that I could get that far…..Wow, an impressive read – what you say does explain a lot as to why Americans are far more obsessive about money than Europeans. And I’m a fan of Star Trek, and I remember the episode you make reference to.
Just one point I would like to just clarity. Where you say:
“From the standpoint of your employer, you are expendable. If you are a threat to the bottom line, you can be dismissed through no fault of your own and they do all of that through an e-mail so managers do not even have to see your face.”
I assume you are just referring to the USA e.g. in Europe such action is illegal.
Yeah, an employer can make you redundant, if they have good justification; but if you’ve worked with the Company for more than two years then your employer can’t sack you without well-defined reasons – and even then, in most cases, the employer has to follow set procedures long before it gets to the point of being sacked e.g. one verbal and two written warnings, and evidence that the employer tried to offer help and support, such as counselling if for example the worker is failing in his work because of a drink problem or any other social problem etc.
In other words, in the UK it is very difficult to get sacked if you’ve worked for your employer for more than two years.
A notable case of exception was last March (10 months ago) when P&O, a British Passenger Ferry Company (owned by a Private Company in Dubai in United Arab Emirates) sacked 800 people without reason; which is clearly in breach of British law.
Even the UK Conservative Government was outraged and tried to bring a criminal prosecution against the P&O ferry company; the ferry company got away with it because it successfully argued that it was acting under ‘International Maritime Law’ not British Law, and therefore the UK Government was powerless to act.I wonder if the tech companies are using that as a reason to invest less in the EU than in the US? I just saw something about Google laying off 12,000 workers. Obvioiusly, their company is profitable enough to keep some of those people but the labor laws in the US allow them to lay off at whim.
That’s only part of the picture; yes, sure, in comparison to the USA, European labour laws are often much more stringent and inflexible; which make it harder for companies to reduce costs during hard times.
However, European companies are highly competitive in other sectors, one of the main reasons why the USA has a large lead over the EU/UK in the Tech sector is primarily because of the outcome of history and chance e.g. the migration decades ago of tech geeks to Silicon Valley.
Therefore Tech companies in the USA have less issues with scalability e.g. while the EU/UK tech industry has grown considerably over the years, some start-ups struggle to get past the later stages of growth amid hurdles to fundraising and talent acquisition. The US economy grew far more strongly than Europe’s in the decade between 2008 and 2018: During that period, USA cumulative growth was about 19%, compared to just 11.4% in the EU and UK.
However, there are signs that the gap in the Tech Sector between the USA and EU/UK is narrowing.
Although the EU has produced over a third of the world’s start-ups in the tech industry over the last decade, only about 14% of world’s start-ups of ‘unicorn’ companies over the same time period have been in the EU.
Putting it in simple terms tech firms in the EU relative to GDP is half that of the UK, and the UK’s is roughly half that of the USA.
In 2020 the EU/UK saw just 26 new tech company ventures, compared to 70 in the USA and 92 in China. However, there are signs that this may be changing – In 2021 Europe’s tech sector drew investment close to three times the level recorded in 2020, and currently returns on venture capital investment in the EU and UK is outpacing the USA - But there is still a big gap.
Sorry for the confusion, Arthur.
I was referring to employment in the US. In referencing a more recent post, having a less stringent set of labor laws as in America benefits capital and not labor. Being under the caprice of managers and owners does not give a worker "warm fuzzies".
I am glad that you actually saw the Trek episode that I referenced. Just watching that made me feel like the archaic dinosaur that passes for world civility, today. With a hopefully benevolent and most probably far future outcome, could we dare to imagine our species rising above its infancy?The Star Trek episode sounded neat - a utopia - but is fiction and highly unlikely to ever happen.
Start with energy. Those replicators have to use vast amounts of energy (laws of physics still apply) even if they are fed raw materials. If not the energy use boggles the mind - a star would not be enough. Either way that energy must be produced by someone.
Second, we can't all be officers on a starship. Even that limited environment requires the drudge workers, the floor sweepers so to speak. Why in the world would someone choose to push a broom rather than be a painter, a musician, a builder of something? Asimov's tales of the robot worlds comes a lot closer to the utopia described, but still has major failings.There will never be utopia, for every problem that is eliminated one is created that did not exist before. Regardless, we can do much better than we do now.
Most intriguing ideas, Wilderness. The question ultimately comes down to when we will discover which laws of physics are immutable regardless of technological advancement. Can we say that we are there yet, really?
I pick up a universal gadget that is a technological marvel of the current age, my cellular telephone. Star Trek takes place on the average 250 years into the future. If I went 250 years into the past, say 1770, and I gave Benjamin Franklin, among the most brilliant of men in his era, a common cell phone, what would he make of it? Even the phone's most basic features, flashlight (electric light) and photography would not appear in even its most crude forms for 70 to 120 years. We would not even want to speak of battery storage or intricate computer related functions, GPS, access to any sort of information at the touch of a button or even the sound of a human voice. Such a device and the technology involved would have been unfathomable for even his inventive mind to wrap itself around.
Relative to Star Trek, is this just our "Benjamin Franklin" moment in time?
"Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented." Most patent attorneys have also heard that the quote is apocryphal."
-------
1899? Duell had no clue...
------
During the 1890’s, a prominent scientist stated that heavier than air flight was fundamentally impossible and that flight was for birds, angels and fools. His failure of nerve was that while an anti-gravity device was not yet at hand, the ability of heavier than air objects to fly had always been universally demonstrated. How did the birds remain aloft? With the basics of aerodynamics figured out, all we needed was a lightweight power source which was heretofore, not available. By the end of the 19th century, we had that with the internal combustion engine along with two “daring do” bicycle mechanics that made history. So, the scientist would be proven wrong as the contradiction lay right around the corner.
Most scientists and physicists also laughed at rocket scientist, Robert Goddard, who during the 1920s said that space travel was indeed possible.
I am not so quick to acknowledge that we have reached the limits of the possible.
Janitors? The Star Ship is designed to clean itself, wastes are dematerialized in the very reverse of the principle of a pattern replicator. No one is running around mopping floors. People choose their fields based on desire and merit, talent and aptitude. Money, patronage, unearned privileges and other non merit factors would naturally play a lesser role. You want to be an officer, go to Star Fleet Academy.
While I have read Asimov, I prefer Arthur C Clarke. Yes, Star Trek is a far fetched science fiction from our current perspective. But I have seen concepts move from science fiction to science fact within my lifetime. So,who could say.....
Sorry to digress, but I could not resist.
Thanks for the clarity.
We may never reach utopia but certainly there is always scope to strive for a better and more just society; some would view Global Organisations like the UN and WHO, and doctors without borders, as steps in the right direction. And of course, as a European I feel America society could learn more compassion for its underprivileged from its European partners.
My son and I are both avid Si-Fi fans, so we have the Blu-ray box sets for most of them, including Red-Dwarf, and Dr Who etc.
First, there is a huge difference in the US between "sacked" or "fired" and "laid off". Companies can only "fire" for good reason, while they can "lay off" at will (subject to union machinations).
It sounds like there is no difference in the UK. A company cannot lay people off if business conditions require it; they must retain all workers even if they have nothing to do. For example, if you have 1,000 employees and a new product hits the market that destroys half your sales, you must continue to pay all 1,000 employees until the company goes under. Can that possibly be correct, or is "business conditions" a suitable "reason" for discharging an employee?My mistake for not clarifying: In the UK being sacked and being fired is one and the same; but laid off (redundancy) is different.
For clarity, once an employee has been employed for more than two years it is extremely difficult for the employer to sack or fire them; and if it’s not for a legally defined reason, or the employer doesn’t follow all the required steps e.g. verbal and written warning first then the employer will lose any subsequent ‘Industrial Tribunal’, which is a free service to all in the UK.
However, if times are hard, and an employer needs to down-size or restructure, then they can make employees redundant; something companies do in the UK quite frequently.
But what a Company can’t do is to make people redundant on the pretence of restructuring and then a few months later try to employ new staff doing the same work as before but on a lower wage; that sort of action is illegal in the UK. Likewise, if there is a take-over or merger under EU & UK law the new Company has to honour the pay and conditions (including pensions) of the old company, for those employees transferring to the new company, if those pay and conditions were better in the old company.Sounds much like the US. Redundant employees may be let go at will, but to fire someone takes much more. Whether an employee for a week or a decade it takes much more.
I know what you mean; too many people in the West are far too fixated in materialism.
Those of us in the third world who are westernly educated also possess houses, cars, tv, fridges, money, and more. Entertainments, social intercourse in communal settings are more valuable than the mere possession of the above items. In his 'ABC of Nutrition', the author, A. Stewart Truswell, emphased entertainment as coupled or central to the the life of the Africans.
It is never a good business decision to retain employees just because you can that you have determined you do not need, and most businesses do not make layoff decisions based on "profits," but rather, they make those decisions based on future projected profits, the business climate, and that are in the best interest of not only the shareholders, but those employees that are retained.
Layoffs, however painful to the employee, actually SAVES jobs. Not kills them.Just to toss in a consideration . . . not everyone works for a notable corporation, have some kind of government job/career. or is in the military. I only say that because it seems to me a lot of what is being discussed is aimed in that direction. Maybe I got that wrong?
In the U.S. 46% of the workforce is with small businesses. The majority of those businesses have five or fewer employees. That changes the dynamics when considering the quality of life subject. Remember a portion of those is businesses that are owner operated with no employees.
I can attest that the dynamics are different personally working at 12 different businesses. Two were large corporations while the remaining ten were small businesses. The last one, though with about 300 employees and considered a small business, I worked for 24 years.
That leads me to ask, Considering the quality of life subject can there be a trade-off for working for a small business rather than a large corporation/government agency? I'm thinking about health insurance and retirement, which most small businesses do not provide. I think most do have vacation time of some sort.
As far as quality of life I agree with Wilderness it is subjective. And, I agree with the thread's sentiment a key element is happiness and life satisfaction overall at some point in one's life journey. In other words, quality of life is not static being dynamic.
For me, happiness is a mindset that is different from being happy. Happy is a sense of feeling good while is fleeting like an emotion.
For me, there are five key elements that contributed to my quality of life. Those are home life, work/career life, financial security, relationships, and health. And, from my experience, they battle with each other. Getting them in balance can be a task taxing the happiness mindset and affecting the quality of life.
Then comes along how a business can contribute to one's quality of life while benefits are only one consideration. For benefits, I'm thinking of total vacation time, health insurance, and retirement. With large corporations 'some' do offer sick time. I do ask which comes first . . . what the business contributes to the quality of life or what the state/nation does with a safety net? Or, is there a happy mix?
The bottom line is to insert looking at 46% of the working population when pondering the quality of life subject with a broad stroke of a brush.Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more with your whole statement.
In the UK, apparently, it's about 48% of employees who work for Small Businesses; so your points are very valid. Which leads to the rather interesting question you raise, where you said?
“That leads me to ask, considering the quality of life subject can there be a trade-off for working for a small business rather than a large corporation/government agency? I'm thinking about health insurance and retirement, which most small businesses do not provide. I think most do have vacation time of some sort.”
When our son went from primary school to secondary school my wife briefly worked for a couple of small businesses (one was a charity) before going onto university as a mature student. From reading your comment I surmise there are some fundamental differences in employee responsibilities that small businesses have between Europe and America; for example:-
1. In the UK universal healthcare is free to all at the point of use (NHS); so there is no health insurance to worry about.
2. In the UK in 2012 the Conservative Government made workplace pensions compulsory by law; so it doesn’t matter how few employees a small business has, it has to provide them with a workplace pension or be prosecuted.
3. Under EU & UK law, every employee is legally entitled to six weeks paid vacation from their first day in their new job; regardless to how small the business is.
4. Also in the UK every employee by law is entitled to up to 28 weeks paid sick leave and 39 paid paternity leave; again regardless to how small the business is. And I said paternity leave because although it’s the mother who tends to have the lion share of leave for pregnancy and birth, under British law she can share that time with the father e.g. the option for the father stays at home to look after the new born baby, while the mother goes back to work.
I’m not going to disagree that such Regulations can at times make it difficult for small businesses in Britain; but nevertheless, in spite of such Regulations, small business do thrive and flourish in Britain, and in the UK (and EU) those employees who work for the small business has to a large extent the same level of legal benefits as those who work for large business or Government.Your thought, (#3), about "from day one . . . " sparked such a knee-jerk reaction that I had to pause and wonder what there might be that I don't know that I don't know would affect my reaction.
To that new hire that legally gets 6 weeks vacation on their first day of work: It seems fair to say that is an employer/employee relationship thing. Not one I would want as a standard, but that's only one perspective.
But . . . what about hiring mistakes, hidden character misfits, or any of the factors that make a hiring choice unknowingly wrong? Is there some kind of probationary period? (a typical U.S. scenario 30 - is 90 days)
GAYeah, from day one in a new job e.g. new employer the employee is legally entitled to six weeks paid vacation (holiday) per year. Obviously in practice, if any employee had had already booked a week's holiday on the day he/she is due to start in his/her new employer then the employer would normally delay the start day by a week - but if the employee had a holiday pre-booked, and paid for, for a week or two after he/she was due to start his/her new job then normally the new employer would honour that.
As regards probationary periods; then yes it's not unusually to have say 3 months or 6 months probationary period; although in law the employer can dismiss (sack/fire) the employee without to much hassle. But once the employee has been with the Company for more than two years then the employee has the full protection of the UK labour laws, and sacking that employee becomes a lot harder.
In Nigeria, pension in small businesses (employing at least 3 persons) is hard to come by. Though the law is there, that both employer and employee should contribute to the pension fund. It's 7 1/2% from each side, government departments and agencies, public or private companies, and sole partnership, and employee. But its a pity that the law works in big work places, and not in any 2 or 3 man-work-force. Imagine a person puts in 35 years service in government agency and retires today, but had to wait 2 to 5 years to get their monthly benefits these days.
Related Discussions
- 42
Do you live in the Rat Race: Or do you have a Good Work Life Balance?
by Arthur Russ 5 years ago
According to Wikipedia, the Rat Race can be described as “a competitive struggle to get ahead financially or routinely” and “The term is commonly associated with an exhausting, repetitive lifestyle that leaves no time for relaxation or enjoyment”.During the 1980s in Britain Margaret Thatcher...
- 69
Trump, he's a Champion for the environment.?
by Castlepaloma 5 years ago
This tRump, far tops all environmentalist bs I have ever heard. Trump said,, “I’m an environmentalist.” Sir! and I have won many awards for it. This actually isn’t the first time Trump has tried to tell people that he’s a champion of the environment. In 2017, he said, “I’m a very big person...
- 53
How do you measure quality of life? Through : Money? House size? Family? Environ
by Andrew Spacey 10 years ago
How do you measure quality of life? Through : Money? House size? Family? Environment? The Arts?Scientists tell us that, if you can measure it, you can make sense of it. Politicians are always banging on about economics. Does having more money make us happier? If the answer is no then why is...
- 118
Weekly Topic Inspiration: Improving Your Quality of Life
by Simone Haruko Smith 12 years ago
As the year comes to a close, many people take time to reflect on the past 12 months and consider how they might change things in the future. Face it- now is the perfect time to consider what you can do to improve your quality of life!If you spend any time contemplating these improvements, I...
- 14
Are Conservatives Actually Counter-revolutionaries?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
From The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin (as a counter to The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk.Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk like to think conservatism is an ideology of Prudence and Moderation (as well as Prejudice - as in prejudgment)However, Michael Oakeshott (1901 - 1990), political theorist,...
- 39
Weekly Topic Inspiration: Improving Your Quality of Life
by Simone Haruko Smith 12 years ago
Weekly Topic Inspiration: Improving Your Quality of LifeDo you have some tips on improving one’s mental, emotional, social, and physical well-being? You should share them in Hub form! We’ve made Quality of Life and Wellness this week’s Weekly Topic Inspiration theme, which means a bunch of us...