Social Security COLA
Got the formal notification of the big COLA I will see next month in my SS check. I will be wealthy beyond my dreams of avarice with the extra $58 we will receive each month between my wife and I.
It will pay for the increase in electricity, internet and water fees, with a little left over to at least help with increased property taxes. We'll have to find somewhere to cut back the grocery bill (again) as there isn't anything there to cover those increased costs. If we drop all beef and substitute carrots and chicken it will help; removing bagged shrimp and packaged mashed potatoes will do a little good as well. Mostly though, I'm just too fat and it will do me good to diet.
Eating out will, I fear, have to go from Red Lobster to MacDonalds or Pizza Hut, but that way the cost of living doesn't go up - a good thing as there is nothing in the $58 that can be earmarked for such frivolity. We can borrow movies from the library (thank goodness within walking distance) and have movie night at home, the wife can learn to darn socks and I to repair broken furniture - that's worth a few dollars per year (probably one month of that massive COLA raise).
Thanks, Joe - you make the new year look downright cheery!Well... on the diet thing I can offer some advice.
Fasting is great for the body, allows it time to cleanse and heal in ways it cannot when you are constantly eating.
The best thing you can do is limit your eating window to 8 hours or less, minus perhaps a coffee in the morning, without sugar. Coffee is another thing, you should not have it when you wake up, you should wait a couple of hours, the body has a natural surge when you wake up... like a sugar rush only natural.
Wait a couple hours, if you can, before indulging in a coffee.
Stay away from all sodas as alternatives, worst thing to put into your body is soda...
If you can go 16 hours or longer without eating you are doing your body a ton of good, occasionally taking a day to do nothing but drink water, relax and stay stress free is a huge benefit.
Eating less is a requirement as you get older and are less active, or else you are eating yourself into a earlier grave, and adding joint pains, muscle aches and a build-up of toxins in your body.Looking forward to seeing what changes RFK can make at Health. Everyone could benefit from more education on this subject I was having lunch with a client last week and when he noticed I was only drinking water instead of soda he asked why and I called it "diabetes water". It was not till then that he informed me he was a diabetic! He had three or four cups of the stuff before we were finished.
On the fasting issue, there is some anecdotal evidence that a 16 hour fast is not recommended for those over 60. A 12:12 is safer. I am not sure how old Wilderness is but since this thread is about SS I would assume at least that age. (Here in Brazil women farmers can start getting SS at 55, men farm laborers at 60.)LOL 60 is something I see only on the car's speedometer, for it is long gone in my life.
Still, my daily eating habits generally center around a 7:17 schedule. Brunch at about 10 AM and dinner around 5PM. Might have a small snack between the two.That's good... About what I try to stick to...
Mine is 10am - 6pm on good days.
Might be part of the reason why you are well past 60.I doubt that last bit - I didn't start it until quite a bit after retirement and the weight started to climb. Prior to that it was more like 6AM to 7PM, with three meals and perhaps a snack.
Of course, I was quite active at work and had a hard time if I didn't have something before starting the job. To work 5 hours after fasting for 12, without any food at all, was pretty tough.Yes, that is what I believe I mentioned in my first post regarding this topic.
Age and decreased activity... you need less energy/food if you are doing less... and this correlates significantly with being on the other side of 50.
Even when I want to do things now, I have to give myself more time to complete it or break it into more parts/days.
I cannot will/force myself to complete jobs that I used to be able to do in shorter timeframe... projects that would take a few hours may now take me a few days, I move slower, I double check my work/measurements more often, I take extra time to avoid injury and use extra safety measures, etc.
Your metabolism slows... you need less energy... you need more recovery time... including recovery from eating. And you need to eat healthier, if you try and exist on McDs and 7/11 slop when you are over 50, you are fast tracking to a heart attack or stroke.Yeah... and we were probably more active when young...
Food is a means of getting energy... when it becomes the highlight of your daily activities, well, can't say I envy that type of life.
Not that I don't appreciate a delicious meal... but I prefer getting to the point where I'm hungry because I haven't eaten in 12 or 24 hours... rather than getting 3 meals a day just because that is what is expected.
12:12 should be the minimum.
With water allowed whenever.
16 - 36 is healthy for those who do not have health issues... Diabetes and such probably is an issue... Never had it, so I don't know.
The body cannot cleanse itself of toxins, cancer causing buildups if you do not fast.
The human body evolved to be able to go days without eating... But it becomes critical in today's world with so much processed foods, poisons, oils, in what we eat ...stressing out systems.
You never told us how you were able to afford make the lavish trips to, was it Ireland or Scotland? Did you not mention that in other threads, was it while you were gainfully employed?
Seems some what incongruent to me, as you describe your life now you could not afford to cross the street?
Why are you blaming Biden for every rainy day, if he offered you more you would call it a hand out? There can no sensibility among Rightwingers and reactionaries, generally.
I receive the 2.5 percent increase and the formula for how that is determined annually pre dates Biden, so why are you blaming him?Dollars to doughnuts your check did NOT go up 2.5%. But even if it had of it would not cover the inflation we have seen this last year.
Perhaps if Biden insisted government report the actual inflation rate.... Instead retirees fall a little further behind every year. I even recall a couple of years ago when my check went down due to inflation going up.My check did go up 2.5 percent. There is always an excuse with you Rightwingers just to make Biden the villain. We are all falling behind and it has nothing to do with Biden specifically but has been true for several years. So, why don't you just "come off from it".
I say that once Trump starts with his wrecking ball to the economy, you all wish that you had Biden back.I don't believe you. Plain and simple, I do not believe you.
Did you do the math? Did you check the percentage it went up? Because you got a 2.5% increase...minus the increase in medicare. Meaning your check did NOT go up 2.5%.
I guess leftwingers are incapable of understanding the most basic of arithmetic. Here:
New check minus old check. (Check, not payment) Now divide by old check. You will NOT get 2.5%; instead it will be just slightly over 2%. If you're lucky; if the check is small it won't be that much.Youre not liatening and when you assume.....
I don't use Medicare, I bypass it and use my insurer at work Blue Cross so I am not enrolled in Medicare B. But the increase in premium on B/C part for this deducts from the raise and it would be less than the full expected increase. If that is what you meant initially, OK.
But you still assumed when you did not have all the facts or directed the question improperly, yes? And your diatribe about Biden is still just BS.I had all the facts I was aware of existed. I did not know that you could refuse Part A in favor of private insurance - my apologies. We never stop learning, do we?
Nevertheless, I was still right, and the reason that is so is that medicare costs are left out of the COLA calculations as if they do not exist. Government knows exactly, to the penny, what they will be, but refuses to acknowledge that those costs exist and so they are not a part of the "cost of living", let alone cost of living increases (called "inflation").
Diatribe? A simple thank you, however insincere or sarcastic, is hardly a "diatribe". Biden is at the head and could push for a change to something that actually reflects reality, but he does nothing, content to lie to the public that retirees actually get a "cost of living adjustment" every year, equal to inflation for the year. And is then content to "forget" to include health care costs in that inflation number.
An effort to put more seniors on welfare, tying them even more firmly to the clutches of Democrats? Probably, but he has not said so.Your one of the good ones, Wilderness, I can respect a man who can admit it when he is wrong.
I have Part A as it is always as it is at no cost, but none of the other components of Medicare B, C etc, as it was like so much confusion "Medicare Advantage", etc. There are years when Medicare premiums would rise and my Blue Cross did not raise premiums. While that is possible such is not the case this year.
How could Biden push for anything? Did Trump push for anything? And if anything those rotten Republicans will take the little that you have left. And you know what Wilderness, you asked for it. The Conservatives, your buddies, defer to the (free enterprise crap) while determined to suck up to the wealthy who does not give a rats ass about the middle class and working people have turned my stomach more than once.
If you have a "beef", it is not fair to put the entire burden on Biden and the Democrats. You will be crawling, begging when that goofy Musk takes what crumbs that remain on your dinner table. But, you can't say that I did not warn you?"How could Biden push for anything? Did Trump push for anything?"
What does one have to do with the other? Are you insinuating that Democrats can only do what Republicans have already done and shown them how?
It's interesting (and a little comical) that you and other liberals can forecast nothing but doom. Every possible way to doom is something Trump WILL do. History, however short with that 3 years before COVID, shows something completely different, but you won't look at experience. Only hate and rants about Trump.
But "turning stomach"? It turns mine to watch as liberals will ALWAYS denigrate those forces (business) that put food on our table and a roof over our heads. Always negative, never recognizing the importance or necessity of business, always demanding that business earn nothing for its owners so all profit go to workers. Profit plus, for 100% of profit is not enough, is it?Because with Trump and Trump think stormy weather is the only possible forecast.
Trump is an idiot, Wilderness, and in my mind, without a born again rebirth from either he or I, he will remain so. He did nothing but coast on a trend established by Obama, a Democrat. Trump has no experience politically, and lacks common sense. Regardless of what you conservatives say, I see nothing that can be bragged about.
Those so called businesses are just as quick and willing to take food out of your mouths. You would do great as a 19th century sweat shop employer. You and your capitalist profit margins, sakes....
Until Trump is gone, the dark cloud remains.....Sorry, Cred, but Trump's IQ is almost certainly higher than yours or mine. One does not become President, or become a business tycoon, with a low IQ. As is normal, then, you are simply grousing, ranting without have anything of value to contribute.
I might make a sweat shop employer, yes. And you would make a great mountain man, chipping your own stone axes and picking berries, for you do not need anyone to provide that mythical living wage for you. You will do it all yourself, without need of anyone else.Why is Trump so brilliant? The problem with you right wing types is that you associate wealth with character and intelligence and they are not always one in the same. If I had a 200 million dollar silver spoon in my mouth I could do at least as well as Trump, could you not say the same for yourself?
The value is there, you just decide to turn your usual "tin ear" to it.
Your last sentence is appropriate to 19th century thinking which you seem to be awashed in and is quite irrelevant to the circumstances found in the modern world, todayWhy is he so brilliant? Assuming the "brilliance" you proclaim, probably because of his genetic structure coupled with the environment of early life. That would seem to be the case for any and all of those above average in intelligence.
Comical how Trump's "starting wealth" continues to rise with time, isn't it? Used to be a cool million dollars, now the claim is up to $200,000,000. And no, given the wealth he had to start with I would not have built it to the 4+ Billion he did. Nor do I think you would have. I think very few people would have, for it takes a particular mindset and ability to play the money game to that kind of ending.
*shrug* You're the one said you don't need an employer to survive, not I. You claim you don't need a job; that you can do it without an income.I stand corrected regarding the money he was born with. He according to reliable sources became a millionaire at 8 and had the advantage of his father's fortune as tail winds.
Trump was a lackluster student, nothing to redeem him there. That genetic stuff is just more bull*** so now he is smarter that everyone else because of his Aryan genetic background? Well, he doesn't act like it. The smartest people I knew were the ones that did not have brag about it. What kind of smart people get accused of sexual assault or have 34 felonies counts on their record? What sort of genius behaves like a snake oil salesman stiffing his creditors and creating sham institutions? Bill Gates is more my style, his record does not approach Trump's.
I had a job. And it was with fair employers, not the private sector."Trump was a lackluster student, nothing to redeem him there."
So was Albert Einstein. Some of his teachers actually though he was retarded, and his poor performance precluded him getting into FIT in Zurich. Point being that school performance is not indicative of intelligence.
Good grief, Cred, get off your high horse about white people! You, and you alone, would instantly jump to that idiotic Aryan comment.
"What kind of smart people get accused of sexual assault or have 34 felonies counts on their record?" I don't know and will lay long odds that you don't either, never having studied the matter. Such a comment is merely intended to throw doubt without having any evidence whatsoever. I DO have reason to think that some really smart people are behind bars - high IQ does not preclude imprisonment.
Personally I prefer Musk; he has done something with his self acquired fortune, something beyond merely making more money - Musk feeds more people that almost anyone in the world.
You had a job with employers. Hooray for you! That means you understand that business is necessary for the vast majority of us to earn enough to live on. You can drop the liberal profession of hatred for anyone owning or operating a business, then, for you DO understand that simple fact.Trump, himself, has make such comments and inferences frequently, do you think that I don't pay attention?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics … index.html
Since when has lack of evidence ever kept you from spouting off your opinion?
IQ has a great deal to do with the ones ability to successfully negotiate his or her surroundings, adaptability is a factor. Yet, the IQ score is not always a sole determinant of success in society and that is evident from any psych 101 class and you should know that.
Business is fine, but the issue for me is appropriate regulation toward them to prevent sbuses to either the environment or labor itself. That is my point.Yes, I know IQ is not a good indicator of whether success in society is to come. On the contrary, there is quite often a negative relationship there. It didn't sound like YOU know it, though...
Better regulate employees, too, to make sure they don't abuse society, the environment, etc. While they can't do a whole lot individually, as a group (say, a union perhaps) they are just as dangerous as a large company is.
But we don't do we? Instead we cheer the large groups of workers and boo the large groups of employers. Because...I don't know why. Because we're jealous? Because we want what they have built for themselves but don't have the skill or drive to do it ourselves? Because we won't take the risk inherent in owning a business?
Why DO we hate the business owner so much and love the worker that has accomplished so much less with their life?
Yup, disappointing, but expected with last years inflation rate. I wasn't happy that the Medicare deduction went up 6%. What I have concern with is [if] the tariffs are enacted. I have read it will increase the current inflation rate by at least 3%. That is above and beyond what it is and what our COLA is to compensate for. In other words, I expect a loss or am planning on it. Part time job here I come. I will look into working remotely.
As a rule, when Social Security receives a COLA increase, Medicare costs often rise as well. But don't worry, all is peachy. Is that not what we have been told? "Yes, Medicare costs are going up in 2025, with the standard monthly Part B premium increasing to $185, which is a $10.30 increase from 2024. The Part B deductible will also increase to $257 in 2025" https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheet … eductibles
I've actually had Medicare costs rise more than the SS check did; my check went down after the COLA.
I had to use Google to find out what you meant by COLA, as I only know COLA as a well-known fizzy drink: But Google told me that it also stands for ‘Cost of Living Adjustment’ on Social Security in the USA. Then I had to remind myself that ‘Social Security’ has a different meaning in the UK than in the USA; and that what is called ‘Social Security’ in the USA is what we call ‘State Pension’ in the UK.
Getting the transatlantic translation sorted: Being America, I’m not surprised that you only got 2.5% increase in your State Pension (Social Security) this year: In contrast, the previous Conservative Government increased State Pensions in the UK by 8.5% this year, and the new Labour Government will increase State Pensions in the UK by 4.1% next year.
So, as a pensioner, I’m sitting rather cosy e.g. inflation in the UK was 7.3% last year, and just 2.3% this year: So our State Pensions (Social Security) in the UK are increasing faster than inflation.Nor surprising, for the two countries have very different philosophies on the matter.
In the US, we contribute for a lifetime into a fund that government "manages" by investing it at the lowest possible return, allowing legislators to buy pork barrel projects cheaply. Still, most of it is from our own "account" kept by government.
I don't know how Britain manages to come up with the funding, but doubt it is anything similar. Rather, I would assume that current tax rolls are used to pay the pensioners - given that beating inflation is simply expected as it's all "free" money anyway. Or do I have it wrong here?Not surprisingly, in the UK, State Pension is paid for from taxes.
However, to qualify for any State Pension you need to have paid taxes in the UK for a minimum of 10 years; and to qualify for the ‘full’ State Pension you need to have paid taxes in the UK for a minimum of 35 years. So effectively, a proportion of the taxes you pay during your working life are to help pay for your State Pension in retirement – which to me seems reasonable and fair.
Prior to 2012 our State Pensions in the UK were increased annually, similar to how it’s calculated in the USA e.g. based on inflation. However in 2012 the Conservative Government introduced the triple lock; essentially because pensioners are the Conservative’s prime support base - as two thirds of people over the age of 65 tend to vote Conservative.
The ‘Triple Lock’ is where annually, the State Pension is increased by whichever is the greatest of the following three:-
• Inflation.
• Average wage increases, if higher than inflation, or
• 2.5% increase if the above two are lower.
During this year’s General Election all political parties pledged that they would retain the ‘Triple Lock’, so in that respect, there was no incentive for pensioners to vote Conservative.Yes, considerably different. That "tax funded" makes a big difference. Our SS pays out based on how much you have paid in during your working career. Have a low paying job and the 15% of your income you and your employer contribute isn't much. A better salary produces more contribution, and that is reflected in the size of your check.
So, in theory, the neighbor next door is never paying for our pension, while he always does in the UK. That you paid for someone else's in earlier years does not mean you were saving for your own, and your check reflects that for there is no deduction (that you mentioned, anyway) for contributing less.
However. While all this is indeed reflective of the difference in our countries and our views on socialism, it is not to remain that way in the US. Our SS is getting closer all the time to tax supported socialism you have, for politicians refuse to invest it and contributions are insufficient to support a person without some kind of investment increase in the pot over the years. Simply putting your retirement contributions "in the mattress", so to speak, does not produce what will be needed. Not at 15% contribution rates.Yep, you are absolutely right Wilderness; in the UK, when they reach State Retirement Age; a ‘road sweeper’ (on minimum wage) will get exactly the same State Pension as a CEO of a big international conglomerate.
It’s interesting to hear from you that the combined contributions from employer and employee in the USA to pay for your Social Security (State Pension) are 15% of the employee’s income.
In the UK, the contributions are 15% from the employer and 8% from the employee; total 23% of income. However, that 23% (15% employer/8% employee) doesn’t cover the cost of just our State Pension; it also covers the cost of unemployment benefits, maternity allowance etc., and the cost of the NHS. However, on the plus side; neither the employer nor employees have to pay any health insurance because in the UK the NHS is free at the point of use.
In the UK, as a ‘safety net’ for people of State Pension Age who doesn’t have any other income other than their State Pension e.g. they don’t have a works pension, and no significant savings, and their living expenses is more than the State Pension – Then they are entitled to additional government benefits called ‘Pension Credits’, which can be worth up to around an extra $7,000 or more per year from the Government on top of their State Pension.
I and my wife of course don’t qualify for Pension Credits, as we don’t need it e.g. we both have our State Pensions, Works Pensions, and Savings – so are well off anyway.
What is Pension Credit: https://youtu.be/jhnEXjGhqGIThe current above mentioned system of where the employer and employee contribute (pay tax to the government) as a percentage of the employees income, towards the cost of “State Pension; unemployment benefits; maternity allowance; etc., and the cost of the NHS – is a system introduced in the UK by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 1948.
The Conservative Government tried to radically modify the system in 2012 e.g. a failed attempt to significantly slash government spending on welfare benefits; but they failed because they were blocked by the House of Lords.
And as part of their election campaign this year the Conservatives pledged to abolish the current above mentioned system altogether if they won the General Election: This pledge, along with their controversial policy on ‘Immigration’ were the two main planks of their Election Campaign in the General Election: But as we know, the Conservatives lost badly to Labour in the General Election on 4th July this year – So the people made the right choice.
Arthur,
We are not so lucky as the COLA is pegged to the the rate of inflation and calculated monthly from October thru September to derive a figure that October to be applied to to recipients the following January.
It has never really caught up with the reality of costs today and it was not really intended to. It was designed as a supplement to savings and pensions. I have a federal pension and do not have a great deal of money coming from Social Security.
Unfortunately, these days, it is unrealistic to expect people to successfully save anything in these volatile markets expecting smooth sailing over 30 to 40 years. And in this country, private sector pensions are a thing of the past. That is why so many Americans are terrified at their prospects once they would reach retirement ageThe biggest vote base for the Conservatives in Britain are pensioners; so in that respect we’ve been lucky with having the Conservatives in power over the past 14 years, because the Conservative Government has looked after the pensioners in an attempt to win votes.
In that respect: In 2012 the Conservative Government introduced the ‘Triple Lock’ on Pensions:
The ‘Triple Lock’ being where annually, the State Pension is increased by whichever is the greatest of the following three:-
• Inflation.
• Average wage increases, if higher than inflation, or
• 2.5% increase if the above two are lower.
However, in 2008, the Labour Government also introduced laws that made it a legal requirement for employers in the UK to automatically enrol employees into a workplace pension: Thus ensuring that in the future all employees will retire with both a works pension and the State Pension.
As a retired civil servant I have both a works pension and the State Pension; one pays all the bills (and living expenses) and the other is just ‘pin’ money.
Also, where you say: “Unfortunately, these days, it is unrealistic to expect people to successfully save anything in these volatile markets expecting smooth sailing over 30 to 40 years.” – interesting, in the UK, in 2017 the Conservative Government introduced the ‘LifeTime’ ISA, specifically aimed at helping the lower paid save for their retirement, or buy their first home.
A lifetime ISA is a special bank savings account, where all the interest is tax free (and ISA accounts tend to earn high interest as well), and where you are allowed to save up to £4,000 ($5,000) per year – the only downside is that you cannot withdraw any money from the account until you retire, unless you use the money to buy your first home – But a big plus, is that for every $4 you save in your ISA, the Government pays in (gives you) $1.
Lifetime ISA explained UK (5 minute video) https://youtu.be/K5IV_IRNLDY
I don’t have a Lifetime ISA, obviously; but I and all my family members have ‘general’ ISA’s which we’ve all had since the Labour Government first launched ISA’s (tax free) savings accounts in 1999 – and they are a great way of saving, even for low paid people.That's funny, Arthur because in America conservatives are generally against pensions and annuitants.
So, if you have a state pension you are going to get as a minimum 2.5 percent? We have not such guarantees as to the annual COLA.
Here, I have heard talk of placing people in retirement programs allowing them to actively choose to opt out. There are far too many Americans woefully unprepared for retirement.
I was fortunate as Uncle Sam took 8 percent of wages every 2 weeks for my Civil Service Retirement System plan. It was mandatory and a blessing because in 30 years, I could never save the money myself, as life happens. I am not an expert in investments and securities in the face of an ever volatile market, where in 2008, I had many friends (FERS) lose their savings though the Wall Street gambling casino.
Also, my plan was one not available today and was considerably more generous without the perils of market risk. You reach 55 with 30 years of service and you get a pension. The system changed in 1984, just a couple of years after I officially signed on to federal service. Ronald Reagan promoted the new change FERS Federal Employees Retirement System and encouraged many of us to go to the new plan from the original one. After 1984, enrollment in the New plan was the only option available.
The new plan was not as generous, with benefits tied a great deal to the stock market, which also I didn't trust. But the new system had it perks but was of no value to me as I planned to retire Civil Service. I did not trust Reagan, or anything that he said was for my benefit. I determined that I was better off holding on to what I had. So, I did, and I am glad.Traditionally, in the UK the younger you are the more likely you are to vote Labour, and the older you are the more likely you are to vote Conservative: So consequently:-
• Only 21% of people under the age of 25 vote Conservative, and
• 56% of people under the age of 25 vote Labour
While in contrast:
• 67% of people over the age of 70 vote Conservative, and
• Only 14% of people over the age of 70 vote Labour
So yes; unlike the USA, in the UK the Conservatives fully support a good pension income for the elderly; because that is where their vote base is e.g. given that in the UK the Conservative get most of their votes from the elderly, you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to realise that the Conservatives are going to try to appease the pensioners, by trying to buy their votes, for General Elections.
Yep, under the current system, introduced by the Conservatives in 2012, the minimum guarantee annual rise on the State Pension is 2.5%.
As you know, I was also a civil servant, and thus also had a generous civil service pension; similar to yours: For a comparison, the details of my civil service pension is as follow:-
• My contributions towards my civil service pension were 5.45% of my income (compared to the 8% you paid).
• I retired on a near full civil service pension at age 55, with 37 years’ service in the pension scheme.
• My civil service pension is 66% of the income I was earning at retirement.
• My civil service pension is linked to inflation e.g. it automatically rises with the rate of inflation each year.
• If I should die before my wife; my wife automatically gets half (50%) of my civil service pension for life – so along with her NHS works pension and State Pension, she is well protected.
Similar to where Reagan changed your civil service pension scheme, to new entrants, for the worse in 1984; the Conservatives in the UK did the same in 2015 e.g. for new recruits into the civil service after 2015, instead of getting 66% of your final salary as your pension on retirement, you get 1/60th of the average of what you earnt over a lifetime, multiplied by the number of years you worked, which gives you a much lower works pension on retirement – and thus making your State Pension even more important.
By law passed in the UK in 2008, all employers have to enrol all their employees in a works pension; and now your works pension is transferable e.g. if/when you change jobs your work pension follows you; so that when you retire, instead of having lots of small works pensions (if you changed jobs frequently); you now have just one big works pension.
Another big difference between pensions in the USA vs UK, which I notice from your comments, is that under UK law it is illegal for pension funds to invest in insecure investments; plus as an extra safety net, all pensions funds are fully protected under a national scheme anyway. Obviously, the same can’t be said for savings if people want to risk investing in the stock market; the safest way to save any spare cash you have, for a rainy day, or retirement etc., in the UK is to open an ISA (Individual Savings Account) with a bank; they are tax free savings, and the interest paid can be quite good.
What is an ISA (Tax Free Savings)? https://youtu.be/dz7NlszCa1oYour description of conservative vs labour reminds me of the US, and is as sad as the voting in the US is.
I say that because you point out that the needs of the country is secondary; what really counts is voting yourself money to be taken from other people. Exactly what happens in the US.
Once more, the quotation from R A Heinlein comes to mind, the one about bread and circuses and the inevitable failure of democracy.Yeah, it is sad when political parties in power put politics before the country. The most classic example of that in the UK is when Liz Truss became Conservative Prime Minister on 6th September 2022 – by the 30th September (within 3 weeks) she had spectacularly crashed the UK economy by “putting politics before the country”; and consequently, on 20th October 2022 (just 3 weeks later) her own Conservative Party kicked her out of Office for her mistake: As explained in some detail in this short video https://youtu.be/pWYrh2xivFc
But I wouldn’t say that the Conservatives looking after the elderly voter (because that is where there vote base is) is in any way detrimental to the country e.g. we all (for those who live long enough) someday become old ourselves, and surly it’s far better for us all to enjoy our twilight years with some level of comfort and security, rather than in poverty.
I’m fully aware of your strong objection to ‘redistribution of wealth’, which is a more fundamental part of British Society than American Society; but if it’s any conciliation, I did leave out one important point in my last post to you:-
Where in my last post to you I clarified that in the UK employees pay 8% of their income (wages) in a tax (called NI tax) that specifically raises Government money to pay for the State Pension, unemployment benefits, maternity leave benefits, and the NHS etc. (And employers pay 15%).
What I failed to mention is that unlike ordinary income tax on wages, which is a progressive tax e.g. the more you earn the higher the tax rate; the 8% tax on wages (NI tax) to pay for the UK’s Welfare System (introduced by Labour (Socialist Government) in 1948) is actually a ‘Regressive Tax’ e.g. everyone earning enough to pay tax pay’s the 8%, except the super wealthy. The top 5% wage earners only pay 2% of this tax on their salary. Plus also, no one employee or employer, nor the super wealthy, have the heavy cost burden of medical insurance to worry about, as the NHS (paid for by the Government) is free to all at the point of use.
By the way, I love some of the Sci-Fi by R A Heinlein; a “Stranger in a Strange Land” springs to mind.Here's an unrelated tangent: We have a common interest. I also think Stranger in a Strange Land was an awesome read. For months after it took a conscious effort to keep "Grok" out of my vocabulary. ;-)
A tidbit you might have heard: In an interview, Heinlein was asked how he felt about the semi-religious 'movement' around the book and the 'truth' of Grok. He didn't like it. He called them hippies and said it 'was just a damn book.'
GAYep, a Brill read – I didn’t hear about the interview you mention - most interesting; thanks for sharing that titbit.
Our SS is similar in that there is a point in your earnings that you will no longer have to pay that SS tax. If you earn enough your percentage goes almost to zero even though you are paying the maximum amount.
I liked "Stranger" too. In fact I like all of his works. Some of the early ones seemed aimed at kids, but I still like them.Thanks for the feedback – and yes, R A Heinlein was certainly a brilliant writer.
Hi, Arthur
I thought that I would link you into this as a very comprehensive exit polls for the last election and where the people are right now.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit- … resident/0
Our pension outcomes are almost identical in scope and benefits. The downgrade of benefits, yes, it just took a bit longer there.
What was comparable to your “State Pension” fallback plan was for the FERS, the “thrift saving plan” which was based on voluntary contributions by the employee. The government will match the contribution with 1 percent of the employee’s salary. Quite generous, huh? The employee’s contributions were placed in a an investment fund of his or her choice, some with greater returns were more risky, but the more stable ones simply grew more slowly. I saw all of this as intolerable risk. WHO would want to forecast anything for 30-40 years? The sun could nova in 40 years. As, I said from the last major meltdown during my time of service, 2008, I had friends who were ready to retire, but could not because their nest egg had been broken. So, either they left then, woefully inadaquate benefit wise, or wait another 5-10 years for the loss to be recovered. Who is to say that you even would live that long? Either way, it is a rough ride. WHO would want to trust the banksters of Wall Street, with your nest egg, life savings? For them, As Pink Floyd said, it is “just another brick in the wall”. It is funny though, that transferable feature in your revised system was part of Reagan’s plan and was supposed to be a perk.
Then there is the risk of the 401K (CON). I am not versed in all the particulars of the investment banking industry but after seeing this documentary some time ago, I learned a few things. I attached it for you to check out on your free time when you have nothing better to do. I was appalled how these investment banker professionals routinely deceive so many. People who have been saving for years with an expected return only to find out that they had been “nickeled and dimed” through transactions fees and surcharges that compounded over many years taking more than a negligible cut from their expected return.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOQNPIsO-Q
And on top of that, when Democratic members of congress demanded that the industry make clear to consumers the true nature of the fees and surcharges, the industry, their lobbyists and Republicans resisted, speaking about government overreach and private responsibility. Well, I say that most people have neither the skills nor the time to negotiate the rough waters associated with successful investing. So, Reagan’s austerity plan was just a cheap trick on Civil Service employees. But luckily, I escaped from his clutches.Wow – Your video on the 401K in the USA is an eye opener:
What I find quite shocking is the comment made in the video suggesting that you need to earn $100,000 per year (equating to $1.5 million) to comfortably retire?
In contrast, in the UK, according to data, a single person can live comfortable in retirement on just $55,000 per year (a couple needs just $75,000 per year); while at the other end, to live in retirement, covering all basic needs, you only need $18,000 per year as a single person (or $28,000 as a couple) e.g. just slightly more than the State Pension.
For a moderate lifestyle in retirement e.g. middle class; you only need $40,000 income per year as a single person, $55,000 joint income as a couple.
Also, thanks for the comprehensive link to the USA exit polls: The UK equivalent in our 2024 General Election is here: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ … l-election
There are no great surprises in the above charts until you scroll down to the section on how people on different salaries (wages) voted: In the UK 2024 General Election, a higher percentage of people on the highest salary voted Labour, than those on the lowest pay? E.g. 33% of low paid workers voted Labour, compared to 40% of workers on high wages who voted Labour. It sounds like a contradiction, but when you consider (as shown in these charts) that the better educated in the UK are far more inclined to vote for left-wing political parties, and the less well educated are more inclined to vote for right-wing political parties – then as better educated people are more likely to get better paid jobs then perhaps it begins to make sense!
FYI: if you do browse the charts: As regards social class - FYI ABC1 = Middle Class, and C2DE = Working Class. In the 2024 General Election, all political parties including Labour and Conservatives (except for the far-right Reform UK Party) did slightly better from the Middle Classes; while the far-right Reform UK Party got the lion share of their votes from the less well educated working classes – again it seems to come down to education?
Another point that caught my eye is that, in respect to the 401K scandal “when Democratic members of congress demanded that the industry make clear to consumers the true nature of the fees and surcharges, the industry, their lobbyists and Republicans resisted”
It caught my eye in that we’ve had two similar financial scandals in the UK in the 1980’s and 1990’s – as a direct result of Thatcherism. But unlike in the USA, where the Republicans tried to sweep it under the carpet; in the UK, it was the banks who tried to resist – but following a string of successful high profile Court Cases (in the civil courts) against the Banks, the then Labour Government stepped in an forced to Banks to automatically pay the compensation.
The two financial scandals in the UK were:-
#1: From the mid-1990s, Banks started mis-selling endowment mortgages: Endowment mortgages were insurance polies with profits, the idea that the profits earnt over the lifetime of the mortgage would more than pay the mortgage off, leaving a nest egg as a bonus e.g. making it appear a more attractive than the conventional mortgages.
It was a false promise from Banks, and in many cases the profits on the endowment insurance did not pay the mortgage off, leaving many home owners in heavy debt.
Endowment mortgages were banned by the Labour Government in 2001, and banks who mis-advised their customers were forced to pay compensation based on “what the customer’s position would have been if they had taken out a repayment mortgage instead of an endowment mortgage”.
In total $2.5 billion was paid by Banks in compensation.
#2: The second financial scandal in the UK was the PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) scandal.
The PPI scandal is where, from 1993 Banks started to make people pay insurance on loans and mortgages, so that if the loan couldn’t be paid back e.g. due to illness or losing your job; then the insurance would pay your debt off. Perhaps a good idea in theory; but the Banks did this without telling people that a significant percentage of their loan repayment was for an insurance policy that the customer didn’t ask for, and my not have wanted.
When this scandal came to light in the late 1990s, several people successfully sued the banks in the civil courts, and got compensation; but the banks resisted, and contested each individual case in court – until in 2009 the Labour Government stepped in and banned PPI, and made it a legal requirement that the banks automatically paid everybody back – So the banks had to fork out a total of $50 billion in compensation.
#3: But the biggest scandal, and the Biggest Miscarriage of Justice, in British History is the POST OFFICE Horizon scandal:
Where, due to a ‘faulty’ IT system, between 1999 and 2015 over 700 sub-postmasters were criminally convicted, of which 236 were given prison sentences for fraud which they didn’t commit.
However, one of the sub-postmasters (Mr Bates) who was falsely convicted of fraud, losing his job, his savings and his home – against all odds – and with the Post Office trying to cover up the scandal – he fought back against the system: And won.
And a BIG thanks to ITV (British TV Channel) for making a documentary drama mini-series of Mr Bates taking on the Post Office, aired on British TV in January this year; the TV Drama Series made the scandal headline news across Britain, with all the publicity, the Conservative Government was forced to step in, not only to ensure that all those wrongly convicted are properly compensated; but also, the Conservative Government passed an Act of Parliament on 24th May this year that overturned all the convictions at a stroke.
If you every get a chance to see this 4-part documentary drama mini-series, its well worth the watch – especially as it’s a true story…
Here is a short trailers of the mini-series.
Mr Bates vs The Post Office https://youtu.be/2pQwv4qlMck
Also: Post Office Scandal Explained https://youtu.be/LdQQib3rmkEYes, indeed Arthur,
Here the only income most can count on is Social Security and I believe the average recipient may get $2,000 a month for a lifetime of work by age 70. That is $4,000 for a couple assuming both had lifetime work credits. Someone can come in to correct me if I am not roughly accurate, $48,000 per year.
With inflationary pressures over the last few years and the fact that this money is taxed and medical benefits Medicare is taken from it leave most people wanting.
Social Security was designed as a supplement to other forms of income that is supposedly available at retirement.
That documentary that You checked out may have been a bit exaggerated, but not totally. After 10 years, it could be considered as dated. 100K, which I was earning at the maximum point of my career 15 years ago, putting me clearly within a relatively affluent column at that time, has changed where now it has become the floor for the average middle class lifestyle. Yes, you could live on less and many do, but the average....
Here in the states, the most ignorant vote for right wing candidates. Working class middle aged men has given Republicans most of their support. Oddly enough, their association with those that do not profess economic principles in their best intersts manage to reach them through social and cultural issues that in my opinion are a mere distraction. It is the themes of toxic masculinity and visions of the submissive woman of old and a world that Trump is enticing them toward that is long gone. In other words, a lie. Trump himself has stated how much he loved the poorly educated. Now, why would anyone say something like that?
The young, if not young men that has bought in on all of Trump's macho crap, generally vote left or democratic. The highly educated vote democrat. Most minority groups lean Democrat in their preferences. But, here in the states, oligarchy or wealth has an inordinate influence on politics. The big money people have a vested interest in keeping their money and controlling the institutions that perpetuate their advantages at the expense of others. As a result,they vote Republican and use their influence to support Republican candidates, preserving the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. You English folks do not let money intersts take control of your government like it does here.
The Republicans and the big money financial institutions(banksters) have the same interests, to preserve the wealth of the few to the detriment of the many. Even your House of Lords are not as brazen, in its stark pursuit of advantage for the aristocrat.
To get recompense for those put upon by the scandals Was possible as they were not hindered by the wealth and deep pockets of the banking industry. Where here, so much of anything like this will depend upon those having been assaulted to come up with the money for attorneys and extended litigation. The impartial federal agencies designed to protect consumers from the wiles of the plutocrat are being watered down by Republicans as we speak.
On that Post Office scandal, it would have seem to me that it is improbable that that so many responsible Post masters were all guilty of theft and fraud at the same time. And it is as a gentlemen said in the explanation of the scandal in regard to the Horizon software, " this is not the first time that computer software has been found in error or defective". I don't understand why it was so hard to ferret out what I would have thought under the circumstances was the more likely source of discrepancies of the magnitude involved.
Thanks for the links, it is too bad that that we in the states never get to hear about these things and how you all have resolved them, if for nothing else than an example as to how things are properly done."Here the only income most can count on is Social Security"
Where do you come up with this stuff? Seriously, I have no idea. In the United States there are many different ways people can be responsible for their retirement. There are 401Ks if you work for a company, company provided pension, you can have a 401K if you own a company. There are Roth IRAs, and other IRAs you can invest in for the future.
"The Republicans and the big money financial institutions(banksters) have the same interests, to preserve the wealth of the few to the detriment of the many."
IF this was the case there would not be company pension plans, IRAs, 401Ks, and a variety of other retirement savings plans. People can save for their own retirement and be responsible for it.
You need to quit making up things. It's sad to think someone would actually believe what you are saying.
I can't imagine thinking there is only Social Security for retirement. If that's the case, a person has failed to plan for their future and that is on THEM.
I'm one of those people who plans to work at my business until the day I depart this world. I can't imagine getting up in the morning and not have a purpose. I have friends who are retired and they are bored. Many of them get a job.Ninety-four percent of retirees with one or two major sources of income outside of Social Security report being financially comfortable compared to just 60% of those who say Social Security is their only major source of income.
Well, Mike, that 60 percent is a substantial number for me anyway. I guess that is where I come up with this "stuff".
The market is fraught with risk, all your 401K savings could be flushed down the toilet tomorrow the very next time Wall Street lays an egg, then what?
All these vaunted alternatives you speak of are based upon a volatile stock market and the ability for anyone to walk inbetween the raindrops for 30-40"years to discipline themselves against any future eventuality to not touch them. Sixty percent tells me that most people are not successful at it, so my ""stuff" stands. Nobody really knows what the future holds, Mike, and what adjustments will be needed for continued survival. But what you say always "sounds" good, though. Such is the view of a strident lefty who is not always so bullish on America.
I guess there has to be people content to work until the grave, well I am not one of them. I work to live, not live to work. Work is not an ethic but just a necessity for survival. I want a reasonable amount of time free from the toils and obligations of labor to do things that I hadn't have time for and even read the books that I said that I would read someday. Well, you know something, someday is now. I am never so bored that going to work is ever a viable alternative.That 60% of people do not take advantage of retirement programs does not mean they don't exist. It just means that 60% of the people (minus a small minority that cannot) refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
As far as that terrible, terrible stock market; I watched for several years as SS sent me my yearly statement. And several times I built a spreadsheet looking at what it would have been with the contributions listed but invested at a reasonable ROR. I also looked hard at the market, and was unable to find a 40 year span that did not show at least a 10% average yearly return in the S&P. So...a mutual fund emulating the S&P can be reliably expected to produce at least a 10% average yearly return over 40 years. Of course, if you dig into it early, if you retire early (less than 40 years of contributions) or if you don't contribute for those 40 years, then you will not have it when needed.
BUT...one must be willing to take the responsibility for ones own needs, even in retirement. If you are not, if you want government to do it for you, you will lose."This sounds like old Earth around 1920, 1925"
Would you like to try for 1930?
There was a reason that the Social Security Act of 1935 was put into place. The world has changed, being in the midst of a Great Depression after a rather deceptive boom time has put many in poverty in their old age. It wasn't 1875 where multiple families stayed together on the farm and the aged lived with their children. The first quarter of the 20th Century brought about changes in mobility and the very structures of families. If everybody could "save" for their retirement as you imply, there would have been no need for it, right?
I appreciate the research you did on the actual rate of return if you hypothetically had your nest egg invested in the markets. But the view is always different when you are on the rollercoaster rather than observing it from a distance. Could you have rode out the white knuckle moments when the market tumbled over any crisis that has occurred over the last 40 years? When it dips and you lose a quarter of the value of your investment in a matter of days, would you stay the course? What if you are nearing retirement just prior to a dip, how long are you prepared to wait until the market restores your holdings to a previous level? How do you avoid doing anything in within a 40"year span? You may have to dip for number of reasons, life is not lockstep as you seem to imply, that we can always be responsible for our destiny? It just takes a little bit of discipline, right? Life happens and that is just the way it is. My friends that were inundated from the 2008 downturn could not feel comfortable taking a clinical view of their losses and it implications for their retirement plans.
I say without Social Security in the current economic climate, poverty among older people would be far worse. People need the assurance beyond Wall Street banksters regarding a lifetime of work that a savings has been set up for them in their old age regardless of life's uncertainties. "Responsible" people can lose as well. So, I like the Government plan."If everybody could "save" for their retirement as you imply, there would have been no need for it, right?"
And if the can save, but neglect to do so, there is no need to do so? Because that is the case with most people. What percentage of people, do you think, would save 15% of their earnings, never touching it, if there were no SS? The need is there, all right, but people ignore it in favor of more toys, bigger house, travel and a host of other things.
I did ride out several white knuckle periods, including the recession. At one point I lost nearly half...and kept right on contributing to my 401 as much as I could.
" How do you avoid doing anything in within a 40"year span? You may have to dip for number of reasons,"
How many times did you dip into your SS funds? If you cannot do it, then you cannot do it.
I see no reason SS could not be set up with required deposits and no chance of withdrawal until 62. Just let people pick where their deposit goes, perhaps out of a list of approved funds. Maybe even to include government bonds, with the worst possible ROR. Or, if you like the government plan, make that "investment" one of those that you can choose as well.
I just know that without anyone trying at all to increase those funds, simply spending them instead and offering IOU's in return (with next to zero interest) I get very little back. But if I had invested them in a relative safe mutual fund I would have been a multi multi millionaire by the time I retired instead of the pittance that SS provides. And that would have happened over a wide range of possible starting dates; it would not matter WHEN I started, even from within the great depression. Just that it is done for 40 years or more.I told you that prior to social security having enough to live on through old age was a universal issue. there would be some and maybe more than a few that would have the discipline and plain luck to stay with a voluntary 15 percent plan over a lifetime. So, you say that the need for material perks prevents people from saving, pretty simplistic analysis I would say.
Kudos to you for riding out the white knuckle periods. But, if you planned on retirement the very next year, how long would you have to wait before the loss can be recouped. You have a lot of faith in the ‘system”, I don’t.
A mandatory extraction such as you suggest, letting people select from investment methods, I like that idea. So, You can come up with something of value if you try. But a mandatory form of contribution is the only way to get people to save. Real people can expect emergencies over a 40 year span where the best efforts of mice or men will fail, and that will require them to tap funds that they could voluntarily remove, it is not vacation money or a new TV.Take a look at Galveston Texas' SS effort. It appears to be still working.
GA"But, if you planned on retirement the very next year, how long would you have to wait before the loss can be recouped."
If I planned on retirement a year away there wouldn't be hardly any loss, for I would be OUT of risky (mutual funds) for the most part. It sounds like you really don't have any idea how to use the market for income gain over long periods. It isn't hard, just a little study and a little attention on a daily or weekly basis.I can't claim any expertise in long term investments as my retirement was accomplished without that risk.
But, if you lost 50 percent of your nest eggs value in 2008, and you planned on retiring in 2009, what would you do? I knew people who lost a lot money and would have to reprogram their entire future as a result. How is any of that really avoided over an extended period of time? I guess it sounds like your Mutual Funds solution is closing the barn door after the horses got out.
Interesting – thanks for the feedback:
I will reply in two parts: Here is Part #1:
The $48,000 joint income per year that you mention a couple can expect from Social Security (State Pension) in America is almost identical to the UK’s average salary, at $47,286.
Wow – your Social Security (State Pension) is taxed? In the UK, the State Pension itself, is NOT taxable; but the Government does deduct it from your tax allowance, meaning that you have to pay the full 20% income tax on the whole of your works pension: Well, we can’t have everything!
But of course, in the UK there are no medical bills, and no medical insurance to pay (as the NHS is 100% free to all at the point of use); so that does make a BIG difference to the overall cost of living for the elderly (and everyone else).
It’s interesting, and not surprising, that in America “Social Security was designed as a supplement to other forms of income that is supposedly available at retirement.” – In the UK, attitudes are different, and I think possibly, more importance is put on State Pensions:
In the UK 26% of pensioners have the State Pension as their only source of income.
Of the other 74% of pensioners who have other incomes, on average:
• 44% of their income is from their Works Pension.
• 32% of their income is from their State Pension, and
• The remaining 24% is made up from either part time work and or savings etc.
So I don’t know how the above compares to the USA pensioners income sources?
WOW – You were earning $100,000 15 years ago: I wasn’t earning a quarter of that, yet I was still quite well off (Lower Middle Class) e.g. owing our own home, having three holidays (vacations) per year etc.
I’ve just had a quick look to see what sort of work in the UK today (2024) pays $100,000 per year: And people who earn around $100,000 per year (which is considered a high income in the UK) include:-
• Surgeons (NHS)
• Vet Surgeons
• Anaesthetists (NHS)
• GPs (Doctors) in the NHS
• Solicitors (Lawyers)
• Senior Project Managers
• Dentists
• Investment Brokers
These days, in the UK, earning $38,000 to $76,000 per year is considered Middle Class, and is more than enough to live comfortably, with lots of holidays (vacations) – So considering, from comparisons made in chats in other HP forums in the past, that the cost of living in the UK isn’t that different from the USA e.g. the cost of food, house prices, transport etc. are similar, and somethings are even a lot more expensive in the UK at the moment, such as electricity, petrol (gas) etc., it’s amazing that we don’t need such high incomes in the UK (as in the USA) to live comfortably – there are obviously other factors at play that makes living in the UK cheaper than living in the USA!Oh, yes taxation of 50% of Social security benefits occur after $25,000 in annual benefits going up to 85%.
Medicare premiums are anywhere between 200 and 400 per month depending upon the income of the recipient and use of supplemental plans which in theory are used to lower point of service co-pays and offer more comprehensive coverage in those areas where Medicare may be lacking. How much would that take from the average monthly Social Security check? The fact that there is no medical expense for your citizens is a big advantage. A great deal of resources for older people is spent on medicine and physicians.
Just to give you an idea where Americans get their retirement money, I linked this….
https://www.fool.com/research/retiremen … %20salary.
I would not categorize myself with all the professionals that you listed, here they would make a lot more than 100K! Any one of them worth their salt would see 250K and up.
With inflation, the job that I held now pays 127K. But, I enjoy my retirement and wouldnt trade it.
Middle class here is pretty broad depending on the size of the family, a safe bet is now that figure could be between 50-150K for a family of 4. With my generous pension plan, if I were single, I would be considered affluent. But, alas, women are expensive…..
It might be our own fault why things seem so much expensive, for example my neighbor has 4 cars in his driveway and it is just him and his wife. There is a tremendous consumer culture here for purchases of the superlative. I really speculate as to how much of this we bring on ourselves.
I will pick this up in the next post…Wow, “50% of taxation Social security benefits occur after $25,000”; even the super wealthy don’t pay that much tax in the UK: The highest tax rate (for the highest pay earners) is just 47% in total (45% standard ‘income tax’ on earnings, and 2% ‘NI tax’ on income to pay for the Welfare Benefits e.g. unemployment benefits, maternity allowance and NHS etc.)
The tax most people pay on their earnings is 28% in total (20% income tax, and 8% NI tax): In the UK, when you retire, even if you take early retirement, you are exempt from paying the NI tax on income (unless you decide to continue work in your retirement); so the most you pensioners pay in the UK in taxes on income in retirement is just 20%:-
In the UK:
• State Pension (Social Security) is exempt from tax.
• ISA (savings accounts) are tax free
• Works Pensions are taxed at 20%
• If you do decide to work part-time in your retirement, the total tax on your wages earned from working is 28%.
At what age do people get their Social Security in the USA: In the UK it’s currently 67, and there is no option to take it out earlier e.g. I retired at 55 on my Works pension, and had to wait until 67 before I also got my State Pension (social security) – But at least my works pension, on its own, was sufficient for me to live on quite comfortably for those 12 years before I started getting my State Pension (which I use as pin money).
Wow, between $200 and $400 per month on Medicare in the USA ($2,400 & $4,800 per year). The State Pension in the UK is a flat rate $14,600 per year for everyone, so Medicare would take a large chunk of that, which would push millions of pensioners in the UK into poverty.
It always amazes me on how the American healthcare system is a two-tier system e.g. those who can’t afford the full coverage get a cut down version of healthcare: Whereas in the UK everyone, regardless to wealth, all get the same high level of universal healthcare.
Thanks for the link: It does show that other forms of income, besides your Social Security, are far more important in the USA than in the UK.
Another Wow: The $250,000 salary that you quote would be the going rate for solicitors (layers), surgeons, and doctors etc. in the USA - even the Prime Minister of the UK earns that much; in the UK that’s in the wage bracket of Senior Consultants and top level managers. To put it into a little more perspective - in the UK, the top level wages that only people like CEOs (top earners) would earn is from around $318,000 per year:
So, all in all, it would seem that you need to earn an awful lot more money to live in America than in Europe! That seems to be reflected in Middle Class incomes e.g. in the UK, earning of between $38,000 and $76,000 is middle class (comfortable lifestyle); whereas in the USA that bracket is between $50,000 & $150,000: About double the income at the top end of the bracket.
Yeah, you may have a point in your concluding paragraph:
For comparison, in our home, we have the following (and in many ways we are average for a British Home)
• Two cars
• 3 large TVs and associated ancillary equipment e.g. cable boxes, Blu-ray players, sound systems etc. The TV (55 inch) in our living room being the most expensive, at around $1,500
• 3 computers and 2 laptops, of which 2 of the computers being topped end, at $5,000 each.
• 3 Smart phones
• 2 DAB radios
• Expensive cameras and video equipment
• All the top range kitchen appliances, including 3 freezers
• Axminster Carpets in the living room and bedrooms (around $2,000 per room) – Axminster being the best quality, and most expensive carpets that money can buy in the UK.
• Solid Oak floors in the Dining room, hallways and conservatory.
And since retirement, we’ve also splashed out on having:-
• Our home re-doubled glazed (windows and doors) for around $6,000
• Solar panels and wall battery installed, for around $12,000, and
• Recently, replaced our old bath with an indoor Jacuzzi bath, costing $6,000
But of course, where we do make savings, notwithstanding that we now have solar panels, is that in the UK, the average household uses half the electricity to the average American household; and I suspect that is largely due to the fact that British homes are much smaller, and that we don’t have Air Conditioning in the UK.
Plus also, in the UK, there is far more Government help than in the USA, not just for those in most need, but for everyone, for example, in the UK, if you have difficulty walking you can claim Motability Allowance regardless to income e.g. a government disability benefit that is NOT means tested: With Motability Allowance the Government benefit pays for a new car for you, which is replaced once every three years, and the Government’s disability benefit covers the cost of insurance and maintenance etc.
Motability Scheme explained! Getting a car for disability. Get the most out of PIP (Disability Allowance) https://youtu.be/kS9Z1xTRh1EI hope that I am not confused, 50 percent of our social security benefits are subject to taxation, it is not a taxation rate of 50 percent.
But reading further, you tell me that most people pay 28 percent of this earnings in tax. That is probably a bit higher than it is here, because of all the exemptions and loopholes. After applying all available exemptions, old age stuff and the like, I probably actually paid 5 percent of my income in federal income tax.
Criticism surrounding socialist economies is the higher rates of taxation. But you seem to indicate that that is in exchange for all of citizens having a reasonable expectation for a decent life. So, it is a tradeoff, of what is of more value? It has not seem to affect your household and your ability to make improvements in anyway. I could not think of having the resources on the scale that you have had just in your home improvements.
"But of course, where we do make savings, notwithstanding that we now have solar panels, is that in the UK, the average household uses half the electricity to the average American household; and I suspect that is largely due to the fact that British homes are much smaller, and that we don’t have Air Conditioning in the UK."
A most interesting observation and explanation. There has to be an element to frugality that can explain so stark a difference in electricity use between of our societies. When I was there many years ago, my first impression was that people generally were far less wasteful.
Arthur, CEOs here can easily earn 7 figure salaries, for a matter of fact, it is quite routine. There are many fields of endeavor here where a million dollar salary would not be out of the realm of possibility.
Yes, my wife, before we linked up, was on the Medicaid track, the spartan of the two tiers, and service was minimal as many major medical procedures could not be paid for although most of her meds were free. There were enough shortcomings to avoid it in its entirely as I saw it as punishment of the poor.Another reason for the low electricity usage is the house size. In the UK average house size is 818 sq ft; in the US it is 2164. Even without air conditioning that makes for quite a difference in energy usage.
In addition, it is my understanding that almost every home in the UK has natural gas, coal or oil. Something to burn to produce heat. With so many homes in a rural setting in the US we don't get that, making the average power usage climb in comparison. US consumers tend to have massive refrigerators and freezers in comparison as well, and often cook and heat water electrically rather than gas.
There are actually lots of reasons, including conservation; UK energy is usually considerably more costly than the US.Yep, that’s a fair observation; although it is only gas, oil was phased out a long, long time ago, and coal is now phased out, the last coal fire power station closed on the 30th September 2024. The Conservative Government was committed to phasing out gas by 2035, but the new Labour Government is aiming to phase out gas by 2030.
Silly me; I should have twigged that you meant 50% of your Social Security is taxable, rather than the tax rate being 50%.
The 28% tax rate I mentioned only applies to Salaries (Wages); works pensions is 20% tax, ISA Savings Accounts is 0% tax, and State Pension is 0% tax.
That’s cool, that in total, you only pay 5% tax; I would guess, as a rough estimate, that I pay just a little over 10% tax on my total income.
Yep, absolutely, where you say:
“Criticism surrounding socialist economies is the higher rates of taxation. But you seem to indicate that that is in exchange for all of citizens having a reasonable expectation for a decent life. So, it is a trade-off”
The assumption that British people want lower taxes was a mistake the Conservatives made at the General Election in July e.g. the Conservatives two campaign strategies was to lower taxes, and pursue their controversial immigration policy – But it’s not what the voting people wanted, as we know – Instead the British people voted overwhelmingly for a socialist government.
This short (1 minute video), an extract from one of the TV General Election Debates between the 7 (seven) main political parties, sums up the mentality of the Conservative Party in Britain at the time e.g. shows how much out of touch they are with the voting public: https://youtu.be/TYklkOX2wiU
Yep, although we might have higher taxes, and in monetary terms less income, than Americans, I still have more income than I need; so yes, we are quite affluent, and spend lots of money on our home, and modern tech. and have three holidays (vacations) a year. Obviously, there are people who are struggling in Britain, as in any wealthy country, but at least our Social Welfare system is far more encompassing than in America.
Yep, that’s a good observation; I would agree with you that the British people are by nature far less wasteful and more frugal than Americans e.g. recycling, upcycling and repurposing is a BIG thing in the UK – It is something that is embedded into the British psyche from the 2nd World War, when our parents and grandparents had to ‘make do and mend’ to survive the war.
Well, yeah, CEOs in the UK can earn 7 figure salaries, especially for large international conglomerates; but for a more modest Company (which makes up the vast bulk of Companies in the UK) a salary starting from around a third of a million is respectable. I’m not surprised that “there are many fields of endeavor (in the USA) where a $1 million dollar salary would not be out of the realm of possibility.” In the UK, as of March 2024, there were just 830 people in the UK who earn more than $1 million per year."That’s cool, that in total, you only pay 5% tax; I would guess, as a rough estimate, that I pay just a little over 10% tax on my total income."
That's not bad, Arthur, considering all the benefits that are free of charge, your circumstance is hardly the dismal picture so many "capitalists" say that it is. Then there comes that comfort of knowing that your fellow citizens cannot become so destitute that they are forced to put up tents or live under cardboard boxes off from highway offramps in the richest nation in the world and having to see it while traveling through town. I was appalled to see so much of that on my visit to San Diego last Summer. What was more striking that from my brother's highrise apartment was the attitude of his neighbors, quick to blame the unfortunates for their own condition. My brother, bless his heart, reminds such neighbors to refrain from boasting, as they may well be just one paycheck away from being where the misfortunates are, themselves.
It is the American fault of punishing the poor and blaming their circumstances exclusively on them, assuming that our system rewards everyone having ingenuity and a desire to work hard. But, it is more a part of American folklore. It has always been a part of what America is. America is based on competition, its advocates say the competitive standards are fair, but many of us say that they are not. Such, would explain the contradictions of exorbitant wealth and crushing poverty.
The video was an eye opener and since when have conservatives ever been "in touch" with common people?
Here we have labor strikes as tight fisted masters try to squeeze every bit of labor from hapless employees holding back on proper compensation for as long as possible. Amazon, a modern piecework factory, is going through the striking mode as we speak.
Here, the concept of recycling is far more of a fad, as conspicuous consumerism is far more the rule.
I never forgot the occasion where I dropped in to a London pub back in 1978 and met this fellow at the barstool who wanted to educate me on the "Blitz" as he had lived through it. Truly, courageous times and courageous people.
"Therefore, I estimate only about 1% of small business owners, or 300,000 earn more than $1 million in operating profit a year. "
This just give you an idea of how routine a million dollars is now when compared to earlier times.It is interesting that your find that NOT punishing the workers of our country, by taking what they have worked for in order to give to those that have no "desire to work hard" is, instead, "punishing the poor".
Why is it that so many people deny workers the right to the fruits of their labor, instead forcibly taking it away to give to those that do not earn enough to buy what they want? Why are the workers demonized and robbed of what they have because others do not have it?It is just what I told Arthur, Wilderness, the tendency of rightwing oriented people here to assume that society is a handout with no one being willing to work. Can I really say that the misfortune I saw in San Diego can be explained by the people just being lazy?
Ask your capitalist masters why there are strikes, so you think it might have something to do with the fruits of their labor being withheld? But you have always had an issue with any form of collectivism, Wilderness, as if this is still the 1920s...
I can sympathise with how you feel when you visited your brother in San Diego last summer. We had a cardboard city in London from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, as a direct result of Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Government) closing the British coal mining industry (for political reasons), putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work at a stroke:
It’s all now history, thankfully: But I remember it well – this short video (originally filmed in 1990, when the Conservative Government were still in power) gives a quick overview of cardboard city in London at the time:- https://youtu.be/H165bXhp5BQ
Yep, the memories of the ‘Blitz’ are now well and truly deep rooted into the British culture and British psyche: I learnt all about the Blitz from my parents and grandparents, and our son has learnt all about the Blitz from us and his grandparents – And there are constant reminders of the Blitz all across England e.g. St Peter's Church, in Castle Park, Bristol - bombed during World War II and the ruins are now preserved as a memorial.
What is now Castle Park was, before the Blitz, a thriving residential area in the Bristol city centre, with shops and housing, and with St Peter's Church at the heart of the community. All that remained after the Blitz was the hollow shell of the church. After the war the area was covered over and turned into a Park, and St Peter's Church preserved, as a permanent reminder to future generations of the horrors of war.
My mother and her parents had been in the area just the day before the Blitz, but fortunately they were at home on the night of the Blitz, just 4 miles away from where the bombs dropped, but after the all clear was given and they looked outside – the whole horizon in the direction of the city centre was glowing bright red from the fires – lighting up the whole night sky.
Below, are two short videos (Now and Then):
1. An aerial view of Castle Park (and the surrounding area in central Bristol) and St Peter's Church: https://youtu.be/NOjdZET4FzM
2. Footage of Bristol city centre, the day after it was destroyed by the Blitz: https://youtu.be/vIVaXQu5LUI
PART #2:
Getting onto the politics: Yep, where you say: - “Trump himself has stated how much he loved the poorly educated.” Yep, as with the UK (and I suspect the world over in general) ‘Education’ is an important factor e.g. it’s easier for the right-wing to hoodwink the less well educated with lies (propaganda).
Yeah; your next paragraph highlights some of the fundamental differences between American and British politics:
Here in the UK the “oligarchy or wealth (does not have) an inordinate influence on politics.”; checks and balances are a fundamental part of British politics, that puts up barriers between politics and industrialist, specifically to help ensure that industrialist cannot have an undue influence, or control, over politicians and political parties.
One simple check and balance being the “Register of Members’ Financial Interests” in Parliament, which all elected politicians have to sign; as a way of minimising ‘conflict of interest’:
But of course, the major player in keeping industrials and wealthy people from influencing politicians and political parties is the ‘Electoral Commission’ itself. The Electoral Commission is an ‘Independent’ Government Department e.g. it is not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
The Electoral Commission set very strict ‘Rule and Regulations’ for financing of political parties, and how Elections are run; two of its objectives being to ‘level the playing field’ so that larger political parties don’t have an unfair advantage over smaller political parties during Elections; and to ensure that wealthy people and Industrialists don’t have any control or influence over politicians and political parties.
To ensure fair play, and that everyone follows their strict rules, the Electoral Commission thoroughly ‘audit’ all the finances of each individual political candidate, and political party, following an election. And the Electoral Commission can and will prosecute any politician or political party who break their rules – passing on evidence of fraud to the police, with some offences attracting prison sentence.
The Electoral Commission have for example fined the Conservative Party several times over the last 14 years: such as in 2017 the Electoral Commission fined the Conservative Party $88,500 for four separate offences where the Conservative Party spent a total of $348,794 more on election campaigns than they were permitted to spend under the rules, and tried to hide the overspend in their accounts.
Conservatives fined record £70,000 for campaign spending failures (2 minute video) https://youtu.be/JQuct-3AO3I
So yes, as you say, we “English folks do not let money interests take control of our government like it does” in the USA.
In fact lobbying the Conservative Government by industrialist, over the past 14 years, has fallen on deaf ears; even to the point where on several occasions the Industrialist have, in frustration, jointly signed a letter of their grievances, as ‘Press Release’ to the major British Newspapers, when they’ve been ignored by the Conservative Government.
In fact it’s quite the reverse in the UK than in the USA, in that in the UK the Trade Unions have more influence in politics than Industrialist, in that the Labour Party (set up by the Trade Unions in 1900 as their political wing) is partly controlled by the Trade Unions e.g. the Trade Unions have a third say in selecting Labour Party candidates, in electing the Labour Leader, and in setting Labour Party Policy.
Below is an extract from this year’s Labour Party Conference (Oct 2024), where a Trade Unionist currently working in the oil and gas industry in Scotland lays out the case in the Labour Party Conference for the new Labour Government to be proactive in guaranteeing like for like jobs in the Green Sector, as Britain quickly transitions from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy (2 minute video): https://youtu.be/UHWm-5D5kV8
I’ve waffled on again…. So Part 3 to follow, once I’ve had a coffee break….Arthur, I always thought that education was a virtue but that is not true in the Trump universe.
"British politics, that puts up barriers between politics and industrialist, specifically to help ensure that industrialist cannot have an undue influence, or control, over politicians and political parties."
I don't believe that we ever really had such barriers here.
The very idea of the use of discretion regarding the public's money has been abandoned as well as the idea of avoiding conflicts of interests made all the more evident in the Trump era.
Here, democracy is just a shroud for the actual nature of our government which is far more oligarchal in nature.
I have a natural distrust of "big money" and the power that it wants to lord over the man in the street, which is never democratic.
Capitalists/Corporatists have "right to work" the labor unions out of existence. They are far weaker here with the Right trying to take what little options that remain for them. I have heard horror stories of reintroduction of child labor in our more retrograde red states. The idea to introduce teenagers 14-16 to the world of work and all the other Right wing blather about work ethic and whatever. I don't want my 15 year old nephew working in a factory where he could lose a digit or an arm through the operation of the infernal machines. Children under 16 should be in school. They want to relax these standards, add that to their union busting agenda.
Thanks for the look into the processes video.Yeah, I know; the political system in America, whereby Industrialists finance the election campaigns of politicians, and there seems no limits on how much is ploughed into the cost of election campaigns, does invariably make politicians indebted to their paymasters (the Industrialist) e.g. the politicians being in the pockets of Industry:-
It’s an undesirable situation that is guarded against in the UK. For example in the 2024 General Election the Electoral Commission imposed a spending limit of £1,458,440 ($1,851,176) on political parties (less than $2 million). I’m sure Trump’s campaign cost an awful lot more than $2 million. The low spending limits helps to level the playing field, giving smaller political parties a fairer chance to get their message across to the voting public.
It’s quite the reverse in the UK, not only do we have a much stronger Trade Union base, but workers’ rights are far better protected in the UK – and workers healthy ‘work/life balance’ supported by the vast majority of large Businesses, who recognise that a ‘happy workforce’ is a ‘productive workforce’.
The Four-Day working week trial in UK last year is deemed 'a success' by firms https://youtu.be/Ls1JAuRUDaA
Update since the trial: Although when in power, the Conservative Government did make it a legal right for any employee to request ‘flexible working’. The Conservative Government (when still in power last year) vehemently opposed the 4 day week trial: while in contrast, the new Labour Government welcomes the findings of the trial, and encourages the 4 day working week.
Also, there is far better redress when things go wrong in the workplace e.g. the Industrial Tribunal (an Independent Government Body), not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only, is a 100% FREE service.
Employment Tribunal Process (100% FREE Service) - A step-by-step guide (4 minute video): https://youtu.be/u5MUI3tNTeU"The low spending limits helps to level the playing field, giving smaller political parties a fairer chance to get their message across to the voting public."
See, in our way of thinking, it also prevents people from participating in the political process. Any person has a right to support the candidate of their choice. They are free to spend the money they desire because we are a free nation.
The amount of money doesn't actually win elections. harris significantly outspent President Donald Trump by tens of millions of dollars, actually went into debt after spending over a billion dollars and still lost the election.
Third parties in the United States are free to get support from any legal source they desire. Some have done quite well.
This is a way to have parties people willingly support.
Again, we are a free nation.How does it “prevent people from participating in the political process.”?
In the UK you only need a $630 deposit to stand for election in a General Election, and you don’t have to be affiliated to a political party e.g. 6 of the 650 elected politicians in this year’s General Election are ‘Independent’.
Yeah, also in the UK “Any person has a right to support the candidate of their choice.” but for a candidate or political party to be predominantly financed by just one source does seriously risk that elected politician being controlled by the person/body financing, rather than by the people who voted for them – that is undemocratic.
True, “The amount of money doesn't actually win elections.” But, by not limiting the amount of money that can be spent on election campaigns does make it unfairly difficult for small political parties with limited resources to compete fairly in a national election e.g. it drowns out the opposition from smaller political parties.
In the UK, it’s because smaller political parties with limited resource have an equal chance to compete fairly in General Elections that people really do have a genuine choice (Democracy) and consequently; unlike the USA where only the Republicans and Democrats ever win seats in the Federal Government; in the UK small political parties and Independent candidates do win seats in the General Election.
The Election result from this year’s General Election speaks for itself:
Politicians Elected in the General Election in the UK on 4th July 2024 (of the 650 seats):-
• Labour (left-wing – socialists) = 411 seats
• Conservatives (right-wing) = 121 seats
• Liberal Democrats (centralist party – in middle between socialism and conservatism) = 72 seats
• SNP (left-wing – socialists) = 9 seats
• Sinn Féin (hard left) = 7 seats
• Independent = 6 seats
• Reform UK (far-right) = 5 seats
• DUP (hard-right) = 5 seats
• Green Party (left-wing – further left than Labour) = 4 seats
• Plaid Cymru (left-wing – socialists) = 4 seats
• SDLP (left-wing – socialists) = 2 seats
• APNI (centralist party – in middle between socialism and conservatism) = 1 seat
• UUP (right-wing conservatism) = 1 seat
• Trade Unionist Party (left-wing – socialist (independent of Labour)) = 1 seat
The UK, and every country in the free world, including the USA, are all ‘free nations’.
The Election Manifestos of each of the 7 (Seven) Major Parties in the UK 2024 General Election summed up in just 60 seconds per party (this is true freedom of choice, this is true democracy): https://youtu.be/BjTGJdVwn_4
Part 3:
Yep, in regards to the Post Office scandal; where you say: “I don't understand why it was so hard to ferret out what I would have thought under the circumstances was the more likely source of discrepancies of the magnitude involved.”
The big flaw, that prevented common sense prevailing is that under British Law, Public Prosecutions, other than ‘Crimes Against the State’ didn’t come into effect until 1879, and that even to this day, Public Bodies (such as the Post Office) have the ‘power’ to bring their own ‘Private Prosecutions’, prosecuting people in a ‘Court of Law’ on evidence that would normally not stand up in Court e.g. if the cases had been passed onto the police to prosecute then the police would never have taken the cases to court, because of the lack of evidence – But as it was the Post Office ‘hood winked’ the Courts into bringing ‘guilty’ verdicts on doggy evidence.
Prior to 1879, ‘private prosecutions’, dating back to the start of the medieval period (1066) was the norm in Britain e.g. it was up to the victim’s family to pay for the costs of a private prosecution against a murderer.
Matters were made worst in 1985 when the Margaret Thatcher Conservative Government embedded the medieval law (common law) for Private Prosecutions in an Act of Parliament, giving the Post Office even more powers.
However, the good news is, is that the newly elected Labour Government has just started a ‘review’ into the question of ‘Private Prosecution’, which is expected to be published early next year: So we can soon expect to see changes in the law that will help to safe guard such a miscarriage of justice ever happing again.
By the way, FYI: If in the unlikely event you ever decided to emigrate to Britain, as an immigrant, you only pay an annual flat fee of $1,308 to the NHS, and you get the full NHS healthcare service (regardless to your needs) for no extra cost e.g. 100% free at the point of use, for full healthcare service.
What is Immigration Health Surcharge (2 minute 30 second video) https://youtu.be/MQb8bOiwilQ"But as it was the Post Office ‘hood winked’ the Courts into bringing ‘guilty’ verdicts on doggy evidence."
That is the bottom line as to how this was possible, my first inclination would be to the eliminate the most likely cause or explanation which for me would be the computer software. I don't need Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.
Sounds like the Postal Service authorities have gotten to big for their britches, abusing their authority to circumvent proper investigation and inquiry. I know that you folks are well on the way of nipping this sort of thing in the bud.
Believe or not, $1,300 is just a fraction of what I pay which is 4 to 5 times as much annually. Perhaps I can find steerage on the next boat to the British Isles. I presume once you pay that there are not any more expenses, what we call co-pays associated with cost of drugs or seeing a physican.
The thing is that capitalists here would argue that Socialized medicine is painfully slow and puts people in queue waiting for health care and appropriate drugs. Have you heard this? What dispels that observation?#1 Reply (#2 to follow)
Yep, your first three paragraphs are spot on.
Yep, the NHS is about four times cheaper to run than private medical care in the USA; and when you look into it, the cost of running private medical care in just about every other Western Industrial Country is around half the cost of the American system: And there are good reasons why the American system is so expensive – not least by the fact that unlike other countries, private medical insurance Companies have a monopoly, and cream off huge profits for themselves.
Other factors that makes the NHS much cheaper incudes the fact that it is State owned, so there is no profit making – it’s done at cost; and all the doctors and nurses, and pharmacists etc. are government employees, so they are not out to make a profit – they just get paid a wage for doing their work.
In answer to your question in your penultimate paragraph:-
Correct: we do NOT have any co-pays in the NHS e.g. there is no fee to see your doctor or hospital specialist etc. And for 94% of patients, the drugs are 100% free.
The only cost you will incur is that you have to pay for parking if you visit a hospital, unless you are disabled, in which case parking at a hospital is free.
The reason that only 6% of Brits pay for drugs (prescriptions) is that they are free unless:-
• You are between the age of 18 and 60, and
• In full time employment, and
• Not on any Government benefits e.g. low income support, and
• You do Not have any long term illness
So for example, if you are aged 25, and in full time employment in a highly paid job, but you are a diabetic then all your medicine is free.
But even if someone has to pay for their prescriptions because they are between the age of 18 and 60, in full time employment and don’t have any long term illness – the cost of drugs is a nominal fixed sum of just $12.57 per item, regardless to what drug it is; but even then there are some drugs that are always free to everyone, such as contraceptives and medication for hospital inpatients.
So yes, once you’ve paid the $1,300 annual Immigration Health Surcharge, there are no hidden or extra costs – the NHS is 100% free.
Yes, I am fully aware of the right-wing American propaganda (scaremongering) that “argues that Socialized medicine is painfully slow and puts people in queue waiting for health care and appropriate drugs.”:-
To dispel that observation; I’ll start with the facts and data, and finish with personal experiences of myself, family and friends:
There are waiting lists in two areas:-
• Elective Non-Urgent Treatment, and
• A&E (Accident and Emergency) – the British equivalent to ER
For elective non-urgent treatment, the situation has deteriorated since 2015 due to underfunding by the Conservative Government, and worsened since 2019 due to the aftermath of the pandemic, and a two year long industrial action by the NHS against their paymaster (the Conservative Government) from the summer of 2022 to the summer of 2024:
• In 2019 (pre pandemic) the average wait time for elective non-urgent treatment was 7.6 weeks; currently it’s 14.2 weeks.
• Currently over 8% of patients have to wait longer than 18 weeks, and
• 0.5% are waiting over a year for treatment
But since coming to power the Labour Government have started to make changes to bring the waiting lists down over time.
A&E (ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY)
Most NHS hospitals have A&E, and A&E was originally intended to be for emergencies only; but:
A&E is a victim of its own success e.g. it’s a free walk in service, and A&E will never turn anyone away, regardless to how trivial the ailment is. A&E is so popular that for non-urgent conditions the waiting time is 4 hours, in spite of the fact that most people who pop into A&E could just as easily have waited until the morning and made an appointment to see their doctor, or used one of the many NHS ‘walk-in’ facilities that don’t have queues, or visit an NHS pharmacist, or seek free help and advice over the phone from the NHS 24/7 phone service.
These short videos (based on true events) explains quite clearly:-
Choose Well - Dee's A&E Fail Tale – NHS https://youtu.be/ffT1orYXdcI
Call 111 when it's not a 999 emergency https://youtu.be/UwYmC1YK1vE
But for urgent and life threatening conditions, there are no waiting lists – You are dealt with immediately by the NHS. And that goes for the A&E too. When people walk into A&E, and go to Reception, if their case is life threatening then they will be treated straightaway, but if it’s not life threatening then they will be asked to wait up to the four hours to be seen.
My personal experiences:
Whenever I or my family have had problems we’ve either use the telephone service or just make an appointment to see our doctor, in most cases – Only on a couple of times has my wife taken our son to A&E. Although on one occasion, when my wife phoned the NHS for advice for our son, the symptoms she gave to them over the phone prompted the phone service to send an ambulance to our house as a precaution; but on examination the ambulance crew confirmed that it wasn’t anything serious, he just need to visit the doctor to get some medication to clear up a minor complaint.
My most dramatic experience was in Jan 2021, when on getting up one morning I was unwell; my wife made an appointment for me to see my doctor that morning – and I saw her about an hour later. She examined me, and took samples for testing etc. and I went home to await the results.
Four hours later I got a phone call from the hospital advising me that I should go to hospital immediately; I agreed, and they called an Ambulance, which arrived within the hour, and I was rushed to hospital, where I spent three weeks recovering from a near kidney failure – Fortunately, I’ve since made a near full recovery:
Although for the three weeks I was in hospital, and in the months that followed, I had just about every scan and test imaginable, a full health check from head to toe, checking for anything and everything that might need treatment, while they were treating me for my kidneys e.g. also checking the heart, lungs, liver etc. But to my comfort the only thing they found was that I was slightly overweight, that my blood pressure was a little bit too high, and my cholesterol levels were a little high.
Although now, even though I’ve made a near full recovery, my doctor’s practice keeps sending me regular text messages, and phoning me from time to time to check up on how I’m doing, and frequently asking me to pop in for routine tests – usually about once a month – Which I guess is nice that they care, but I do sometimes feel that they are fussing too much e.g. following my regular routine tests with my doctor, sometimes something may be a bit high e.g. cholesterol, blood pressure, potassium level etc. I do manage to keep most of these things within normal range through diet – but it is reassuring that if I need any medication, my doctor is more than willing to prescribe whatever I need. On checking my mobile phone records, I’ve received 38 text messages from my doctor over the last 18 months.
And last year, when we were on holiday, my wife fell ill with Tonsillitis: We had two options – either nip into the nearest hospital to our holiday camp, and spent 4 hours in A&E, or phone 111. She opted to phone 111, at 10am in the morning, and on confirming the diagnosis over the phone the NHS 111 service took her phone number, and her details and where we were staying on holiday etc. and promised to get back to her later that day.
At 3pm that day the NHS phoned back, having got a doctor to prescribe penicillin for the Tonsillitis, and arranged for the nearest pharmacist to our holiday camp to have her prescription ready for her to pick up. As it happened we were on our way back to our holiday camp from spending the day out on holiday, so we made a slight detour to the pharmacist that had her prescription and picked it up en-route back to our holiday caravan. And the penicillin was free because my wife is over 60.
Also, two of my closet friends were diagnosed with cancer this summer, one has already been treated, and is making a full recovery; and the other one (more serious case) has spent months in and out of hospital, and is still undergoing treatment; so far he’s had over a dozen blood transfusions, several major operations, and just finished his third course of Chemotherapy.
As usually, I’ve waffled on too much, so I’ll answer your last point in my #2 reply.Part #2a:
This is just a quick response to your last question raised, as we're just about to go out for a family Christmas meal in a local pub; so I'll give a full response tomorrow.
Namely, where you said that
"The thing is that capitalists here would argue that Socialized medicine is painfully slow and puts people in queue waiting for ….. and appropriate drugs."
The simple answer is no, it's not true (as I will fully explain tomorrow). But this example may help to dispel such a claim by American right-wing propaganda:
The revolutionary gene therapy, known by its brand name Libmeldy®, has a list price of £2.8 million ($3.56 million) and was the most expensive drug in the world when NHS England negotiated a significant confidential discount in 2021 (paying just under £2 million (around $2.5 million) per dose) - to make the treatment available to NHS patients – it remains the most expensive drug licensed in Europe.
Baby becomes first NHS patient to receive world's most expensive drug: https://youtu.be/mZMJsIjOCQ8As you know, I have a friend who live in Wales.
According to him, if you are in an emergency room in England, and someone who has purchased a health insurance policy comes in the room, they are put to the head of the "que" (as you guys say over there) for treatment...simply because they have purchased a health insurance policy.
He tells me that is why he pays for a health insurance policy.Your friend is either telling you porky pies or you’ve misinterpreted what he’s said:-
Private Medical Insurance in the UK does NOT cover A&E.
In fact it’s quite the reverse to what you might think: Rather than private patients jumping NHS queues (which does not happen); the NHS will pay the private sector for additional resources when need e.g. during the pandemic the NHS paid private hospitals $2.5 billion to provide additional hospital beds for NHS patients.
The private sector in the UK does not have the resources that the NHS has; so cover for private healthcare in the UK is very limited, and is often dependent on your first getting diagnoses on the NHS as an NHS patient – although if you want to waste your money you can take out private medical insurance that gives you limited access to a private doctor and private consultant and have surgery in a private hospital – but even then most private medical insurance does not cover a lot of the tests and scans that you would need prior to treatment – you have go to the NHS for those, just like everyone else. All it means is that in essence, all that private medical insurance really covers you for in the UK is Elective Non-Urgent Treatment, with the exception that you can pay extra for cancer cover – but the NHS provides full cancer care for free anyway.
In the UK, private medical insurance does NOT cover you for the following:-
• Pre-existing conditions
• Chronic conditions
• Cosmetic treatments e.g. sex change, which is free on the NHS
• Organ transplants
• Pregnancy and childbirth
• NHS Doctors
• Prescriptions (which are free on the NHS anyway), and
• A&E
FUN FACT:
The NHS is the 7th largest employer in the world with just under 1.5 million employees.Remember my friend said it was in an Emergency Room where people with private insurance were going to the front of the que.
Here is an interesting article about private insurance in the UK
NHS queues mean most Britons expect to pay for healthcare, says report
Joseph Rowntree Foundation points to ‘critical shift in expectations’ and says the public now budget for many routine services
https://www.theguardian.com/society/art … ays-reportDuh, ER (Emergency Room) and A&E (Accident & Emergency) is the same thing: So as I said, “Your friend is either telling you porky pies or you’ve misinterpreted what he’s said”: Private Medical Insurance in the UK does NOT cover A&E.
Yeah right; the article in you link from the ‘Joseph Rowntree Foundation’ which apart from being compiled before the General Election, twists and distorts the facts: “The British public do (NOT) now budget for many routine services”; that is a fabrication.
For example, in paragraph 21 the article in your link states that people using private healthcare in the UK is “becoming a new norm” (which is a false statement); and should be obvious by their statement in paragraph 11, where they say that in 2022, 272,000 people paid for private medical care - 272,000 out of a population of 68.35 million is less than 0.4% of the population using private medical care – I wouldn’t call that a ‘new norm’.
The people to give the most honest views of the NHS are Americans who have immigrated to the UK, and therefore are in the unique position of being able to speak about USA vs UK healthcare from their own personal experience:
Below are just three such Americans:-
Honest British vs American Healthcare Comparison (by an American): https://youtu.be/LaFWxLzTE58
Healthcare: British VS American (by an American): https://youtu.be/L-x6E8LbYmw
American Woman Lives in UK for Health Care: https://youtu.be/Cen5fkIwFjU
Part #2b:
Where you said that….
"The thing is that capitalists here would argue that Socialized medicine is painfully slow and puts people in queue waiting for ….and appropriate drugs."
The simple answer is no, it's not true.
Caveat: There have been some supply issues with some drugs since Brexit because of trade barriers with the EU.
The NHS cannot approve the use of drugs themselves; that is done by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is an Independent Government Department e.g. they carry out their work independently of the Government, and are accountable to the public through Parliament.
NICE negotiates deals with the pharmaceutical industry, and with a customer base of almost 70 million, carry a lot of weight in the negotiations e.g. NICE will usually secure generous discounts from the big American pharmaceutical industry for drugs which American hospitals (with less clout) have to pay the full price for.
But as seen in my last post (Part #2a) NICE can, and do, approve the use of very expensive drugs, such as Libmeldy (with a generous discount), costing over $3.5 million per dose (full price), for use in the NHS. And you have to ask yourself, would your medical insurance cover such an expensive drug in America – I very much doubt there will be very many American babies who will be given Libmeldy to save their life – but it is available on the NHS for free to patients.
Also, In September 2023 NICE approved the new wonder drug ‘Wegovy’ for prescription on the NHS for weight loss; it was previously approved by NICE for use in the NHS for diabetic patients. Albeit, due to its worldwide popularity (demand outstripping supply) it is in short supply, so the supply in the NHS for weight loss is still currently restricted:
Wegovy: NHS weight loss jab already having supply issues https://youtu.be/kUBmYV6TYEA
"conservatives are generally against pensions and annuitants"
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I applaud your imagination.Well, Mike, this is where I get this "stuff"
I should have been more specific in my post to Arthur.
Conservatives say that they hate Government
So, it follows that conservatives hate government employees, i.e. (Elon Musk)
And as a former government employee, the conclusion is a reasonable one that conservatives are going to hate and undermine any financial or economic advantage that I could retain with my pension or annuity.
There is your answer.Well, even your first statement, that conservatives hate government (false assumption) means that conservatives hate government employees (false logic) shows you need it. Perhaps you can show the logical steps from that false assumption to the false conclusion?
Then you go on to claim that a "reasonable conclusion" is that conservatives are going to undermine any financial advantage that you could retain with your pension. Again, can you provide a set of logic steps reaching that conclusion, or are you just making it up?https://medium.com/@jonfhale/politics-m … b359dc7e7d
Are you not a hard right Republican, wilderness? This definition should be just up your alley.
I did not create this, you and the right wing conservatives live it,
"Conservatives say that they hate Government"
As a Republican, I’d say the claim that conservatives “hate government” is a misrepresentation. It’s not about hating government—it’s about wanting a government that works effectively, stays within its limits, and respects individual freedoms. Conservatives value a government that defends the Constitution, protects our borders, ensures public safety, and fosters a fair economy.
The issue is with overreach—when government expands beyond its role, imposes burdensome regulations, or becomes inefficient and wasteful. We don’t want a government that delves into our values or pushes policies that go against what we stand for. Republicans don’t abide by a government that reaches into our personal beliefs or tweaks our rights to suit their own ideologies. It's about keeping the government in check and ensuring it respects the rights and freedoms of its citizens.We don’t want a government that delves into our values
Like bodily autonomy?Again ---- Republicans don’t abide by a government that reaches into our personal beliefs or tweaks our rights to suit their own ideologies. It's about keeping the government in check and ensuring it respects the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
All citizens even the unborn. The left. Democrats, feel they can promote the ideology of abortion via laws that take the rights of the unborn away.
As a Republican, the view isn’t about opposing bodily autonomy—it's about balancing individual rights with the protection of life. While we firmly believe in personal freedoms, we also recognize that the rights of the unborn are just as important. It’s not about the government controlling individual choices, but rather about ensuring that the most vulnerable in society—those who cannot speak for themselves—are given the protection they deserve.
We don’t want a government that delves into our personal values in a way that imposes policies contrary to our beliefs, like in the case of abortion. We believe laws should reflect a respect for life and uphold the values that align with our moral and religious views. It’s not a question of autonomy in the sense of individual rights; it’s about safeguarding both the rights of the individual and the unborn, in a way that respects life and personal freedom within the boundaries of our values.It’s not about the government controlling individual choices,
Forcing a victim of rape or incest to give birth does not respect life or personal freedom. The government stepping in to substitute for the judgment of doctors in cases of miscarriage or even when they can use the D &C procedure IS government control.
We believe laws should reflect a respect for life and uphold the values that align with our moral and religious views.
Religion has no place in legislationSo you really believe that a zygote has rights? What about the rights of the grown woman? Republicanism is such a hypocritical sham in my opinion....
Why should my values have to align with your religious views, Sharlee?"Why should my values have to align with your religious views, "
I ask --- Why should my values align with your views, your ideologies?
I have sworn off chatting about abortion, for many reasons, one being I respect that others have the right to their opinion. The alignment comparison above indicates that we would be moving in a circle.I thought that you said that you swore off chatting about abortion, or is it with just those than do not share your views?
Yeah, me too! It is hard to not get involved in some of these arguments, even when we feel like we are just spinning our wheels. Some days these forums seem like a real drain of time but here we are again.
I was going to respond with a nasty gram in reference to this issue. But, after your comment and reconnecting with you, I don't believe that I need to.
Thanks, I certainly do not feel angry today. I hope you are having a nice Sunday up that way. It is almost summer down here só I am at the beach enjoying a cold one.
As you can see, Dan and I clearly don’t agree. Personally, I believe that when it comes to abortion, it’s crucial to understand the science behind human growth in the womb. One should know exactly what they are ending and consider the emotional aspect of the decision. It seems only fair to understand whether the fetus is at a stage where it has a heartbeat, feels pain, or even sucks its thumb. Shouldn’t a woman be fully aware of all of this before making such a decision? Science reveals the facts, and while it might be minimal at a cellular level, knowing that it’s a developing boy or girl due to having a visible sex organ, could certainly affect emotions and the choice. In making any decision one needs all the facts, even if some are very much adverse, and one would rather not be aware of them. Could not this even lead to better contraception and less need for abortion?
It’s easy to argue for a woman’s rights, but can we ever become wise enough, and compassionate enough to find better solutions? In the end, science gives us contraception, but we haven’t perfected its implementation. Of course, there are cases where women are raped, which is tragic and horrific. But science has given us options for handling early-stage medication abortion. The most heartbreaking abortions are the spontaneous ones when a child is already loved but lost. I’ve always found it odd that the debate seems to be more intense among men than women at times— I mean I see the same men here on this forum bringing up abortion frequently. Makes you wonder why. All with very distinct views on the subject.
Makes me wonder—how many of you have actually had to make the decision: to abort or not to abort? It’s easy to debate from the sidelines, but when faced with the reality of such a choice, how does the conversation change? Until you’ve been in those shoes, I don’t think you fully understand the weight of the decision. So, I might be coming off as too preachy. I have never been involved in making an abortion decision.Do we really want to say that a clump of protoplasm has rights that exceed those of a living human being? Religionists try to make something scientific regarding it. But, in reality, a compromise is necessary and conservatives never want to make it.
I would prefer that that immediate members of my family faced with the choice, chose not to, but I have no right to speak to the families and circumstances of others.
The weight of decision lies with the woman who has to carry the fetus to term and it appropriately belongs there. What is there to understand beyond that?
My comprehensive responsive regarding this matter is found in the Roe vs Wade debate on an alternate thread, have a look sometime?
Sorry, Doc, I was enticed to respond beyond my ability to restrain regarding Sharlee's comment." Religionists try to make something scientific regarding it. But, in reality, a compromise is necessary and conservatives never want to make it."
The statement reflects the complex and often contentious intersection between religion, science, and morality in the abortion debate, and I see why it holds truth. Many religious individuals view abortion as primarily a moral issue, shaped by their beliefs about the sanctity of life. They often see life as beginning at conception, drawing on theological principles like the idea that life is a gift from God. This perspective is deeply rooted in religious doctrine rather than factual scientific reasoning.
Science, on the other hand, provides objective information about the biological processes of conception, embryonic development, and fetal growth. It shows that a unique human DNA sequence is formed at conception and outlines the stages of development. However, science doesn’t dictate moral or ethical conclusions, it just dictates factual science.
This creates a moral-scientific divide. Many religious individuals attempt to align their moral views with scientific facts to strengthen their arguments. For instance, the claim that life begins at conception is biologically accurate in defining the start of a new human organism. Yet, this fact alone doesn’t resolve the moral or legal question of whether abortion should be allowed or at what stage. This tension highlights how science and morality can inform but not fully reconcile the abortion debate.
I was only trying to add that when one chooses abortion, they need to be aware of the science of gestation. It’s important to understand the fetus's gestational status, meaning whether the fetus is at a stage where it’s a formed human with a working brain and heart, possibly even visible sex organs, or whether it’s at an earlier stage of development when pain wouldn’t be felt and the fetus wouldn’t resemble a recognizable human.
This is all scientific information. The science of gestation, however, really has nothing to do with religion. Yes, science might, in some cases, influence emotion, but emotion has nothing to do with the science itself.
I just feel that if someone is considering abortion, they need to know more than the fact that it will leave them no longer pregnant.
"The weight of decision lies with the woman "I just feel that if someone is considering abortion, they need to know more than the fact that it will leave them no longer pregnant.
"The weight of decision lies with the woman "
---------
Agreed, but conservatives are only content in imposing restrictions and that won't do.And to those leftists that demand we accept that the fetus is non-human right up to the point it draws its first breathe? Is the restriction banning that practice (abortion at any point of gestation) OK with liberals or is too far reaching by government?
That is a blatant fabrication, a lie. Conservatives in the loathsome red states have been pushing the boundaries to ridiculous levels ocver the last 3 years. If I were female I would tell the right wing Neanderthals to go to hell, I will do what I like with MY own body.
Another point of extreme contention…
Just that much more “Helter Skelter” I look forward to seeing for Trump’s upcoming termCred, I've talked to some (not many) that take that tack. Not a person until that first breath.
Yes, Wilderness, but we both agreed that Roe vs Wade was a reasonable compromise. Why did the Right in so many states double down on their restrictive policies far beyond the compromise?
The extremists on the left do not represent positions of most left leaning advocates.
Can you say that all those on the extreme Right on this issue are basically saying to women that they will punished for promiscuity, sex is only for procreation are not extreme in giving rights to a clump of cells over living people?
Murdering children is not bodily autonomy. It is destruction of another life.
That phrase is leftist misinformation.Just as "destruction of another life" is rightist misinformation.
A zygote is not "another life" anymore than a fingernail is, or a piece of flesh cut from an arm.The science would disagree with you. The zygote is a separate life, not a fingernail or a detached part of a body.
A fingernail is alive, too, until it is detached. Same as a zygote or a liver or kidney.
But none are "another life" - none is a person with the rights of a person.Please stop assuming babies are typically aborted when they are at the stage of being a zygote. Zygote stage (0–4 days post-fertilization. Not many women even know they are pregnant at this period.
You are right. But then, please stop assuming that fetus's are aborted when they are in the last month of gestation.
Somewhere between fertilization and natural birth that zygote becomes a person. Somewhere, but the assumption from the pro-life group is that an abortion is always murder of a person, while the reality is that that is extremely rare.
(Is not the "zygote state" the time period where the "morning after" pill is used? And is that not a fairly common method of birth control?)MIle, I have never shared I feel the majority of abortions are done late. I have tried to give examples of jestation. I think those that chat about abortion need to know about gustation, and what the fetus possesses at different gestation periods. I realize this is an uncomfortable subject.
Late abortions are rare. Stats show this to be factual.That was the point; they are very rare. The vast majority of abortions occur before that zygote has had a chance to earn the "people" status...but so many of the prolifers simply assume, without discussion, proof or even evidence, that it is murder of a child at any level of gestation. Just like DrMark did.
I realize those in favor of child murder refuse to accept it, but the scientific consensus is that life begins at the moment of fertilization. You can ignore it and disagree if you want but human embryologists agree; you can also tell us that you believe the earth is flat or that men can become women but that does not make it true.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245522/I skimmed the article you suggested as a reference. The conclusion is:
CONCLUSION
“Self-awareness is, one of the fundamental possibility, the most fundamental characteristic of the human species. This characteristic is an evaluation novelty; the biological species form which mankind has descended had only rudiments of self-awareness has however, brought in its train somber companions- fear, anxiety and death awareness” T. Dobzhansky
The question when a human life begins and how to define it could be answered only through the inner-connecting pathways of history, philosophy and medical science. It has not been easy to determine where to draw the fine line between the competence of science and metaphysics in this delicate philosophical field. To a large extent, the drawing of this line depends on one’s fundamental philosophical outlook.Well put. It is NOT a matter of science, but of definition, and no one political philosophy has a lock on that. Neither the pro-lifers nor the pro-choicers have the final say. Unfortunately, neither one will converse with the other to find a compromise or final definition.
That is pretty much the problem we find ourselves in these days isn't it?
There are no locks on much of anything...
Men can have babies...
Women can have penises...
We are not at war unless Congress declares war... despite our actively and directly acting with military personal and equipment in multiple wars...
If someone feels violated or assaulted... that is enough to be found guilty of such acts, even if all you did was make a post on some social media site.
With absolutely every norm and every fact under assault, there is no way we will come to a consensus on when a baby is officially a baby, an individual with rights and protections.
For the record, premature birth occurs in about 12 percent of pregnancies in the US. Almost 60 percent of twins, triplets, and other multiple deliveries result in premature births.
One could easily say that a pregnancy that is entering into its 8th month is an individual that should be given protections and rights... and to terminate such a late pregnancy is akin to murder.
Good luck getting that into law passed by Congress.I do not believe that we will find a definition. Not in this day of extreme partisanship and "I made up the answer and your ideas are therefore worthless!".
But I would agree that killing an 8 month old fetus is murder. That's MY opinion, and for sure it is opinion only. Not fact, unlike what so many people cannot seem to understand.
But it is possible that Congress could get something like that built into law. It would not be constitutional, but rather a simple definition of what the terminology of the Constitution means, making it possible. If we can make it a law saying that we must provide sex change surgery to those in the military surely we can do that!Unfortunately the laws in your country seem to be going the other way and anyone that states that there should be a law about late term abortion gets shouted down by some extremists. Maybe that you now have a conservative government things can change in that area.
Our socialist president was elected stating that he is against abortion, but as soon as he won he stated that abortion was a womans right. He will be in office at least two more years so I am not sure how things are going to change.Not sure where you are getting your information (from "scientists" giving unsupported opinions as fact?) but there is nowhere in this country where a later term abortion can be done for any but medical reasons. To save the life of the mother, for example.
Abortion IS a woman's right...up to the point that fetus becomes a person. All that is left is to define that point. With something more than "Because I say so" - defined with some semblance of reason and logic, not religious dogma.Murdering a human being, even if he or she is at the moment inside of you, is not a right. It is sad to see that you have been so brainwashed by the MSM as to believe this is true, and when you said that you did agree that killing a baby in the last trimester was murder I thought you were beginning to understand the issue.
Murdering children is a wrong, not a right.Oh, I understand the problem all right! The problem is two fold; on the one hand approximately half the population thinks that a single cell is a human being while the other half puts their wishes ahead of the life of another person.
And neither one is willing to discuss the issue; both demand that their viewpoint be accepted by the other side in total, regardless of how silly or self serving it is.
THAT is the issue.
The article clearly states "The child that is born is the same developing human individual that was in the mother’s womb. Birth alone cannot confer natural personhood or human individuality."
Neither can the combination of sperm and egg. It still is not a person. No, there is something beyond fertilization, beyond birth, beyond breathing (I've heard that as the defining point of "personhood"), beyond a heartbeat (as if a dog with a heart is a person).
So what is it? When does it happen?It happens when the human sperm enters the human egg, not some random date like when the embryo can survive outside the mother, or when there is a heartbeat, etc.
LOL "Scientific consensus" in no way is that human life begins at fertilization. It is only the prolifers that make that unsupported, unproven statement. For every "scientist" that makes up his/her own definition according to their religious beliefs I can give you 2 that do not and do not agree that a single cell, alive or not, is a person, a human being. There is far, far more to being a person that that.
Your own link agrees with this, stating that:
"Proper answer to the question “How to define human life?” is complicated. Nowadays dilemmas consider the respect of human life from the birth to death involving not just biology but other sciences also. Philosophy, theology, psychology, sociology, law and politics evaluate this topic from different point of views. Integration of all would result proper definition." Leave out the theology (at least in our country) and what is left is is not a matter of science, but of philosophy, and, for legal purposes, law and politics.
This is a philosophical definition, not a scientific one. For example, has your "scientists" making that claim submitted it for experimentation to the world of other scientists? That IS a part, a very large part, of making a scientific determination, after all.Even a biased leftist website like Google would disagree. Life begins when the egg is fertilized.
Life, yes. In fact, both the egg and the sperm are "alive" before that time.
But neither is a person, and neither is the combination of the two. A person is far, far more than a single cell. It is difficult to understand why that simple fact is so difficult to assimilate...unless the conclusion is made BEFORE considering just what is being decided. When that is the case nothing matters except that conclusion...which is exactly what we see happening in the US. Both sides of this argument have pre-determined what the end result shall be and design their "arguments" around that desired conclusion without ever considering what anyone else is saying.
And so we have what we have created in the US. A highly (highly!) divided country with no one accepting what we have, regardless of what it might be.I can certainly understand Sharlees reluctance to continue debating this issue. If we use your definition there are at least 10,000 murders of children in the US each year. If we use my defiinition, which is based on the science of life, there are a million children murdered each year in the US. Either way you look at it a hideous practice is going on that cannot be justified.
Unlike you I haven't given a definition - why do you say I have?
But YOUR definition is that of life, not human life or "personhood", which you seem to recognize. Your definition works just as well for an appendix, which we commonly remove and throw away - is that "murder" as well?
(I read your "science" giving the definition. It did nothing of the sort, instead saying that there is a lot more to it than merely being alive. Are you ignoring your own information for a reason or because you didn't read it?)
I believe it's an individual right to hold personal beliefs about when a fetus becomes a human being. However, science provides insights into gestational development that can inform this discussion. Some people point to the presence of a heartbeat as a sign of life, while others focus on the development of the brain and nervous system, debating when the fetus might feel pain. Many even consider the moment the first cells divide and the zygote forms as the beginning of visible human life. Scientifically it is.
Doc has a scientific background, as I do. He also seems to feel strongly about the value of life itself, which makes this issue resonate even more deeply. This is an incredibly difficult and deeply personal topic. Imagine being a father, sitting with the mother and considering an abortion, while learning about the fetus's current development—whether it has a strong heartbeat, the capacity to feel pain, or fully formed human features, including identifiable sex organs. Would you feel comfortable ending what could be seen as a human life under these circumstances?
I think this is a critical question that is often overlooked in discussions about abortion. At its core, abortion involves ending a life, and I believe we must acknowledge and grapple with that reality, even if it’s a painful truth to accept.
Can I ask—do you feel that while the fetus is still in the womb, this makes the human fetus totally without rights, perhaps until born?This is Googles answer to this question. If even Google, a leftist site, can give this answer...
"
According to the American College of Pediatricians, human life begins when a sperm and egg bind together to create a zygote, or one-cell embryo:
The zygote has a different molecular composition than the cells that created it.
The zygote behaves differently, producing more complex tissues, structures, and organs.
The fertilization view is the leading biological perspective on when human life begins. A study of 1,058 academic institutions found that 96% of biologists agreed with this view."Doc, I believe much of the debate comes down to how people define human life based on the stages of gestation. Some either can’t understand or don’t want to acknowledge the scientific reality of conception, cell development, and the continuous biological progression that leads to a recognizable human being. From the first cell to a fully formed human, it’s all part of the clear and undeniable process of human life.
As someone who is pro-life with a few exceptions, I view the first hours and days of conception as the beginning of human life. As a nurse, I’ve seen firsthand what an aborted fetus looks like at every stage of gestation, and no one can convince me that what I’ve seen isn’t a baby. Unfortunately, many laypeople have no real understanding of what a fetus possesses during different trimesters, so it’s difficult to hold them fully accountable for their misconceptions.
Abortion at any stage is the deliberate ending of a human life. It’s easy for some to argue their personal rights and set laws that deny a fetus any rights of its own—that much is clear and established in law. But what they can never truly argue is the science of conception and fetal development. They can’t factually deny that what they are ending is a human life. They can argue, stamp their feet, and give every excuse known to man... When one chooses abortion they need to be fully aware they killed, and they did it because their rights usurped the unborn's right." As a nurse, I’ve seen firsthand what an aborted fetus looks like at every stage of gestation, and no one can convince me that what I’ve seen isn’t a baby."
Do you really think you can distinguish between a 4 week old human fetus and a 4 week old chimpanzee fetus? Or any other mammal the same age, for that matter? At that point it is about the size of a poppy seed, or about .01 inches (.25 mm). I actually doubt you could pick out that poppy seed from a group of human fetus's that age - not sure I could even SEE it!
In what scenario is any being given the "right" to impose upon the bodily autonomy of another? Our government has carved out a "right" that no other being has and bestowed it upon the zygote, the fetus.
Last sentence first: No. At some point that fetus becomes a person, and is vested with all the rights that you or I have.
But your whole post appears to be centered around feelings - Imagining the parents and their pain, deciding if the fetus can feel pain (does a cow feel pain?), does it have sex organs the same as all other mammals, etc. IMO that is not the tact to take; instead coldly and rationally we need to figure out what it is that makes us human, the thing that separates us from all other animals more than anything else. We are, after all, the only animal we grant these rights to.
And the answer resides in intelligence, both IQ and emotional intelligence. Now can you answer the question, coldly and without subjective feelings, about when that happens? When does that fetus become truly more than other animals, including the other great apes?I aimed to center my argument around science, grounding it in bold facts to provoke thought. I presented the following question:
"Imagine being a father, sitting with the mother and considering an abortion, while learning about the fetus's current development—whether it has a strong heartbeat, the capacity to feel pain, or fully formed human features, including identifiable sex organs. Would you feel comfortable ending what could be seen as a human life under these circumstances?"
My intention with this example was to explore the "what if" scenario: If a couple considering abortion were presented with such questions or offered clear and honest information about the science of fetal development, would they still choose to abort?
I wanted to emphasize the value of being fully informed—knowing the reality of what the fetus might experience at its stage of development—before making such a profound decision. I believe education about the biological and emotional aspects of abortion is critical, not only for making an informed choice but for fostering meaningful dialogue, like the one we are having now.
Yes, I intentionally infused emotions into my argument. In my view, a decision of this magnitude shouldn’t be made purely on a clinical basis; it should include our humanity and emotional intelligence. Have we, as a society, reached a point where such decisions are devoid of emotional consideration? To me, it’s clear we have, and I find that deeply concerning.
The question of when a fetus becomes "truly more than other animals" is one that blends biological, philosophical, and ethical considerations. From a purely biological standpoint, a fetus becomes increasingly complex as it develops. However, intelligence—both IQ and emotional intelligence—does not emerge in a measurable way until later stages of development, with cognitive abilities and emotional responses becoming more defined after birth, particularly as a child grows and develops socially and intellectually.
If the question refers to when a fetus acquires qualities that separate it from other animals, it could be considered when the brain reaches a certain level of complexity, such as the development of higher-order functions like reasoning and self-awareness. This point is often debated and may depend on different cultural, philosophical, or scientific perspectives. In the context of human development, it's not typically agreed upon that a fetus exhibits human-like intelligence or emotional intelligence before birth, as these abilities fully emerge after birth, within the context of a nurturing, social environment.
From a scientific standpoint, a human fetus could be viewed as distinct due to the potential for advanced cognitive and emotional development, but this is not necessarily measurable in the fetus itself in the way we observe intelligence in fully developed humans.Raise a chimp and a human baby in the same house with the same treatment. The Chimp will outperform the human tremendously...right up to the point that the human begins to talk. The Chimp is superior physically in nearly all aspects, giving it a tremendous edge.
But the human can learn, and learn far more than the chimp. During the process the Chimp still wins, but once done the Chimp very quickly falls behind, and badly so. There is something in that human baby that the Chimp just doesn't have, even though it takes a while to learn to use it.
Until that "something" actually exists (whether in constant use or not) the fetus isn't much, if any, different than other mammals, particularly the great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). Even after developing the capacity to learn, there isn't much...but the capacity is there and is not in other animals.
Part of emotional intelligence is knowing when to use it and when not to. Making far reaching moral decisions is not the time to bring out the tears. Of course, that's MY call, for me - others will think as you do.I think it's important to recognize that emotional intelligence can be nuanced—sometimes showing emotion in response to moral decisions can actually enhance understanding and empathy. It’s not about letting emotions dictate decisions but rather allowing them to inform your perspective. I agree that everyone approaches things differently, and what feels right for one person might not resonate with another. Ultimately, it’s about balancing logic and emotion in a way that feels authentic to you.
It’s clear that our brains are not unique in how we reason. Some people are very clinical, relying on logic alone, while others can strike a balance between emotion and reason. There are also those who primarily thrive on emotion. This diversity in how we process decisions might explain why some can make choices like abortion without a second thought, while others could never bring themselves to do it. Then there are those who go through with the decision but carry the emotional weight of it for life. This complex mix of emotional and logical reasoning really shapes how we respond to moral and personal decisions.
Children are aborted all the time in the last trimestre. I do not understand why you want to spread those leftist lies that claim they are not killing babies.
Perhaps for the same reason you spread the lie that "Children are aborted 'all the time' in the last trimestre".
In truth, less than 1% of abortions happen past 21 weeks (notice that 21 weeks is still not even close to the third trimester, which begins at 29 weeks). Of those in the last trimester it is safe to assume that the majority are because of medical complications of one sort or another; the chance that an abortion is purely by choice AND in the third trimester is vanishingly small.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-far-i … ns-happen/
So why do you insinuate that it happens "all the time"? Just to spread rightist lies that claim women having an abortion are killing their babies?So I guess if someone goes on a murder rampage and kills 10,000 people that is insignificant? Why do abortion apologists not say that 10,000 babies a year are murdered when they are close to being born?
What you are giving me, Sharlee is standard conservative instructional manual boilerplate.
I am a Democrat that cannot think of a greater danger than oligarchs or government by the highest bidder. Government nor our politicians are not for sale. From my position, there are many aspects of the corporate behavior where I want more regulations, not less. So, for me it is not overreach, but underreach.
What is burdensome to you, I consider minimal and necessary. In my world, no one gets to do what he or she wants without being held accountable for it. No one is above the law and no one is either too wealthy, smart nor pretty to not be accountable.
Capitalism is inherently a greed and avarice driven system. Those that are it's captains will expand their tentacles into Goverment and denigrate the rights of the people some what proportionate to the amount of money they have. Republicans are less interested in restraining this tendency compared with Democrats and liberals.
I want a government where the powerful are not placed in a position to exploit the less powerful, merely because they have more money.
I lean toward more regulation rather than less, and that is the opinion of a left leaning Democrat.
Examples: I have heard just as in the worse of a "spoils system", the more a donor gave to the Trump campaign the greater access to him they would receive after January 20th. Doesn't sound very Democratic to me. Who speaks for the millions that did not have $millions to give to that creep, what about their access?
And again, the goofy Elon Musk, while being the world's richest man, falls short in the character department. But, isn't it true that conservatives consider capitalist success stories like Musk Gods unto themselves? I don't give out my praise and approvals so easily. Musk said that he wanted to cut the Federal Workforce by 75 percent, that without any prior studies, or taking the necessary time to screen essential from non essential. Has this "genius" thought of how difficult that would be politically and how many essential services would be done away with? Would the citizenry tolerate that dearth of government services? So, this goof is given the keys and trusted to run it all?
Here is the story
https://medium.com/@jonfhale/politics-m … b359dc7e7d
None of that makes sense and displays your total lack of knowledge and understanding of the Conservative Right.
1. Conservatives don't "hate" the government. They hate an out of control government that misuses its power against citizens. They hate large government that is inefficient and wastes taxpayers money. That's not hate, that is a desire to make government work for the people and not the government itself.
2. There is not hatred of government employees. There is a hatred of government employees who serve no purpose are unqualified and only exist at the behest of unelected officials. Government employees to have a worthwhile job they got fairly are important.
So, no, Conservatives are not against pensions, SSI, etc. Many of them collect as they believe people should get back from the government what they have paid into it. It's the government's job to protect their pensions with companies, etc.
Hope this helps.
Let there be no doubt: Trump and maga will try to cut earned benefits.
What will Trump do once he’s in the White House? During his first term, he tried to cut Social Security every single year. He appointed an unqualified crony, Andrew Saul, to head the Social Security Administration. And he surrounded himself with advisors who had long records of working to cut and privatize Social Security.
Now, Trump has a new advisor, Elon Musk. He just put Musk in charge of a commission to slash $2 trillion of federal spending. That is essentially impossible without cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid. Indeed, incoming VP Vance has specifically said that Musk will target Social Security.
Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. It’s no surprise that he and his fellow billionaires want to cut earned benefits rather than pay their fair share in taxes.
Trump’s top priority is to extend the tax cuts he gave the ultra-wealthy in his first term. Then, maga will turn around and claim that we “can’t afford” Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans in Congress have already telegraphed what those cuts could look like. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that counts over 80 percent of House Republicans as members, released a budget proposal earlier this year that makes massive cuts to Social Security. That includes raising the retirement age to 69, and decimating benefits for the middle class.
Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security was also floated earlier this year by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who promised to cut the programs in favor of boosting the country’s military spending.
In an interview with Fox Business Tuesday morning, Representative Richard McCormick complained that “75 percent of the budget is nondiscretionary” and outlined GOP plans to tackle it.
“We’re gonna have to have some hard decisions. We’re gotta bring the Democrats in and talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare,” McCormick said.
McCormick’s words are not surprising. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump floated the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare, saying in March that there is “a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting"
Trump's plans bring in very little revenue. He will need to cut entitlements to fund the giveaways. It's just that simple. They are the largest part of our budget.Back again to that "fair share" of taxes. But you have yet to explain why it is "fair" to demand more of one person than another, for the exact same thing. We don't do it when buying bread, we don't do it when buying a car or a house; why is American citizenship any different? As far as I can see the only possible answer is greed; you want more than you are willing to pay for, so forcibly take from a few so you get what you want without having to pay for it.
It's interesting, though, that you see "a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting" as only (or perhaps primarily) SS. Personally, I don't see SS checks as an "entitlement", for I have already bought and paid for it. It belongs to ME, not government. That government exercised no fiduciary duty over my lifetime of purchasing that pension does not change that it is MINE, not an "entitlement" like WIC, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.Willow,
Trump speaks on Social Security likes he addresses everything else; as someone who really does not know what he is talking about.
He will let Musk out of his cage to indiscriminately swing his meat ax on programs that Americans have come to rely on. The howls from seniors will be heard around the world.
Just how much discomfort and stress will Trump supporting seniors tolerate before they cry "uncle" and vote in revolt of the so called Trump/Musk austerity plan during the mid-terms?
-----
Republicans in Congress have already telegraphed what those cuts could look like. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that counts over 80 percent of House Republicans as members, released a budget proposal earlier this year that makes massive cuts to Social Security. That includes raising the retirement age to 69, and decimating benefits for the middle class."
"Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security was also floated earlier this year by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who promised to cut the programs in favor of boosting the country’s military spending."
------
Willow, these people fundamentally are no good, but those that voted for them will take their medicine and I hope that they gag on it....
Is COLA for retired employees and other citizens? While in service, we used to get the Dearness Allowance which gets revised quarterly. It got included in the total salary that we received monthly.
I believe COLA is applied to both federal employees and federal retirees, but am not positive.
It is also used for many other purposes as well. It plays in the calculation of new tax brackets each year. It comes into play for disability payments and for all kinds of welfare payments. It is Governments lying way of leveling the playing field from the effects of inflation; lying because the method of calculating the COLA does not equate with reality and how purchasing power works. Although it is technically correct it reduces the calculation by the amount of living standard lost to inflation rather than report what it would have taken to maintain the same living standard year to year.No, the COLA applies to federal retirees only. The federal employees get a percent annual salary increase that is not automatic and subject to the whim of politics, that come from the President and Congress. It is very similar to military service members.
Live and learn. I had thought that both the military and civilian employees got a COLA raise. How often does it vary from what the COLA is?
Well, Wilderness, in the year 2013, I got a 3.6 percent COLA as a federal retiree and received the same increase as Social Security recipients. That same year federal employees may have received a 1 percent salary increase. An yet there were years where I did not get a COLA but federal employees received a three percent raise. I have been in both places. The two entity's are not related but the retirees' COLA is regulatory while increases for active duty Civil servants and military is discretionary, often depending upon the political winds.
Related Discussions
- 107
Mitch McConnell And Republicans Gunning 4 Your Social Sec And Medicare
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
Are you gonna' let this republican rigor mortis looking weirdo named "Granny" Mitch McConnell who presides over one of our most impoverished states called Kentucky, take away what you've earned over the course of your life ?? I mean seriously, you must have known this was coming right ?...
- 36
Republicans Can’t Win Midterm Elections So They Resort 2 Mail Bombs?
by JAKE Earthshine 6 years ago
The right wing nut case republican’s dangerously lame tactics are backfiring tremendously on Bozo Trump, Mutt McConnell and the rest of the Russian republicans in congress because these criminal pipe bomb attacks on patriotic progressive democratic legends are only firing Up the DEMS past 10 and...
- 53
Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare
by William R. Wilson 13 years ago
Tea Party Patron Saint Ayn Rand Applied for Social Security, Medicare BenefitsWhat would John Galt Do?
- 59
Are Social Security and Medicare entitlements?
by Petra Vlah 12 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 10 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 32
social security benifits and the cost
by deb douglas 8 years ago
My husband is a disabled vet and I could not believe the notice he got in the mail this last month. Social Security informed him that the cost of living has actually remained the same or even maybe went down, according to the government, therefore they are charging him with an overpayment for...