
UK austerity has inflicted 'great misery' on citizens, UN says - xg15
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/16/uk-austerity-has-inflicted-great-misery-on-citizens-un-says
======
blunte
As long as most gains and profits go to a small percentage of people ("the top
x%"), no sort of retraction/austerity measure will provide long term large
scale benefit. It will only exacerbate the situation.

The first problem is measurement. Most current economic measurement
methodologies don't consider history well enough - particularly where public
funds have been used for infrastructure benefits.

Using the US as an example, the modern status quo of life is built upon the
interstate highway system. That's just one (very big) example of how public
works/infrastructure has benefited the entire society - especially the
business owners who can be more efficient due to well-oiled transportation
systems. Perhaps some other rail-based system would be even more effective,
but that's beside the point.

But as humans are wont to forget the past, many people have forgotten that it
took bold investment at a time when money was scarce to provide a foundation
for the next 40+ years. So the fairly recent proclamations of small business
owners that they built their own fortunes conveniently forgets that the entire
population's investment some decades ago primed the situation that they find
themselves in now.

Austerity says the reverse: we will not spend anything on anyone out of public
funds (unless some powerful group deems it necessary... such as where military
is concerned). But what it fails to recognize is that the more people you have
dying around you, the lower your health becomes.

Ignoring ethical discussions, there are practical boundaries to questions of
"how much is enough" for people on the upper end and "what is the minimum to
live a better-than-horrible life" on the bottom end.

I do not enjoy paying practically double the tax rate in Netherlands as I did
in the US, but I find daily life SO much better (and safer) here. Being a king
of a ghetto is no life. I'd rather the people cooking my food and washing my
dishes at the restaurant not be hating my existence because they're so
miserable. In fact, I'd rather them feel essentially equal so that when I
compliment them on the food or service they feel pleased to have a
conversation with me. That is living.

~~~
dorchadas
> As long as most gains and profits go to a small percentage of people ("the
> top x%"), no sort of retraction/austerity measure will provide long term
> large scale benefit. It will only exacerbate the situation.

Exactly. It seems common sense that the economy will grow when the people have
money to spend...Which means the people who spend (i.e. not the high
socioeconomic people) need money to spend.

------
dingaling
Regardless of the actual story, which I do feel has merit, there are examples
of why it is perilous to rely on one news source:

"whose family couldn’t get school meals in Dumfries, Scotland, because of
their immigration status"

Actually they couldn't get _free_ school meals, just like anyone else with a
household income over £16k. A subtle omission but one that makes it sound like
they were excluded from food entirely:

[https://www.mygov.scot/school-meals/](https://www.mygov.scot/school-meals/)

~~~
DanBC
> just like anyone else with a household income over £16k

You've assumed that this child has been refused free school meals because of
their financial status. The rapporteur is talking about the mis-application of
"no recourse to public funds" rules. A family that has NRPF should still be
able to get free school meals, but sometimes the schools don't understand
this.

This is a family who is poor, and who should be getting free school meals, but
who aren't.

~~~
dogma1138
No recourse to public funds applies to only specific work immigration permits
all of which would have salary requirements that would make them ineligible to
receive these benefits in the first place.

In fact applying for or using public funds while on an NRPF visa violates its
terms and could result in deportation.

~~~
DanBC
> No recourse to public funds applies to only specific work immigration
> permits

No it doesn't.

It can apply to students, spouses, people who are granted leave on the basis
of family or private life, to people who have exhausted their appeals to
leave, to asylum seekers; etc.

[http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information/Pages/asylum-
seeke...](http://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information/Pages/asylum-seekers.aspx)

[https://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/resources/no-
recourse-p...](https://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/resources/no-recourse-
public-funds-nrpf/)

This hits children because free school meals are sometimes gatewayed by access
to child tax credit or working tax credit, and those are public funds.

~~~
dogma1138
Yes it is.

Students can’t bring dependants without showing they are financially capable
to support them, spouses and children of work permit holders are dependents
which also means that their sponsor must meet base salary requirements +
additional requirements for each dependent.

The rest are not here legally, are in the process of being deported or are in
process of getting a permit so why the fuck would they have access to public
funds in the first place?

------
martinald
It's a strange world where _rising_ public sector spending as a % of GDP is
looked at as horrific spending cuts.

People are blaming the wrong thing - it's long age which is causing this. Even
though spending is rising, it's not rising 'fast' enough to keep up with the
giant bill senior citizens are creating for the NHS and DWP. As the govt has
massively ramped up NHS spending and locked pension rises at a historicallg
high level, it means every department that isn't catering to this is seeing
larger cuts.

Not really sure if just endlessly rising public sector spending to cope with
old age can work long term.

~~~
CJefferson
Simple measurements of money spent don't show the whole picture (as the
article discusses). Many of the harshest cuts were against services for the
poor, while other expenses (military, pension support for richer citizens) saw
raises in spending above inflation.

------
DuskStar
This report is so horribly biased. The "austerity" in question is a decline in
spending as a proportion of GDP since 2009, NOT actual cuts. _That 's normal_
when recovering from a recession!

~~~
Nimitz14
When you're in recession you're supposed to stimulate growth by increasing
spending. So no, you're wrong, it's the _opposite_ of normal.

~~~
DuskStar
And what do you do when coming out of a recession? Reduce spending or hold
steady in absolute terms... Like what the British budget has done since the
spending peak _in the middle of the recession_.

------
tonyedgecombe
I'd take a little belt tightening over the youth unemployment Greece or Spain
has any day.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Is that _really_ the only choice?

The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. Part of the reason for
that is a long period of generally pro-business, economically conservative
government. That's good in many ways, because in a modern economy, business
and investment is needed to drive improvements in individual living standards.

But doing that relies on a sensible long-term strategy that can be used to
achieve social goals. There is no point in cutting healthcare spending for
preventative services, for example, if those cuts result in higher long-term
costs. Cutting spending on disability benefits doesn't magically save money –
it just transfers the cost of disability support to charities and carers,
while in many cases destroying the lives of people who have worked and
contributed for many years.

The thing is, when you say "a little belt tightening", this actually means
that people in the UK with the lowest incomes start to suffer and in some
cases die. I struggle to believe that it is good long-term economic policy to
have a large share of the population struggling to afford basic essentials,
while the richest demographics continue to increase their wealth.

In the most recent UK budget, I received a large tax cut despite being a
relatively high earner. Indeed, UK policy seems to be continuing to shift in
that direction, and the only possible reason I can see for that is a
deliberate, ideological attempt to enact a policy of minimal public spending.

The UK has many economic and structural problems which could be dealt with,
but it's hard to see how continuing to redistribute wealth to the richest
parts of the country is going to do that. And of course we now have an entire
government that will be paralysed by the economic and political aspects of
Brexit for the next decade, so I guess there's no immediate chance of
salvation.

~~~
raesene9
it's a real shame that the concept of raising certain taxes in the UK
(specifically income tax and corporation tax) has become an anathema to
british politicians.

We still need to get the money from somewhere, so instead of fairly increasing
progressive taxes, we get lots of little (often unfair) hidden tax rises and
huge cuts in public spending.

The weird part is, the british public go along with this. The Conservatives
are actively talking about more corporation tax cuts at a time where we still
have a large defecit and huge problems with underspending in the public
sector.

~~~
yardstick
My local (Labour, not that it really matters) council has taken pride in not
raising council tax for the last 5+ years. Yet inflation has pushed up wages
and expenses and somehow they expect to maintain the same quality of local
government. Impossible!

~~~
matthewmacleod
That's a valid objection, though I think council tax is a particularly tricky
issue to deal with in the UK – it's a highly regressive tax, but reform is
difficult to achieve while the people who would be most affected by a proper
reform would be Conservative voters.

------
throw2016
Wonder how long before he is sacked. Rare instance of establishment official
bucking the narrative. These kind of reports are usually made about
'inconvenient regimes'.

Austerity [1] is a dubious predatory ideology pushed by neoliberal economists
parroting the mantra of freemarkets, privatization while pushing crude
policies that benefit special interests. The modus operandi is defund public
services, raise a ruckus about ensuing chaos and build the rationale for
privatization.

A country with its own currency is a not a household. In the case of the US
the dollar being the global reserve currency provides even more freedom
compared to any other country. Simplistic household type comparisons by agenda
driven economists about complex modern economies are grossly misleading.

You cannot bailout banks to the tune of trillions and them impose austerity on
the population, this is not capitalism or freemarkets, its gross corruption.
Where did this money come from? What about all the scares of 'runway
inflation' by such massive injections, why were creditors bailed out and not
debtors? Why shouldn't these funds be spent on the people the government
represent and not special interests?

Mark Blyth [1], Michael Hudson [2], Steve Keen and Joseph Stiglitz [3] are
doing a lot of work on neoliberal economics and dubious policies like
austerity.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBi00-LBUnQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBi00-LBUnQ)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzCRCX_gwII](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzCRCX_gwII)

