politicians want better public services, particularly for the elderly - but they reject all forms of pay for them
Europeans are not the only ones to suffer a debt crisis. The United States has also, which led the rating agency Moody to consider cutting its AAA credit rating. At $ 14.3tn (£ 8.9tn), the U.S. national debt as a proportion of GDP, the highest 12 in the world, and that the United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal.
However, the size of the debt is not the problem. America can meet its obligations without sweating much. The question is whether it is willing to pay. President Obama can raise more debt, more tax revenues, lower expenses, or, more sensitive, do a little of all three. As expected, Republicans in Congress for the third option. But they refuse to accept that the first two should make a contribution, even when taxes are the lowest in 50 years. They also oppose cuts to defense, one of the most important elements of the federal budget and find public court, as opposed to the other - the health of the elderly (Medicare) - Some Republican campaign mid election period denouncing Obama cuts already. If you persist in this position, the creditors of the United States will not pay and the richest country on the planet will be in default in a matter of weeks.
We can consider this as an example of a malfunction of the American political system and we hope that, at 59 minutes past the hour 11, the Republicans came to an agreement. However, the U.S. crisis is a British dramatized the dilemma highlighted this week by the Office of Fiscal Responsibility. He warned that to meet the demands of an aging population, taxes would increase by £ 22 billion years in 2016 - equivalent to the increase in VAT to 24%, or income tax basis for 25 %
You can imagine the fate of any government that stands as a presentation. So the answer to reduce spending on the elderly? No, do not want to be. "There is no evidence that the public wants to see in human life later, to reduce," said Michelle Mitchell, director of age in the UK. Certainly not. They want more rights.
The point is illustrated by responses to the report Dilnot in elderly care, published just before national attention was distracted by Rupert Murdoch and phreaking. The report suggests that people with assets of over £ 100,000 - a figure significantly higher than the current threshold of £ 23,250, and close to the average wealth of single women from 75 to 84 -. Must continue to pay for residential care
However, a lifetime limit of £ 35,000 should be set at what someone has to pay, regardless of their assets. So you can buy a house with 2 million pounds - for which there will be no use if you live in a residence - and the state must pay its bills, at an annual cost of at least 1.7 billion books and probably more, given the increasing longevity. Cost of food and accommodation £ 7000 - £ 10,000 per year, but most find that the retirement income
Yes, the current system is not satisfactory. Houses - buy, improve, pay the mortgage - have formed the central narrative of the life most of the baby boomers, some of which have struggled with low incomes. For themselves and their families, the sudden loss and total assets of a hard-earned seems arbitrary and unfair.
floated a solution before the last election: one mandatory "insurance" to perceive the world in 65 years removed from their property at death. The risk of treatment should be grouped so that each would pay perhaps 10% of its assets instead of a few unfortunate loss of 90%. The details - the rate is a fixed amount or a percentage of assets, for example - have never been resolved because the Conservatives have shot down the idea of ??using the term "death tax" emotional and confusing (this evil a tax that you pay only when you are dead?) and the publication of photos of tombstones. They have broad public support, as they did in 2007 when he proposed to reduce the tax liability on inheritance.
Find best price for : --Murdoch----Rupert----Dilnot--