GeofCox on Nostr: npub1ke2g8…xwvwj Good example here - ...
npub1ke2g8yhwxtxr68vj75974l2kwu4thlkusdsmcvcgr5schpa5atrqnxwvwj (npub1ke2…wvwj)
Good example here - https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/expanding-free-school-meals-a-cost-benefit-analysis - of one better way to calculate the real 'cost' of welfare benefits - in this case free school meals for every child in the UK.
It concludes that every £1 spent - considered as an investment - will over 20 years generate £1.71 in 'core benefits' such as better child health and future earnings - ie. direct savings to the NHS and more tax paid when the children start work.
It still doesn't include the increased tax payments back to the government from the extra money in circulation, but it is a better way of looking at government expenditure.
It's also a more natural way of looking at cost. When you buy a house you don't just say ' It will cost me £250,000' - you say 'It will cost me £250,000 but I'll save £X in rent, etc'.
It is also why, I think, many Continental European countries still maintain higher levels of welfare benefits - including things like universal free school meals, family allowances that get higher per child the more children you have, rather than lower as in the UK, and free higher education...
For over 40 years the UK has been failing to match its neighbours' public investment in their own people, and even though it has often had higher private sector investment, it has therefore become gradually relatively poorer. It won't reverse this until it understands that spending on things like child welfare, education and health are not 'costs', but investments.
npub18je6sddfumajhv06k4nejkp9pjg5egy8fp959ukgxxjl3x4guexs6psm0d (npub18je…sm0d)
Good example here - https://urbanhealth.org.uk/insights/reports/expanding-free-school-meals-a-cost-benefit-analysis - of one better way to calculate the real 'cost' of welfare benefits - in this case free school meals for every child in the UK.
It concludes that every £1 spent - considered as an investment - will over 20 years generate £1.71 in 'core benefits' such as better child health and future earnings - ie. direct savings to the NHS and more tax paid when the children start work.
It still doesn't include the increased tax payments back to the government from the extra money in circulation, but it is a better way of looking at government expenditure.
It's also a more natural way of looking at cost. When you buy a house you don't just say ' It will cost me £250,000' - you say 'It will cost me £250,000 but I'll save £X in rent, etc'.
It is also why, I think, many Continental European countries still maintain higher levels of welfare benefits - including things like universal free school meals, family allowances that get higher per child the more children you have, rather than lower as in the UK, and free higher education...
For over 40 years the UK has been failing to match its neighbours' public investment in their own people, and even though it has often had higher private sector investment, it has therefore become gradually relatively poorer. It won't reverse this until it understands that spending on things like child welfare, education and health are not 'costs', but investments.
npub18je6sddfumajhv06k4nejkp9pjg5egy8fp959ukgxxjl3x4guexs6psm0d (npub18je…sm0d)