Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

Will the lockdown cost us too much money? Was it all worth it? And how are we going to pay for that? And also: who will pay for that? After the broadcast of "Pano" last night about the economic impact of the corona virus, the Belgian behavioral economist Jan-Emmanuel De Neve makes a remarkable proposal: raise a corona tax on the older generation.

The elderly are the first victims of the health crisis that is still ongoing. But economical? No, that burden falls on the younger generation. That says health economist Jan-Emmanuel De Neve , a Belgian who teaches at the University of Oxford and advises the British government.

Do the elderly make the crisis pay? De Neve: "The young people are the first in line to lose their job," he says in a conversation with VRT NWS. "They are also the ones who benefit least from the lockdown, because they are less susceptible to the virus. So there must be some realization by the older generation that the young are sacrificing themselves." De Neve hopes that politicians will find a way to give something back to the older generation, and is himself thinking of a corona tax for the elderly. "One time perhaps, to be able to acknowledge that incredible effort of the younger generation, in a structural or constructive way''.

A controversial idea, at the very least, and one that is also criticized. From pension expert Marjan Maes of KU Leuven, for example. She does not think that is the right instrument. It would be better, she says, among other things, that children can go back to school, so that parents can focus on their work again.

But she also wants to get money from the elderly, some of them anyway. She proposes to top off the tax benefits for higher pensions and increase the retirement age, so that future burdens are more evenly distributed. "Because the longer this reform is delayed, the greater the chance of a real generation conflict".

Is the lockdown a good or bad thing?

The question remains: is the lockdown, which is now being relaxed, a good thing? Have we found the right balance between economy and health? De Neve thinks a lockdown is necessary anyway.

"The consensus among economists is that it's really not health versus economy. Because you need to have public health under control so that consumer confidence is boosted again." Because otherwise people stay indoors and do not consume. With all its consequences for the economy.

Anyone who is clearly outside the consensus is Paul Frijters , professor of welfare economics at the London School of Economics, who thinks the lockdown is not a good idea. He has a cost-benefit analysis for this: we may gain a little health, but we lose so much in other areas that the net result is negative.

As an example he makes the observation that many people do not go to hospitals now, and therefore die faster. Or that no IVF happens, so fewer children are born. "If you make that kind of trade-off, it quickly becomes clear that the lockdown is pointless." Frijters is particularly devastating about the lockdown in Belgium. "Belgium is a wonderful example of a country that has not been able to suppress the virus at all. It has a fair amount of corona deaths and an economic disaster."

Belgium is a wonderful example of a country that has not been able to suppress the virus at all. It has a fair amount of corona deaths and an economic disaster. "

Paul Frijters, health economist London School of Economics According to him, panic is the culprit and the population should especially avoid panic. That is possible, he thinks, arguing that there are worse things. "Compare this to other things that are also bad for our health. Such as smoking, traffic fatalities or normal flu. Then you would quickly see that the corona virus wouldn't even make it into a top five of the things that will tie us up in the next ten years. to put on. "

Hard on the virologists? Frijters, incidentally, is particularly hard on the virologists who are trying to stem the crisis, not entirely illogical as an opponent of the lockdown. "One of the tragedies of this lockdown is the ease with which entire populations have followed a fairly small group of virologists."

Virologists, to their own surprise, have been proclaimed some sort of king scientists.

Paul Frijters, welfare economist London School of Economics Virologists study diseases and viruses. But they don't think about the socio-economic impact of their proposals. "And now, to their surprise, they have been proclaimed some sort of king-scientists, and they may have been completely taken aback by the catastrophe that spilled over Belgium and other countries." While the argument of the virologists is, of course, that by their measures the country has been saved from a further disaster, because the capacity of the hospitals has not been exceeded.

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/05/13/pano-gezondheidseconomen/

Will the lockdown cost us too much money? Was it all worth it? And how are we going to pay for that? And also: who will pay for that? After the broadcast of "Pano" last night about the economic impact of the corona virus, the Belgian behavioral economist Jan-Emmanuel De Neve makes a remarkable proposal: raise a corona tax on the older generation. The elderly are the first victims of the health crisis that is still ongoing. But economical? No, that burden falls on the younger generation. That says health economist Jan-Emmanuel De Neve , a Belgian who teaches at the University of Oxford and advises the British government. Do the elderly make the crisis pay? De Neve: "The young people are the first in line to lose their job," he says in a conversation with VRT NWS. "They are also the ones who benefit least from the lockdown, because they are less susceptible to the virus. So there must be some realization by the older generation that the young are sacrificing themselves." De Neve hopes that politicians will find a way to give something back to the older generation, and is himself thinking of a corona tax for the elderly. "One time perhaps, to be able to acknowledge that incredible effort of the younger generation, in a structural or constructive way''. A controversial idea, at the very least, and one that is also criticized. From pension expert Marjan Maes of KU Leuven, for example. She does not think that is the right instrument. It would be better, she says, among other things, that children can go back to school, so that parents can focus on their work again. But she also wants to get money from the elderly, some of them anyway. She proposes to top off the tax benefits for higher pensions and increase the retirement age, so that future burdens are more evenly distributed. "Because the longer this reform is delayed, the greater the chance of a real generation conflict". **Is the lockdown a good or bad thing?** The question remains: is the lockdown, which is now being relaxed, a good thing? Have we found the right balance between economy and health? De Neve thinks a lockdown is necessary anyway. "The consensus among economists is that it's really not health versus economy. Because you need to have public health under control so that consumer confidence is boosted again." Because otherwise people stay indoors and do not consume. With all its consequences for the economy. Anyone who is clearly outside the consensus is Paul Frijters , professor of welfare economics at the London School of Economics, who thinks the lockdown is not a good idea. He has a cost-benefit analysis for this: we may gain a little health, but we lose so much in other areas that the net result is negative. As an example he makes the observation that many people do not go to hospitals now, and therefore die faster. Or that no IVF happens, so fewer children are born. "If you make that kind of trade-off, it quickly becomes clear that the lockdown is pointless." Frijters is particularly devastating about the lockdown in Belgium. "Belgium is a wonderful example of a country that has not been able to suppress the virus at all. It has a fair amount of corona deaths and an economic disaster." Belgium is a wonderful example of a country that has not been able to suppress the virus at all. It has a fair amount of corona deaths and an economic disaster. " Paul Frijters, health economist London School of Economics According to him, panic is the culprit and the population should especially avoid panic. That is possible, he thinks, arguing that there are worse things. "Compare this to other things that are also bad for our health. Such as smoking, traffic fatalities or normal flu. Then you would quickly see that the corona virus wouldn't even make it into a top five of the things that will tie us up in the next ten years. to put on. " Hard on the virologists? Frijters, incidentally, is particularly hard on the virologists who are trying to stem the crisis, not entirely illogical as an opponent of the lockdown. "One of the tragedies of this lockdown is the ease with which entire populations have followed a fairly small group of virologists." Virologists, to their own surprise, have been proclaimed some sort of king scientists. Paul Frijters, welfare economist London School of Economics Virologists study diseases and viruses. But they don't think about the socio-economic impact of their proposals. "And now, to their surprise, they have been proclaimed some sort of king-scientists, and they may have been completely taken aback by the catastrophe that spilled over Belgium and other countries." While the argument of the virologists is, of course, that by their measures the country has been saved from a further disaster, because the capacity of the hospitals has not been exceeded. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/05/13/pano-gezondheidseconomen/

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

No new taxes. Cut the size and scope of government. The power for the executive branch to issue lockdown orders longer than 7 days needs to be approved by state legislators.