“Lost revenue” doesn’t really mean anything, since it was never owned. There is no way to guarantee that a person will live long enough to pay whatever taxes the gov’t estimates they will receive.
The cost of suicide is infinite to the person who exits… but sometimes that cost is worth elimination of perpetual agony (aka torture). I would choose infinite non-existence over terminally agonizing pain.
We could take their method of assessment and flip it, and attempt to determine how much lost life-worth/value is caused by imposing various rules and standards upon the populous, and i don’t even have to do any math to know, that figure would be exponentially greater.
I feel like i’ve already paid more than my fair share of pain, into a life that isn’t giving back anything substantial. £1.4m isn’t even enough to buy the pain i’ve already endured, and while there are no “projected gains” from that torment (only expected losses), the cost of living continues to rise. Essentially, i am suffering to pay to suffer more, just so that i can continue paying to suffer. I don’t see how ending that cycle is costing anyone “£1.4m.” It doesn’t make sense to me, despite their attempt to itemize everything.
Hmm… perhaps they should attempt to economically quantify the cost (lost revenue) of being miserable for an entire lifetime, and then compare that to the “cost of suicide.” I can only predict that either (and/or both) of those, would cost the individual much more than anything any gov’t would lose.
(note: i’ve found myself increasingly agitated the last few days, and the idea of accusing people of “costing the gov’t money” by suicide, is just infuriating to me)
Well, this sort of financial accounting does raise the question of whether the reverse of their premise is true – if it costs society per each suicide, then as you’ve pointed out, what is the cost per individual quantified as a debt owned by society, and further — can a class action lawsuit be filed using that as rationale?
One might reasonably construe a valid argument in such a way, but even if the ruling was in our favor, how, who would enforce it? I don’t think it’s possible to sue our “owners.”
Hmmmmm… I just looked up the statistics for the USA, and it strikes me that they’re talking mainly about lost business revenue, and not so much interpersonal/familial losses. When they say, “costs to society,” they’re speaking to lost “productivity” in the workforce.
Interesting…
I’m not sure what the point of these statistics are or why that should be at all relevant to anyone’s interest in the matter.
It’s because they care about the hit to the corporate sector, but not the hit to quality of human life, or the fact that most suicides probably occur due to a person being profoundly miserable for a long period of time; not like days/weeks/months, but years.
They give no fucks whether we’re miserable, just that we’re alive to work and buy things and pay taxes. But, oh, as soon as that’s not good enough anymore, and they “lose” the money they never were owed and will never receive, /NOW/ it’s a problem… but not because of the ruined lives; only because they perceive a loss of something that was never theirs in the first place.
Striking indeed.
It’s hard to articulate exactly why the idea of this infuriates me, but i tried.
11 comments
Wouldn’t suicide save so much more money though?
Well, shit. If they pay me £1,000,000 I’ll agree not to kill myself just yet. You know… as an austerity measure.
Um… No?
“Lost revenue” doesn’t really mean anything, since it was never owned. There is no way to guarantee that a person will live long enough to pay whatever taxes the gov’t estimates they will receive.
The cost of suicide is infinite to the person who exits… but sometimes that cost is worth elimination of perpetual agony (aka torture). I would choose infinite non-existence over terminally agonizing pain.
We could take their method of assessment and flip it, and attempt to determine how much lost life-worth/value is caused by imposing various rules and standards upon the populous, and i don’t even have to do any math to know, that figure would be exponentially greater.
I estimate that, per diem, I lose approximately $34,000,000 due to pain and suffering caused by “society;”
See: item 4: p.1, subsection 2: “Indirect costs i.e. the costs to society of each suicide.”
I feel like i’ve already paid more than my fair share of pain, into a life that isn’t giving back anything substantial. £1.4m isn’t even enough to buy the pain i’ve already endured, and while there are no “projected gains” from that torment (only expected losses), the cost of living continues to rise. Essentially, i am suffering to pay to suffer more, just so that i can continue paying to suffer. I don’t see how ending that cycle is costing anyone “£1.4m.” It doesn’t make sense to me, despite their attempt to itemize everything.
Hmm… perhaps they should attempt to economically quantify the cost (lost revenue) of being miserable for an entire lifetime, and then compare that to the “cost of suicide.” I can only predict that either (and/or both) of those, would cost the individual much more than anything any gov’t would lose.
(note: i’ve found myself increasingly agitated the last few days, and the idea of accusing people of “costing the gov’t money” by suicide, is just infuriating to me)
Well, this sort of financial accounting does raise the question of whether the reverse of their premise is true – if it costs society per each suicide, then as you’ve pointed out, what is the cost per individual quantified as a debt owned by society, and further — can a class action lawsuit be filed using that as rationale?
One might reasonably construe a valid argument in such a way, but even if the ruling was in our favor, how, who would enforce it? I don’t think it’s possible to sue our “owners.”
This logic has so many assumptions though.
Hmmmmm… I just looked up the statistics for the USA, and it strikes me that they’re talking mainly about lost business revenue, and not so much interpersonal/familial losses. When they say, “costs to society,” they’re speaking to lost “productivity” in the workforce.
Interesting…
I’m not sure what the point of these statistics are or why that should be at all relevant to anyone’s interest in the matter.
It’s because they care about the hit to the corporate sector, but not the hit to quality of human life, or the fact that most suicides probably occur due to a person being profoundly miserable for a long period of time; not like days/weeks/months, but years.
They give no fucks whether we’re miserable, just that we’re alive to work and buy things and pay taxes. But, oh, as soon as that’s not good enough anymore, and they “lose” the money they never were owed and will never receive, /NOW/ it’s a problem… but not because of the ruined lives; only because they perceive a loss of something that was never theirs in the first place.
Striking indeed.
It’s hard to articulate exactly why the idea of this infuriates me, but i tried.
can i have 50,000 from that.lol