Why would people in their 20s & early 30s, in 000s of debt before they even passed go, unlikely to ever be able to afford a house and with no little or no savings or pension provisions, be suffering from poor mental health?
nope, didn't say the survey was fake, the stories the daily mail are publishing are fake or sensationalised in order to whip people like you into a frenzy. It works.
I just listened to starmer on intelligence squared. his answers for the economy were:
"redistribution is an integral part of any labour government"
going for clean power by 2030 will generate new high-end jobs for 2 generations
"got to smash class ceiling"
unsurprisingly for him, he didn't specify what 1 and 3 will mean in policy terms, and he didn't specify what govt spending will be required to achieve 2
he also praised will hutton's new book. so we can see the direction of travel.
it was a labour love-in : hutton, starmer, sodha, and campbell
more spending on mental health care Risky, the NHS is woefuily under-resouced in that area, the waiting lists to see a mental health professional are off the charts. if it helps get people back to work it should pay for itself.
I wonder how many daily mail editorial staff have tried living on £800 a month? The idea that vast numbers of people are pretending to be ill in order to live on that while doing nothing is ridiculous. These are people living in bedsits shopping at Iceland and taking a tiny slice of the national pie. Yes there will be tiny proportion who live that life by choice, but it will be a tiny proportion, so what? Lets focus on the non PAYE wealthy who avoid and evade countless billions in taxes
WHAT???? THESE POORS GET EVEN MORE THAN £5,000 A YEAR???
I MAKE THAT NEARLY £10,000 A YEAR????!!!
THAT MAKES THE MEASLY £203 MILLION THE CONSERVATIVES PAID - NO DOUBT AFTER A STRINGENT DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS!!! - TO NEWLY FORMED COMPANY PPE MEDPRO LTD LOOK LIKE A BARGAIN!!!
if your housing costs are "completely covered" as single person you are either living in a bedsit or shared house (and not the fun student or young professional shared houses but a bedroom with a lock and use of a kitchen)
James is probably a real person so they can protect themselves from total fiction.
James is living a miserable existence and he told them that when they spoke to him. Then the editor gets involved and adds a few hundred quid to the story, adds that James has never worked a day in his life, makes James look really happy that he's getting away with it.
Who does James complain to about the story?
daily mail publishes it, dm readers go mental over it. Job done.
And ofc that same process is used for stories of immigrants, small boats, trans people, and all the culture war issues which a few very loud people with a direct line to the right wing media amplify to terrify the gullible masses.
get rid of the lazy incompetent tory government who have prescided over a culture that working is for chumps
fix the tax system so that people feel like work pays and sitting on your arse living off everyone else (like the PM for example) is shunned
give people some hope that things might get better instead of constantly blasting them with culture war bullshitt that runs down te country
stop stripping people of their rights and making the country more shit (new smoking ban last night was it? was that in the manifesto 2 prime ministers ago?)
cutting benefits is stupid and just a sop to daily mail readers, you need benefit reform that streamlines the system and works in conjunction with employment rights - easier to fire people or leave a job you hate then it should be easier to claim a wage equivalent level of support for a year while you sort yourself out
easy to access training schemes that people can use to change jobs or find new jobs - not just some bullshit posters about ballerinas being dumb
Generally with you Sumo but the smoking policy is an excellent one and is not stripping anybody of rights. If smoking was invented today it would never be legal so why not ban it from those yet to be hooked? Nobody looks back on their life in middle aged and are pleased at the amount of money they have spent and the ill health effects of smoking, the vast vast majority wish they have never started. It is one of the few good policies this government has introduced and will save 1000s of lives in the long term.
I'm ideologically opposed to bans, (I absolutely despise smoking) I kind of think if you want to spend your money on smoking and die of lung cancer at 30 then its up to you. I do think the ban on smoking in public places is justified since you are harming bystanders
I kind of think this might also be a bit of a tory back door plan to make sure cannibis is never legalised and granted hot black is a great advert for that I still think adults should not be constrained by the state
So Sumo, the logical conclusion to that is that any company could bring any foodstuff or drug to market with no requirement for safety testing whatsoever and that would be fine?
Problem with the daily Mail story is it makes it sound like ‘bloke gets £1300 per month (and rent paid) to sit on bench and drink beer AND YOU ARE PAYING!’
I don't know if this is a very reactionary opinion but I think that there really is a health crisis where people's mental and emotional states are causing them harm, but also that long term leave from work on sickness benefits is a terrible solution and actively makes people's condition worse.
pancakes some people who may be capable of working are being wrongly signed off by the medical profession as unable to work which could be against their own interests. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the level of benefits, which is what the Mail article is implying.
It’s not supposed to be easy street guy. We’re supposed to be encouraging people to go to work, albeit it sounds like you don’t agree. You can mither all you like but it’ll be you who’ll end up paying more, and more and more.
Why would people in their 20s & early 30s, in 000s of debt before they even passed go, unlikely to ever be able to afford a house and with no little or no savings or pension provisions, be suffering from poor mental health?
Kicking themselves for not doing an apprenticeship and wasting three years at uni that are no longer necessary.
I believe those that are genuinely not fit to work deserve enough to have some sort of life beyond living entirely hand to mouth. So the solution is not to cut benefits but to ensure those that are fit to work are not wrongly signed off. So the whole tenor of the article coming from the wrong angle. It is not about how much money these people get but what is wrong with them and whether it genuinely prevents them from working. Shame 14 years of Tory rule has not sorted this.
We’re supposed to be encouraging people to go to work
Not if they are physically or mentally incapable of working. Happy for the scroungers and liars to be rooted out as long as we deal with Dildo Harding, Mone and their ilk as well.
There is now a massive cohort of people who can’t/won’t work.
you shouldn't lump the "can't work" and "won't work" together. And the number of people who are the latter is tiny and have a negligible impact on the state (as guy said above). Wealthy people/entities evading tax is a much bigger drain.
as long as we deal with Dildo Harding, Mone and their ilk as well
“DEAL” WITH WEALTH CREATING CONSERVATIVES?!?
IF YOU MEAN AWARD THEM MORE PEERAGES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE POSITIONS AND PPE CONTRACTS THEN I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I DON’T SEE WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION!!
So Sumo, the logical conclusion to that is that any company could bring any foodstuff or drug to market with no requirement for safety testing whatsoever and that would be fine?
that's like me saying "oh, so you support a ban on spoons because someone could stab themselves to death with a spoon"
or "we should ban cars because of road accidents, joy riders and hit and runs"
what I said is that is that an adult person can choose to accept a risk that is personal to them if they wish. You want to get obese? you want to get drunk every friday you want to smoke 30 a day and die at 30 looking about 70 that's up to you.
it's not on the government to take away every enjoyment people might want in life because they judge it could be too dangerous and interfere with people toiling in the misery mines
some notes from the actual report and not just the Dalek spin: link
(71 per cent) of the 9.8 million families who are eligible for either Universal Credit or legacy benefits are worse off in real terms on Universal Credit in 2024-25 than they would have been under the legacy system in 2013-14, with an average difference among all eligible families of -£1,400 per year.
Working renters are the biggest winners, on average, and disabled people are among the biggest losers, from the reform, especially single people with a disability that prevents them from working. ... the Universal Credit reform still represents a net saving for the Exchequer compared to legacy benefits. The total modelled cost of Universal Credit at full roll-out and full take-up, at £85 billion per year in 2024-25, represents a significant saving over both the legacy system in 2013-14 (£100 billion in current prices) and the legacy system in 2024-25 (£90 billion).
Universal Credit’s higher support for working renters and lower support for disabled people will eventually contribute to a £2.1 billion shift in benefit entitlement towards London and the South East and away from the rest of the country, compared to a world where the regional breakdown of spending remained as it was under legacy benefits. The proportion of expenditure on Universal Credit and working-age legacy benefits that goes to London and the South East increased from 28 per cent in 2017-18 to 31 per cent in 2022-23.
Universal Credit has reduced the number of people facing very weak incentives to work and earn more, but at the cost of having more people facing what would still be thought of as weak incentives. The proportion of workers facing marginal deduction rates of above 70 per cent from 1.4 million to just 165,000, but the number of workers with MDRs above 50 per cent has risen from 3.7 million to 4.3 million.
There is clear evidence that unemployed single people and lone parents claiming Universal Credit move into work more quickly than those on JSA, although the overall impact of Universal Credit is not clear (and may well never be known).
There has been a steep rise in the number of Universal Credit claimants who are unable to work due to ill-health or disability. In April 2013, there were 1.2 million families claiming ESA, but, mirroring the more general rise in the number of people claiming disability benefits, there are now 2.3 million families claiming either ESA or the equivalent elements of Universal Credit. As a result, the proportion of the total Universal Credit caseload subject to conditionality rules has fallen from 65 per cent in April 2019 to 44 per cent in November 2023.
Policy makers must figure out how to adapt Universal Credit to address the labour market challenges of the 2020s, recognising that the system is operating in a different country from the one that was foreseen when Universal Credit was announced: one that is older and sicker, and where the stereotype of younger people making choices not to work is no longer pertinent. The Government has announced reforms to the test for ill-health in Universal Credit, but policy makers should not assume that Universal Credit alone can shoulder the burden of dealing with the UK’s challenge of rising inactivity through ill-health. We must not use thinking from the late 2000s to drive policy decisions in the late 2020s.
I completely disagree with kimmy. There are thousands of people who have chosen a life on benefits rather than work. Partly that is because it is not worth working, and on that basis they are being rational.
"what I said is that is that an adult person can choose to accept a risk that is personal to them if they wish. You want to get obese? you want to get drunk every friday you want to smoke 30 a day and die at 30 looking about 70 that's up to you. "
But where would you draw the line at new products? A very tasty sweet that is proven to knock twenty years of your life- your choice? One that would kill you tomorrow - your choice?
I agree with you about banning products people already use but it there is nothing wrong with banning dangerous new products, especially smoking, given the pleasure is largely illusory and most people that smoke want to give up. For future generations banning it makes absolute sense. I wish it had been banned for my generation which would have stopped me being addicted for fifteen years. I may (although not yet certain) have got away with it healthwise but it cost me thousands of pounds for no real advantage whatsoever.
Has the take up been high since the plain packaging etc? Doesn’t everyone vape nowadays? I don’t really care about the issue albeit I think the mechanism of this ban is very impractical
"At the end of the day working, it's not worth it to me".
That is the problem. The problem isn't with the jobs, it's with the wages.
Billionaires income is up 6 fold in 10 years. Wealth is being hoarded.
The issue isn't how to force people to take low paying jobs, it's raising the wages so it is worth it to take the jobs.
I have no problem with people having people having a liveable but unattractive safety net. The solution is not to cut the safety net, it's to raise the wages.
Don't cut benefits, raise wages. Reduce profits, compensate the actual workers.
One of the social and economic metrics companies should be judged on when competing for work is not just their environmental impact, but their wages structure.
Dog warden, I don’t completely disagree, and that is what (in some sectors) brexit has helped to achieve. But there also unfortunately needs to be some stick too. AI isn’t exactly going to help the lower paid, capital taxes are inevitable.
the poverty trap is not so much single people without kids, which the media focus on for simplicity, they would nearly all be far better off working, even at minimum wage. The poverty trap comes in when you have kids and a house the council pays for which a minimum wage job, or even a job some way above the minimum wage, cannot cover. The answer to the reduction of value in labour in favour of capital (which many on the left and right recognise) is a universal income for all to replace benefits.
Of course you can Risky, UBI will only ever afford the most basic lifestyle and there will be every incentive to work to top that up but perhaps not all the time and perhaps not full time, As the requirement for human labour diminishes over the next few decades, particularly well paid office labour like lawyers and accountants, this will be a good thing.
Minimum wage is now £11.44, so a couple working full time are bringing in £45k, working in McDonalds and on the bins, how much higher do you think wages should be for unskilled workers?
seems odd to talk about couples, lots of people do not lives as couples, and when they have kids cost of childcare means two people working full time on minimum wage is not tenable - why not therefore focus on individual income?
outside of part time, there should be no way that someone working 40 hours a week at ANY type of job is getting paid so little that they either fall below the tax threshold or require UC to support them.
This is a government subsidy to greedy employers.
Again, we're back at the rich convincing poor people that it's poor people keeping them poor.
UBI is not only not a daft idea it is inevitable if the consumer capitalist society we have had in the last 100 years or so is to continue in the face of the ever declining value of labour.
Theres a limit to how much you can tax capital before it just leaves.
Ah, that old chestnut. Well, simple, you don't pay the taxes, you don't trade here. They trade here because it's lucrative.
and when the government wants to line their buddies pockets, they always seem to find the money.
Corporations always find the money to pay the C-Suite exorbitant amounts, at one time the CEO earned 20 times the lowest paid people in their company, today that is over 1000. Wages are stagnant and barely keeping up with inflation.
Shi/t like this caused the French revolution you know.
That’s my point Eddie. In the same way that no one would work if income tax was 80pc, companies won’t trade if corporation tax is 50pc. Because it isn’t lucrative anymore
Capital is allocated where the marginal return is highest (including non financial aspects such as how painful it is to deal with the country’s authorities). Eddie’s proposal also appears to ban imports because THEY MUSTVPAY TAX IN THE UK
Risky did you just read your gcse economics textbook and think ‘that seems like it might be true’ and then fail to understand the actual world for your whole adult life?
0
1
Only 12%? Sad
1
4
great story, such a pity most of it is just made up.
2
25
Slash is a good guitarist. Not sure he needs benefits tho.
2
3
Risky lives off his mum
Some people live off the state
I know who I prefer
3
30
a shocking epidemic
even though the stats clearly underestimate it’s true extent, which is probably more like 20-25%
5
1
Why would people in their 20s & early 30s, in 000s of debt before they even passed go, unlikely to ever be able to afford a house and with no little or no savings or pension provisions, be suffering from poor mental health?
0
4
You think the survey by the left wing Resolution Foundation is untrue Eddie?
2
2
lol at the implication that people are swinging the lead to spend their twenties sitting at home living in poverty
0
0
What’s your solution guy?
1
3
nope, didn't say the survey was fake, the stories the daily mail are publishing are fake or sensationalised in order to whip people like you into a frenzy. It works.
2
1
‘What’s your solution guy?‘
MEGAMADGE
0
3
I just listened to starmer on intelligence squared. his answers for the economy were:
unsurprisingly for him, he didn't specify what 1 and 3 will mean in policy terms, and he didn't specify what govt spending will be required to achieve 2
he also praised will hutton's new book. so we can see the direction of travel.
it was a labour love-in : hutton, starmer, sodha, and campbell
0
0
Which part do it do you think is fake Eddie? Specifically?
0
0
Sorry I hadn’t realised you don’t get to see the whole story now. Will add some screen shots of the key info
1
1
Sounds great, might vote for him after all.
0
0
0
0
more spending on mental health care Risky, the NHS is woefuily under-resouced in that area, the waiting lists to see a mental health professional are off the charts. if it helps get people back to work it should pay for itself.
0
1
whereas stories in the guardian never sensationalise anything eh eddie?
6
0
‘single adult aged over 25, deemed fit for work, will receive £393.45 a month in Universal Credit.‘
£393.45 A MONTH???
A MONTH!!!!
THAT’S NEARLY £5,000 A YEAR!!!!
NO WONDER THESE POORS - I WONDER WHERE THEY WERE BORN!!!! - ARE HAPPY TO DOLE SCROUNGE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
IF ONLY THEY FOLLOWED THE EXAMPLE OF GREAT BRITS LIKE MICHELLE MONE!!!!
2
2
I wonder how many daily mail editorial staff have tried living on £800 a month? The idea that vast numbers of people are pretending to be ill in order to live on that while doing nothing is ridiculous. These are people living in bedsits shopping at Iceland and taking a tiny slice of the national pie. Yes there will be tiny proportion who live that life by choice, but it will be a tiny proportion, so what? Lets focus on the non PAYE wealthy who avoid and evade countless billions in taxes
0
0
How does he get £1300 a month if UC is £393 and the additional amount for those unfit to work is £416?
0
0
housing benefit?
0
0
The housing costs, council tax etc are all completely covered. In the case quoted he’ll be including benefits for th r others in his household etc.
1
0
Is that really the only thing you think is needed guy? So your solution is just more spending?
2
0
WHAT???? THESE POORS GET EVEN MORE THAN £5,000 A YEAR???
I MAKE THAT NEARLY £10,000 A YEAR????!!!
THAT MAKES THE MEASLY £203 MILLION THE CONSERVATIVES PAID - NO DOUBT AFTER A STRINGENT DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS!!! - TO NEWLY FORMED COMPANY PPE MEDPRO LTD LOOK LIKE A BARGAIN!!!
1
0
if your housing costs are "completely covered" as single person you are either living in a bedsit or shared house (and not the fun student or young professional shared houses but a bedroom with a lock and use of a kitchen)
3
0
Lol @ rakey saying he will ‘provide more info’ then posting screen shots of the Daily Mail
1
0
James, 38, Clacton lives in a £400,000 mansion drives a new Bentley and claims £1300 a month on the dole!! Shocker. Now prove me wrong.
Yes the Gruadian sensationalises stuff, no doubt. That's why it's not the only place I look at for news.
0
0
1300 per month after housing costs is a comfortable lifestyle in most if the UK
0
0
Who publishes true news Eddie?
0
0
it would be, if it wasn't a made up story by the daily mail. They've been churning this bull out frequently since their foundation.
0
0
This country does have problems with productivity and resilience, but the Daily Mail is not the place to find solutions.
3
0
"1300 per month after housing costs is a comfortable lifestyle in most if the UK"
Agreed but no level of benefits pay this, does it???
0
0
Basically Tories love kicking poor people instead of sorting out their own financial mismanagement of UK tax payers money
But the poor people are about to have their revenge
By delivering Starmer a 700 seat Majjjy T
GIVE US AN ELECTION
2
0
"1300 per month after housing costs is a comfortable lifestyle in most if the UK"
What single person gets £1300 per month on benefits after housing costs Risky?
1
1
Let me tell you how the daily mail story works.
James is probably a real person so they can protect themselves from total fiction.
James is living a miserable existence and he told them that when they spoke to him. Then the editor gets involved and adds a few hundred quid to the story, adds that James has never worked a day in his life, makes James look really happy that he's getting away with it.
Who does James complain to about the story?
daily mail publishes it, dm readers go mental over it. Job done.
2
0
Yes it does, that's what Universal Credit is about, wrapping all the payments into one.
Rich people are really good at persuading poor people that other poor people are the reason they're poor.
0
0
Eddie has it.
And ofc that same process is used for stories of immigrants, small boats, trans people, and all the culture war issues which a few very loud people with a direct line to the right wing media amplify to terrify the gullible masses.
2
0
Dalek17 Apr 24 08:05
What’s your solution guy(s)?
_______________________________________________________________________
I guess maybe
0
0
Generally with you Sumo but the smoking policy is an excellent one and is not stripping anybody of rights. If smoking was invented today it would never be legal so why not ban it from those yet to be hooked? Nobody looks back on their life in middle aged and are pleased at the amount of money they have spent and the ill health effects of smoking, the vast vast majority wish they have never started. It is one of the few good policies this government has introduced and will save 1000s of lives in the long term.
2
0
I'm ideologically opposed to bans, (I absolutely despise smoking) I kind of think if you want to spend your money on smoking and die of lung cancer at 30 then its up to you. I do think the ban on smoking in public places is justified since you are harming bystanders
I kind of think this might also be a bit of a tory back door plan to make sure cannibis is never legalised and granted hot black is a great advert for that I still think adults should not be constrained by the state
0
2
So Sumo, the logical conclusion to that is that any company could bring any foodstuff or drug to market with no requirement for safety testing whatsoever and that would be fine?
0
1
If you don’t think a family with kids can’t get 1300 in benefits per month then you’re in cloud cuckoo land.
If you don’t think it’s the case, why is so much spent on non-pension benefits?
This really isn’t a party political thing. There is now a massive cohort of people who can’t/won’t work.
0
0
Does poor mental health count as a disability in law?
2
0
BUT WILL SIR BEER TAKE RESPONSIBILITY?!?
I WON’T HOLD MY BREATH!!
3
0
Word
3
0
I think a rake didn't just not hit you in the face.
0
1
£1300 pcm if you’ve got kids is pretty thin gruel
Utility bills will eat up 1/4 of that
0
0
Problem with the daily Mail story is it makes it sound like ‘bloke gets £1300 per month (and rent paid) to sit on bench and drink beer AND YOU ARE PAYING!’
Almost like it’s deliberate…
0
0
presses the Wot Sumo Said shortcut button
0
0
I don't know if this is a very reactionary opinion but I think that there really is a health crisis where people's mental and emotional states are causing them harm, but also that long term leave from work on sickness benefits is a terrible solution and actively makes people's condition worse.
2
0
THIS STORY DEMONSTRATES WHY WE NEED ANOTHER 5 YEARS OF THE TORIES IN GOVERNMENT AFTER THE LAST 14 YEARS OF THE TORIES IN GOVERNMENT!!
WE SIMPLY CAN’T GO ON LIKE THIS!!
VOTE CONSERVATIVE!!
1
0
Apparently some of these people have flat screen tvs and smartphones.
1
0
So you are now saying £1300 is for a family with kids Risky? That is not a comfortable lifestyle ffs.
0
0
pancakes some people who may be capable of working are being wrongly signed off by the medical profession as unable to work which could be against their own interests. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the level of benefits, which is what the Mail article is implying.
0
3
It’s not supposed to be easy street guy. We’re supposed to be encouraging people to go to work, albeit it sounds like you don’t agree. You can mither all you like but it’ll be you who’ll end up paying more, and more and more.
0
0
Why would people in their 20s & early 30s, in 000s of debt before they even passed go, unlikely to ever be able to afford a house and with no little or no savings or pension provisions, be suffering from poor mental health?
Kicking themselves for not doing an apprenticeship and wasting three years at uni that are no longer necessary.
1
0
I believe those that are genuinely not fit to work deserve enough to have some sort of life beyond living entirely hand to mouth. So the solution is not to cut benefits but to ensure those that are fit to work are not wrongly signed off. So the whole tenor of the article coming from the wrong angle. It is not about how much money these people get but what is wrong with them and whether it genuinely prevents them from working. Shame 14 years of Tory rule has not sorted this.
3
1
Not if they are physically or mentally incapable of working. Happy for the scroungers and liars to be rooted out as long as we deal with Dildo Harding, Mone and their ilk as well.
1
1
It should need a legal right to WFH unless you're public facing for a start
2
1
you shouldn't lump the "can't work" and "won't work" together. And the number of people who are the latter is tiny and have a negligible impact on the state (as guy said above). Wealthy people/entities evading tax is a much bigger drain.
0
0
“DEAL” WITH WEALTH CREATING CONSERVATIVES?!?
IF YOU MEAN AWARD THEM MORE PEERAGES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE POSITIONS AND PPE CONTRACTS THEN I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I DON’T SEE WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION!!
2
1
‘This really isn’t a party political thing‘
THEY’RE ALL THE SAME!!!
MAY ASWELL VOTE CONSERVATIVE!!!!
1
1
as Alfred P. Doolittle said:
"I'm what you gentlemen call the undeserving poor, and I means to stay that way"
I wonder if Shaw was being satirical...
1
0
Guy Crouchback17 Apr 24 09:04
So Sumo, the logical conclusion to that is that any company could bring any foodstuff or drug to market with no requirement for safety testing whatsoever and that would be fine?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
that's not what I said.
that's like me saying "oh, so you support a ban on spoons because someone could stab themselves to death with a spoon"
or "we should ban cars because of road accidents, joy riders and hit and runs"
what I said is that is that an adult person can choose to accept a risk that is personal to them if they wish. You want to get obese? you want to get drunk every friday you want to smoke 30 a day and die at 30 looking about 70 that's up to you.
it's not on the government to take away every enjoyment people might want in life because they judge it could be too dangerous and interfere with people toiling in the misery mines
2
1
some notes from the actual report and not just the Dalek spin: link
5
1
AND DID AN “EXPERT” WRITE THOSE BULLET POINTS?!?
THANKS BUT NO THANKS: I’M STICKING WITH THE DAILY MAIL FOR MY FACTS!!
0
1
I completely disagree with kimmy. There are thousands of people who have chosen a life on benefits rather than work. Partly that is because it is not worth working, and on that basis they are being rational.
0
0
What sir Humphrey said in yes prime minister so many years ago still holds true.
0
1
"what I said is that is that an adult person can choose to accept a risk that is personal to them if they wish. You want to get obese? you want to get drunk every friday you want to smoke 30 a day and die at 30 looking about 70 that's up to you. "
But where would you draw the line at new products? A very tasty sweet that is proven to knock twenty years of your life- your choice? One that would kill you tomorrow - your choice?
I agree with you about banning products people already use but it there is nothing wrong with banning dangerous new products, especially smoking, given the pleasure is largely illusory and most people that smoke want to give up. For future generations banning it makes absolute sense. I wish it had been banned for my generation which would have stopped me being addicted for fifteen years. I may (although not yet certain) have got away with it healthwise but it cost me thousands of pounds for no real advantage whatsoever.
0
0
Has the take up been high since the plain packaging etc? Doesn’t everyone vape nowadays? I don’t really care about the issue albeit I think the mechanism of this ban is very impractical
0
0
"At the end of the day working, it's not worth it to me".
That is the problem. The problem isn't with the jobs, it's with the wages.
Billionaires income is up 6 fold in 10 years. Wealth is being hoarded.
The issue isn't how to force people to take low paying jobs, it's raising the wages so it is worth it to take the jobs.
I have no problem with people having people having a liveable but unattractive safety net. The solution is not to cut the safety net, it's to raise the wages.
Don't cut benefits, raise wages. Reduce profits, compensate the actual workers.
0
0
One of the social and economic metrics companies should be judged on when competing for work is not just their environmental impact, but their wages structure.
0
2
Dog warden, I don’t completely disagree, and that is what (in some sectors) brexit has helped to achieve. But there also unfortunately needs to be some stick too. AI isn’t exactly going to help the lower paid, capital taxes are inevitable.
1
0
the poverty trap is not so much single people without kids, which the media focus on for simplicity, they would nearly all be far better off working, even at minimum wage. The poverty trap comes in when you have kids and a house the council pays for which a minimum wage job, or even a job some way above the minimum wage, cannot cover. The answer to the reduction of value in labour in favour of capital (which many on the left and right recognise) is a universal income for all to replace benefits.
1
1
We’ve been through this guy. You can’t have an affordable ubi and incentivize work at the same time. The money simply isn’t there to fund it
0
1
Of course you can Risky, UBI will only ever afford the most basic lifestyle and there will be every incentive to work to top that up but perhaps not all the time and perhaps not full time, As the requirement for human labour diminishes over the next few decades, particularly well paid office labour like lawyers and accountants, this will be a good thing.
0
0
Minimum wage is now £11.44, so a couple working full time are bringing in £45k, working in McDonalds and on the bins, how much higher do you think wages should be for unskilled workers?
0
0
seems odd to talk about couples, lots of people do not lives as couples, and when they have kids cost of childcare means two people working full time on minimum wage is not tenable - why not therefore focus on individual income?
2
1
Dalek,
The money isnt their because the billionaires and top 1% have it....
1
0
outside of part time, there should be no way that someone working 40 hours a week at ANY type of job is getting paid so little that they either fall below the tax threshold or require UC to support them.
This is a government subsidy to greedy employers.
Again, we're back at the rich convincing poor people that it's poor people keeping them poor.
1
0
UBI is a daft idea
but public services should be about twenty times better funded than they are
3
1
True but isn't it also funny that the money is always there when it comes to giving the billionaire tax breaks or.. PPE contracts.
1
1
The money wasn’t there for that either. Theres a limit to how much you can tax capital before it just leaves.
0
1
UBI is not only not a daft idea it is inevitable if the consumer capitalist society we have had in the last 100 years or so is to continue in the face of the ever declining value of labour.
0
1
Tldr and don’t need to tbh
Your phones don’t give a fvck about you
Your Instagram doesn’t give a fvck about you
Your zoom colleagues don’t give a fvck about you
Your transactional spouse doesn’t give a fvck about you
No wonder you’re so fvkcing miserable
0
0
Is anybody in the Labour Party calling for universal basic income? I think I once heard polly Toynbee advocate for it but no actual politicians
0
0
it probably currently has more traction with right leaning thinkers than left leaning ones diceman
3
0
Ah, that old chestnut. Well, simple, you don't pay the taxes, you don't trade here. They trade here because it's lucrative.
and when the government wants to line their buddies pockets, they always seem to find the money.
Corporations always find the money to pay the C-Suite exorbitant amounts, at one time the CEO earned 20 times the lowest paid people in their company, today that is over 1000. Wages are stagnant and barely keeping up with inflation.
Shi/t like this caused the French revolution you know.
0
0
That’s my point Eddie. In the same way that no one would work if income tax was 80pc, companies won’t trade if corporation tax is 50pc. Because it isn’t lucrative anymore
5
0
“Companies wont trade”
Christ you really are a cretin aren’t you?
0
0
Dalek approaching two separate tuns here
0
0
Capital is allocated where the marginal return is highest (including non financial aspects such as how painful it is to deal with the country’s authorities). Eddie’s proposal also appears to ban imports because THEY MUSTVPAY TAX IN THE UK
0
0
I’m amazed that people are amazed that 12% of young adults struggle with mental health. Do u live on Mars?
2
0
“Capital is allocated where the marginal return is highest”
Heh did u read that in some book
0
0
The concept, sure
2
1
Risky did you just read your gcse economics textbook and think ‘that seems like it might be true’ and then fail to understand the actual world for your whole adult life?
1
0
“Whole what life?”
0
0
Explain to me then hotnow. I take it you invest all
Your savings at 0pc
0
0
So deano spending all his dole money on the Paddy Power Bingo app is allocating capital rationally in order to obtain the highest marginal return?
Don’t think so sun
Join the discussion