Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · 2025-07-10T11:20:00+0100

rob9872 said:
You know what he means.

There are lots of people playing the system. I know Public Sector workers who take huge advantage of the sick-pay scheme. They might not be claiming benefit to be in your figures, but are absolutely being paid by the general public to do nothing but sit on their lay asses at home. There are also plenty of scumbags who do claim with big TVs and iphones, down the pub, smoke but not feeding or clothing their kids adequately.

Part of the problem is they do nothing for their benefits and have no incentive to better themselves. If you can claim £200 for doing nothing, but can work a full week to come out with say £250 then who want's to do full-time for £50 extra? Make them earn the first part, cleaning the streets etc and then there's an incentive to better themselves. Currently they'd ather claim and do a bit of cash in hand to top it up.

Tiny percentages again. Not enough to tar a whole demographic. But using words like spongers with zero context is not a constructive argument. Same with you and public sector workers rinsing sick pay. My wife is a public sector worker, she’s paid a pittance for her qualifications and could earn considerably more in the private sector. The benefit of being a public sector worker has always been things like sick pay entitlement and pension. The latter has been coming down for years. There’s also a reason why public sector workers have more sick, burn out it a big one but also the hazardous nature of the work often. Emergency services and prison service being the two obvious ones. The prison service is also having recruitment issues and has taken to sponsoring immigrants to fill the gaps especially with officers.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T11:20:01+0100

rob9872 said:
I wasn't aware of that, although why am I not surprised that some took advantage

It doesn't matter what the subject, some always will look for loopholes. I still think there must be a refined version that would be worth a revisit.

Tesco's were literally putting out job ads where the pay was in benefits

An advert on the Jobcentre Plus website is calling for night-shift workers who will be expected to work for just Jobseekers Allowance (paid by the Government, not Tesco, at a rate of £53.45 per week for under 25s) plus expenses. The position is advertised as permanent.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T11:25:16+0100

skybluetony176 said:
Tiny percentages again. Not enough to tar a whole demographic.

People cling to this idea that there's huge numbers of people who just don't want to work but the evidence just isn't there. I'm sure there is a tiny minority that don't but in reality most people want to contribute to society.

When there has been large scale UBI trials one of the findings is that the number of people not working largely stays the same, there's no a rush of people to give up work despite the fact they will still get a wage.

There's also been pilots where those on various benefits have been given intensive support to get back into work. Those pilots result in people taking jobs and staying in them, the numbers of particularly high when dealing with disabled people.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-07-10T11:26:40+0100

Nick said:
That's why he said:

Although let's face it, some people will make more if they choose to work the set number of hours to then maximise their benefit income. It isn't worth it to work full time.

....so let's push for higher wages then.

rob9872 · 2025-07-10T11:27:39+0100

skybluetony176 said:
Tiny percentages again. Not enough to tar a whole demographic. But using words like spongers with zero context is not a constructive argument. Same with you and public sector workers rinsing sick pay. My wife is a public sector worker, she’s paid a pittance for her qualifications and could earn considerably more in the private sector. The benefit of being a public sector worker has always been things like sick pay entitlement and pension. The latter has been coming down for years. There’s also a reason why public sector workers have more sick, burn out it a big one but also the hazardous nature of the work often. Emergency services and prison service being the two obvious ones. The prison service is also having recruitment issues and has taken to sponsoring immigrants to fill the gaps especially with officers.

I've not said all people in the public sector. I've said 'some' and if your wife works in it I bet she knows a few who are taking the piss. And for context the ones I know aren't front line nurses and doctors but central office admin staff with no medical experience but enjoy all the same benefits that other NHS staff get and discounts etc. These are the areas where the waste is huge and trimming that would allow lots more investment in the areas where it matters.

Certainly enough to cover the rises the doctors are asking for. Although without wanting to open up that particular argument, some of the younger doctors who are complaining about pay having stagnated, demanding back-dated cost of living rises, only recently joined the industry and were therefore aware of the market rate when they joined, so even there we have some wanting to play the system.

Nick · 2025-07-10T11:31:10+0100

Brighton Sky Blue said:
....so let's push for higher wages then.

Or make it so if somebody choose to only work 16 hours and get benefits to top them up, they aren't better off than working fuill time by not throwing the benefits at them.

All people would do then is get the higher wages for 16 hours and then benefits would go up as well to cover the increased cost of living.

If somebody can not work because of anxiety and get their kid diagnosed with ADHD, it's £37k a year for them. That's mental isn't it?

The balance needs to be with that gap. If we just whack wages up for all, then cost of living goes up and then the benefits gets another boost to match so the gap is still there.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-07-10T11:31:58+0100

rob9872 said:
I've not said all people in the public sector. I've said 'some' and if your wife works in it I bet she knows a few who are taking the piss. And for context the ones I know aren't front line nurses and doctors but central office admin staff with no medical experience but enjoy all the same benefits that other NHS staff get and discounts etc. These are the areas where the waste is huge and trimming that would allow lots more investment in the areas where it matters.

Certainly enough to cover the rises the doctors are asking for. Although without wanting to open up that particular argument, some of the younger doctors who are complaining about pay having stagnated, demanding back-dated cost of living rises, only recently joined the industry and were therefore aware of the market rate when they joined, so even there we have some wanting to play the system.

A few decades ago schools were run by local authorities. We then changed to put schools into MATs and start employing executives and MAT level staff who are on 6 figure salaries, but the money committed to education stayed about the same. So money got diverted away from the front line service to pay for executives or other staff who contribute nothing to the service. That's a huge lot of public sector waste that could be reversed if we got rid of MATs and put the savings back into reducing class sizes, employing TAs and so on.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-07-10T11:38:15+0100

Nick said:
Or make it so if somebody choose to only work 16 hours and get benefits to top them up, they aren't better off than working fuill time by not throwing the benefits at them.

All people would do then is get the higher wages for 16 hours and then benefits would go up as well to cover the increased cost of living.

If somebody can not work because of anxiety and get their kid diagnosed with ADHD, it's £37k a year for them. That's mental isn't it?

The balance needs to be with that gap. If we just whack wages up for all, then cost of living goes up and then the benefits gets another boost to match so the gap is still there.

If you whack up the minimum wage only, you make full time or even just part time work on it more appealing. Then you have more people able to spend a bit more in their local areas and if it means that the cost of stuff in a shop goes up by a small amount so that the business can manage the added costs, I'm OK with it.

The reason we have the NMW in the first place while Scandinavian countries don't is that our workforce stopped being unionised for the most part, so people lost the means to collectively bargain for better wages. Which means the government is effectively doing that for lower earners.

skybluetony176 · 2025-07-10T11:42:35+0100

rob9872 said:
I've not said all people in the public sector. I've said 'some' and if your wife works in it I bet she knows a few who are taking the piss. And for context the ones I know aren't front line nurses and doctors but central office admin staff with no medical experience but enjoy all the same benefits that other NHS staff get and discounts etc. These are the areas where the waste is huge and trimming that would allow lots more investment in the areas where it matters.

Certainly enough to cover the rises the doctors are asking for. Although without wanting to open up that particular argument, some of the younger doctors who are complaining about pay having stagnated, demanding back-dated cost of living rises, only recently joined the industry and were therefore aware of the market rate when they joined, so even there we have some wanting to play the system.

Again with the simple words and no context. Where is waste huge? Certainly not at the coal front. Which is where cuts always take place. Define waste past a headline in the daily mail too.

You’re classed as a junior doctor for 5-10 years depending on your specialty. Plus I think you need to look up the definition of backdated. *IF* they got it and that’s a big if it won’t be backdated past them qualifying as a junior doctor so I’m really not sure what your issue is with that. Unless you prefer immigrant
Doctors of course.

Nick · 2025-07-10T11:42:42+0100

Brighton Sky Blue said:
A few decades ago schools were run by local authorities. We then changed to put schools into MATs and start employing executives and MAT level staff who are on 6 figure salaries, but the money committed to education stayed about the same. So money got diverted away from the front line service to pay for executives or other staff who contribute nothing to the service. That's a huge lot of public sector waste that could be reversed if we got rid of MATs and put the savings back into reducing class sizes, employing TAs and so on.

I can only speak of one example about 20+ years ago of doing IT in a school. They were paying "consultants" eye watering money to do the most basic of shit.

Nick · 2025-07-10T11:44:21+0100

skybluetony176 said:
Again with the simple words and no context. Where is waste huge? Certainly not at the coal front. Which as where cuts always take place. Define waste past a headline in the daily mail too.

You’re classed as a junior doctor for 5-10 years depending on your specialty. Plus I think you need to look up the definition of backdated. *IF* they got it and that’s a big if it won’t be backdated past them qualifying as a junior doctor so I’m really not sure what your issue is with that. Unless you prefer immigrant
Doctors of course.

Yes, you are classed as a junior doctor for 5-10 years but you don't sit at the bottom wage all that time. You aren't getting "junior doctors" with 10 years experience on £38k.

You qualify as a doctor and then your wage rises depending on the routes you take and it is a decent wedge.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T11:52:17+0100

fernandopartridge said:
A woman I know has just done a degree in nursing, £70k debt. What sort of country are we living in really?

I’m personally of the view that nurses should be an apprentice course rather than a degree course.

The ‘degree-ification’ of the workforce isn’t necessarily a good thing either. After £2k p/m, the workers are de facto taxed an extra 9% too.

It was a New Labour policy that was well intentioned but ultimately misguided.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T12:00:54+0100

Nick said:
Or make it so if somebody choose to only work 16 hours and get benefits to top them up, they aren't better off than working fuill time by not throwing the benefits at them.

Congratulations, you've just invented the benefits cap

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/benefit-cap/

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T12:01:03+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
CEO's etc. (and top level civil servants) get high wages, massive pension contributions as well as stock options and numerous other perks and benefits.

Why should normal workers just getting by have to accept making their current situation even harder in exchange for a small amount in the future (which for all they know they may never see) when those at the top telling them it's unaffordable get all that and more?

The fundamental problem with healthcare professionals is that the NHS is by far the largest employer. So doctors and nurses get stuck at the same hospitals on low wages.

If I decide my job underpays me, I can look elsewhere for similar jobs. The choice for a UK healthcare professional is ironically, look abroad to join private sector hospitals.

It comes down to how we fund the NHS. There’s not much evidence that the tax-payer funded model can provide good; service for patients, healthcare outcomes, working conditions and pay for staff, maintain infrastructure as well as continually invest into the future.

In its current form, I cannot see the NHS lasting in my lifetime.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T12:03:17+0100

rob9872 said:
I've not said all people in the public sector. I've said 'some' and if your wife works in it I bet she knows a few who are taking the piss.

this is not a public sector thing at all. I've worked in the private sector for years and every company I've worked for has had people who do fuck all and get away with it (not unusual that they are related to the owner!) or are always off sick.

at my current company, where there's 7 people in my role, I can see the stats that tell me I do about 50% of the work and answer about 50% of the phone calls. I'm pretty certain I'm not getting 50% of the wages paid.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T12:04:14+0100

Brighton Sky Blue said:
A few decades ago schools were run by local authorities. We then changed to put schools into MATs and start employing executives and MAT level staff who are on 6 figure salaries, but the money committed to education stayed about the same. So money got diverted away from the front line service to pay for executives or other staff who contribute nothing to the service. That's a huge lot of public sector waste that could be reversed if we got rid of MATs and put the savings back into reducing class sizes, employing TAs and so on.

You can apply this to pretty much every public service.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T12:10:13+0100

shmmeee said:
This is interesting. It’s very different country by country. So here you can go straight onto a medicine degree from A-Levels it seems but in the states and some others you do medical school after your degree. Our normal degrees are a year shorter but medical degrees are longer than their med school. Then they go straight into residency but we have two years of foundational training first and their residency can be shorter.

All in most developed nations seem to take roughly 10-11 years all in.

IMG Secrets - We Help IMGs From Different Countries Succeed Faster in the USA & Canada

We Help IMGs From Different Countries Succeed Faster in the USA & Canada

www.imgsecrets.com

I think a key line there is that British doctors are respected worldwide. I imagine that it’s very easy to up and move to another country for good money. Then like you say the question of how we tax graduates and high earners compared to some countries.

Ultimately if we aren’t recruiting and retaining enough we need to offer more as it’s an international market. And we steal from poorer countries in the same way.

The treasury is perfectly happy with that state of affairs. It cuts trainee roles so we’re not developing as many ‘home grown’ doctors because why not hire cheap labour?

An issue of that is not all doctors are respected worldwide.

shmmeee · 2025-07-10T12:17:45+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
The treasury is perfectly happy with that state of affairs. It cuts trainee roles so we’re not developing as many ‘home grown’ doctors because why not hire cheap labour?

An issue of that is not all doctors are respected worldwide.

Never understand limiting training of public sector workers in particular. My guess is another treasury brained “save money now” thing that costs in the long run the sheer fact that if you trained more it’s two parliaments before they’re in action has to be a factor like every other piece of long term thinking.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T12:30:56+0100

chiefdave said:
How is this possible? My doctor recommended that I leave my job for health reasons. Essentially a quit your job or the stress will end up killing you conversation.

I looked into how much I could get. Being hugely optimistic about how a health assessment would go the total I would get came to £782.87 a month, although £289.13 of that would be via a government loan and not payable for the first 9 months.

That means for the first 9 months my total entitlement on this luxary benefits life would be £150 per month less than my housing costs alone, after 9 months I would have about £130 a month after housing costs, but be building debt to the government at a rate of £3.5K a year.

Firstly, sorry to hear about your circumstances! Wishing you well and that you’re on the mend!

The OBR reckons we’re spending £100bn on sickness benefits alone.

This think tank has done some numbers, there’s UC, highest rate of PIP and housing benefit wrapped up there. Also talks about scenarios where that figure would be upto £37,000.

Sickness benefits pay £2,500 more than a job, new data reveals

Benefits for economically inactive claimants will still be worth thousands of pounds more than wages despite the Government’s benefit clampdown, new analysis reveals. As the Government’s Welfare Bill…

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk

shmmeee said:
Never understand limiting training of public sector workers in particular. My guess is another treasury brained “save money now” thing that costs in the long run the sheer fact that if you trained more it’s two parliaments before they’re in action has to be a factor like every other piece of long term thinking.

The best training is on the job which is why all the nurses (for example) do unpaid work before they qualify.

Why burden people with a debt when they can earn right away and not be burdened by student debt which is effectively a graduate tax in all but name.

Degrees are definitely over glamourised and the New Labour idea that a higher educated workforce would be higher skilled and more productive is demonstrably false.

I have a degree and work in a completely different field. An old boss of mine compared a degree to passing your driving test. You actually learn how to drive properly after you pass your test.

shmmeee · 2025-07-10T12:39:44+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Firstly, sorry to hear about your circumstances! Wishing you well and that you’re on the mend!

The OBR reckons we’re spending £100bn on sickness benefits alone.

This think tank has done some numbers, there’s UC, highest rate of PIP and housing benefit wrapped up there. Also talks about scenarios where that figure would be upto £37,000.

Sickness benefits pay £2,500 more than a job, new data reveals

Benefits for economically inactive claimants will still be worth thousands of pounds more than wages despite the Government’s benefit clampdown, new analysis reveals. As the Government’s Welfare Bill…

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk

The best training is on the job which is why all the nurses (for example) do unpaid work before they qualify.

Why burden people with a debt when they can earn right away and not be burdened by student debt which is effectively a graduate tax in all but name.

Degrees are definitely over glamourised and the New Labour idea that a higher educated workforce would be higher skilled and more productive is demonstrably false.

I have a degree and work in a completely different field. An old boss of mine compared a degree to passing your driving test. You actually learn how to drive properly after you pass your test.

OK well you first in the “work first learn later” hospital I guess.

Oh sorry two standard questions for “degrees are useless” types: do you have one and do you have kids?

Nick · 2025-07-10T12:49:22+0100

shmmeee said:
OK well you first in the “work first learn later” hospital I guess.

Oh sorry two standard questions for “degrees are useless” types: do you have one and do you have kids?

Depends on the industry / job really as to whether degrees are useless.

shmmeee · 2025-07-10T12:50:48+0100

Nick said:
Depends on the industry / job really as to whether degrees are useless.

We are specifically talking about Drs. And I’d argue education is never useless. That doesn’t mean degrees need to be barriers to a job of jobs that they are.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-07-10T12:50:55+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Degrees are definitely over glamourised and the New Labour idea that a higher educated workforce would be higher skilled and more productive is demonstrably false.

Great, let's not bother with any post-school education and hope that professions which require them spawn people out of thin air.

shmmeee · 2025-07-10T12:51:12+0100

Seen a couple on here talk about land banking, I’ve said before it’s not a thing. This is a good article on why.

Land Banking

One especially pernicious housing meme which never seems to die is that developers are land banking.

littlebuilt.com

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T12:52:03+0100

shmmeee said:
OK well you first in the “work first learn later” hospital I guess.

Oh sorry two standard questions for “degrees are useless” types: do you have one and do you have kids?

Nursing jobs used to be predominantly apprenticeship-style roles... In fact, the degrees are effectively ‘degree-apprenticeships’ where the students take on the costs of training. That is actually perverse in my view. Then, to add insult to injury, they are taxed 9% on whatever income they get above £2.2k p/m.

In my post you quoted I mentioned that I have a degree. Having gone through it, didn’t think it added that much value but I’m going to taxed an extra 9% on my income until retirement in all likelihood.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-07-10T12:53:19+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Nursing jobs used to be predominantly apprenticeship-style roles... In fact, the degrees are effectively ‘degree-apprenticeships’ where the students take on the costs of training. That is actually perverse in my view. Then, to add insult to injury, they are taxed 9% on whatever income they get above £2.2k p/m.

In my post you quoted I mentioned that I have a degree. Having gone through it, didn’t think it added that much value but I’m going to taxed an extra 9% on my income until retirement in all likelihood.

If the degree wasn't in history I'm going to be very disappointed

shmmeee · 2025-07-10T12:54:19+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Nursing jobs used to be predominantly apprenticeship-style roles... In fact, the degrees are effectively ‘degree-apprenticeships’ where the students take on the costs of training. That is actually perverse in my view. Then, to add insult to injury, they are taxed 9% on whatever income they get above £2.2k p/m.

In my post you quoted I mentioned that I have a degree. Having gone through it, didn’t think it added that much value but I’m going to taxed an extra 9% on my income until retirement in all likelihood.

You can’t argue a counter factual though. We know most degrees do in fact add value.

Graduate tax is stupid. You either get the money back from higher earnings or you don’t. And I don’t pay it cos I’ve paid my student loan off so it’s exclusively a tax on middle earners. Plus because it’s politically sensitive it’s essentially frozen and forcing unis to go abroad for proper funding.

Nick · 2025-07-10T12:59:41+0100

shmmeee said:
We are specifically talking about Drs. And I’d argue education is never useless. That doesn’t mean degrees need to be barriers to a job of jobs that they are.

He was on about nurses wasn't he? I'd say there's even a difference between nurses and doctors needing degrees.

Tell that to people racking up tens of thousands of debt to get a degree in a subject they are never ever going to use.

Guy I worked with was highly educated in chemistry and physics and owed a fortune but chose to work on a helpdesk and owed shitless to student debt. I'd say that was useless.

I think the degree in policing is pointless but a degree in chemistry to be a chemist, clearly isn't.

When it comes to my daughter, she is likely going to want to go to university or hopefully a degree apprenticeship. She won't be saying she wants to go to uni for the lifestyle or the "experience" to do something completely unrelated to what she wants a career in.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T13:03:21+0100

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Great, let's not bother with any post-school education and hope that professions which require them spawn people out of thin air.

Most school leavers do not need to go to uni. 35-50% is just too much.

I can I’m talking to people who went to uni after me when fees were 3k per year rather than 9k because you’re probably going to pay off your student loan, I’m not. As things stand there is set to be a generation of graduates who will be burdened with an extra 9% ‘tax’ on their incomes that most people will barely service the interest on it.

As the government ultimately guarantees the student debt, it’s a growing debt bubble.

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If the degree wasn't in history I'm going to be very disappointed

Let’s have a bit of fun aside from all the serious stuff (and absence of CCFC rumours)…

Joint honours, care to guess the other half?

shmmeee said:
You can’t argue a counter factual though. We know most degrees do in fact add value.

Graduate tax is stupid. You either get the money back from higher earnings or you don’t. And I don’t pay it cos I’ve paid my student loan off so it’s exclusively a tax on middle earners. Plus because it’s politically sensitive it’s essentially frozen and forcing unis to go abroad for proper funding.

For nurses specifically?

No, I’m not calling for a graduate tax. The SFE repayments is ‘de facto’ a graduate because not many people will actually pay off £40-60k debt with 6-7% interest that compounds.

I look at the degree-apprenticeships as the optimal solution for most workers and professions to be honest. There are many roles where you need qualifications (accounting, medicine and so on).

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T13:08:17+0100

Nick said:
He was on about nurses wasn't he? I'd say there's even a difference between nurses and doctors needing degrees.

Tell that to people racking up tens of thousands of debt to get a degree in a subject they are never ever going to use.

When it comes to my daughter, she is likely going to want to go to university or hopefully a degree apprenticeship. She won't be saying she wants to go to uni for the lifestyle or the "experience" to do something completely unrelated to what she wants a career in.

Guy I worked with was highly educated in chemistry and physics and owed a fortune but chose to work on a helpdesk. I'd say that was useless.

Ironically on this topic, one of my closest mates younger brother did a ‘biochemistry’ degree at a red brick uni and is now on a lower grade of pay than a nurse at a hospital.

wingy · 2025-07-10T13:14:27+0100

Seems to me the equivalent of Baker days in education has crept into my local surgery and possibly the attached chemist for a different perspective.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T13:15:56+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Firstly, sorry to hear about your circumstances! Wishing you well and that you’re on the mend!

The OBR reckons we’re spending £100bn on sickness benefits alone.

This think tank has done some numbers, there’s UC, highest rate of PIP and housing benefit wrapped up there. Also talks about scenarios where that figure would be upto £37,000.

Sickness benefits pay £2,500 more than a job, new data reveals

Benefits for economically inactive claimants will still be worth thousands of pounds more than wages despite the Government’s benefit clampdown, new analysis reveals. As the Government’s Welfare Bill…

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk

Cheers mate, not sure I'd say on the mend but I've not had a visit to hospital for a few weeks so that must be good

It doesn't seem any great mystery to me why sickness benefits are increasing. We are an increasingly unhealthy nation. Some in obvious ways, like the obesity crisis, but also in less obvious ways such as mental health. Add in an NHS on its knees which leads to increased waiting times, and worsening conditions, while people are waiting for treatment, its a recipe for disaster.

I think the think tank piece is a bit misleading, shocking for something from IDS I know, but what they seem to have done is devised very specific circumstances that navigate the cap, and in one instance achieve their desired outcome using an old scale not available to any new claimants. Would be interested to know the percentage of claimants that receive payments are above the benefits cap.

The whole report seems to be based around the idea that mental health conditions don't actually exist and the rise in the number of people with mental health conditions is down to people making it up, must just be coincidence that the huge surge in people with mental health conditions occurred at the same time that we absolutely decimated provision of treatment for people with mental health conditions.

Their proposed solution seems to be just pretend mental health issues exist. Stop paying PIP for anyone with a mental health issue, remove the higher level of PIP entirely and stop trained health professionals being the ones who decide if someone is unwell and instead leave it to a National Work Service. To be fair at least he's consistent, I'm sure we all remember his 'fit to work' assessments which led to numerous suicides alongside people who were in the late stages of terminal illness being ordered back to work.

Their figures then seem to assume that anyone who previously claimed to have a mental health condition will magically be cured and go back to work rather than moving elsewhere in the benefits system.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-07-10T13:37:00+0100

Nick said:
He was on about nurses wasn't he? I'd say there's even a difference between nurses and doctors needing degrees.

Tell that to people racking up tens of thousands of debt to get a degree in a subject they are never ever going to use.

Guy I worked with was highly educated in chemistry and physics and owed a fortune but chose to work on a helpdesk and owed shitless to student debt. I'd say that was useless.

I think the degree in policing is pointless but a degree in chemistry to be a chemist, clearly isn't.

When it comes to my daughter, she is likely going to want to go to university or hopefully a degree apprenticeship. She won't be saying she wants to go to uni for the lifestyle or the "experience" to do something completely unrelated to what she wants a career in.

I have a degree in chemistry. Were very few jobs going in it when I graduated.

Mucca Mad Boys · 2025-07-10T13:38:39+0100

chiefdave said:
Cheers mate, not sure I'd say on the mend but I've not had a visit to hospital for a few weeks so that must be good

It doesn't seem any great mystery to me why sickness benefits are increasing. We are an increasingly unhealthy nation. Some in obvious ways, like the obesity crisis, but also in less obvious ways such as mental health. Add in an NHS on its knees which leads to increased waiting times, and worsening conditions, while people are waiting for treatment, its a recipe for disaster.

I think the think tank piece is a bit misleading, shocking for something from IDS I know, but what they seem to have done is devised very specific circumstances that navigate the cap, and in one instance achieve their desired outcome using an old scale not available to any new claimants. Would be interested to know the percentage of claimants that receive payments are above the benefits cap.

The whole report seems to be based around the idea that mental health conditions don't actually exist and the rise in the number of people with mental health conditions is down to people making it up, must just be coincidence that the huge surge in people with mental health conditions occurred at the same time that we absolutely decimated provision of treatment for people with mental health conditions.

Their proposed solution seems to be just pretend mental health issues exist. Stop paying PIP for anyone with a mental health issue, remove the higher level of PIP entirely and stop trained health professionals being the ones who decide if someone is unwell and instead leave it to a National Work Service. To be fair at least he's consistent, I'm sure we all remember his 'fit to work' assessments which led to numerous suicides alongside people who were in the late stages of terminal illness being ordered back to work.

Their figures then seem to assume that anyone who previously claimed to have a mental health condition will magically be cured and go back to work rather than moving elsewhere in the benefits system.

Take it easy mate and hopefully things get better! Hopefully this forum or Cov in general don’t stress you out anymore than needed!

The big movers in sickness benefit has been for mental health in the 18-24 age bracket. Which counters your overall narrative.

Yes, there will be threads in that are certainly true but delving down into the data, the UK is a massive outlier and the welfare state wasn’t designed with 10+ per cent of the population being out of work.

The 25k isn’t misleading. It is a reality that there are circumstances where you can earn more living off the state than making a living.

£22.5k is the annual salary of someone working on the national living wage. Full time is probably defined as 35-40 hours a week.

So there are many more permutations where you can get a figure close to £22.5k but without having to work 35-40 hours per week.

There’s also many instances where there is a disincentive to work when people have UC slashed as hours go up - it’s a poverty trap for people.

chiefdave · 2025-07-10T13:53:38+0100

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Take it easy mate and hopefully things get better! Hopefully this forum or Cov in general don’t stress you out anymore than needed!

The big movers in sickness benefit has been for mental health in the 18-24 age bracket. Which counters your overall narrative.

Yes, there will be threads in that are certainly true but delving down into the data, the UK is a massive outlier and the welfare state wasn’t designed with 10+ per cent of the population being out of work.

The 25k isn’t misleading. It is a reality that there are circumstances where you can earn more living off the state than making a living.

£22.5k is the annual salary of someone working on the national living wage. Full time is probably defined as 35-40 hours a week.

So there are many more permutations where you can get a figure close to £22.5k but without having to work 35-40 hours per week.

There’s also many instances where there is a disincentive to work when people have UC slashed as hours go up - it’s a poverty trap for people.

But its not like those claiming mental health issues in the 18-24 age bracket are making it up. Unless you think the huge increase in things like self harm and suicide attempts are just so they can claim benefits, which I find unlikely.

You can't remove funding for mental health services and then stand around scratching your head wondering what is going on when there's more people with mental health issues!

The key to getting people off benefits is having people fit & healthy. You do that by properly funding services, you don't magically cure them by removing benefits.

The only reason they are highlighting certain circumstances is to mislead, to give the impression they are the norm when for most people the benefits cap would limit them to £14,753 or, £22,020 for couples & lone parents.

I am absolutely fine with seriously ill people receiving assistance. If there is a significant issue with people fraudulently claiming then sort that issue out. Don't point the finger at those genuinely in a bad way and make them out to be not worthy of a very basic standard of living.

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency