I mean I've tried to keep a respectful tone from the outset, but the condescension and sneering has just been off the charts from you today. Stop taking these swipes at whole sectors of the workforce and making sweeping generalisations of what people think and there's a discussion to be had.When you’re highly strung about something, you lash out and bring up a complete straw man.
Is there no chance of any of the people you’ve thrown onto the “unproductive” pile ever making it into the “future taxpayers” bracket, or are we just going full workhouse politics here?When you’re highly strung about something, you lash out and bring up a complete straw man.
Let’s just set things straight, neither children or the elderly are ‘unproductive’.
Children = future taxpayers
Elderly = previous taxpayers
Examples of people who are unproductive:
- 4.03m UC claimants with ‘no work requirements’. Up from 1m in 2021 (DWP)
- 1.24m immigrants on UC (DWP who’s data also suggests it could be up to 1.9m)
- migrants on less than £35k p/a
- public sector pay outstripping inflation, whilst productivity flatlines
- funded by employers NI tax hike (a lot of public sector exemptions) = 134k more redundancies = 5% unemployment
The welfare bill is raising unsustainably and the latest £6bn increase mooted by Reeves at a time she’s considering tax rises is genuinely bonkers and will worsen the crises above.
Pointing out that the public sector is less productive than the private sector is not sneering, it’s a fact.I mean I've tried to keep a respectful tone from the outset, but the condescension and sneering has just been off the charts from you today. Stop taking these swipes at whole sectors of the workforce and making sweeping generalisations of what people think and there's a discussion to be had.
Well, what do you think? The benefits bill is going up, not down.Is there no chance of any of the people you’ve thrown onto the “unproductive” pile ever making it into the “future taxpayers” bracket, or are we just going full workhouse politics here?
Don’t think I amOK, change the subject if you will.
It’s enormous
I think it’s nonsense to make the blanket statement that people on UC or immigrants on <£35k a year are somehow separate from the ‘productive’ buckets of “past and future taxpayers”, when it’s eminently clear that many of them will also fall into those precise categories. It’s an entirely artificial dividing line that you’re using for political purposes.Well, what do you think? The benefits bill is going up, not down.
Unfortunately, the trend is that a lot more people are entering the welfare system than leaving it. Without reforming it, this is how the welfare state dies a slow death.
When you’re highly strung about something, you lash out and bring up a complete straw man.
Let’s just set things straight, neither children or the elderly are ‘unproductive’.
Children = future taxpayers
Elderly = previous taxpayers
Examples of people who are unproductive:
- 4.03m UC claimants with ‘no work requirements’. Up from 1m in 2021 (DWP)
- 1.24m immigrants on UC (DWP who’s data also suggests it could be up to 1.9m)
- migrants on less than £35k p/a
- public sector pay outstripping inflation, whilst productivity flatlines
- funded by employers NI tax hike (a lot of public sector exemptions) = 134k more redundancies = 5% unemployment
The welfare bill is raising unsustainably and the latest £6bn increase mooted by Reeves at a time she’s considering tax rises is genuinely bonkers and will worsen the crises above.
What about the children who will go on to be unproductive or the elderly who have been unproductive their whole lives? Should we boot all them out too?
Let's make pensioners work for their state pension while we're at itAnyone who has not worked for a lengthy period of time should have all benefits removed anyway
It’s not artificial at all, anyone on UC will be a net tax drain and likewise, anyone on less than £35k will be as well. This data collated by the OBR, DWP and other government/independent agencies.I think it’s nonsense to make the blanket statement that people on UC or immigrants on <£35k a year are somehow separate from the ‘productive’ buckets of “past and future taxpayers”, when it’s eminently clear that many of them will also fall into those precise categories. It’s an entirely artificial dividing line that you’re using for political purposes.
Well yeah, why should anyone subsidise an idle class people? The old narrative around the welfare state is that most claimants were in work, this is no longer the case since COVID.What about the children who will go on to be unproductive or the elderly who have been unproductive their whole lives? Should we boot all them out too?
Just kill them or make them work for nothing it’ll be fineWhat about the children who will go on to be unproductive or the elderly who have been unproductive their whole lives? Should we boot all them out too?
You’re better than this. Why don’t we start with community service for the 4m people on UC that have ‘no requirement’ to work?Let's make pensioners work for their state pension while we're at it
They wouldn’t be working for nothing though, would they?Just kill them or make them work for nothing it’ll be fine
There was definitely a policy where people were and why not make people work for their welfareThey wouldn’t be working for nothing though, would they?
and those who are unable to work?Anyone who has not worked for a lengthy period of time should have all benefits removed anyway
Fuck em we can’t afford to have a moral compass these daysand those who are unable to work?
Let's make pensioners work for their state pension while we're at it
Not all of them by any stretch of the imaginationThey will had to have worked to qualify for it - that is my point
The idea of getting pensioners to work for their payments was mooted under one of the previous Conservative governments iirc (I want to say the May government but not entirely sure). They aren't economically productive in the here and now, they might have been in the past (just as someone unemployed could also have been before falling on hard times), they're a drain on the state. By your logic, either turn off the money tap or get them to work. The state pension is the biggest chunk of the welfare bill, so let's focus on that.You’re better than this. Why don’t we start with community service for the 4m people on UC that have ‘no requirement’ to work?
There’s plenty of potholes to be filled, graffiti to be cleaned and so on.
People can also move from being employed to unemployed and have paid into the system too. We should be making employment more attractive, not trying to be more draconian on the unemployed.They will had to have worked to qualify for it - that is my point
Not all of them by any stretch of the imagination
Do i have too much empathy or am i just not suited to grown up politics. The idea of leaving people with nothing is crazy
It's the politics of 'I'm alright Jack'Do i have too much empathy or am i just not suited to grown up politics. The idea of leaving people with nothing is crazy
It's the politics of 'I'm alright Jack'
well you never clarified who you are leaving with nothing so excuse my ignoranceThere is zero excuse for able bodied people not to be able to find work over a period of time. The notion the state should pay for someone for years of unemployment is nonsense
It can never be a lifestyle choice.
i thought a man who lived in the most deprived estate in the UK would be more of a man of the peopleIt's the politics of 'I'm alright Jack'
i thought a man who lived in the most deprived estate in the UK would be more of a man of the people
Probably in jobs you spend your time on here sneering atOddly most of them worked
… Just not the 27-37% of non-EU migrants that have ILR and claiming UC. Or 4m people on UC with no requirement to find work.There was definitely a policy where people were and why not make people work for their welfare
The irony is that migrants can’t work and many want to
You throw these questions without actually defining what you mean. How is this defined?and those who are unable to work?
The idea of getting pensioners to work for their payments was mooted under one of the previous Conservative governments iirc (I want to say the May government but not entirely sure). They aren't economically productive in the here and now, they might have been in the past (just as someone unemployed could also have been before falling on hard times), they're a drain on the state. By your logic, either turn off the money tap or get them to work. The state pension is the biggest chunk of the welfare bill, so let's focus on that.
That you have 'liked' a post which says we should effectively boot onto the street anyone who can't find work in an acceptable amount of time is pretty revealing. Disabled people too, economically unproductive so let's eliminate benefits for them while we're at it. Women on maternity leave another category, either get back to work straight after your baby or no help for you either. Children aren't taxpayers until they become one either.
You see, the more you look into who can be classed as 'economically unproductive' the more the argument unravels as of course we're not going to withhold the state pension, stop funding state education, take away the right to parental leave and so on. What this is amounting to is the assumption that most people who are unemployed are unemployed by choice and because they're lazy. Which is itself a lazy assumption to make.
A child, an elderly person or a disabled person is also a net tax drain - why are they exempted from this workhouse community service you’re envisaging? If the argument is that they will pay tax in the future, or have paid tax in the past, why does the same exemption not apply to the vast numbers of migrants and UC claimants who are also past/prospective future taxpayers?It’s not artificial at all, anyone on UC will be a net tax drain and likewise, anyone on less than £35k will be as well. This data collated by the OBR, DWP and other government/independent agencies.
Your arguments are artificial in the sense that you make sweeping statements and observations usually without any data to back it up.
Probably in jobs you spend your time on here sneering at
It's not even £5k a year. Nobody is living a life of luxury on that surely?No its common sense. Its not OK for the state to provide for a long period away from contributing and earning. Life is not charity of benefits and handouts paid by other people who have worked.
It's not even £5k a year. Nobody is living a life of luxury on that surely?
As I say propels moral compass has been corrupted by migrants and rich griftersDo i have too much empathy or am i just not suited to grown up politics. The idea of leaving people with nothing is crazy
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?