Universal Basic Income (UBI)

[byron78]

11 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Well if that is true then you would have no problem with those not working living in central London, not getting housing benefit.

If fact the majority are working then there is no excuse for the small minority not to work!

 

At the moment?

Christ. Have a heart. 

I get the HB bill is big, but it's only the size of a crony PPE contract dished out by this shower at the moment.

Don't worry. I'm sure you can all get back to punching down instead of up shortly.

[iamnumerate]

8 hours ago, byron78 said:

At the moment?

Christ. Have a heart. 

I get the HB bill is big, but it's only the size of a crony PPE contract dished out by this shower at the moment.

Don't worry. I'm sure you can all get back to punching down instead of up shortly.

But on Thursday you said that such people don't exist and now you don't want their benefits cut.

Make your mind up.

I agree that is not the moment - but from 1997 to 2008 would have been perfect.  Sadly I think the supporters of the status quo never want it changed.

BTW cutting housing benefit is punching up and down at once - it hits landlords and their non working tenants.

The Wilsons and the Mick Philpotts of this world at once.

Of course for tenants who work it is a double benefit less competition for housing and less tax!

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by iamnumerate

[byron78]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

But on Thursday you said that such people don't exist and now you don't want their benefits cut.

Make your mind up.

I agree that is not the moment - but from 1997 to 2008 would have been perfect.  Sadly I think the supporters of the status quo never want it changed.

BTW cutting housing benefit is punching up and down at once - it hits landlords and their non working tenants.

The Wilsons and the Mick Philpotts of this world at once.

Of course for tenants who work it is a double benefit less competition for housing and less tax!

 

Not really.

The perfect opportunity would have been late 80s, when we sold loads of old council houses and still had some of the hundreds of billion from the North Sea Oil bonanza of that decade left.

I think the fact none of that money was invested in long-term thinking or infrastructure is sadly what doomed us to 30 years+ of the same old same old.

RE: Philpott. He was a council tenant. A low life rat, a murderer, and famously one of the 28K big benefit families in the UK. 

Certainly not the norm of anything though.

I'm old enough to remember slum tenements and mass pauper graves.

This country has always had millions of working poor, literally for hundreds of years. It's not really anything new for the landlord to take a huge chunk of people's income. 

If you cut HB in central London without first giving the prole workers who use it to top up their rents alternative housing, then it'll just be carnage.

Prefer a rent cap tbh.  We had one until 1980 in this country. In hindsight, binning this off, and then binning off council houses (which used to be more expensive than private rents in most areas) was utter folly. Letting private landlords (and I am one) set their own prices, with the state subsidising the cost of much of this for the poor? I voted for you 3 times Maggie, but what on earth were you thinking???

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by byron78

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, byron78 said:

 

If you cut HB in central London without first giving the prole workers who use it to top up their rents alternative housing, then it'll just be carnage.

Prefer a rent cap tbh. 

I am only talking about those who don't work - not those who do. Why do you keep talking about those who do work?

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

2 hours ago, byron78 said:

At the moment?

Christ. Have a heart. 

I get the HB bill is big, but it's only the size of a crony PPE contract dished out by this shower at the moment.

Don't worry. I'm sure you can all get back to punching down instead of up shortly.

Easier for the simps to punch downwards at those below them than looking up and challenging their masters. 

[byron78]

18 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I am only talking about those who don't work - not those who do. Why do you keep talking about those who do work?

 

Because it's the vast vast majority of our benefit bill.

Rent cap would cure your particular issues far better than kicking the mythical "they're all Philpott's".

You might prefer the fantasy to the reality mind, which is of course up to you.

Edited May 22, 2021 by byron78

[byron78]

6 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Easier for the simps to punch downwards at those below them than looking up and challenging their masters. 

You'd think they'd have worked out punching down achieves F all by now, wouldn't you?

All it does is shift blame from the people who could actually change society onto those who are simply pulled along or overwhelmed by it. It's weird. What's the point (other than doing the former a favour)?

Edited May 22, 2021 by byron78

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, byron78 said:

Because it's the vast vast majority of our benefit bill.

 

On Thursday it was 100% of the benefit bill - and now it is the majority so that is a change. You said that people who don't work are Unicorns.  (Surprising how many people want to save unicorns).

Anyway my original point was that we should not give money to people who don't work in London to live in London, please stop changing the subject.  

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, byron78 said:

You'd think they'd have worked out punching down achieves F all by now, wouldn't you?

All it does is shift blame from the people who could actually change society onto those who are simply pulled along or overwhelmed by it. It's weird. What's the point (other than doing the former a favour)?

Giving less money to landlords would really change society.

[byron78]

14 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Giving less money to landlords would really change society.

So ask our lord's and masters for a private rent cap (like we had until 1980)? Job done.

Edited May 22, 2021 by byron78

[byron78]

16 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

On Thursday it was 100% of the benefit bill -  

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me.

[iamnumerate]

8 hours ago, byron78 said:

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me.

I was referring to the fact that on Thursday that you said that people who don't work and live on benefits in London are

Quote

Mythical creatures those.

Why debate them if they don't exist?

It is unacceptable that people live in a part of the country where there is not enough housing for years without working.

I know someone who for at least 10 years (we lost touch so could have been more) did that, lived in a place others can't afford. Is it fair that the taxpayer paid for them to live in an expensive part of London?

 

Simple question yes or no - is it fair that someone lives on the taxpayer money in a place many can't afford when pre covid others had to commute long distances to get into London to work?

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by iamnumerate

[byron78]

16 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I was referring to the fact that on Thursday that you said that people who don't work and live on benefits in London are

Why debate them if they don't exist?

It is unacceptable that people live in a part of the country where there is not enough housing for years without working.

I know someone who for at least 10 years (we lost touch so could have been more) did that, lived in a place others can't afford. Is it fair that the taxpayer paid for them to live in an expensive part of London?

Simple question yes or no - is it fair that someone lives on the taxpayer money in a place many can't afford when pre covid others had to commute long distances to get into London to work?

 

I said 80% of HB claimants in London work.

The inner London HB claimants stats are 400K-450K households total, but about that again in Outer London.

You're focussed on about 40K inner London households (0.15% of total UK households). I'm guessing those aren't exactly palaces either (majority will be HMOs, which I've never owned because most are slum landlords etc). Is it fair? Well I wouldn't swap my living arrangements with any of them, put it that way!

By all means rage about it. But again, it's a return of the rent cap you should be pushing for, if you actually wanted to do anything of note about it. 

London has always had social and slum tenants, ever since I've been about since WW2. And it's always had rent subs and caps as well. 

 It used to be that council housing in London was more expensive than the cheap slum social places. All the way up until the end of the rent cap in 1980 actually.

We did away with both of the above - state social housing and the rent cap - under Thatcher in the 80s. I agree it's been an absolute disaster and has seen rents surge btw.

But you want to hit people like me who own central London property and rent it. Not the folk we rent to.

I'll be dead soon of course. But come on you kids... punching down is going to get you absolutely nowhere. Can you honestly say the UK housing market has been working better for you this past decade as a result of austerity and kicking the poorest etc? Hopefully it won't take the brighter ones of you on here another decade to realise it hasn't!

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by byron78

[iamnumerate]

4 hours ago, byron78 said:

Hopefully it won't take the brighter ones of you on here another decade to realise it hasn't!

 

I am bright enough to know that you are trying to avoid to answer the question.
Please answer this
Simple question yes or no - is it fair that someone lives on the taxpayer money in a place many can't afford when pre covid others had to commute long distances to get into London to work?
If you agree with me then we can discuss further - if not no point.

[byron78]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

I am bright enough to know that you are trying to avoid to answer the question.
Please answer this
Simple question yes or no - is it fair that someone lives on the taxpayer money in a place many can't afford when pre covid others had to commute long distances to get into London to work?
If you agree with me then we can discuss further - if not no point.

I'm not avoiding your question. Rather, I'm chuckling at it. It's an LBC phone in. A tabloid poll. Pointless, but you proles seem to prefer them to actually doing anything productive! 

There's never any point of a simple "yes or no" discussion. Those are for dullards in Wetherspoons before midday, and those who think life is black and white and easily sub-divided. It isn't.

I would however presume that HB in London is open to everyone on the lowest rungs? If it's a universal, in that we all have the right here to give up our assets and jobs and go and live our best lives in an HMO and have our rent paid in central London, than your point is rather irrelevant, isn't it?

I presume I could give it all away, to win the lottery of a room no bigger than a prison cell, in the worst parts of "lovely" central London?

The problem is, you're always going to have high levels of job turnover etc in the grunt jobs that a city like London needs. It's been like all my 8 decades of life. What is your alternative? Because what you are suggesting is worse than it was in the 1930s. At least they had rent caps. No rent support for the poor in London and no rent cap? Okay. Now what? Robots to run everything that doesn't need a degree? A tax on everyone who works in London to pay for the increases in pay etc needed to maintain enough grunts to run the basic services?

I'm interested in getting things done. Always have been. People like you? You just want a scapegoat. And you're happy enough to punch down (which is where we want you to punch). Again... you can live your whole life like this. Completely up to you. I'd like to presume you're smart enough to grow up a bit before you reach my age.

Edited May 23, 2021 by byron78

[iamnumerate]

53 minutes ago, byron78 said:

I'm not avoiding your question. Rather, I'm chuckling at it. It's an LBC phone in. A tabloid poll. Pointless, but you proles seem to prefer them to actually doing anything productive! 

 

In that case I will have to block you obviously you just prefer to use 1940s insults at others rather than debate.

(The only time I have ever seen the word prole in print in my life is in the book 1984, but obviously that is a bit out of date now).

I have to say if your intention is to make sure that I vote Tory instead of Labour for the rest of my life- you might have succeeded. I dislike Boris Johnson but Labour is even worse. Maybe 20 years more of the Tories they might have the guts to sort out the benefit system!

 

[byron78]

23 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

In that case I will have to block you obviously you just prefer to use 1940s insults at others rather than debate.

(The only time I have ever seen the word prole in print in my life is in the book 1984, but obviously that is a bit out of date now).

I have to say if your intention is to make sure that I vote Tory instead of Labour for the rest of my life- you might have succeeded. I dislike Boris Johnson but Labour is even worse. Maybe 20 years more of the Tories they might have the guts to sort out the benefit system!

 

Is prole an insult? If you didn't go to public school, you're a prole. Everyone I know who went to public school (which is everyone I know) has always called proles...well, proles. You work because you have to, because your forefathers were lazy or stupid and left you with nothing.

We've got the benefit system we have because of the Tories. We both nuked the rent cap, and then sold all the state housing. I was involved with Tory politics back then, and at the time applauded both.

Now the only option is to rent privately. We killed the competition. If you then get rid of benefit on the lowest rung (as you're proposing) the poor either end up in trailor parks or skid row (like in America, where 4 times as many pensioners as live on the Isle of Wight are sleeping on the streets every night). From there, it's an endless spiral, of crime, the costs of policing it, and the prison population exploding. Trust me... you don't end up saving money in the long run. Quite the opposite. 

But yes, vote for them. Get involved if you can. Be proactive. You'll find the F ups cascade from the top, rather than the other way up. We didn't sort the issues in 2010 out because we all wanted to believe the snakeoil salesmen, who promised us we really could somehow fix the roof by concentrating on the basement.

We need adults and accountability now. And it NEEDS to start at the top for a bloody change.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by byron78

[winkie]

9 hours ago, byron78 said:

Is prole an insult? If you didn't go to public school, you're a prole. Everyone I know who went to public school (which is everyone I know) has always called proles...well, proles. You work because you have to, because your forefathers were lazy or stupid and left you with nothing.

We've got the benefit system we have because of the Tories. We both nuked the rent cap, and then sold all the state housing. I was involved with Tory politics back then, and at the time applauded both.

Now the only option is to rent privately. We killed the competition. If you then get rid of benefit on the lowest rung (as you're proposing) the poor either end up in trailor parks or skid row (like in America, where 4 times as many pensioners as live on the Isle of Wight are sleeping on the streets every night). From there, it's an endless spiral, of crime, the costs of policing it, and the prison population exploding. Trust me... you don't end up saving money in the long run. Quite the opposite. 

But yes, vote for them. Get involved if you can. Be proactive. You'll find the F ups cascade from the top, rather than the other way up. We didn't sort the issues in 2010 out because we all wanted to believe the snakeoil salesmen, who promised us we really could somehow fix the roof by concentrating on the basement.

We need adults and accountability now. And it NEEDS to start at the top for a bloody change.

 

 

Also non-working parents for whatever reason can and do have children that work and can do very well for themselves and the country.....they offset many times what they go on to payback into the community......when we invest into non-working parents we are investigating into the parents of the future, their kids.......best not to throw the baby out with the bath water..... creating a future downward spiral of problems to come that will affect us all many fold, crime, mental health, unemployment, poverty, the poorly educated, addiction and homelessness....a vicious spiral that should be broken not magnified.

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

 

Also non-working parents for whatever reason can and do have children that work and can do very well for themselves and the country.....they offset many times what they go on to payback into the community......when we invest into non-working parents we are investigating into the parents of the future, their kids.......best not to throw the baby out with the bath water..... creating a future downward spiral of problems to come that will affect us all many fold, crime, mental health, unemployment, poverty, the poorly educated, addiction and homelessness....a vicious spiral that should be broken not magnified.

The only problem with that theory is that the UK has a more generous benefit system than Japan and higher crime

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e02dd0a9-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e02dd0a9-en

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/United-Kingdom/Crime

[crescent]

On 5/20/2021 at 5:15 PM, byron78 said:

Mythical creatures those.

So there are no people who just live in benefits because they are lazy - they do not exist?!

[hotblack42]

Last 2 days in this thread, 2 people bickering about housing benefit.  No mention of UBI in this exchange..?

Plus. Weekends are for frolicking!

[byron78]

2 hours ago, winkie said:

 

Also non-working parents for whatever reason can and do have children that work and can do very well for themselves and the country.....they offset many times what they go on to payback into the community......when we invest into non-working parents we are investigating into the parents of the future, their kids.......best not to throw the baby out with the bath water..... creating a future downward spiral of problems to come that will affect us all many fold, crime, mental health, unemployment, poverty, the poorly educated, addiction and homelessness....a vicious spiral that should be broken not magnified.

Spot on. 

[byron78]

20 minutes ago, hotblack42 said:

Last 2 days in this thread, 2 people bickering about housing benefit.  No mention of UBI in this exchange..?

Plus. Weekends are for frolicking!

I'm 81. The last time I frolicked I'd probably just left the cinema, having watched Sound of Music.

[steve99]

29 minutes ago, crescent said:

So there are no people who just live in benefits because they are lazy - they do not exist?!

Only on Chanel 5's Benefit street.  A well chosen example. Yes they exist but in fact the vast majority of not wanting to work people on benefits are usually somewhere on the spectrum or have had devastating lives and thus zero confidence to even apply for a job, then we have people with such genuinely low IQ's who are pretty much illiterate.  There is nobody guiding these people through the mine field of surviving life, in fact far more goes into recruiting the next CEO of a company or an exec than the whole of these 'scroungers' combined.  I have a cousin somewhere on the functioning spectrum who used to be employable but has become worse with age thanks to his strange response to questions, ie extremely literate answers to questions which gives the impression of being a smart-**** and for this he was sanctioned and started starving, but fortunately his sister found him and sorted things out.   This is where the bulk you your 'Daily mail' concocted scroungers are at. 

The real parasites are at the top of the mony tree, demanding and getting government concessions and tax breaks and of course many hiving their accounting offshore. Im guessing 100x of time multiples more is either spent on these people or they havd avoided tax 1000x of times over than the whole benefit bill.

[iamnumerate]

17 minutes ago, steve99 said:

 

The real parasites are at the top of the mony tree, demanding and getting government concessions and tax breaks and of course many hiving their accounting offshore. Im guessing 100x of time multiples more is either spent on these people or they havd avoided tax 1000x of times over than the whole benefit bill.

According to this website

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283954/benefit-expenditure-in-the-uk/#:~:text=Benefit expenditure in the UK 2000-2020&text=In 2019%2F20 the UK,compared with the previous year.

192.4 billion British pounds was spent on benefits in the UK in 2019.

In 2019 the size of the UK economy was 2.17 trillion pounds.

So it is impossible for people to have avoided tax 1000x greater than the whole benefit bill as that would imply that they avoided tax 100x greater than the UK economy.