Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
He's talking about cakeism. Clearly the government is going to spend...
Keir Starmer's time is up
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Why do 'all' need uplifting when a chunk of society needs no help?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
All workers are being exploited, and as I've just explained better conditions for one group of workers than allows other groups of workers to improve their lot.
There are very very few workers that are not worse off than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago.
There are very very few workers that are not worse off than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Not everyone in society are workers...which is the point. You don't have to focus on uplifting those who are doing well already.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
These arguments have been made so many times on here. It's depressing that people still ask these questions.
How do you most effectively reach the chunk of society that does need help? This involves two questions:
What's the most cost-effective way to do it?
What is the way to do it that reaches the maximum number of those in need?
The answer to both of these questions is the same: unversalism paid for through taxation linked to ability to pay.
That universalism also has other benefits, such as providing for greater social cohesion through everyone feeling that they have a stake in a well-run state system, is an added bonus.
There is no downside.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
The overwhelming majority of people in the UK are workers in a class based sense.
Tube drivers, civil servants and university lecturers may earn more than the median wage, and with better conditions but uplifting their pay and conditions does not just benefit them it helps all workers. But I don't expect you to understand such basic solidarity.
Tube drivers, civil servants and university lecturers may earn more than the median wage, and with better conditions but uplifting their pay and conditions does not just benefit them it helps all workers. But I don't expect you to understand such basic solidarity.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
For reasons I don't quite understand, 'New Labour' in both of its iterations has been steadfastly opposed to universalism. Blair was, and now Starmer is.
As a result, Britain became increasingly unequal during the Blair years and it will become increasingly unequal during the Starmer years as well.
You could easily argue that the Tories during the Johnson/Sunak years (ignoring the brief Truss interlude) were more in favour of universalism than this govt.
As a result, Britain became increasingly unequal during the Blair years and it will become increasingly unequal during the Starmer years as well.
You could easily argue that the Tories during the Johnson/Sunak years (ignoring the brief Truss interlude) were more in favour of universalism than this govt.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I don't think he's ever been in a trade union tbh
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
There's also that general attitude thing isn't there - that whole idea that somehow the worst thing that can possibly happen is someone getting something you're not or that they apparently don't deserve has been key to the message the Tories and the tabloid press have been pushing out for years.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Every govt identifies and then attacks 'scroungers'. Certainly every govt since I've been an adult.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
What are we talking about that's 'universal' exactly?
Bus fare cap is universal, I say keep that. Winter fuel payments are not universal, and the way they're allocated is regressive, which is exactly the problem I have with them.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Yes. Rather depressing that some people on the 'left', including a supposed anarchist are buying that message. .
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The winter fuel payments were universal to a certain group - pensioners - and so not means-tested. You're quibbling here. Child benefit is also a universal payment to parents, but not everyone is a parent.
And it's not regressive to give all pensioners a fuel allowance. That's where taxation of those with more money comes in. Pensions are taxable income.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
So not universal then. Thanks, that's all we needed.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Meanwhile on another planet ....
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
It is universal to all those over a certain age - which captures a hell of a lot of people who will benefit from it significantly.
Same as with the two child cap, yes there will be some parents who are extremely wealthy but as a measure that will tackle child poverty doing away with it is one of the most impactful things that can be done (bar the workers seizing control).
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
So not universal then. Thanks, that's all we needed.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not really. You're just squirming because you're stuck defending a rotten argument.
Would you also argue that school provision isn't universal because babies aren't allowed to go to school?
As I said earlier, hopefully one day you will be a pensioner entitled to help staying warm in winter. Just as once you were a baby who wasn't entitled to go to school.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
School provision is universal for those who need it, ie children.
It is not only old people who need warm homes.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I've done the maths on it, factoring in the endless rises in pension age, and I should get to retire exactly seventy-two months, four days and three hours after I'm dead.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
For various reasons, as a group, old people are most in need of warm homes. As a biologist, I would hope you would understand that.
And for various other reasons, not least the pitiful level of the state pension, which is way below the minimum wage, as a group, old people contain large numbers who struggle to afford to heat their homes.
If there are rich old people who don't need the payment, the taxation system can take that money, help pay for not only their winter fuel allowance but also those of other pensioners. That's another of the benefits of universalism - those not in need, those in the fortunate position of having a lot of wealth, end up paying for lots of other people, not just themselves.
And for various other reasons, not least the pitiful level of the state pension, which is way below the minimum wage, as a group, old people contain large numbers who struggle to afford to heat their homes.
If there are rich old people who don't need the payment, the taxation system can take that money, help pay for not only their winter fuel allowance but also those of other pensioners. That's another of the benefits of universalism - those not in need, those in the fortunate position of having a lot of wealth, end up paying for lots of other people, not just themselves.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Take a step back and have a little look at how you're coming across right now. It's not a good look.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Yes and Yes.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Take a step back and do a quick headcount of all the people who died and made you king of how things look.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok continue being an idiot then.
But you can answer me these questions: Out of those pensioners in need, how many more will be missed now that the WFA is means-tested? How many of those extra people who are missed will die this winter?
If you can't answer those questions, you can fuck the fuck off.
HTH
teuchter
je suis teuchter
And rail fares up too.
All this on top of deciding not to reverse Sunak's idiotic decision to cancel the northern part of HS2.
It shouldn't be about help/handouts for the poor, but rights for everyone.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Is that a 15% increase in Railcards?
More performative cruelty that achieves fuck all other than costing those who can least afford to bolster the rail company profits.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Is that a 15% increase in Railcards?
More performative cruelty that achieves fuck all other than costing those who can least afford to bolster the rail company profits.
Yes, and I don't see that it's something that's going to amount to a lot of extra revenue.
The bigger deal though is that regulated rail fares will rise faster than RPI (yet again) while private motoring costs will reduce in real terms (yet again) thanks to the duty freeze and additional discount.
At the same time they are continuing the LNER trial (initiated under the last government) which effectively removes "regulated" rail fares altogether and makes them entirely market-driven.
Similar threads
