What a cunt
“The cost of tax exemption for assets is devastating”
The next prime minister to say this fixes the economy. Go.
Disabled and ill peons don’t hand out shares and consultancy jobs to politicians.
Disability benefit claimants can’t fight back with armies of lobbyists and lawyers, like the US based companies such as Amazon and Meta who not only avoid paying billions in tax every year, but get paid by UKgov to “invest in infrastructure” they need to profit from UK consumers.
“The Labour Party” are choosing to take from the poorest and most needy and give it to giant multinationals, as the Tories before them.
Relevant reading, published today 20/03/2025;
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmtrans/770/report.html
They know being disabled is harder, far more stressful, and more expensive, they simply don’t give a fuck.
Edit: They know way more than the horseshit they’re feeding us about it, and they refuse to publish the reports that poke holes in their excuses.
Would you like some Tory Light with your order?
I’ll take a main of Labour, hold the Labour and also, could you leave out all left please and add some extra ring wing, thanks!
con pizza with right wing
Good thing we can tax the billionaires then, now can’t we?
Disabled people already don’t make enough to live off of,and they can’t do anything about it. They already live in poverty, how much do we want to make them suffer?
Going after them and adding more stress is just terrible.
He should be ashamed of himself. He is going to kill people, blood on his hands.
"The cost of 0 VAT on financial services is devastating. "
And only used by the wealthy.
Why should someone who needs an accountants time get it tax free. But needing a plumbers time dose not.
I think he’s got the wrong part of devastating.
Cutting the meagre money
hundreds of thousandsmillions rely on to survive and surely causing excess deaths in the process is devastating.Millions. But yeah agree entirly.
Is there any chance of a rebellion within Labour over this?
A month ago he told us of his plans to “Unleash AI” To ‘increase efficiency’ - a phrase long proved synonymous with cutting jobs.
Would love to know what work he expects people to do when they’re kicked off sickness benefits.
Perhaps they will leave their wheelchairs behind and become bricklayers.
He is delivering a future inequality instead of alleviating it.
It’s all just so incoherent. I would settle for anyone who had the inclination to build functional society for the future, instead of the staid old ideas of slavish adherence to neoliberal economics. Academia is yelling out that they have seen the end of that road and it does not look good.
I’m sure there’s no other way to get more money into the government. No possible way.
Absolute fucking pig of a human.
How much does this guy get paid?
This is a terrible situation, since two unpleasant things are true at once: the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims and mismanagement, but there are also people with genuine disabilities who absolutely rely on these benefits.
the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims and mismanagement
It’s not. It’s a dog whistle by anyone opposed to social programs.
The reality is that, although there is abuse in all systems, the level of that abuse is negligible to the point of being a rounding error.
The goal is to punish everyone for the sake of that small percentage that abuses the system.
This is not unique to the UK it’s the same song and dance everywhere.
The benefits system, relying as it does on privatisation from top to bottom, haemorrhages cash, this is truth.
Go find out how much actual cash goes in.
Then find out how much of that actually ends up in claimants’ hands.
Then, finally, realise the scale of the problem.
Did you know that if you’re renting, you can get that rent paid by benefit?
That rent goes to a landlord who uses that rent to pay the mortgage on the property, maintain it (lol), and some profit.
If, however, you “own” your home and are responsible for paying the mortgage and maintenance, the best you can get is a loan to cover the interest only. You must pay this loan back with interest if/when you sell your home.
They’ll happily pay over the odds for “rent” costs to landlords, but they won’t pay less than that to you for your mortgage.
They’re happy to pay a mortgage, just not to you, the benefit claimant.
The whole system is rigged to take from the poorest and filter it all to those who have more than enough.
This has nothing to do with this topic. I don’t disagree with your points. But removing the benefits designed to allow disabled to actually function in anything close to an equal manner. It is in no way going to help your issue.
And refusing to cover rental housing costs for the poorest members of our population. Without hugely increasing homelessness and death. Will require a huge investment in social housing and time. Long before the nation is ready to stop covering that cost.
But I agree that sort of move is needed. But that would require an electorate and political party willing to support it.
the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims
If this was true. These actions in no way address such claims. They are purely about making it harder for genuine claims to actually pass the process, and paying less to those that remain. Absolutely nothing in this plan addresses false/fraudulent claims.
Also, while some fraudulent claims exist, riddled is totally false. The Tories have spent their whole time in office trying to prove your statement. Yet the cost of implementing their extra checks has been hugely more expensive than any claims cancelled.
You like much of the nation have fallen for the media and channel 4 propaganda.
Removed by mod
Man, there is a lot that you can correlate with economic stagflation. High residual nitrogen in soil. Gay marriage. Sales of left-handed ukeleles.
Why specifically choose welfare?
More to the point; do you know what happens to sick people who become poorer? They get sicker and become more expensive to look after. Check out the public cost of helping a disabled person keep some independence versus the cost of looking after them in hospital or a care home.
These people won’t magically disappear if you pull the rug on them.
The issue is health, not welfare.
They shouldn’t get sick in the first place. The focus should be on prevention, that’s what is cheaper and more helpful.
Fuck me, you’re a moron.
‘Hey, you with the chronic illness! Why didn’t you try not to get sick?’
I don’t like hoping that someone suffers a spinal injury in a car accident only to be told it’s their fault, and if they’d chosen not to become disabled they’d be able to walk and live free from constant unbearable pain, yet here I am.
So what do you do with all the people who didn’t have your blazingly brilliant insight and instead already got sick?
Many forms of illness are not preventable, and of those, many don’t benefit from early treatment. Even among the more or less treatable chronic illnesses, many (such as type 1 diabetes) are not preventable.
Pretending a problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.
I think you may be getting unfairly downvoted for this particular comment. Because yes, the focus should be on prevention - lack of exercise and poor diet on the physical side and the breakdown of in-person community and brainrot screen time on the mental side.
Too many people are losing control of their lives for avoidable reasons and that is what should be addressed.
The point obviously remains that removing people’s support after they have become ill is a bad idea and there are also people who are sick/disabled for unavoidable reasons e.g accidents, violence, genetic disorders etc.
I hope this conversation has helped change your mind about sick people a bit. We’re all guilty of not thinking things through sometimes and there are a lot of malevolent voices shouting for our attention.
Because yes, the focus should be on prevention
Great idea. But it’s far from the case that all forms of illness are preventable. And prevention strategies don’t always work perfectly: sometimes they improve people’s odds of avoiding a disease, but don’t work in every case.
Great idea. But it’s far from the case that all forms of illness are preventable.
Of course; if you read the third paragraph of my you’ll see that we agree.
It’s broadly accepted that austerity is the primary cause of stagnation.
Krugman, Stiglitz, Chang, Piketty etc etc have all explained how cutting welfare weakens demand, which in turn prolongs a period of stagnation.
The time to cut welfare, if you have a hard on for hurting the poor, is when the economy is booming.
Cutting benefits is not austerity.
You have the whole internet, like, right here. It’s really easy to actually look up the definition.
Yes, there’s a whole internet. You can start by reading a Wikipedia article to learn the meaning of the word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity
through spending cuts
Thanks, seems like you skimmed over the very first sentence.
So you’re okay with abandoning millions of disabled people to starve?
Removed by mod
You’re an evil bastard then.
@Emperor@feddit.uk is this instance ban worthy? (The comment by Aux)
The Mods have gone with a 14 day ban and I’ll support that but will keep an eye on the situation.
Ban worthy for what? For supporting the current democratically elected left wing government of the UK? You just be a delusional authoritarian Reform supporter.
You just said you’re okay taking away life saving support for a whole minority group of people and letting them starve to death. Your comment was massively ableist and is almost certainly promoting violence against a group of people. (Starving a group of people is violence)
Wow, a real eugenicist in the wild!
The welfare spending provides an oversized return in productivity. What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
Increased life expectancy should come with proportionally increased retirement age. Which is also a very unpopular policy. Otherwise you end with an aging population and the whole mess we’re in today.
What is common to all the low spenders - low life expectancy.
Low spender here. In my case, I don’t need much that I don’t already have and have opted out of consumerism to a large extent. So no, it’s not common to all low spenders, unless your definition of “low” is something extreme like under £1 a day.
There could be a misunderstanding here, I meant public welfare spending, not personal spending.
Countries who spend more on public welfare would get more people being productive rather than staying home sick. Higher life expectancy and higher life satisfaction is also expected.
Citation needed
