What a cunt
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.
“The cost of tax exemption for assets is devastating”
The next prime minister to say this fixes the economy. Go.
Good thing we can tax the billionaires then, now can’t we?
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.
Absolute fucking pig of a human.
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!
How much does this guy get paid?
Removed by mod
So you’re okay with abandoning millions of disabled people to starve?
Removed by mod
Wow, a real eugenicist in the wild!
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)
Nazi removed go follow your leader
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.
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.
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.
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.
Citation needed
'people don’t like it when the government decides to cull the vulnerable ’ this isn’t some reduction of pocket money to lazy teenagers, this is literally the cutting of people’s basic needs. How would you feel if i took away your ability to feed and house yourself?
