Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Kompakted]

If she was earning enough to live on and was happy and fulfilled by the work she was doing, then it's not really a matter of UBI - It's pure speculation on my part but perhaps she was spending out of her means to plug a gap caused by disconnection from meaningful work. It's not always as simple as - High salary = Content life - It sounds like an avoidance/ addiction thing more than anything but obviously I know very little of that situation.

The UBI would kick in if let's say she lost her job, rather than potentially becoming homeless and spiralling with guilt / poor mental health/ no work life balance, that safety net is there. Do you feel comfortable saying she doesn't deserve it because she made some bad decisions along the way?

As for the nurses, them lot should be absolutely raking it in, in one shift they do more work than many a yuppie trust fund baby fudge$rs will ever do in their life, they're asking to keep up with cost of living. It's easy enough to make a miscalculation and come up short for a month. Nobody should have to regularly use foodbanks though for sure, that's a sign things aren't going great.

No worries on the mix up, there's worse posters to be mixed up with than @Rorschach - He seems a lot more balanced and knowledgeable on this stuff than I am although It looks like we're on the same "side" on this particular topic

Thing is, cost of living fluctuates, pay rises are permanent, they're baked in to the ongoing cost of running the NHS, even if the cost of living reduces.

The comparison of nurses/doctors to bankers/fund managers is tiresome also. Nothing would actually function without the latter and if you think bring a fund manager is a cakewalk you have never set foot on an investment floor. Fund managers have skin in the game. Most funds are constituted as limited partnerships, with the fund managers taking on general liability for any fund losses as the "general partners", while the investors, the limited partners, have liabilities limited to their investment. Now of course they can earn a lot at the bigger firms, but it's long, stressful hours. Most investors are institutional, governments and pension funds. So they're also looking after your future and many others.

I don't doubt that some nurses, particularly in inner city A&E departments and the like are worked hard, but there will also be hospitals in many suburban or rural areas where a nightshift may pass where there's actually very little to do.

One thing we do need to get away from in this country is the almost religious worship of the NHS which frankly prevents the critical eye and reform it badly needs. Someone above mentioned that if you want good public services taxes need to rise. Taxes have risen and are at highs not seen in decades. Ironically also, after all that fuss over the Boris Brexit bus slogan, the NHS is getting far more than £350 million a week extra funding since then.

The NHS budget for 2024/2025 was £179 billion.
That compares to £143 billion in 2016/2017 for example (an over £692 million a week increase from when that bus claim was made)

And please this is not a reigniting of the tiresome brexit debate, I just find it highly ironic that in all the arguments over whether that was a lie or not, the NHS ended up getting far more than that.

The NHS budget keeps getting larger and larger, but do services improve?

Also, you say the UBI would kick in if someone lost their job. That's not UBI, that's a benefits system.

 

[spurspinter1]

Thing is, cost of living fluctuates, pay rises are permanent, they're baked in to the ongoing cost of running the NHS, even if the cost of living reduces.

The comparison of nurses/doctors to bankers/fund managers is tiresome also. Nothing would actually function without the latter and if you think bring a fund manager is a cakewalk you have never set foot on an investment floor. Fund managers have skin in the game. Most funds are constituted as limited partnerships, with the fund managers taking on general liability for any fund losses as the "general partners", while the investors, the limited partners, have liabilities limited to their investment. Now of course they can earn a lot at the bigger firms, but it's long, stressful hours. Most investors are institutional, governments and pension funds. So they're also looking after your future and many others.

I don't doubt that some nurses, particularly in inner city A&E departments and the like are worked hard, but there will also be hospitals in many suburban or rural areas where a nightshift may pass where there's actually very little to do.

One thing we do need to get away from in this country is the almost religious worship of the NHS which frankly prevents the critical eye and reform it badly needs. Someone above mentioned that if you want good public services taxes need to rise. Taxes have risen and are at highs not seen in decades. Ironically also, after all that fuss over the Boris Brexit bus slogan, the NHS is getting far more than £350 million a week extra funding since then.

The NHS budget for 2024/2025 was £179 billion.
That compares to £143 billion in 2016/2017 for example (an over £692 million a week increase from when that bus claim was made)

And please this is not a reigniting of the tiresome brexit debate, I just find it highly ironic that in all the arguments over whether that was a lie or not, the NHS ended up getting far more than that.

The NHS budget keeps getting larger and larger, but do services improve?

Also, you say the UBI would kick in if someone lost their job. That's not UBI, that's a benefits system.

Is a universal basic income not a benefit? Shall I say then that the need for UBI kicks in at that point. The idea being that it's actually sufficient for people to live a healthy life. That's what your opposing unless I'm mistaken, and I wish I could wrap my head around it but rather than answering any of my questions that would aid my understanding you've taken a different route to instead display irritation about the NHS / overworked staff being held in held in high regard - That's a genuinely intriguing position to take but this feels like one to park here perhaps.

 

[Kompakted]

Is a universal basic income not a benefit? Shall I say then that the need for UBI kicks in at that point. The idea being that it's actually sufficient for people to live a healthy life. That's what your opposing unless I'm mistaken, and I wish I could wrap my head around it but rather than answering any of my questions that would aid my understanding you've taken a different route to instead display irritation about the NHS / overworked staff being held in held in high regard - That's a genuinely intriguing position to take but this feels like one to park here perhaps.

I'm questioning whether UBI would actually have the impact its advocates think it will.

What amount would allow someone to live a healthy life?
How would that be paid for?
Would it result in a redistribution of wealth/reduction in inequality?
Would it result in a devaluation of money?
Would it result in a significant reduction in employment and productivity?

And yes, I do question people's reverence of the NHS, particularly when it comes to stuff like "nurses should be raking it in". Who is going to pay for them to rake it in? I'm sorry, but people just lose all notion of common sense when it comes to the NHS, and the NHS knows it and exploits it.

Hence why successive governments just keep throwing more and more money at it, because that's what the NHS says it needs and that's what the public demands it gets, yet every winter without fail the NHS crisis/waiting list/service on its knees headlines come out, every couple of years the unions start clammering that their staff are on their knees and can't afford to live and the public beep their horns and wave St the picket lines and whichever Health Minister is in post trudges over with another blank cheque and walks off with their tail between their legs. Rinse and repeat.

 

[glasgowspur]

Is a universal basic income not a benefit? Shall I say then that the need for UBI kicks in at that point. The idea being that it's actually sufficient for people to live a healthy life. That's what your opposing unless I'm mistaken, and I wish I could wrap my head around it but rather than answering any of my questions that would aid my understanding you've taken a different route to instead display irritation about the NHS / overworked staff being held in held in high regard - That's a genuinely intriguing position to take but this feels like one to park here perhaps.

What makes you think having money means you will lead a healthy life?
None of,
George best,
Oliver Reed
Richard Harris,
Shane McGowan,
Amy Winehouse,
I could go on but I'm sure you can see where I'm going, none of them were exactly poor, didn't do them do them much good.

 

[Baleforce]

the answer probably isn't having money

the answer is not having bills you can't afford to pay

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

What makes you think having money means you will lead a healthy life?
None of,
George best,
Oliver Reed
Richard Harris,
Shane McGowan,
Amy Winehouse,
I could go on but I'm sure you can see where I'm going, none of them were exactly poor, didn't do them do them much good.

Well they were all addicts.

Not having a pop at them.

 

[spurspinter1]

I'm questioning whether UBI would actually have the impact its advocates think it will.

What amount would allow someone to live a healthy life?
How would that be paid for?
Would it result in a redistribution of wealth/reduction in inequality?
Would it result in a devaluation of money?
Would it result in a significant reduction in employment and productivity?

And yes, I do question people's reverence of the NHS, particularly when it comes to stuff like "nurses should be raking it in". Who is going to pay for them to rake it in? I'm sorry, but people just lose all notion of common sense when it comes to the NHS, and the NHS knows it and exploits it.

Hence why successive governments just keep throwing more and more money at it, because that's what the NHS says it needs and that's what the public demands it gets, yet every winter without fail the NHS crisis/waiting list/service on its knees headlines come out, every couple of years the unions start clammering that their staff are on their knees and can't afford to live and the public beep their horns and wave St the picket lines and whichever Health Minister is in post trudges over with another blank cheque and walks off with their tail between their legs. Rinse and repeat.

The money going towards the NHS increases because the population is increasing. To even remain at the same level of service more investment is needed - It's one of the easiest tricks in the book - "We've invested more than ever in the NHS, aren't we brilliant?" Well no because that is the bare minimum.

I think we're too far apart in our world views to reach any kind of compromise here, you'll think I am overly idealistic and I think you've got rather rigid views on the necessity of everyone working whether it's meaningful work or not. Things like employment / GDP mean a lot to you and that's fine, it's not how I feel. There is enough money / resources and in my ideal society, Nurses would be revered and rewarded in the way that footballers are, maybe I've touched a nerve as you haven't done any real impactful work.

I can't give you a fixed value of how much people need to live a healthy life because it's not a fixed value as you must surely know, and I've already spoken about inequality but it hasn't registered so as I say, happy to park it. You don't want the vulnerable in society to have a safety net, maybe you should go down to some foodbanks and just yell at people telling them to work harder, Scara would no doubt join.

What makes you think having money means you will lead a healthy life?
None of,
George best,
Oliver Reed
Richard Harris,
Shane McGowan,
Amy Winehouse,
I could go on but I'm sure you can see where I'm going, none of them were exactly poor, didn't do them do them much good.

So UBI = bad because of some rockstar drug addicts, alrighty then. It's genuinely perplexing, where have I said "It's impossible to have money and not be content / happy", respectfully that is absolutely miles off what I have been saying. It's about having access to the necessities whatever the situation rather than having to jump through hoops to have a chance at getting benefits that are designed to not be enough to live on or to have to work in a job that is below the living wage constantly falling closer to serious financial issues. The fudge does that has to do with Amy Winehouse? UBI is not going to eradicate people making poor decisions, I've not claimed that it would suddenly fix addiction, it also won't ensure that Spurs will win the league whilst we're at it.

 

[glasgowspur]

P

The money going towards the NHS increases because the population is increasing. To even remain at the same level of service more investment is needed - It's one of the easiest tricks in the book - "We've invested more than ever in the NHS, aren't we brilliant?" Well no because that is the bare minimum.

I think we're too far apart in our world views to reach any kind of compromise here, you'll think I am overly idealistic and I think you've got rather rigid views on the necessity of everyone working whether it's meaningful work or not. Things like employment / GDP mean a lot to you and that's fine, it's not how I feel. There is enough money / resources and in my ideal society, Nurses would be revered and rewarded in the way that footballers are, maybe I've touched a nerve as you haven't done any real impactful work.

I can't give you a fixed value of how much people need to live a healthy life because it's not a fixed value as you must surely know, and I've already spoken about inequality but it hasn't registered so as I say, happy to park it. You don't want the vulnerable in society to have a safety net, maybe you should go down to some foodbanks and just yell at people telling them to work harder, Scara would no doubt join.



So UBI = bad because of some rockstar drug addicts, alrighty then. It's genuinely perplexing, where have I said "It's impossible to have money and not be content / happy", respectfully that is absolutely miles off what I have been saying. It's about having access to the necessities whatever the situation rather than having to jump through hoops to have a chance at getting benefits that are designed to not be enough to live on or to have to work in a job that is below the living wage constantly falling closer to serious financial issues. The fudge does that has to do with Amy Winehouse? UBI is not going to eradicate people making poor decisions, I've not claimed that it would suddenly fix addiction, it also won't ensure that Spurs will win the league whilst we're at it.

I never said UBI is bad, (in fact I never mentioned UBI) I said money doesn't lead to a healthier lifestyle and provided not just examples but examples of where having a considerable sum of money probably made it worse.

 

[Kompakted]

The money going towards the NHS increases because the population is increasing. To even remain at the same level of service more investment is needed - It's one of the easiest tricks in the book - "We've invested more than ever in the NHS, aren't we brilliant?" Well no because that is the bare minimum.

I think we're too far apart in our world views to reach any kind of compromise here, you'll think I am overly idealistic and I think you've got rather rigid views on the necessity of everyone working whether it's meaningful work or not. Things like employment / GDP mean a lot to you and that's fine, it's not how I feel. There is enough money / resources and in my ideal society, Nurses would be revered and rewarded in the way that footballers are, maybe I've touched a nerve as you haven't done any real impactful work.

I can't give you a fixed value of how much people need to live a healthy life because it's not a fixed value as you must surely know, and I've already spoken about inequality but it hasn't registered so as I say, happy to park it. You don't want the vulnerable in society to have a safety net, maybe you should go down to some foodbanks and just yell at people telling them to work harder, Scara would no doubt join.



So UBI = bad because of some rockstar drug addicts, alrighty then. It's genuinely perplexing, where have I said "It's impossible to have money and not be content / happy", respectfully that is absolutely miles off what I have been saying. It's about having access to the necessities whatever the situation rather than having to jump through hoops to have a chance at getting benefits that are designed to not be enough to live on or to have to work in a job that is below the living wage constantly falling closer to serious financial issues. The fudge does that has to do with Amy Winehouse? UBI is not going to eradicate people making poor decisions, I've not claimed that it would suddenly fix addiction, it also won't ensure that Spurs will win the league whilst we're at it.

Hmm, not sure I'm saying the vulnerable in society shouldn't have a safety net, just questioning how big that should be? The fact that you've said that you can't articulate an acceptable figure for UBI to allow for people to live the life you want them to live to me goes to the point that a lot of people that moan about the current system "not working" don't actually really have an alternative they'd be happy with in any detail.

I terms of paying nurses the equivalent of pro footballers - they already get paid around the same. The average salary for a pro footballer in the UK is £31,066 (Glassdoor).

if you mean Premier League footballers, I get the sentiment but given there are almost 750,000 registered nurses in the country, paying them the equivalent of the average PL salary of £60,000 a week is hardly realistic.