Is your household contributing net tax ?

I don't think the government are that fussed where they come from as they serve the purpose you have identified, no need to spend money on education etc

Do you mean the ones imported from the third world who are deeply traumatised and/ or raised with values fundamentally incompatible with our society? Great, what could go wrong

They do at the moment, thats why government and big businesses love migration.

Laughable that people are describing the various children benefits as a 'drain' when yhoer children will grow up to be workers? Do you think adults just appear fully grown and fully qualified ready for work on employer's doorsteps one morning?

I don't see an issue if the government provides funded hours either as well as the parent paying.

The problem comes is that you are saying people can have the money if the sort their own healthcare and retirement out

What happens if they don't are you willing to say sorry you haven't sorted your healthcare so we will not help you so you can die?

This may work in parts of the world but not here.

@titbumwillypoo I agree that UBI doesn't have to mean people will just work less or not work at all. In fact the current systems probably encourage that more.... people game the system by deliberately working less hours, keeping themselves 'under employed' and then getting topped up with UC so there's very little incentive to work harder/longer.

The basic principle needs to be that work pays. People need to be tangibly better off by working more hours, or working in tougher more demanding jobs, than those who work less.

I think there's a lot to be said for UBI, ensuring everyone has the absolute basics but incentivising people to earn if they want any more than that.

As the birth and death rate are roughly equal UBI is a possible. You start by giving 16 year olds the equivalent of say 10 hours a week NMW (£114) with the proviso that they will no longer be eligible for free healthcare or any other benefits such as a state pension in the future meaning they would have to take more personal responsibility for their health and retirement. Obviously some adjustments for the disabled. Alongside that, basic state housing. Build a lot of 1 person flats and basic terraced houses spread out equality over the 8,483 electoral wards of the UK, keep the weekly rent at no more that the equivalent of 5 hours NMW this would introduce real competition to the housing market.
Thirdly a flat 20% tax rate for everyone and all businesses, get rid of all the loopholes. Do business here pay 20% here. The main complaint about UBI is people will sit at home or work less. I disagree, UBI will allow people who want to do a simple worthwhile job like nursing or working in a shop the wiggle room to do it and not be too stressed and if you want to work hard and have a big shiny car and big house you can. Going to work should pay enough for a decent standard of living without government subsidies. By phasing it in slowly year by year eventually the need for so many people processing all the different subsidies will reduce and the markets such as housing and employment will have time to change to take into account less taxpayers money coming to them.

@Neveralonewithaclone @Vettrianofan

You don't think there are people who have done both types of work out there who might be able to offer insight.

I think that the minimum wage should be much higher and that we should close the multiple of salary paid to bosses over workers, but I have done waitress/supermarket/cleaning jobs (student) and City jobs and the City jobs are more stressful and demanding - you cannot clock off and your work is your life, with the threat of the sack hanging over you continuously. The challenge for the lower paid is more about the stresses of keeping the roof over their head and having little margin for bad luck or illness - it's the pay and conditions rather than the job.

You provide your own child care or you pay someone to do it for you. There should be no shame in either decision. However, parents who work in home looking after their children are shamed all the time.

School meals are not free for all children. I don't think free meds and prescription for kids cost the NHS that much compared to say older people or in fact people with disabilities. I think kids having access to free healthcare is great, but sadly these days it's impossible to get an appointment even for kids. We had to go private last year after not been able to be seen during winter when my kids had a horrible chest infection, they hadn't been sick in years and in fact, not been seen by a GP since before COVID.

You’re saying ‘household’. What if in one family, one parent is a high earner and the other parent stays home by choice. But that one parent who works determines the fact that the ‘household’ pays tax - the other parent won’t get shamed by everyone even though they don’t work. What if another family with a single parent, that person cannot work due to disability - therefore not being able to contribute towards tax for their ‘household’. That person will be shamed because they don’t contribute.

This is what people mean when they say disability discrimination and discrimination against single parent households. Don’t you dare shame people when most people have no other choice than to not work.

😂 OK.

The problem is that some people don’t want to work and they see no reason why they should.
It’s been like this for years. How do you weed out the chancers without penalising the genuine?

Yes because because the Government has no interest in how it presents its 'facts' either.

I don’t think anyone who thinks in terms of an annual income from their labour is rich these days.

Rich is when your money earns more than you do. Asset wealth is the only thing you can rely on.

Tobacco duties are levied on purchases of cigarettes, hand-rolled tobacco, cigars and other forms of tobacco. In 2024-25 we estimate that tobacco duties will raise £8.8 billion. This represents 0.8 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to 0.3 per cent of national income, and £302 per household.

The cost of smoking to the National Health Service in England is estimated to be £2.5 billion a year and the government is determined to cut this expenditure.

What’s happening to the other £6.3 billion?

Whether you agree with their figures or not. The revenue from smoking is unlikely to cover the cost of smoking. The cost is not just the cost of treating them in hospital.

It doesn't make them true though. Nor does it advance the discussion.

I am not in a 300k household.

Completely agree on the strange attitude though. It makes no sense. Just think where that money could be spent.

Spongers aren't they?

How do cliches emerge? Because they're heard all the time.

They would, wouldn’t they? I might believe a less blatantly biased source.