First 100 days

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

whoever you voted for, what are your thoughts after the First 100 Days?
I didn’t vote for Labour, but I was quite excited in their first few weeks as Keir got his head down and I was excited fir change.

Now I just feel deflated. Same old….freebiegate, nitpicking, infighting. A bit depressing really.

i don’t even think there was a decent alternative really….and that’s even more depressing!!!!!

Meant to quote poster so have reposted.

The headline about the unemployed being given the jabs was pushed by the Telegraph and carried by other news outlets. Wes Streeting actually said:

"The long-term benefits of these drugs could be monumental in our approach to tackling obesity. For many people, these jabs will be life-changing, help them get back to work and ease the demands on our NHS,”

“But along with the rights to access these new drugs, there must remain a responsibility on us all to take healthy living more seriously. The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab.”

Streeting write an opinion piece in the Telegraph. He knew perfectly well what he was doing and how it would be presented. And Starmer has reinforced the same message to the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo

The long-term benefits of these drugs could be monumental in our approach to tackling obesity. For many people, these jabs will be life-changing, help them get back to work and ease the demands on our NHS,”
“But along with the rights to access these new drugs, there must remain a responsibility on us all to take healthy living more seriously. The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab.”

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me assuming the jabs are safe. Bearing in mind that people using medicines for diabetes get all their prescriptions free plus free eye tests, preventing diabetes alone would save a chunk of money (plus obviously preventing all the other complications of diabetes which cost the NHS a fortune). Depending on how much the NHS is being charged, I reckon it could definitely save taxpayers money overall.

You are prime example of why the system is what it is and will never be what you are arguing for.

You'll need to explain this one to me. I know I can't change the system alone but, I advocate for it wherever and whenever I can, at a corporate, industry and government level. It might all be worthless but I not sure there's much else I can do tbh.

If I understand Scottish tax bands correctly you are somewhere between £42k and £125k.

You better be happy about paying few k or a lot of k more in taxes because statistically you have no escape. Statistically it's likely that you are over 30 and at this age and level of income it will be very difficult for you to uproot your life and move abroad. You won't do it for the sake of 2-3-5k. This is exactly why people like you (and me) will be taxed more and more.

I work in a niche area that's in high demand globally, in sector that's in even higher demand. I could move abroad easily if I wanted too, but I like where I live and don't want to leave (for now anyway).

At what level will you say enough is enough and change your behaviour drastically? 50%? 70%? you still need to feed your family, pay mortgage etc. So whatever crumbles Labour decide to leave you.

People in much higher brackets, who ironically already pay much more tax, have more choice even to reduce their hours. Ever wondered why lions share of GPs only work part time?

Certainly some people pay significantly more than me in total but, as a portion of my income I'm pretty much as high as you can go. If the higher rate went from 45% to 50%, it wouldn't have a material impact on my life and if the the highest rate went from 48% to 60% or 70%, and if I creep into it, then I'd still be better off than I am now.

But once again, people paying income tax ARE NOT who I'd be targeting with wealth redistribution policies. I would focus specifically on the top 1-5% of wealthy people, not the top earners, the top wealth holders.

I would like to see the gap between top and bottom close so that the top 1% only held maybe 5%-10% of wealth instead of 24% and the bottom 50% held maybe 20%-30% instead of 9%.

Those super wealthy ones, who not only pay taxes but generate jobs, they are mostly mobile and they will leave. See Charlie Mullins above.

Again, the super wealth may be mobile in theory but they're not in practice, at least not according to any statistics I have seen. Charlie Mullins is a great example, he has the means to live anywhere in the world, yet instead he still lives in the UK and spends his time moaning about it.

He has no intention of leaving and just wants to influence decisions to further protect his wealth, and somehow a man who literally broadcast how exploitative and unfair he was to his workers has someone got average people working to defend his interests at their expense. Even if the super rich were actively moving out of the UK there are ways of dealing with it, if the will is there.

I don't advocate for the uniformity of wealth across the board, only for the gap to be less. Can you give me a reason why you think the current system, that is increasing inequality, is a system worth preserving?
What is it that makes you so vehemently opposed to reducing wealth inequality?

Lol, yes I know my tax bracket, thank you.

I'm sorry that you've surrounded yourself with selfish and greedy people, amongst my circles it's not an uncommon attitude, not everyone who earns well thinks only about themselves.

I voted LibDem, simply because I liked the candidate and the previous Tory had been as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I was cautiously pleased with the results of the election simply because it was time for a change, and it seemed as though everyone had at least some representation in Parliament, at the same time as not trusting Keir as far as I could throw him.

My cautious pleasure was entirely misplaced. I have never felt so disappointed n anyone politically as I am in him and Reeves. As a sole trader employing a couple of people part-time with very modest profit margins, I feel like they are planning on milking me dry to pay for the pay rises of people in the public sector. They have not thought through any of these plans properly - they are simply interested in how their appear to their core voter base.

All business owners - BAD
Nurses etc - GOOD

Are you suggesting there will be no cost to the public purse?

Good stuff. You didn’t sound very sure!

We may have different views on paying more tax; but no one who pays £50k a year in income tax is greedy. ;-)

Oh sorry, I didn't realise we still had to qualify that we mean it's free at the point of use when talking about these things, thought that was a basic understanding tbh but apparently not.

You're free to hold your opinion on the SNP but it's objectively not true that they've ruined Scotland. For example, it was their foresight around renewables, at a time when the Tories where doubling down on O&G, that has positioned the UK to capitalise on the global boom in that sector.

In fact, the major limiting factor in bringing in investment right now is the lack of grid connections for projects, thanks to the Tories refusal to invest in it, something Labour are working improve at last. With 25% of Europes offshore potential we could become a a global player in a high-skilled, high-demand, future-proof sector, while also creating cleaner, more efficient, cheaper energy for the average person, if we play things right.

But I'm sure you'll dismiss any of the positives in favour of your negative outlook on them.

I think one of the biggest issues is the black market and earnings not being declared by the self employed. I'm not sure how you can get round that without basically outlawing the use of cash for payments over a certain level.

And the problem of absent parents (lets be honest mostly men) not supporting their children needs to be addressed. God knows how but sorting out the self-employment issues above would help.

What could possibly go wrong?

You do realise that without fundamentally changing your lifestyle, once you come off the jabs you are
inclined to pile the weight back on?

Genius. Well done Wes.

You do realise that without fundamentally changing your lifestyle, once you come off the jabs you are
inclined to pile the weight back on?

Well a fair number of people on MN say that the injection has fundamentally changed their lifestyle and mindset so who are we to judge? Maybe they stay on the injection for life? Probably still cheaper than funding heart bypasses, limb amputations, cancer chemo, stroke/dementia care etc.

Are these not lazy stereotypes or do you have some supporting evidence to back this up?

Yeah, over 20% of working age population are economically inactive. Yet those idiots with broad shoulders who still are not only have to feed hungry children of the former group but also pay for their weight loss jabs. OMG

Apparently there were proposals to crack down in 2017, I don't know what became of them.
Crackdown proposed on cash-in-hand payments (ft.com)

As for absent parents, just go and look at the relationship boards on MN.

The fundamental issue is that these MN posters PAID for their own jabs and have all motivation to stay within healthy weight. The jabs are expensive.

When someone is given something for free, with incentive that now they have to drop from benefits and start working, yes surely they will make all the effort to do so.

It's a trial to see whether it would have health and economic benefits. Let's not prejudge the results.

Ah, the empirical study that is MN.

So following your assumptions.

Staying on the injection for life? Let’s assume discounted per capita cost of 1200 per year, premised on 20 years?

20 million adults are classed as economically inactive - let’s assume 25% are obese?
Thats only 120 bn…

Ah, more demonising of the self employed on MN.

A large number of people have traditionally seemed to think that cash payments are the same as cash in hand payments and that those who are self employed don't pay their fair share of NI.

Ah, more demonising of the self employed on MN.
A large number of people have traditionally seemed to think that cash payments are the same as cash in hand payments and that those who are self employed don't pay their fair share of NI.

No that's not fair. I make my money from being self-employed and I declare every fucking penny. Equally I have never paid for stuff like building work in cash to avoid VAT. Stuff like window cleaning is paid for by bank transfer. Fucking read my post, where did I say that all SE people are avoiding tax?

I thought with my use of the word "traditionally" I meant other people. Apologies if it sounded like I meant you specifically.

However, I suspect that people not declaring their most likely fairly small cash payments are not the ones causing the bulk of the problem.

I too used to have cash payments for almost all my takings until 2018, and like you I declared every penny. People seemed to automatically assume I was paying the system though. No, it was because where I was taking this money (remote coastal location) lacked a phone line!

So back to Mounjaro:
Obesity: Unemployed could get weight loss jabs to return to work - BBC News

Nearly 250,000 people are expected to receive the Mounjaro jab over the next three years, officials said.

250,000 people x 3 years x £1000 (jabs cost per year per person) = £0.75bn

They are talking about £22bn gap?????

So now the talk is of a 40bn black hole…

The tax increases (for some) will be savage!

Is that the £40bn that was a predictable outcome of Brexit and forecast in studies before the referendum, but ignored by xenophobic anti-EU types?