I'm still undecided where I sit on this. I think the idea of UBI is useful but it shouldn't be so high that it pays better than entry level work. £1600 pm is more than I earned in my first grad engineering role after 4 years of uni. I still would have done it as I would progress onto something better but with more mundane jobs that don't really have any progression prospects? I can see it causing problems. The salaries for those would need to rise above UBI by enough to make it worthwhile, which would then mean all other job roles would also need to then pay more as you wouldn't want to go to Uni, get a professional job only to be paid less than someone on the tills at McDonalds. This could lead to inflation that then wipes out what is gained through UBI.
Personally, I think UBI should be much lower and should be more akin to job seekers allowance, it should keep you going through rough patches and give you more peace of mind to do what you need to to find work again but I don't think it should even come close to competing with the earnings from actual work.
I had thought we used to have a thread dedicated to the UBI discussion; but I couldn't find it yesterday.
Personally, I think it should be set at the rate of paying for essentials, but nothing else.
Roof, electricity, food, phone & broadband. At a basic level, and nothing more.
If you want a car, or a TV, or a smartphone - then you'd need to work to earn more.
This would need to be worked out every year (or more likely, every quarter) and be guaranteed to rise accordingly, rather than being at the whim of whichever political party wants to buy your votes.
Al Pacino and Robert DeNero are having kids with much much younger woman and everyone thinks that's a good thing. Tom Jones took advantage of a young Cassandra Peterson apparently being very brutal and rough to the then 16 year old and no one bats an eyelid and how old was Mandy Smith when Bill Whyman first started sleeping with her? Yet he's a rock and roll hero.
Pretty sure it's not the 70s any more.
Not saying Schofield is innocent here but there seems to certainly be a element of sticking the knife into him and ITV by media rivals but then they were all happy to do it to the BBC over Saville
I know nothing about what's been going on with Schofield, except that I see his name and picture a lot, and it's something to do with a sex scandal.
If it's illegal, then it should be a matter for the courts, with no specifics until it's been there. If it's legal then a few days should be all it needs as a news story. If it's sparking a national debate about... something (age differences, apparently) then the debate should be about that, not the individuals.
