anotherjon.bsky.social
Ecosocialist, semi-skilled self-builder, gobshite.
Riding bikes, growing veg, walking spaniels.
He/him. 🌳 🚴♀️🚶♀️🚶♂️👩🦽 🌳
2,040 posts
875 followers
1,527 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
You seem to be assuming they'll do it without govt support.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
If you have zero interest in rooting out inequality, I don't know what you are, but don't fucking call yourself a socialist.
- Thanks for listening to my Blue Labour rant. As you were.
comment in response to
post
That's gorgeous, Jo, thanks for sharing it.
comment in response to
post
[Note to self: Must Try Harder]
comment in response to
post
Mountain biking: the aftermath.
comment in response to
post
Yep.
comment in response to
post
No. The argument for having the WFP as a universal benefit is that, in conjunction with tax changes that recover it from the wealthy, is that it saves the taxpayer money.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Man, that looks like a good feast.
comment in response to
post
Bargain!
comment in response to
post
Nice. When people assert that pleasure and wellbeing are two totally separate things, evidence for an overlap is right there.
comment in response to
post
For a good walk-through of the complexity of possible reforms to the Winter Fuel Payment, you could do a lot worse than read this piece from Tom Waters at the IFS:
ifs.org.uk/articles/exp...
comment in response to
post
Yes, there are no easy ways to tax the rich, but the WFP is a really small cost vs other state benefits, so the relative cost of admin becomes much higher.
The IFS did an interesting analysis of this that might be worth a look. They warned there's much complexity given what a small fund it is.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but it's doing so at a higher net cost than doing it via other forms of taxation.