View Full Version : Cash to stop smoking
Check this link, should your Council Tax be used in this venture?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4532418.stm
I am a converted non smoker I had to quit on Doctors orders, a decision I do not regret, but I had to pay for my Nicotine replacement patches myself :(
Is 26th March 2006 ( No Smoking in Pubs and Offices day) ok I know there are going to a lot more establishments where smoking is going to be banned. make a difference to anyone good or bad?
I would be quite happy to contribute some of my council tax on this idea. Mind you if the people involved didnt stop smoking they would have to repay the dosh.
I had my works night out last night and we were talking about this. Im gonna start smoking now just so I can get paid to stop.
should your Council Tax be used in this venture? I suspect that it might actually be a wise investment. Whilst smoking in enclosed public places is to be banned, the legislation won’t stop smokers from going out into the street for a cigarette.
There are an estimated 3,000 smokers employed by the council. I’d say that the smokers I have worked with will have maybe three or four cigarettes through the day (excluding lunch) and each will take around ten minutes. They also have their thinking-about-going-for-a-cigarette time, their chatting-with-other-smokers-about-having-a-cigarette time and their getting-back-to-work-after-a-cigarette time.
Taking what I think is a conservative estimate of forty minutes lost per smoker per day, that’s still 2000 working-hours lost to the council per day – every day.
Add to that the fact that smokers take an average of five more sick-days per year than non-smokers, are six times more likely to seek early retirement and are a factor in workplace conflict (as evidenced by Domestos talking about this at a work night out) and I really don’t think that a one-off payment of £50 is a bad move. Heck, give them £100 and you’d still be saving money.
Never mind an additional 5/6 sick days a year, and forget the time lost from work on ciggy breaks!!!!!! Think about the cost of treating conditions resulting from smoking ( cancer, efisema, etc) not only from the NHS point of view, but also when the smoker goes onto lifelong disability benefits due to incapacity to work. Whatever cash they end up getting, its a bargin for the tax payer if that smoker avoids disease.
Never mind an additional 5/6 sick days a year, and forget the time lost from work on ciggy breaks!!!!!! Think about the cost of treating conditions resulting from smoking ( cancer, efisema, etc) not only from the NHS point of view, but also when the smoker goes onto lifelong disability benefits due to incapacity to work. Whatever cash they end up getting, its a bargin for the tax payer if that smoker avoids disease.
All good points, _Ju_, except that the thread was specifically about whether this was an effective use of the council tax paid by council tax payers in the Highland Region.
Therefore the references to sick leave and time lost from smoking breaks are more salient points than that about the cost to the NHS in the long term due to cancers and emphysema, as the NHS is not funded by council tax.
whooshjohnny
18-Dec-05, 14:05
Personally I think it is a disgrace if the Council pay their staff to quit!!
And as for the lost time due to cigarette breaks....I would have those banned immediately. if staff wish to smoke then that is up to them but having several 5 or 10 min stops during the day to smoke is blatantly taking the p. Why should someone who has a filthy smelly habbit be given all this extra time off during the working week?
Crikey if I was a coke addict would it be acceptable to tell my gaffer "Im just nipping out to snort a line" I dont think so I would be fired most likely..
Hence I keep my snorting to lunchtimes and designated breaks lol
Personally I think it is a disgrace if the Council pay their staff to quit!!
And as for the lost time due to cigarette breaks....I would have those banned immediately. if staff wish to smoke then that is up to them but having several 5 or 10 min stops during the day to smoke is blatantly taking the p. Why should someone who has a filthy smelly habbit be given all this extra time off during the working week?
Crikey if I was a coke addict would it be acceptable to tell my gaffer "Im just nipping out to snort a line" I dont think so I would be fired most likely..
Hence I keep my snorting to lunchtimes and designated breaks lollol lol whooshjohnny, i agree with everything you say.. im lucky if i can get off for a pee during working hours never mind fag breaks. If I think im gonna get 50 quid to stop though it certainly makes me think I might suddenly start up the smelly habit........
cigarette breaks....I would have those banned immediately. …thereby increasing discontent amongst your staff, probably losing a good many of the 3,000 smokers (and their experience and knowledge) in the process.
I actually agree with you. Personally, I hate that my colleagues can take the best part of an hour out of their day to stand around smoking cigarettes. I hate that they come back into the office stinking like a stale ashtray and polluting my working environment. I hate that I cannot walk down the street without having to dodge the clouds of smoke and the lit cigarettes that are waved inconsiderately about. I don’t think that a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces goes far enough.
But I also recognise that cigarettes are addictive and are embedded in our society. An instant ban simply wouldn’t work so an alternative has had to be found. Parliament has taken the first step and restricted where people can smoke. Hopefully this first step won’t also be the last step and we’ll see things change to the point where a complete ban is workable – in the mean time, good on the Highland Council for trying to encourage their staff to kick the habit.
twee_dledee
18-Dec-05, 14:42
…thereby increasing discontent amongst your staff, probably losing a good many of the 3,000 smokers (and their experience and knowledge) in the process.
I actually agree with you. Personally, I hate that my colleagues can take the best part of an hour out of their day to stand around smoking cigarettes. I hate that they come back into the office stinking like a stale ashtray and polluting my working environment. I hate that I cannot walk down the street without having to dodge the clouds of smoke and the lit cigarettes that are waved inconsiderately about. I don’t think that a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces goes far enough.
But I also recognise that cigarettes are addictive and are embedded in our society. An instant ban simply wouldn’t work so an alternative has had to be found. Parliament has taken the first step and restricted where people can smoke. Hopefully this first step won’t also be the last step and we’ll see things change to the point where a complete ban is workable – in the mean time, good on the Highland Council for trying to encourage their staff to kick the habit.So how come you wouldn't be so considerate if it was a drug addiction. Wheres sweetheart when we need her?
So how come you wouldn't be so considerate if it was a drug addiction. Wheres sweetheart when we need her? Stuff and nonsense… nowhere have I said that drug addicts should not be given help to kick their habits – quite the opposite; I think that there should be more focus on helping drug addicts than there currently is.
You know, this thread only goes to reaffirm my belief that legalising currently-illegal drugs such as heroin or cannabis is an incredibly moronic idea. Cigarettes are so ingrained in our society that even though we know that they are killing hundreds of thousands of people a year Parliament was unable to put a complete ban in place and had to compromise by only banning smoking in certain areas. They are so engrained that the only way a council can stop its employees from taking cigarette breaks without disrupting the entire function of the organisation is to pay smokers to quit. Yet still there are people out there who would advocate repeating the mistake with other drugs. That’s crazy talk!
So anyway… I do think that in an ideal world the council would be able to just tell smokers that they have to put in the same day's work as everybody else. But this world is far from ideal and we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt. If that means bribing smokers to quit then so be it... especially when the cost of that bribe is so much less than the cost of doing nothing.
twee_dledee
18-Dec-05, 15:19
Glad to see now where you've been for the last half hour
I thought you was away having a fag too.....LOL LOL
Glad to see now where you've been for the last half hour
I thought you was away having a fag too.....LOL LOL
It's strangely disconcerting to think that you're keeping tabs on my whereabouts... ;)
Bill Fernie
18-Dec-05, 15:22
The Chains That Drag Us Down
I support the payment of £50 to help a council worker stop smoking. There are many reasons why I support it and I think as many employers as can afford it should also think about doing something whilst there is so much publicity on the issue.
We all know by now the huge numbers of conditions affected by smoking - or do we? Despite the huge amount of literature and web pages many people I think do not really understand that smoking is death by a thousand cuts. For example if a smoker was asked to make tiny cut on his or her face every time they lit up a cigarette might not the graphically exposed mess of that increasingly abused visage lead to a reduction if not complete cessation.
Scotland has now one of the worst health records in Europe with heart disease and cancer being at the top of the list of causes. They have for the past few years been the main target areas for Health Boards. Once Finland had the unenviable reputation as leading the way at the top of the death rates for heart disease. The combination of a bad diet and heavy smoking put them in that position. 20 or more years ago their government decided to do something about it and they put in place a nationwide campaign involving not only posters and leaflets but right back in the schools changing diets of the whole nation and attacking the problem on may levels and keeping it going right up until today. It cost a huge amount and they would laugh at our payment of £50 a worker. The result is that they are now well down the list and who is at the top of the death rates? - Scotland.
Of course if you do not smoke you are not so likely to be affected personally but you probably have relative or friend who is or was. I say was, as like myself as you get older you find that older relatives who smoked have died prematurely. Sometimes it happens even younger and that illness dogs a life and it may have been caused by smoking. In my own case I have no doubt that my lifelong smoking parents shortened their lives by smoking habits picked up when information and knowledge was not in the public domain as it is now. My children saw little of their grandparents who all died prematurely. My mother died an excruciatingly painful and slow death from cancer. My father died of a heart attack. I cannot prove the cause like many others but I watched them all my young life and smoking undoubtedly was a factor.
If it is possible to save the misery that awaits smokers from happening and to save their families the loss that results from early death and watching them die in extreme pain and agony often a slow and lingering death then I would spend more than £50.
It is taxpayer’s money but as an employer wanting to run a budget efficiently and with responsibilities for staff it makes sense. As already indicated smokers take more time off and cost the health service much more than non-smokers. Everyone already pays a huge bill from time off sick to medicines to operations and treatment for a range of diseases caused or exacerbated by smoking.
The people I knew who smoked and are now dead I can never bring back. The people who have the early signs of more chronic conditions such as coughs or the early bronchial problems that will lead on to more serious infections and perhaps cancers of one sort or another may yet have it alleviated or in younger people avoided all together.
The £50 to help a council worker is in reality a token towards improving the health of a worker that if they succeed in giving up will be repaid for them and their families many times over and not least to the council and the taxpayers as they will be around and more healthy to continue to provide services to our communities. It is good value for money if it achieves a reduction in sickness and the council has a large workforce that means significant costs for all the days lost through illness. The ramifications are many but long-term a reduction in the need for people to retire early on health grounds would save the council huge amounts of money which over the years would amount to many millions of pounds. Each year of an early retirement costs extra in pensions. Then there are the recruitment and extra training of new staff. There are many more potential cost savings if a reduction is achieved.
One councillor who spoke against the ban and the removal of smoking rooms in council premises who is well seasoned debater and put the words together well lost the argument despite a very good thought out argument as it was delivered through a hacking deep rooted smokers cough and that day obvious breathing difficulties. The vote was overwhelmingly against that councillor.
I cannot bring back my relatives or put back the clock for those that already suffer the thousand invisible cuts towards death or increasing misery caused by smoking. I could along with others support a tiny effort to save the misery for employees and their families in the future. Just as the ghost of Ebenezer Scrooge tells Marley in Dickens Christmas Carol how he forged his chain link by link throughout his life so smokers are forging their own ill-health puff by puff and the chains of smoke are as devastating as if had been made of steel as it slowly pulls him or her down. With every cigarette another link of the chain is added until it becomes too heavy. We all can hear those smoker’s chains – it is in their voice cough here or there, the deeper voice of woman who has smoked a long time, the skin colour of a man with inherent health problems not quite taking him down yet as he is strong and the chain has not become too heavy…..yet. Many are prone to see it as problem of the future but rarely see the invisible chain I see with every cough reminding me of my lost friends and relatives.
£50!! It is a token payment but I have to say that all the publicity it has generated is worth far more than the total cost if employees make a claim to have a treatment course paid for. Most treatment will cost more.
I saw what smoking did to my parents, and my wife’s parents and did not follow them into gradually coughing my way to my death or some other illness. I may yet have some illness similar but it will be a much lower risk than they ran by smoking. I was also fortunate that although I lived in my childhood in a smoking house we had coal fires and the air was sucked up the chimney. I fear a generation of children living in centrally heated houses with draft excluders on windows and doors with smokers present may not be so lucky and they will suffer in later life. Are some people handing part of the chain to their children as a legacy they may not see but that will have consequences that they cannot undo. Let’s hope that they do not have to come back to watch like Marley.
I am anti-smoking with good reasons – they are all dead ones. If in some small way the £50 payment makes people think about stopping or a young person wants to be around for their grand children in later years and along the way have many less health problems or that young women think about their future babies health and give them the best start in life by keeping themselves fit and healthy then it will have been the best £50 the council and the taxpayer ever spent.
And chains can be broken. Perhaps with all the attention the smoking ban is bringing that £50 will seem a good idea to all of those who do not get pulled down by their chain. Ebenezer Scrooge was shown by the ghost how his chains were forged saved the day for Bob Crachitt’s family and Tiny Tim. Let’s hope a £50 contribution from the Highland Council taxpayers can do the same for many other families.
Wow Bill, what a fabulous post: factual, passionate and heartfelt but nowhere insulting to anyone. Some of us should learn from you.
You've convinced me. A truly super post.
I'm with Bill - and there is really nothing I can add - he's said it all!
So how come you wouldn't be so considerate if it was a drug addiction. Wheres sweetheart when we need her?
It's too late to turn the clock back now and make smoking against the law, but only when it had become an epidemic did the full facts about the health risks become known. I think this is another arguement AGAINST making drugs legal.
If people need a cash incentive to stop smoking, then they should think of the money they will save if the do stop smoking.
I know of a woman who stopped and put her fag money into a jar every day.
She had intended to do this for a year, but after 3 months had nearly £400 in her jar, so this stopped and she had a good shopping spree. If she had continued for the year she would of had approx £1500.
If that is not an incentive then I cant see £50, making much difference.
Well as im a smoker im not looking forward to the ban but i do think it will be a good thing in the long term it will make people smoke less and might make certain percentage of smokers to kick the habit.To be honest about i bet about 80% of smokers would love to stop it ive tried a few times and its suprising how long the craving stays with you its not months its years.If i dont quit smoking next year it just means i will be going abroad for my holidays instead of going to other parts of scotland thats all.
But i would like to point out if this smoke ban makes a lot of people kick the habit that means less money from the goverment because fags are heavily taxed and it means the government will have to increase taxes somewere else
For me if there making such a big deal about smoking in general why dont they just banned it altogether so you cant buy them in the shops.
If folk are going to live longer without the ciggies, aren't they going to want to have a fuller life and in that way contribute to the treasury more than they would have done if they were paying ciggie tax? I mean they will pay more VAT, income tax over their years, etc etc
No way would I foot the bill to help smokers pack it in. I don't care if they wish to smoke themselves into an early grave, just as long as they don't drag me along with them.
Smokers already pay, supposedly, towards healthcare through increased tax on fags, so why not bump a few more quid onto the cost of a pack of 20 and get them to pay for their own cold turkey.......
No way would I foot the bill to help smokers pack it in. I don't care if they wish to smoke themselves into an early grave, just as long as they don't drag me along with them.
Smokers already pay, supposedly, towards healthcare through increased tax on fags, so why not bump a few more quid onto the cost of a pack of 20 and get them to pay for their own cold turkey.......
I certainly would not help to foot the bill either and i agree bump a few more quid onto 20 fags.
The most resolute smokers that I know get most of their backie from abroad, so taxation would have no effect on them.
I'm with Bill - and there is really nothing I can add - he's said it all!
Nah, personally speaking I think it's a load of old Niagara. If someone cannot quit in order to save their life then how on earth is £50 going to help?
Picture the scenario, I get £50 to quit, promise to quit and very soon decide I can't kick it and start again or start in private and pretend to still be off the cancer sticks. £50 well spent?
Here's another idea, let's give alcoholics money to stop drinking and criminals money if they promise not to commit any more crimes.
How about giving pensioners the £50 off thier council tax or towards their heating instead. That is money going up in smoke for a good cause!!
Nah, personally speaking I think it's a load of old Niagara. If someone cannot quit in order to save their life then how on earth is £50 going to help?
Picture the scenario, I get £50 to quit, promise to quit and very soon decide I can't kick it and start again or start in private and pretend to still be off the cancer sticks. £50 well spent?
Here's another idea, let's give alcoholics money to stop drinking and criminals money if they promise not to commit any more crimes.
How about giving pensioners the £50 off thier council tax or towards their heating instead. That is money going up in smoke for a good cause!!
Actually i heard Alcoholics get extra money every week!!
what a disgrace. Smokers, Alcoholics, Druggies should be made to contribute to pensioners heating.
Bill Fernie
18-Dec-05, 22:08
I do not understand where the idea that £50 will be given to anyone directly has come from. That is a very simplistic view of how these things work. No one is going to be given £50 personally. It will be paid as part of a proven attempt to deal with giving up smoking and be part payment of the bills incurred in smoking cessation courses or other means to stop. No one will get £50 cash. The cessation costs are likely to be higher than £50 and it is only a contribution towards these costs that will be incurred.
On the taxation side of things I would agree that if it were possible then increasing the duty might help. However the days when we were isolated from the rest of the world are gone. We already have problems and as noted earlier it woud probably lead to an even higher level of smuggling or bringing back larger quantities by anyone travellng abroad.
In various buildings Highland council has smoking rooms. These cost money as part of the runing of buildings. Over time this space can be utilised in other ways saving money. Itis huge change for employees who are smokers. A £50 contriution is a small recognition of the difficulties this will cause.
in what way? get them on treadmills outside their flats to power their blow fan heaters or what?
Don't be so ridiculous Mrs Bean as if.
But i would like to point out if this smoke ban makes a lot of people kick the habit that means less money from the goverment because fags are heavily taxed and it means the government will have to increase taxes somewere else.
Eddie,
I am sure that if sufficient people give up smoking then the saving on the health service may well out weigh the money gained via tax on cigarettes
I do not understand where the idea that £50 will be given to anyone directly has come from. That is a very simplistic view of how these things work. No one is going to be given £50 personally. It will be paid as part of a proven attempt to deal with giving up smoking and be part payment of the bills incurred in smoking cessation courses or other means to stop. No one will get £50 cash. The cessation costs are likely to be higher than £50 and it is only a contribution towards these costs that will be incurred.
On the taxation side of things I would agree that if it were possible then increasing the duty might help. However the days when we were isolated from the rest of the world are gone. We already have problems and as noted earlier it woud probably lead to an even higher level of smuggling or bringing back larger quantities by anyone travellng abroad.
In various buildings Highland council has smoking rooms. These cost money as part of the runing of buildings. Over time this space can be utilised in other ways saving money. Itis huge change for employees who are smokers. A £50 contriution is a small recognition of the difficulties this will cause.
Smoking is banned in all Highland Council Buildings from 1st January, this was made known in August of this year. You may call this huge change for smoking employees, I call it tough luck!!
Should we adopt a similar attitude to all taxation, in that it must be limited lest people resort to breaking the law?
I am not looking at this simplistically at all, just realistically. If anyone enrols in a course of accupuncture, for example, to get the £50 help, then what guarantee have we got that the £50 will not be wasted money anyway? Smokers are notorious for trying, this that and t'other to stop smoking but end up back on the weed. Like everything else that people are addicted to, it is all about truly wanting to quit and having the will to do it. I say a £50 carrot is not going to do the trick and this scheme is another one of those great White Elephants that those in government seem to specialise in coming up with. The fine art of wasting other peoples money!!
I do not understand where the idea that £50 will be given to anyone directly has come from I think this probably comes from the fact that the BBC report says that the £50 will be contributed to the individual and not that it will be made toward the cost of treatment schemes.
Over time this space can be utilised in other ways saving money. Itis huge change for employees who are smokers. A £50 contriution is a small recognition of the difficulties this will cause. No, I don’t agree with that justification. I’d encourage any employer to offer such a payment to encourage their staff to give up smoking – to go that bit further than the new legislation requires rather than simply stepping outside to smoke. But to say that this payment is a recognition of the difficulties that smokers will face under new regulations makes this into a scheme to compensate for the loss of a privilege that non-smokers did not receive.
I can understand why this might upset those council employees who did not stop work for ten-minutes every hour so they could light up. What compensation did they ever receive for the difficulties of covering their colleagues’ workloads for all these years?
But its not just the smoker that will pay more it will also be the non smokers as well
The only encouragement to give up smoking that smokers should get from their employers, is to be told the windy corner on the outside of the building is where they now have to practice their self harm....
Bill Fernie
19-Dec-05, 03:44
Smoking is not to be permitted on Highland council properties and that includes the grounds and car parks. It will be necessary for an employee to leave the grounds - so smoking at doorways and corners will also not be premitted. It wil become a disciplinary offence with all that implies. Smoking in your own car on council premises wil also not be allowed. An employee will need to drive the car away.
Also remember that the threat of employees in later years sueing employers for allowing smoking is also another factor driving this forward. Employers are resposible for applying the new legislation on smoking in pubvlic places. With more people willing to try a no win no fee law firm employers are looking to safeguard themselves from litigious employees in later years. If an employer can be found to have turned a blind eye to employees smoking on their premises a new employee may say that his or her illness was caused by smoking at work on the premises of that employer and they or their families may sue for damages. Even just defending these cases can be very expensive.
Highland council is moving to defend itself and therefor not waste taxpayers money by allowing iteself to be in breach of a law that could make it liable to pay damages in the future. Other employers had better take note as some years down the line employees who suffer the ill effects of smoking or their families may take them to court for damages. No one can yet say iif such cases would be successful. It might be foolish of an employer to allow itself to be the first and set a precedent for others to follow. Previously it was probably only the employees responsibility. The new law clearly amkes it the resposibility of the owners of premises including employers but perhaps many others from shops, hotels, bars, restaurants and so on.
There is a lot more to this change in smoking in public places that will affect everyone than may be apparent. There are also the places that have tried a ban and not enforced it allowing employees to have their short breaks for smoke. With the threat of possible future litigations now a possibility they may do well do reconsider and follow Highland councils lead. Every owner of premises should quickly review what they are prepared to allow in public spaces with regard to smoking. A lax attitude will perhaps cost them dearly in the future.
Is this an idle thought? Well just look at your TV screens where almost every day their is an ad for you to claim compensation for trips slips, bumps and falls. These may be small or large amounts and they usually tell us they are able to get thousands of pounds in compensation. If it can be proved that an employer was negligent in applying the laws on smoking in public places he or she may find themselves defeningg a lwsuite for the extrem illness, early retirement etc for loss of futre earnings not to mention physical damage caused by whatever illnes has been contracted.
There is much more to the council changes being brought about by the Scottish Parliament decision to make it an offense to low smoking in public places.
The £50 should not be thought of as some free benefit to the employee but rather a small contribution to save the council and therfor the taxpayer footing the potentially burdensome threat of many legal claims for compensation. Of course they could do nothing money wise and merely advise employees to seek help to cease smoking. They could have opted to pay for full course fo treatment, therapy, patches and more at huge expense if the employees were to take it up. The taxpayers would not be happy if even one case reached the courts and the council lost. Imagine the situation where the council lost charge of allowing smoking on its premises under the new legisation and had to pay several hundreds of thousands of pounds out. Things would be turned round and the council accused of doing nothing to stop these sort of cases being taken agsint them and costing the taxpayer. When a council is sued for ne reason or another a few people will ask what the council had done to prevent the case arising. Much thought has gone into what would be appropriate for employees, the council as employer and the taxpayer. It was not the whim of the day. Hard facts from the new legislation to the possible damage if cases were to be brought and the health of its workforce.
We have to wait and see how many employees apply to take up the offer and what they request to have paid with the money. A report will no doubt be published in the accounts of the council to show the uptake and the actual cost. As it starts on 26 March 2005 we wil have to wait for another 18 months to see the figures.
Meantime if anyone has any questions on how it will affect them check out the Scottish Executive web site - Clearing The Air - that has the answers to questions about the new legislation. The site is at http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/
Eddie,
I am sure that if sufficient people give up smoking then the saving on the health service may well out weigh the money gained via tax on cigarettes
Unfortunately, the tax on cigarettes helps to prop up the government today, the benefits from a large reduction in smoking today only shows up in reduced dependency on health resources further down the road.
So - I don't suspect that any government has a real interest in reducing smoking.
The £50 should not be thought of as some free benefit to the employee but rather a small contribution to save the council and therfor the taxpayer footing the potentially burdensome threat of many legal claims for compensation.
Bill,
I am sorry but why should smokers be paid to give up? And paid to do so out of taxpayers pockets? If the council or their rule enforcers/office managers are so lax as to allow smoking on council property then sue the individual who turned a blind eye for neglect of duty.
But to expect the taxpayers (which include smokers who are not council employees) to foot the bill is a arrogant misuse of tax payers money.
I am sure that if a smoker really wanted to cease they would go to their local smoking cessation clinic and get help. They can afford to pay the £X.XX for a pack of 20 - how about they dip into their own pockets to pay for patches. By all means encourage employees to stop smoking but come on, to pay them?
I am lucky that I live well away from where this piece of lunacy is happening but believe me if I wasn't I would be making an almighty row about it.
Actually i heard Alcoholics get extra money every week!!
what a disgrace. Smokers, Alcoholics, Druggies should be made to contribute to pensioners heating.
That's true! If you are unemployable because you are an alkie, you get extra money to buy drink.
If you have made yourself mentally ill by abusing drugs, you get the top disablement payment, which amounts to more than a single mother with two kids, and certainly more than pensioners who have worked hard and paid their taxes all their lives. What a reward!
That's true! If you are unemployable because you are an alkie, you get extra money to buy drink. Errr... is that true, or is it an exaggeration of the truth?
You are talking about incapacity benefit. To get incapacity benefit your doctor needs to complete a section of your application form to confirm that you are incapable. That's a little different to 'unemployable'.
If you have made yourself mentally ill by abusing drugs, you get the top disablement payment. […] What a reward! What a reward indeed! In exchange for their mental health they get a whopping £102.90 a week to live on. That’s an astounding £5,350.80 a year. Could you live on that? Could you pay a person to care for you on that? 24x7? I know I couldn’t.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not justifying drug abuse or alcohol abuse; I just don’t think that society should offer support only to those whose lifestyles we approve of. Okay, so we would want to stop somebody from seriously injuring their mental capability through drug misuse – but surely we don’t cast that person aside if they do end up mentally incapable? If that is how you feel then where do you stop? Would you deny benefits to a person who loses both legs in a car accident if they were speeding at the time? Would you refuse assistance to somebody with bad burns if the fire was the result of them falling asleep with a lit cigarette? Would you limit AIDS treatment only to rape victims and those who contracted it through dialysis/transfusions?
The problem with limiting your compassion only to those whose conditions are the result of activities you agree with is that somewhere out there somebody else disapproves of your lifestyle.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.