logo
Young people are right not to get out of bed for less than £40k

Young people are right not to get out of bed for less than £40k

Yahoo25-04-2025

Lockdown made them too nervous to venture out of the house. They are addicted to TikTok and online entertainment. They are not respected, or given the right training, or offered enough help.
There have been lots of different explanations offered for why almost a million 16 to 24-year-olds are neither working, training nor studying. But as one expert told a House of Lords committee this week, there is a far simpler explanation: it is not worth the hassle of getting out of bed for less than £40,000.
If that is true, it would be easy to condemn them as idle and feckless. But they are also completely right. Until we fix a dysfunctional welfare and tax system it isn't going to change – because people won't bother to work unless it pays to do so.
It was the kind of hard truth that was not meant to be mentioned in polite society. Appearing before a House of Lords social mobility committee this week, Graham Cowley, who works with young people not in employment, education nor training – or 'Neets' – argued that lots of them 'don't want to work for anything less than 40 grand'.
While the Lords gasped in horror, he reminded them 'you may laugh, but that is the reality' – and he is completely right.
The UK faces a growing challenge that many young people are no longer bothered to either get a job or even to prepare themselves for one. According to the official figures, 595,000 16 to 24-year-olds are classed as 'inactive' while another 392,000 are 'looking for work', but perhaps not very actively since they don't seem to be having much success.
The shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, has suggested that they may be addicted to online pornography and video games, while the Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has suggested that especially since Covid many of them find the concept of work 'too stressful'.
From coaching, to encouragement, to more stringent medical checks there are lots of different suggestions about ways of getting them out of the house and into a warehouse, factory or retailer to start their career.
The trouble is, it is hard to believe any of that will make any significant difference. It is hard to know what exactly Stride is going to do about online pornography, and Kendall can't turn back the clock and reverse lockdown – as desirable as that might be. In reality, there is a simpler solution.
Although it might come as a surprise to some of the people on the Lords committee, most people work just to make money. Many teenagers and 20-somethings have worked out for themselves that the UK's welfare and tax system has become so bloated and inefficient that getting a job hardly pays any more. They are just making a rational choice.
To start with, taxes are far too high, and they become even higher as you start to climb your way up the career ladder. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, the effective tax rate even for someone on the minimum wage has more than doubled in the last decade alone, rising from an effective 11pc in 2015 to more than 21pc now.
Even worse, if you study for a degree, the repayments on the loan you will have to take out to finance it kick in at far too low a level, and you will be charged a punitive rate of interest. On some plans you start repayments on just £25,000 a year, and you will be charged 7pc interest on the debt you have taken on. On almost any graduate job available, you will have to start repaying your loan, significantly increasing your effective tax rate.
Next, wages are not high enough. Wave after wave of mass immigration has driven down salaries, especially for the relatively low-skilled, entry-level jobs that are typically all that is on offer to teenagers and 20-somethings making their first steps into the workforce.
The average non-graduate salary is now £29,000 in the UK, up from £22,000 a decade ago, but once the cost of living and the extra taxes are taken into account it has gone down in real terms.
Even worse, while many Neets may imagine they will finally stir themselves to get out of bed in the unlikely event that someone offers them £40,000 a year to do so, they probably won't find that very worthwhile either.
As soon as they get a promotion or a bonus they will start paying tax at 40pc, and, given the Chancellor does not show much inclination to ever raise thresholds again, that will probably be the rate for someone on the living wage by the end of the decade.
If they climb further up the ladder, child benefit starts to be withdrawn, and as the personal allowance is tapered away their marginal tax rates soon climb to 60pc or more. Staying in bed will become more and more tempting.
It is a crazy system, and one that is dragging down the entire economy. There is no point in accusing the Neets of being lazy, or not bothering, of being addicted to the web, or lacking the spine of earlier generations.
It is insulting, it is not fair, and even if there was some element of truth to it, there is not much we can do about it anyway.
Instead, we need a wholescale reform of the tax and benefit system. If we have to cut spending to pay for it, then that is the only option.
An entire generation is making a perfectly rational decision that work does not pay enough to be worthwhile any more – and until that calculation changes there is very little prospect of the economy ever starting to recover.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge
Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge

New York Post

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge

If there is a single point of agreement among all the Democrats running for mayor, it's that New York is too damn expensive. They uniformly call it an 'affordability crisis' and pledge to do something about it if elected. They are largely correct — the cost of living in New York has become absurdly high. Advertisement Although part of the trend grew out of the inflation sparked by massive spending by federal, state and local governments during the COVID era, there is also a long history of Gotham being one of most expensive places in the nation to live. A study shows that, in comparison to the national average, food prices in the five boroughs are about 22% higher, while housing is 278% more expensive. Making ends meet The United Way finds that basic costs for city households have risen twice as fast as the median income and estimates that about half of them need help from the government, friends or family just to make ends meet. Advertisement As Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani recently told The New York Times, 'There are far too many New Yorkers who do not know if they will be able to call themselves that next year, who do not know if they will be able to afford their rent, or their child care, their groceries, or even their MetroCard.' True to his socialist affiliations, Mamdani is promising the longest list of freebies, but his rivals have all joined the spree. Even Andrew Cuomo, often regarded as the most centrist of the bunch and the leader according to polls, is no shrinking violet in the giveaway games. The candidates' promises to address the problem sound very nice — until you realize that nearly everything they are offering would ultimately drive the sky-high cost of living even higher. Advertisement Already that burden is one of the top reasons why New York City and state lead America in losing residents to lower-cost jurisdictions. Congestion pricing is the latest example of how and why the cost of living here keeps rising. If the candidates all want to raise prices even higher, they should support a joint slogan: 'Dear Voters, If you're not broke yet, just wait.' The problem is that government compassion doesn't come cheap. Advertisement In fact, it's outrageously expensive. That's certainly true in the case at hand. The candidates' 'solutions' are just promises to give away more stuff to more people, such as free bus service, free child care, free this and free that. It's all wrapped in the language of compassion for the poor and working class. But what the lefty Dems leave out of the conversation is an honest explanation about where the money would come from to pay for all their added goodies, and what the impact would be of an expanded redistribution scheme to deliver them. Don't be fooled by the lack of details. That's intentional because the numbers would be frightening. Take away to give away But hiding the truth doesn't change the fact that because City Hall can't print money, it will first have to take more from residents and businesses if it is going to give away more. Advertisement Consider the obvious impact on businesses. If they are taxed more, most will make up for it by raising prices on their customers, cut the pay of their workers or reduce the number of workers. When a business goes broke, the city gets no taxes and the workers have no income. Because higher taxes always impose a trickle-down cost on some people, a similar outcome is true if the government raises income taxes on individuals, sales taxes or property taxes. Advertisement Somebody somewhere along the line is going to feel the pinch of every added dollar the city takes to give away to someone it declares more deserving. For those forced to pay more, the 'solution' to the problem means their cost of living is going to get even higher. That's why the candidates' plans need to be seen in light of the current budget. As it stands, City Hall will raise and spend a whopping $112.4 billion this year — nearly as much as the entire state of ­Florida. Advertisement New York state, meanwhile, will raise and spend $255 billion, with much of that money coming to the city. Additional agencies, such as the MTA, have their own budgets, which spend tens of billions more. Clearly the problem isn't a shortage of money to spend. Advertisement The problem is a shortage of responsible spending. Thus raising spending for 'new needs,' as the politicians call their freebies, by hiking taxes and fees at this point is almost certain to create as many problems as it solves. There is still time for the Dems to lay out a plan to actually reduce government costs. The first debate was little more than a bidding game to see who could promise more new giveaways and most ­vehemently denounce Donald Trump while pledging to 'resist' his presidency. The second and final mayoral debate, required by the NYC Campaign ­Finance Board, will take place Thursday, with primary day falling on June 24. It's incumbent on the moderators to demand that Mamdani and all the others explain, with specifics, where they would get added funds and who would pay them. Glib lines like taxing the 'top 1%' mean nothing because those families already pay inordinate amounts of the city's personal ­income tax. According to a city comptroller report, in 2021 the top 1% — about 6,000 families who reported incomes of $1 million or more — paid a whopping 48% of the city's total income tax haul. It's neither fair nor sensible to demand they pay more, when packing up and leaving altogether is proving to be so popular. Leftward lurch Unfortunately, we haven't heard much of a different message from other candidates in the race, including Mayor Adams, who is running as an independent. With GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa widely considered not viable, there is so far no check and balance on the Dems' leftward lurch. The vast majority of their spendthrift City Council candidates and those seeking other offices on the ballot are proving to be automatic supporters of larger and more expensive programs. National conversations about cutting taxes and reducing government waste, fraud and abuse have yet to find meaningful support in New York. That must start to change this week. Libs' stupidity taking a toll There they go again: Another major media outlet is confusing victimhood with the consequences of wrongdoing. The bleeding heart Boston Globe writes, 'Unpaid fees jeopardize thousands of Mass. driver's licenses,' saying, 'Thousands of Massachusetts drivers each year face the possibility of losing their legal authority to drive unless debts unrelated to road safety are paid in full.' Among the debts it cites are tolls the drivers evaded. Here's a crazy idea: The drivers could pay the tolls and keep their licenses. Why is that so hard?

BCSD to use general fund to finish HVAC projects after US Department of Education rescinds spending extension
BCSD to use general fund to finish HVAC projects after US Department of Education rescinds spending extension

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

BCSD to use general fund to finish HVAC projects after US Department of Education rescinds spending extension

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — The Bakersfield City School District is expected to fund the remaining $22 million balance for its HVAC improvement projects through its general fund after federal officials abruptly canceled a previously approved COVID-19 fund spending extension in March. The HVAC upgrade and chiller replacement projects seek to replace the chiller-based heating and cooling systems at schools with new HVAC systems, which provide 'more energy-efficient and reliable climate control' while also improving indoor air quality for students and staff, according to BCSD spokesperson Tabatha Mills. The project is ongoing and under active construction at eight schools: Munsey Elementary Fremont Elementary Wayside Elementary Washington Middle School Horace Mann Elementary Mt. Vernon Elementary Pioneer Drive Elementary Roosevelt Elementary Mark Luque lands new job after surprise resignation as head of Bakersfield City School District These projects were launched when the school district received funding through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief III program, which was meant to support American schools as they address the impacts of the pandemic, according to Mills. The remaining project balance is $21,912,159, according to the agenda for the board meeting set for Tuesday. On March 28, the United States Department of Education rescinded its decision to extend the spending deadline for ESSER III for school districts that applied and were approved to get an extension. While local education agencies like BCSD who were approved for an extension had until March 2026 to liquidate all its received funding, the Department of Education changed the deadline to March 28, 2025. KHSD to consider banning discriminatory teaching material in proposed revision to policy U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the new deadline in a letter addressing state education chiefs on the same day as the new deadline, saying they 'ran the risk' of getting their extension request denied by not meeting the formal deadline in January. 'Extending deadlines for COVID-related grants, which are in fact taxpayer funds, years after the COVID pandemic ended is not consistent with the Department's priorities and thus not a worthwhile exercise of its discretion,' McMahon said. This change prevents BCSD from finishing the HVAC improvement projects using federal grants. At the board meeting May 27, the board approved the updated ESSER III Expenditure Plan. Through the updated plan, the funding source for the HVAC updates was moved from ESSER to the district's general fund to successfully complete the projects. Never miss a story: Make your homepage This shift in funding will not result in any increase to BCSD's general fund budget and the board is not looking to approve new spendings regarding these projects at tonight's meeting, according to Mills. If approved, BCSD will report the remaining construction commitments as of June 30 in its financial statement, Mills said. The projects are all expected to be completed in the next fiscal year, according to the agenda. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Biden's COVID czar hammers RFK Jr. over vaccine panel overhaul
Biden's COVID czar hammers RFK Jr. over vaccine panel overhaul

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Biden's COVID czar hammers RFK Jr. over vaccine panel overhaul

Former White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, who served under former President Biden, criticized the decision by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to fire all 17 experts on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine panel. Kennedy announced the decision in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Monday, saying, 'A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.' But in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Jha pushed back against Kennedy's reasoning. 'Look, what he said in his op-ed was a series of nonsense about a group of individuals, experts …who shape what vaccines, if any, are going to be available to the American people,' Jha said in the interview. 'So obviously this is very concerning,' he continued. 'We'll have to see who he appoints next. But this is a step in the wrong direction.' Jha said he is concerned about what the move foretells about the secretary's agenda on vaccines. Jha pointed to what he characterized as a lackluster response from the secretary to 'the worst measles outbreak of the last 25 years.' He also expressed concern regarding Kennedy's raising questions about vaccines causing autism, which Jha dismissed and said was 'settled science.' 'Then you put this in the middle of all of that,' Jha said, referring to the vaccine panel sweep, 'and what you have is a pretty clear picture that what Secretary Kennedy is trying to do is make sure that vaccines are not readily available to Americans, not just for kids, for the elderly.' 'He could go pretty far with this move, and I really am worried about where we're headed,' Jha continued. He said he's particularly concerned about the effect Kennedy's move will have on kids and whether they will continue having access to certain vaccines in the future. 'Kids rely on vaccines. I'm worried about whether the next generation of kids are going to have access to polio vaccines and measles vaccines. That's where we're heading. That's what we have to push back against.' Kennedy said in his op-ed that he was removing every member of the panel to give the Trump administration an opportunity to appoint its own members. Kennedy has long accused members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of having conflicts of interest, sparking concern among vaccine advocates that he would seek to install members who are far more skeptical of approving new vaccines. But Jha pushed back against criticism that the panel was all Biden-appointed experts, saying, 'When the Biden administration came in, almost all of the appointees had come from the first Trump administration.' 'That was fine because they were good people,' he said. 'They were experts. Right now, it's the same thing. The people he is firing are experts — like a nurse in Illinois who spent her entire career getting kids vaccinated, cancer doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering — like these are really good people.' 'And generally, CDC has not worried about when were they appointed. The question is, are they good and are they conflict free.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store