What's the rationale behind lower benefits for younger people?
Posted by R_12345678910@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 112 comments
Was reading about it today and and saw that people under 25 would get £20 a week less than someone over. Seems rather arbitrary, so what's the rationale? Do people under 25 pay lower rents and bills by virtue of their age (and why wasn't I informed, I should like to know)
Johnnycrabman@reddit
An assumption that they can’t afford to leave home so aren’t paying full rent.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Seems odd, doesn't it? If they can't afford to move out, surely they would be reason to bring the amount in line with others.
Johnnycrabman@reddit
Not if you consider the minimum wage to be a safety net rather than actually something to thrive on.
No_Job_515@reddit
haha u know they pay 3k more a year than min wage for UNI post grade after 3 year exp jobs now , so u can work ur little ass off and get paid less than someone working part time on min wage and on benefits u should be able to live a good life on min wage when every company is paying that jesus christ people need to stop bummin the rich overloads thinking they are gona become one
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Yes, but that has no relevance to this post at all.
Mcby@reddit
Yes it does—the ideological and political perspective that minimum wage should be just enough to survive (if that), but not enough to live a dignified life, is the same one that produces what you're describing. The logic is that by setting income that low, whether benefits or minimum wage, people will be "motivated" to "work harder" and somehow pull themselves out of that position.
BreadOddity@reddit
Considering that minimum wage jobs tend to be more demanding than a lot of higher wage jobs in terms of workload (just not qualifications), this seems doubly backwards.
TarcFalastur@reddit
Remember that the purpose of benefits is not to set someone up with enough money to transform their lives, it's to prevent people from starving to death. The benefits are designed to be just enough to get by, and if an age group generally doesn't need to pay such large housing costs then that's something which doesn't need to be funded.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I was fully aware of that point without your patronising comment, thanks. The point I was making was that the way it's done is odd because it's an assumption and there could be an 18-year-old with higher costs than a 30-year-old. The difference of £20 a week when it comes to rent or mortgage payments is negligible, so it's the reason/rationale, and by extension the fairness, of the policy that I am questioning. People under 25 who are claiming benefits are, I suspect, more likely to come from families that don't have the space or resources to put them up and probably are having to make their own way outside of the family home (if they ever had one to begin with).
TarcFalastur@reddit
The other side of the coin is it's designed to take as much means-testing out of it as possible. In a ideal world you would give each person exactly what they need, but the more time you spend checking what someone you should receive, the more money you spend on the bureaucracy required to make that decision. If you're flushed with cash then maybe you can make that sacrifice but we aren't flushed with cash. We need to run our social services on as much of a shoestring as possible. That means making somewhat arbitrary decisions about who should get what. Better that than not having the money to give to the people who need it at all.
Gauntlets28@reddit
Well yeah, definitely. But it fits in with the way the minimum wage is designed - it's lower for under-25s, supposedly with the intention of incentivising businesses to hire younger people with less experience. In practice, I think all it does is disincentivise young people from working, generally, because they realise they're being screwed over.
But on that basis, it wouldn't make sense if benefits didn't also operate on a tiered system that reflected the minimum wage, because you'd end up making it more attractive to just stay on them instead of working.
No_Job_515@reddit
its because young people dont vote so if they cut the old people pot of gold whats 245£ a week they will all scream ur tring to kill us like what they did with the winter fuel payments. what realy piss's me off is that these people screaming about their winter fuel payments worked when they actually paid you enough to live on . min wage in this country is like taking a 20k a year pay cut compared to 20 years ago
Boldboy72@reddit
it assumes they live at home but also wants to discourage them from going straight on the dole after finishing school.
NumerousAd5647@reddit
The rationale is I earned my way and you should too. Youngsters don't know how good they've got it. Just walk in with a CV and a good handshake what's so hard about it? You should be punished for your insolence.
ClockOwn6363@reddit
Really should be £0 for under 25.
DizzyMine4964@reddit
Appeals to Daily Mail readers, who are older.
Btw I am old and wouldn't wipe my arse with that paper.
CaterpillarLoud8071@reddit
It's not just benefits. Young students are paid according to their parents' income despite not being dependants. Young people often get paid less for the same work, putting them under the living wage with no extra support from government. They're also expected, if in receipt of housing benefits, to live in a houseshare where older adults are allowed a flat to themselves.
All of this seems to stem from an assumption that young people are able to stay living with or receiving support from their parents, which may be true a lot of the time but also enables financial abuse and coercion for parents that aren't so great. Either they need to create a new legal category for young adults with tax perks and rights to claim full or partial estrangement to make up for the limited access to public funds, or they should be treated like every other adult.
Gauntlets28@reddit
I'd go further - I'd say that the assumption is not that they can stay with their parents, but that they should stay living with their parents. Economic independence fosters other forms of independence, which is anathema to the kind of paternalistic attitudes espoused by the people who set this system up.
Nyx_Necrodragon101@reddit
People under 25 are usually either living with parents or are living in 'student' accommodation.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I suppose the operative word here is "usually". Seems odd to base this stuff on assumption alone.
Nyx_Necrodragon101@reddit
It's a realistic assumption. Rents eat up typically 60% of someones monthly salary so people are living with parents for longer and longer. The average first time buyer age is 38. If you're living with parents your costs are minimal.
Gauntlets28@reddit
Cause and effect though, isn't it? Should the system be designed based on statistics that indicate more young people live with their parents longer, or should we realise that the system is the reason more young people are living with their parents, and that this is a feedback loop?
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Is it realistic? You've basically demolished your own point. If people over the age of 25 are living at home for longer, why are they entitled to more money than someone under 25 who also lives at home?
Nyx_Necrodragon101@reddit
Used to be when you're 18 your out the door. 51.2% of 20-24 year olds live at home compare that to 26.7% of 25-29 year olds (source: ONS). So it's reasonable to assume at around 25 people will start to move out and thus their expenses will increase, thus their benefits increase.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
You have assumed that the younger group living at home are not being charged rent or something towards bills by their parents. What expenses do you think the extra £20 a week will meaningfully help with for people who live of the family home?
BlinkysaurusRex@reddit
If their parents are charging them rent then that’s their parent’s expense. People have explained this to you quite thoroughly by this point. I’m not sure why you have such a potent determination to wrangle technicalities out of this to discredit it.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Sorry, what do you mean that it is their parents' expense?
BlinkysaurusRex@reddit
Well, if the parent is responsible for paying the rent as in, their name is on the agreement, then the parent is responsible for paying the rent. Why would you get a benefit to help pay for a bill that isn’t yours to pay?
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I’d hazard a guess that most parents don’t charge their children rent because they need it (what increase in mortgage/rent would there be due to their child turning 18?) Nor are they losing potential rent money: once the child turns 18, most parents aren’t listing their childhood bedroom for rent to a stranger in the family home. It’s usually done just to help out a bit or perhaps (rather patronisingly) teach them how to manage their money in a “safer” environment. Regardless of the reason, if the expense is passed on to the child/”tenant” then as far as anyone else is concerned it becomes their expense anyway.
Nyx_Necrodragon101@reddit
£20 a week is roughly an extra 86.66 a month. That's more than my families entire grocery bill for a month and about the same amount as my monthly electricity & gas bill for a 3 bedroom house in London.
Typically parents will charge their children a below market rent and include bills in that. Usually based on a % of earnings.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I find it extremely unlikely that a whole family spends less than £86 a month on food unless all they eat is gruel, nor do I believe your claim about energy bills. You must be quite well off to live in a three-bedroom house in London, even if it's rented and in a terrible area, so I will take your pronouncements on the situations of those who need benefits with a big pinch of salt. You speak with unfounded certainty about what parents charge their children, and then you claim that it's a percentage of their earnings despite talking about people on benefits who aren't in work. You're either an idiot, a troll or both. Either way, good day to you.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
*out of the family home (assuming they had one in the first place)
BlackJackKetchum@reddit
Ok. You are an employer - who are you taking on, if pay is the same, a 16 year old with zero experience, or a 21 year old with five years at the coal face?
Gauntlets28@reddit
Thing is, eventually you run out of experienced 21-year-olds with five years at the coal face if you don't bother ever hiring people with no experience. If they flattened the minimum wage, there might be a short period where the market adjusts, but eventually businesses would realise that and have to survive without the subsidy of a reduced minimum wage.
smeetebwet@reddit
I guess more likely to live with parents or friends, less likely to have dependents
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Yes, had assumed this really. Seems strange to do this sort of stuff on assumption.
libsaway@reddit
It's not strange, it plays out in data. Vastly more people in their early 20s live with parents or with friends than people later in life.
Whether not not that's a good reason for lower benefits is a whole different discussion, one you can discuss with others here.
Gauntlets28@reddit
I agree with OP that it's a strange thing to assume though, especially when there are plenty of people that age who don't have relatives capable of supporting them past the age of 18, and when the system is specifically designed to encourage such reliance on parents (lower benefits being reflective of a similarly low minimum wage for under-25s). All it really results in is a system that encourages more affluent young people to not spread their wings, and those from more difficult backgrounds, or those with abusive relatives for example, to slip through the cracks.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
It is strange because it is an assumption. Some of these cases might be someone who is 24 and lives at in a cramped home with impoverished parents getting less than someone who is 25 and lives in a house of their "own" that their parents bought for them. Does that not illustrate and communicate what I think is strange?
OldManGravz@reddit
No because it's not an assumption. It's a statistical fact that someone under 25 is more likely to live at home with their parents. It may be cramped but if you are on benefits they aren't designed to live comfortably, otherwise nobody would work. When they hit 25 they get a bit more money to accommodate for increases in living cost that statistically occur for over 25's.
Someone's parents can buy them a house under 25 also, it makes no difference to the level of benefits. You've used two completely different starting situations to try and prove a point about age that isn't there.
You seem to want every single case of benefits should be judged on an individual basis with individual costs to be reviewed, it's just not gonna happen as it would be way too much work to do. We have set limits based on the average amount of money it costs to keep someone alive.big you want a better life and you want a more roomy place to live then the govt expects you to work for it
Lost_Repeat_725@reddit
I believe that’s the assumption that gets put in news articles, but I think the other part that they don’t like to say is that they think it makes it less attractive to younger people to be on benefits instead of working.
You could argue that if someone never works and goes straight onto benefits at 18 they might be more likely to never work, but to be honest I’m not sure a 25% cut is actually an incentive to work (or take more hours if they’re part time) for anyone who seriously would rather be on benefits, not to mention it penalises the majority of people who would rather not be claiming.
CalligrapherShort121@reddit
It’s this, but novel idea. We could ask them. And check.
Any-Ask-4190@reddit
This takes a lot of money.
shredditorburnit@reddit
Might have something to do with the fact that people under 25 vote less than almost any other age group.
Will we lose seats for this decision? No. Ok, do it.
If young people could be persuaded of the value of actually voting, it wouldn't be so easy to make policies that advantaged other groups at their expense.
Politics is run on a "can we get elected with this?" basis. This involves chasing the votes, and there's no point chasing voters who won't bother to go to the polling station.
Miserable-March-1398@reddit
To get the parents to support their offspring?
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Is there a legal requirement that parents cannot support their offspring over the age of 25?
Miserable-March-1398@reddit
You’ve only really got to do it till 16 then the army will help you out.
Prestigious-Gold6759@reddit
Under-25s get discounts for many things so their cost of living is lower?
smeetebwet@reddit
Like what?
Prestigious-Gold6759@reddit
it's really easy to check for yourself
Lots of
How young people can cash in on discounts or go for free in UK | Saving money | The Guardian
YouthDiscount.com - Discounts for Students, 16-26 year olds, and Apprentices
Footlocker x Gocertify | Foot Locker UK
for students only Student discounts & deals | MoneySavingExpert
plus numerous cinema and theatre discounts for under 25s and students in London area.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
And what about discounts that old people get? Wouldn't that even it out?
AddictedToRugs@reddit
Rail travel.
Most-Needleworker454@reddit
You know now im in my late 20s I’ve realised I’ve caught the train all of… 8 times? In my life. At the very most.
AddictedToRugs@reddit
Your choice not to use an available discount doesn't diminish it's worth.
Most-Needleworker454@reddit
But I live in the countryside. Trains just aren’t feasible around here so it’s not via lack of choice but by lack of availability and usability. So yeah, kind of does diminish it’s worth
stranger1958@reddit
When growing up in the 70s and 80s threir wasn't the benefits out there that you could claim now. I was always skink. Couldn't buy a car until I was 30. Now there seems to be a benifit for everything. And some do fall through to net. But I have known a lot that milk the system. What the government are doing with the pip and long term sick people say is wrong. But everyone knows that a lot are taking the piss. Anxiety seems to be the new back pain. We all get anxious at times it's the ups and downs of life. Even on reddit if anyone has a problem. They always have to say and it's affecting my metal health. I'll be waiting for all the down votes lol
YchYFi@reddit
I never had chance to use that until my 30s when I moved to somewhere with a train station.
lastaccountgotlocked@reddit
This will come in really handy for the kids who live nowhere near a train station.
smeetebwet@reddit
Right...and the 26-30 railcard and senior railcard don't exist then
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Do they? Such as?
pecuchet@reddit
Same reason the minimum wage is lower for them. They can give them less so they do.
amBrollachan@reddit
And younger people mostly don't vote.
Lillitnotreal@reddit
No one tends to put policy in regarding the youths on the run up for an election - its just simply such a rapidly changing group there's no point marketing yourself at them.
The last people that did did a 180 on the policy they claimed to run on, causing literal days long rioting
geyeetet@reddit
Is that true these days? I'm 25 and I know far more people in their 40s-60s who don't vote
lastaccountgotlocked@reddit
At least by 2019's figures, yes: https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-do-we-know-about-voter-turnout-in-parliamentary-elections
pecuchet@reddit
The young people I know either don't because they think it's a waste of time or can't because they're too young and then don't because they've been told they're not worth anything and therefore think it's a waste of time. It's a vicious circle.
SoggyWotsits@reddit
The average age for people to move out of the family home is now 24. So that might have something to do with it.
Your question is actually answered below. It won’t let me share the link for some reason but it’s from the UK Parliament website.
21 October 2024 There are no plans to remove the reduced rate of Universal Credit for under 25s.
The reduced rate for under 25s reflects the lower wages that younger workers typically receive. This is intended to maintain the incentive for younger people to find work. Customers under 25 are also more likely to live in someone else’s household and therefore typically have lower living costs.
Additional amounts are added to a customer’s Universal Credit award to provide for individual needs such as housing, children, disability, and childcare costs.
Further, targeted help is available through the Household Support Fund, which has recently been extended to 31 March 2025.
Any-Class-2673@reddit
It's so silly as the assumption is that they will be living at home so have less things they need to pay for...yet if you're over 25 and live at home you get more! Surely they should base it off what your actual situation is rather than what 'most' people are doing. But that would be too much effort for them ig 🤷🏻
MaleficentFox5287@reddit
Makes training and education look more attractive which benefits them in the long run.
They probably haven't paid a fair share into the system.
Less likely to have dependence, shouldn't be trying to have them.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I think there's a reasonable counter to all of those points: not sure how £50k+ of student debt or the the costs of training are more attractive; plenty over 25 who haven't paid a "fair share"; and people over 25 shouldn't be trying to have dependents if they're in this situation.
GGhecko@reddit
Well there's very obvious counters to your points:
If they're on benefits they wouldn't be earning enough to be repaying their student debt anyway so it's largely irrelevant. Not to mention you don't start repaying until earning a salary of £27k either and it doesn't appear on credit file etc so the £50k debt is hardly a burden except when you get about £50k per year and find yourself shafted with a very nasty marginal tax rate
If they've been to university and have a degree, we wouldn't really then want them to spend exceptional amounts of time on benefits, that would be a waste to both the qualified person and society as a whole. In your response I feel like you're implying it would be better to pay a young person more on benefits rather than that young person... Get a job?
I'll probably get downvoted but in my line of work I see very frequently how young people from disadvantaged backgrounds can get "stuck" on benefits... They go on them out of school and never come off them. One of the easiest ways to discourage that is to make work pay much more.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick.
1. It was said that the prospect of receiving lower benefits would make education more attractive, so implying that they are not at university and that the lower benefit money would be an incentive pushing them elsewhere (i.e. to university). I’m referring to young people before they go into further or higher education; you’re referring to them after. Over the course of a lifetime, paying an extra £50k plus interest is a burden.
2. You felt wrong. The point I’m making with this whole post is to basically ask what extra expenses do people over the age of 25 incur that people under the age of 25 don’t. You’re positing your own argument in order to counter it either because you didn't understand the post or for some reason you don't want to answer it (otherwise known as a strawman).
3. You seem to be discussing the principle of benefits themselves; I’m questioning the rationale behind different age groups receiving different levels of money from the state for no reason other than their age.
GGhecko@reddit
To put it simply, you asked what extra expenses over 25s have to pay - but that's not why theres a variance in entitlements. It's a stick, not a carrot
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
So getting £20 less a week in benefits (which they are only entitled to for about six months) is enough of a reason to take on £50k+ debt or other debt training in a trade?
GGhecko@reddit
You're probably being a bit too specific. Being paid £20 less a week is enough to make them think of other options, which are better for them and better for society.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Your comments read like a condescending, paternalistic, Victorian workhouse warden. I think it's very unlikely that £20 a week will prompt an epiphany in people who are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
GGhecko@reddit
We don't need young people resorting to a life on benefits, not sure why wanting people to have aspirations is Victorian :)
MaleficentFox5287@reddit
You aren't sure how learning a trade is less a better prospect than signing on?
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I'm not talking about long-term use of benefits: I'm talking about the principle behind giving younger people less simply by virtue of being younger. The second point to make is that benefits of this sort are designed to keep people's heads above water. If someone is in the position of being on such benefits, it's unlikely that a bank is going to lend them money to pursue a trade, nor would taking on £50k+ of student debt be an attractive alternative.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I'm not sure how spending years and borrowing lots of money to learn a trade is more attractive than temporarily signing on, no.
iamthefirebird@reddit
If I were assuming any kind of logic, I would say that it's meant to be an incentive for companies to hire younger people with less experience. I am not assuming any kind of logic.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Can't quite see how that would work. What does the company stand the gain?
iamthefirebird@reddit
You have two applicants. Both are competent, and could do the job fine, but one has five years of experience and the other has none. You hire the one with experience. The one without cannot get experience.
But, if the one without experience is cheaper to hire, the company saves money. This would theoretically allow people entering the workforce to get a foot in the door.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Sorry, what relation does the benefits have to the job? These are two separate matters, aren't they?
iamthefirebird@reddit
They are two separate matters. It's never relevant in highly skilled work, because that pays above minimum wage anyway; the employee does the same work, regardless of age. In a perfect world, they should be paid the same! I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that it works, or that this was even really the intention - I'm saying that if companies could get away with paying their employees less, they would, and breaking into the job market with little to no experience is rough.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
I still don't quite understand what you're getting at. The question was straightforward but you seem to have gone off on a tangent. The only sense I can make of your comments is that you're trying to draw some comparison or make an analogy; or that you seem to be saying that giving people under 25 lower benefit payments would act as some sort of incentive to find work, but then in the same breath acknowledged that it's harder for younger people, with less experience, to get jobs in the first place. I was really referring to people who were on benefits temporarily between jobs; I wasn't referring to long-term trends particularly, although I can see how it might enter the equation.
iamthefirebird@reddit
Your question, as I understand it, was this: why do people under 25 have lower benefits?
I'm saying that it's because the benefits are calculated based on the minimum wage, which is lower.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Well, okay, but then why is minimum wage lower for people under 25? It's the same principle/question. You've sort of kicked the can down the road instead of answering the actual question. Besides, are benefits actually based on minimum wage?
iamthefirebird@reddit
That's why I was talking about potentially allowing companies to pay young people less to help them get into the job market.
I don't know if benefits are based on minimum wage - I think I actually missed that explicit conclusion out of my initial comment entirely, I apologise - but I was trying to come up with an explanation that offered a different point of view than "young people probably live with their parents". It just wouldn't surprise me if someone in government thought it was a good idea for the minimum wage, and then someone else just said "we'll base benefits off the minimum wage" and didn't think any more of it.
SilverellaUK@reddit
Cheap labour.
ThatBlokeYouKnow@reddit
Cheap labor
WinningTheSpaceRace@reddit
They don't vote as much.
Fair-Face4903@reddit
Britain *hates* its young.
They voted their futures away and are now making them poorer.
Good servants for their owners.
Primary_Gift_8719@reddit
I'll start by saying I left the UK a while ago and therefore don't really have any skin in the game. I don't think there should be a difference at all but if all the "reasons" there is are true then should it be a much wider variance then £20 a week? I know times are hard and I can't specifically compare but it used to cost me more than that to commute and park at work and that's easily over ten years ago now? How would £20 really incentivise anyone?
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Yes, I agree with you.
adriokor@reddit
They should get zero.
R_12345678910@reddit (OP)
Why's that?
Heavy-Usual-715@reddit
No they don’t! I think this is outrageous! Age discrimination me thinks.
Pure-Nose2595@reddit
The sort of person who writes these rules has rich parents, so the idea that an 18 year old has to fend for themselves is unfathomable to them.
Southernbeekeeper@reddit
It's always bothered me this. Old people get all sorts of allowances and help with things while young people get shafted and until recently even got paid less. Young families don't get much help and it's wrong.
whatmichaelsays@reddit
Less political capital is spent by making cuts to demographics that are either less likely to vote, or less likely to live on marginal swing constituencies.
Belle_TainSummer@reddit
Money saving on a demographic that doesn't vote, and a snobbery from the older generations that young people only "waste" money on luxuries.
Ecstatic_Ratio5997@reddit
What about care leavers?
YchYFi@reddit
It's really strange as I know many people who had moved out and married and had kids tby that age.
lawrencetokill@reddit
older people have so much that they should be rewarded even more for just existing. especially since they are so active in the community and have so much to offer. the hope of the universe lies in hampering young people and not angering old people.
it's very nuts.
lastaccountgotlocked@reddit
It's red meat to older people, who are more reliable voters. Young people don't vote, old people do. Young people are lazy ingrates, old people are virtuous pillars of society. Young people, if you use the stick, will be incentivised to go out and get a job to make up the £20 shortfall. Old people have already earned their way, and the work was harder back in my day, young man, let me tell you that much. Young people eat too many avocados and watch Netflixes, old people are much more sensible with their money.
In short: it's bollocks.
importantmaps2@reddit
It was an idea thought up by the Conservatives in the early 80's to take the option of leaving school and claiming benefits look unattractive. They wanted school leavers to go on YTS schemes or into apprenticeships or college
FlimsyDistance9437@reddit
Young people vote less than older people.
It’s an easier way to cut government spending that carries less political risk at the ballot box.
Many-Tourist5147@reddit
No, they don't. In fact it's expected of most younger people to simply stay with their parents in their homes, but that's not the case. It's basically just the same "screw (insert generation here" rhetoric that shafts the blame onto them for some reason, like boomers and claiming that millenials are lazy and don't contribute as much, which isn't truthful. It's cuts for the sake of cuts because of "fiscal rules" economically it makes no sense and before anyone chimes in with "But the welfare state is ballooning, we can't keep handing out!" no, it's not. The world is changing, the population is more dense and aging, more and more people have the awareness of their disabilities and accept that they need help and there is more help to do so rather than living on the streets. (Look at all the disability rights groups that popped up over the years for example)
Long answer to a shorter question, so sorry for the tangent, but ultimately there is no rationale because the reality isn't what is being presented.
pharmamess@reddit
Because then the state can force you into dependency on older relatives or you become homeless.
Boomers have all the power and write the rules. They aren't going to give it up without a struggle.
LittleDiveBar@reddit
Rationale is try harder to get a job
qualityvote2@reddit
Hello u/R_12345678910! Welcome to r/AskABrit!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!