Talk

Advanced search

To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?

(334 Posts)
malificent7 Sun 14-Apr-19 08:08:58

I mean with job creation, welfare, regulation of private employers etc.
I hear so many times...its not the state's job to do x, y and z.

So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?

Of course some take the piss but the state shouldctry to peovide more jobs and less zero hour contracts, they should regulate how the private sector treats employees, they should moderate wages anf provide housing.

Of course, some take the piss but most have a genuine need and the state dosnt want to know.

SnuggyBuggy Sun 14-Apr-19 08:10:42

I think some people just have real "I'm alright Jack" personalities and it's hard to persuade them to see it differently

scaryteacher Sun 14-Apr-19 08:14:47

Where does it stop though? I have no problem with the state helping those who need it, but not everyone does need, or want, the state to intervene. Where is personal responsibility and the urge to improve your lot if the state is taking care of everything for you?

SileneOliveira Sun 14-Apr-19 08:22:00

The point of a state is to provide essential services like defence, police, education. And to have some sort of safety net to support those who, through illness or disability, are genuinely unable to provide for themselves.

The state is not there to hold people's hands, or set up mickey mouse companies to provide jobs, or rewrite people's CVs, provide interview training, dish out "baby boxes" to affluent parents, etc etc etc.

SnuggyBuggy Sun 14-Apr-19 08:22:41

I don't see it so much as taking care but if providing a fair level playing field so you have the opportunity to work and improve and make a life for yourself.

wafflyversatile Sun 14-Apr-19 08:24:15

The state taking care of people is exactly what I pay my taxes for.

Trull Sun 14-Apr-19 08:24:47

I think they will promptly show up on this thread, demonstrating the politicical and economic ‘I’m all right, Jack’ism characteristic of Tories.

Fairylea Sun 14-Apr-19 08:27:22

No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc. Most people who don’t agree with a welfare state have never experienced life on the other side of the fence.

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 08:27:55

Where does it stop though? I have no problem with the state helping those who need it, but not everyone does need, or want, the state to intervene. Where is personal responsibility and the urge to improve your lot if the state is taking care of everything for you?

The issue I have is that people think that they know what the state should and shouldn’t do. Also they don’t see everything that the state does or doesn’t do. So are ill informed.

Personally I think the state should offer a basic (not minimum) level of support across the population. 99.9% of people want to be self sufficient but it’s very difficult to do that when the system is set up such that far far too much wealth is held in the hands of the rich.

People work, have seemingly decent jobs and still cannot earn enough to survive. That isn’t right.

Yet business are seen as too “big” to fail, profit is king etc. The average workers salaries are too low and are indirectly supplemented with tax credits/housing benefits.

Governments should collectively incentivise business to pay decent wages and to makes sure the wealth is a bit more spread. One person does not need a £30m per year salary, despite what they may tell you.

PregnantSea Sun 14-Apr-19 08:32:57

I like to see a balance, because whilst it's great when the state does help out with things and pay money for things, you must remember that everything that we ask them for help for gives them more power. If you're asking them to take responsibility for more and more then you're giving them more and more control over everyone's daily lives.

You may be fine with that. I suppose it depends on your outlook on life. I think both sides have their pros and cons, but personally I would prefer to sacrifice some of the state help in order to protect freedom. I know a lot of people feel differently though.

Dimsumlosesum Sun 14-Apr-19 08:34:37

The most important thing should be supporting people who need help, whilst also, for those who can, help as much as possible to help people back into work, help single parents work if they wish, help young people gain employment, etc. Support, basically, to help people stand on their own where possible, and support where they can't do that physically or otherwise. The Nordic Model is fantastic. I would dearly love to have a government and policies based on that.

Kazzyhoward Sun 14-Apr-19 08:38:34

The average workers salaries are too low and are indirectly supplemented with tax credits/housing benefits.

Basic economics of supply and demand. If people have more money, then prices rise. We saw it brilliantly with Gordon Brown's handouts in the form of housing benefit, tax credits etc. House prices and house rental costs rose enormously at the same time Brown was throwing money at people. Brown should have imposed some kind of rent/house price control/limits before he splashed the cash, but as he didn't, his bribes to the electorate was just spent on higher rents so the recipients were no better off.

DippyAvocado Sun 14-Apr-19 08:39:53

No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc. Most people who don’t agree with a welfare state have never experienced life on the other side of the fence.

This. Some people lack the empathy/imagination to put themselves in other people's shoes. Unless you're extremely wealthy, you never know when circumstances might change and you would be grateful for any help you get from the state. Any of us could be left paralysed after an accident or lose our jobs and be unable to find another one. Contrary to the belief of those who watch benefit-bashing programmes on Channel 5, it is not only feckless scroungers who rely on state support.

FookMeFookYou Sun 14-Apr-19 08:41:43

The state cause resentment by having stupid rules such as Child Benefit now having a threshold that is biased. A household on two incomes with both earning £50k each can still get child benefit with no penalty.

A household where one person earns between £50-£60k will be taxed on any child benefit they claim and if they earn over the £60k it becomes pointless claiming it because you have to pay it in tax. How can a household earning £100k take this benefit with no penalty and a house earning £40k less have to give it up because the expectation is they should need it less?!!

Where is the common sense? I resent the fact that others are eligible for benefits and who clearly bring in more money than we do and we are eligible for nothing. Absolutely nothing, not a bean.

I used that money for our two young kids, the things it should be used for and yet now my husband has gained a promotion we've lost that money. After paying higher rate tax and travel costs to get to that job in the first place we are now worse off. There are people receiving this benefit and they are able to put it in a savings account because THEY DON'T NEED IT.

That's what you get for trying to do better and making life a bit more comfortable.

I agree with thresholds but they should make sense and apply no matter the household circs.

Kazzyhoward Sun 14-Apr-19 08:42:42

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Show a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

We need to invest in proper education and training reform. Blair had a great opportunity with his "education" * 3 mantra, but blew it on concentrating on universities and degrees to the detriment of proper skills and trades. The schools system needs proper reform, not grade inflation. We need proper colleges teaching proper skills and trades, not mickey mouse degrees. For people who can work, they need proper jobs that are sustainable, not pretend jobs at the whim of the politicians.

Heratnumber7 Sun 14-Apr-19 08:43:51

Move to N Korea and see how you like it when the state provides everything.

bridgetreilly Sun 14-Apr-19 08:45:03

So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?

To protect the weak, to provide justice, to defend the nation from outside attack. I am also okay with a state which provides infrastructure, health and education.

Kazzyhoward Sun 14-Apr-19 08:48:34

Where is the common sense?

It's lacking throughout the tax and benefit system, and as you say, that causes ill-feeling.

Why should workers be the only group who have to pay NIC? People with other income, such as property rental, dividends, foreign income, pensions, etc., don't pay NIC - why?? People can literally spend their life receiving good amounts of money yet never pay a penny in NIC. Where is the logic and fairness in that? NIC used to be an "insurance" based system where you paid in to secure benefits. Now, the world has changed, the rules have changed, and people can get benefits, including pensions, without ever paying a penny in NIC. It's just so wrong on so many levels. It's basically nothing more than another tax on workers/employees.

Along with student loan repayments, workplace pensions, etc., no wonder that "workers" who are seeing more and more of their pay deducted on their payslips, are starting to be more resentful.

SilverySurfer Sun 14-Apr-19 08:50:12

I agree with SileneOliveira and am really opposed to a nanny State.

lyralalala Sun 14-Apr-19 08:50:33

I think the bigger problem is the daftness of some of the rules around things. It makes sense that baby boxes, for example, are given to everyone because it's cheaper than means testing them. That's logical.

However, it's also cheaper to not means test child benefit (plus you have the associated issue with NI credits for SAHP and the potential for abuse), but it was politically popular to means test it. They didn't want to make too big a cost for means testing so put a random line that means people can claim it when their income is vastly more than other people who can't. It's stupid.

There's no logic in a lot of the decisions. Scrap the age limit for widows payments because it's accepted that a widow or widower is just that, not only when they are over 45, but the completely slash the amount so it's actually not going to touch the side of losing the second income even for the 18 months it's given for.

cushellekoala Sun 14-Apr-19 08:55:55

There are always a small number of people who will try to abuse the system or try to claim something they're not genuinely entitled to. Unfortunately a lot of others use this tiny minority as a reason why the state shouldnt help the many many others who are genuinely in need. For example there were 1 or 2 cases of people fraudulently claiming they were in grenfell tower when it burnt down.....does that mean all the genuine victims arent entitled to anything...?!!of course not!

Longolddaytoday Sun 14-Apr-19 09:00:11

"No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc."

And if they do, many of them will still be capable of compartmentalising things so that they see themselves as the "deserving" needy and the rest as undeserving. I went to a primary school in a very deprived area and most of the kids' parents were "slash all public services" Tories, despite receiving benefits themselves. There's been years of propaganda from the Daily Mail etc to that effect. The Mail and co never come out and say that they don't believe the State should help people, just that it should only help "decent people", not scumbags. It's just that, funnily enough, almost everybody falls into the "scumbag" category.

PettyContractor Sun 14-Apr-19 09:02:32

Your idea of what a state should be is something it hasn't been for 99.9% of people, ever since states of any sort existed.

I'm not arguing with you on what the state should do, I'm just pointing out that the people on the other side have infinitely more precedent to justify their idea of the role of the state. It's your ideas that are the absolutely massive exception to the historical norm. (And not just the historical norm, I'd guess the vast majority of people on the planet today don't think it's the government's job to prevent them from starving if they can't fend for themselves. This is not their ideological view of how things should be, it's just their political reality.)

Kazzyhoward Sun 14-Apr-19 09:04:00

For example there were 1 or 2 cases of people fraudulently claiming they were in grenfell tower when it burnt down

Actually, 14 to date and more in the pipeline. That's excluding those who were illegally subletting their flats within the tower who aren't currently being prosecuted. Benefit related fraud is a lot bigger than people want to believe and needs to be acted upon. Of course, those genuinely entitled deserve all the help they need. But downplaying the scale of fraud helps no-one.

JuniorAsparagus Sun 14-Apr-19 09:06:39

My nephew's wife is Ukrainian. She is horrified at how many people in Britain live on benefits because in Ukraine you have to work. It made for an interesting discussion. I believe that we need to support those unable to work, because of disability for example, but it did make me wonder how many people could work if there was no alternative.
My DD with MS works when she can, but it is great to know that when her health takes a nose dive she can be supported by the State.

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 09:06:46

Move to N Korea and see how you like it when the state provides everything

? it doesn’t.

Sowhatifisaycunt Sun 14-Apr-19 09:07:51

I believe that too many people tories lack understanding of the poverty trap, the long term effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and inter-generational trauma. It’s not that easy to get a well paid job to support your family when your own parents couldn’t give you the skills needed to be a productive member of society. This creates an inherent vulnerability that the state has a responsibility to support so that the next generation has a chance. There’s a real lack of compassion that filters down from those who have plenty to the ‘undeserving poor’.

Taneartagam Sun 14-Apr-19 09:09:54

The UK is an extreme nanny state though. To the extent that the NHS, schools and subsidised school food and other such luxuries are taken for granted and complained endlessly about. I am not British but lived there for a while and not having to pay for doctors and medicine is an amazing luxury. Your children being fed at school? Another luxury. But I got the impression that people have gotten so used to their hands being held that they were unable to think for themselves. Not being allowed to be the judge of when your child needs time off school? That's crazy, and accepted meekly.

Also, a countrys objective should be for the good of the future of the country, not just its existing population. Its existing population should also support and work towards the future of their land too. I think a nanny state cultivates a Me Me Me attitude and an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

Slazengerbag Sun 14-Apr-19 09:10:44

There’s something completely wrong with the system.

Nurses, midwives, teachers etc are having to claim tax credits to survive. How is it even possible that you work for the state in a professional job with a degree and you have to claim benefits to help you survive?

If you’re putting child benefit in to a savings account for when your children are older you don’t need it!

A friend of mine is stuck in a benefit trap at the moment and she can’t afford to get out of it. Because of UC she can’t do a couple of hours overtime or go for a promotion because her benefits will be cut so much she won’t be able to afford to live. It’s not about her not wanting to work more at all, it’s about feeding and clothing her children whilst putting a roof over their heads.

smallereveryday Sun 14-Apr-19 09:18:20

The insistence that all things should make a profit- is where the problem lies.
For a 'state' to be viewed as successful it must make its people feel as though the basic requirements are provided.

These should never be run for profit. The very existence of a 'public good' that has its first and foremost responsibility to shareholders - looking for a return in their investment is completely illogical.

Housing
Education
Public transport
Communications
Energy
Water
Legal representation.
(Probably a few more I can't think about at the moment)

Should not be run for profit. They are services . To provide a service to the states people - accessible for all at cost price.

Everything else is based on want/desire. They have to be paid for according to ability and access to money.

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 09:19:02

The UK is an extreme nanny state though

Based on what?

The UK is not a nanny state.

A nanny state implies that people are cared for and have to worry for nothing.

We have foodbanks, rising homelessness, rising waiting lists as the NHS is underfunded, schools are crumbling.

People are dying because of benefit cuts.

People can choose to take their kids out of school - yes they get fined but it’s minimal which is why people do it.

How exactly is that a nanny state? Just because you’re not used to “free” amenities, I would argue you’re wrong (and it’s not free - we pay taxes to fund it)

anunseemlylovefordustin Sun 14-Apr-19 09:19:54

I've been paying my taxes since I started working at 19, nearly 30 years, and having a state that looks after everyone that needs it is EXACTLY why I pay them.

How good a job the state is doing with my taxes is another matter entirely hmm

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Sun 14-Apr-19 09:20:37

I think the DWP needs overhaul.
Instead of just making unemployed turn up once in 5 weeks and show that they sent xxx CVs, they should offer proper requalification crash courses. Especially if someone is unemployed over certain period.
Encourage people to go for an apprenticeship without the losing benefits while doing it since it pays so little (understandably since someone has to be with the apprentice at all times, still better than just college).
Unemployment is 3.9%. If someone is long term unemployed without a disability or caring responsibility etc, they need to retrain. There are skill shortages. Fill that gap.

Disabled, family carers etc are a different league. They should always be helped!
But, lots of people.... Well, kind of expect to be taken care of. Ifykwim.

SnuggyBuggy Sun 14-Apr-19 09:20:41

I remember being young and completely believing the myth of arbeit mach frei and that all I had to do was get a job and work hard. It's bollocks when half of benefit recipients are in work and wages frequently don't match the cost of living.

I've totally changed my view of "unemployed scroungers", work can often just be a total waste of time.

Cornettoninja Sun 14-Apr-19 09:24:43

Yanbu. If you have a country where nobody had to worry about a roof over their heads, clothes on their back, food in their stomach, medicine for their illness and education in their heads then you will find a population with the security to be innovative and ambitious.

On a smaller scale that’s proven when you look at the difference in successes between children from a secure background to children from a chaotic one. Of course there are always the exceptions that prove the rule but for every success story there a numerable others that have tried and only got so far because luck wasn’t on their side.

Problem is that’s a long game and doesn’t translate to four yearly manifestos. A large portion of the country doesn’t want to consider the long term gains and are only interested in the immediate.No sense of delayed gratification in this country.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss Sun 14-Apr-19 09:26:27

Job creation yes but welfare has got to a point where it's a choice to claim to suit a persons choices they make. Personal responsibility should always come first, not the state nannying everything.

BarbarianMum Sun 14-Apr-19 09:27:43

I think the state should provide security, the rule of law, regulation and a safety net but I also think personal responsibility is a thing. And that feckless people will always be feckless and then blame others for their mess.

Zoflorabore Sun 14-Apr-19 09:35:53

As a carer it's an insult to receive approx £65 per week in CA. So many people are carers it's unreal and do so much for that paltry amount.

I also think the introduction of UC is the biggest mistake in the history of state welfare. I thank god I don't claim it but have seen first hand the misery it is causing.

We've all seen the statistics, X amount of children in the U.K. living on poverty. That makes me angry to be honest. There is no need for this in one of the worlds richest nations, similar to the United States where they have huge child poverty.

I don't know what the answer is. I think there will be a major re-shuffle of the benefits system soon though. It isn't working.

YouBumder Sun 14-Apr-19 09:38:04

What I’m amazed at is how some people thought voting for Brexit might make things better.

If people keep voting for the Tories they just plainly don’t give a shit about the vulnerable

Iggly Sun 14-Apr-19 09:38:28

Job creation yes but welfare has got to a point where it's a choice to claim to suit a persons choices they make

If a basic level of income/support were provided by companies such that people had enough to actually earn a living then this wouldn’t be a problem would it??

If a company wants you to work full time then they should have the decency to pay you enough to at least live off.

Instead they don’t. They want all your effort for minimum gain and the actual rewards go to the bosses at the top.

starzig Sun 14-Apr-19 09:41:04

I'm just astounded by people complaining about it. It's good we help people but people expect more and more and talk about what the are entitled to and should get more. People need to be more grateful that our government does help the less 'fortunate'

AliceAbsolum Sun 14-Apr-19 09:41:09

The state will never be able to provide what people want or need. Peddling that lie leads to people being infantilsed.
We give up freedom and money (through taxes) to gain services, if this continues indefinitely we might as well all live in a giant, shite prison.

Oliversmumsarmy Sun 14-Apr-19 09:41:11

Can I point out that some zero hours contracts are great.

Dd works for several companies and picks and chooses her shifts, otoh she did go to an interview where the company were only offering a zero hours contract but you couldn’t work for anyone else, you had to be exclusive to that company.

That is the sort of place that gives zero hours contracts a bad name.

Whilst it is great that we offer help to the poorest in society and those that have hit a stumbling block, it has got to the point where help is given and people are now relying on it rather than trying to get off benefits and support themselves.

I think there are a couple of things that are grossly unfair in the system we have now. (Probably more but I only know from what I have come across personally)

One being the situation that FookMeFookYou describes which is absolutely stupid.

The other is to do with education which I have a bee in my bonnet because of the ridiculous and quite unfair rules we have atm.

For example ds (dyslexic) has passed his Maths GCSE but has failed his English GCSE.

We found only 1 college in our area would take him without both English and Maths GCSE. They have these as a separate lesson.

Ds because he has worked a bit with a tradesman was put into level 2 which he completed within 2 terms and had and average score on his tests and assessments of 97.5%.

The issue is ds going the normal route cannot actually go any further because he doesn’t have his English GCSE.
He cannot get an apprenticeship without his gcse English.

So far the only route we have come up with is sending him abroad to qualify in an English speaking country and then comeback to the UK as a qualified professional which the UK will accept his qualification and he then can work here.

As a country there does seem to be a need for qualified workers but we impose such restrictions on our own children that they cannot qualify but will gladly accept people who haven’t had to jump through the hoops our children have to.

I have a few friends who are nurses. They left school at 16 and did day release whilst working on a ward.

Now you have to have a degree to do the same job as a 16year old (and probably similar pay) but there seems surprise all round that the number of people going into the nursing profession has dropped off a cliff. Why would you want to be a nurse if you had a degree and the people who would have wanted to be nurses probably couldn’t get a degree.

I sometimes think the powers that be would prefer the UK people (who didn’t go to fancy schools and universities) to claim benefits whilst they import all the workers from overseas.
Might be cynical but I think someone somewhere is making money out of these ridiculous rules.

GoneForFood Sun 14-Apr-19 09:42:17

Instead of just making unemployed turn up once in 5 weeks and show that they sent xxx CVs, they should offer proper requalification crash courses. Especially if someone is unemployed over certain period

The jobcentre is a joke. I lost my job suddenly in 2013 and went to sign on whilst I looked for a new one - in a small village with no train service and 3 busses per day, not as easy at it sounds. Their help was to send me on a learn direct course so I could get a level 1 maths and English qualification. Even though I have a degree. If I didn’t go on the course I would be sanctioned. Was a complete waste of my time and their funding. Luckily it was only a matter of months before I was back in employment but for a lot of people I can see how they’re set up to fail from the get go.

MrsSpenserGregson Sun 14-Apr-19 09:45:06

Ugh my FIL is like this. Has always had loads of money (worked for the family business in a highly-paid job that was handed to him on a plate and retired aged 45, has a huge multi-million pound property, millions in the bank, tighter than a duck's arse....)

His view is that nobody of working age deserves benefits at all but it's absolutely scandalous that he had to wait for his state pension until he was 65 rather than 60, and that the state should pay all his care home fees should he need care in future....

We are making the annual pilgrimmage visit to the ILs this week. I am looking forward to my annual row spirited debate with FIL about benefits, house prices, pensions etc.....!

Brilliantidiot Sun 14-Apr-19 09:48:26

A pp hit the nail on the head saying everything is driven by profit. In just one example (my own) I work 45 hours a week, in a just above nmw job, I am a single parent. I still qualify for tax credits - because the 'state' recognises that I cannot survive without. Though it's a small amount, it's essential, it pays council tax and the water bill. Everything else comes out of my wages. I currently have £35 in savings - that's from transferring the odd pence change into my savings account and that's saving up to pay for the next course I want to do to enable me to gain a qualification eventually. I may be due to retire by the time I manage it!
I'm being squeezed tighter and tighter at work to save money, doing more and more to save wages, to increase profits. I'm effectively lining someone else's pockets, but then every job seems to be like that. I couldn't afford to take my ex to court privately for maintenance - I tried CSA as it was then, he gave up his job and moved in with his mum. Game over.
And every year prices for everything increase to be paid out, and my wage doesn't increase with it, so someone, somewhere, is pocketing the difference.
I want to be totally self sufficient but I can't physically work enough hours to do so.
What's the answer? I don't know, because I can't see the people driving the profit margins suddenly thinking it's not fair and doing something.
I don't think the state should have to support me, but I have no choice. I'd much rather be able to earn a wage I can live on. I'd rather the state put energy into making a realistic living wage, and making employers pay that, rather than supporting people like me. I'd be the same financially, but it'd be better in the long run for everyone surely?

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Sun 14-Apr-19 09:50:43

Why would you want to be a nurse if you had a degree and the people who would have wanted to be nurses probably couldn’t get a degree.
I don't know about other states, but where I am from (EU) nurses must have undergraduate degree.

@GoneForFood that's ridiculous. Level 1 maths🙄
Also sorry. My post was supposed to say 2 weeks, not 5.

MrsSpenserGregson Sun 14-Apr-19 09:55:33

@Brilliantidiot great post.

I think there is a big difference between larger and small employers. The problem for a lot of smaller employers (like me!) is that anything much above NMW means the business won't survive. Absolutely the big employers should pay more than £8.21 per hour, but for someone like me, who runs a very small business, pays herself NMW and employs one part-timer, I simply cannot afford more than £9 per hour ... if I paid more than that, my business would go under, so that would be two of us out of a job.

It is horrific that people in full-time work need government top-ups to survive, but I am really glad that the government does provide this. I would love to see the large multinationals paying more tax, and I absolutely do believe that there should be extra tax bandings for higher-rate tax payers depending on income. It's absolutely not fair that someone earning £200,000 per year pays the same rate of tax as someone earning £38,000 per year (or whatever the threshold is now for higher rate income tax in the UK).

Cornishclio Sun 14-Apr-19 09:56:28

In a free market economy the state should not have to create jobs but I question how well this type of economy and capitalism is working when 99% of the wealth is held by only a tiny fraction of the people. Governments try and address this with tax credits, child benefit, winter fuel etc etc but it is a drop in the ocean and open to abuse. I do think that as well as our political system being broken so is our economy where large companies get away with paying low salaries and government has to subsidise. I think there needs even tighter controls on companies not less so they can't get away with giving their executives 10% pay rises and low grade workers 1%. Yes everybody has the chance to improve their lot but some are in a better position to do that. Difficult to justify money for evening classes when you need all the overtime you can get and have to choose between food and energy costs. I speak in a privileged position as we have not had redundancy or illness to cope with, don't live hand to mouth and are early retired on good pensions. I think the simple matter is either the government needs to get better at managing our taxes or taxes have to rise. Brexit will make it all worse, ironic really as most who voted for it thought it would make their life better and are least able to cope with job uncertainty, rising prices and less state help.

brummiebadass Sun 14-Apr-19 10:00:06

One of the key points of me stepping away from my relationship with my MIL was the day she declared that he didn't believe in the welfare state. She wasn't born in the UK, and was very poor as a child. Her family in her home country are now very comfortable and gave benefited very much from political change to a more supportive state.
She has lived here for many years. She's a baby boomer so she and my FIL were able to buy a house etc on relatively low wages, and retired on gold plated final salary pensions. That opportunity just doesn't exist anymore, but she just doesn't see that.
Sadly my FIL had dementia for several years before he passed away. In that time she made full use of the NHS and social services (but it was never good enough). She complained very loudly about having to contribute towards his care costs.
Several of her kids have needed to claim benefits over the years to survive after redundancy etc. She very kindly subsidised this by organising cash in hand work for them, as obviously they money that we're claiming was not enough to survive hmm.
She also gave each child a deposit towards a house. Which was fantastic. So why would people need housing benefit?
The cognitive dissonance she displays is utterly astounding, and she has similar views around other key issues. So I choose to spend very little time in her company as she makes me so bloody angry!

Zoflorabore Sun 14-Apr-19 10:06:34

I also believe that many of us are in a vulnerable position to end up depending on state help. What is the saying? We're only 3 pay checks away from being homeless.

I don't have savings, lots of people don't.
Of course, lots of people do.
It's the ones that don't who are most vulnerable and closer to the welfare system
whether through redundancy, illness, escaping an abusive relationship etc and the pre-conceived idea that all claimants are chain smoking Jeremy Kyle fans with 8 kids is far from reality.
Illness, redundancy and life situations do not choose only the wealthy to target. Yes there are a small minority of people who don't use their intended money on their children and spend it on drink/drugs but the vast majority are bloody struggling to make ends meet and doing their absolute best to improve their lot.
I despair that so many people have such a
dim view of claimants when they could be one themselves through no fault of their own. They are always different thoughhmm

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 10:07:50

Nobody is forced to have dc- the world is over-populated after all!

Why would you, if it will push you into poverty?

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 10:09:13

Oliversmumsarmy- Couldn’t your DS do the GCSE online?

GoneForFood Sun 14-Apr-19 10:11:39

InspectorClouseauMNdivision my degree is in statistics!🙄

WitchesGlove people’s circumstances change all the time. I could afford my dc until I lost my job. I needed state help in the interim. I also didn’t foresee being widowed at such a young age. Maybe no one should have kids?

Oliversmumsarmy Sun 14-Apr-19 10:13:04

InspectorClouseauMNdivision

Maybe because you have always had to have a degree there hasn’t been the huge drop from being a relatively easy career to get into to needing to have a degree.

Maybe your nurses are paid accordingly.

Maybe your nurses aren’t being run off their feet doing a job for very little money.

Maybe your nurses don’t have a £30-50,000 debt that they have to pay back when they come out of university.

starzig Sun 14-Apr-19 10:13:29

I agree witchesglove. A lot of people are having kids before financially stable the say the can't get on the working ladder due to childcare. It is child cruelty to bring them into that.

lyralalala Sun 14-Apr-19 10:13:43

Benefit related fraud is a lot bigger than people want to believe and needs to be acted upon

1.5% of benefit expenditure is lost to fraud. It's much less than people want to believe.

Especially when you consider that 1% of benefit expenditure is underpaid due to error and lack of knowledge of entitlement.

There are much bigger, and expensive, frauds than benefit fraud that should be the bigger focus.

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 10:16:23

GoneForFood-

The majority of people on tax credits are not widows or people who became sick/disabled.

Many TTC’d FULLY KNOWING they’d be reliant on tax credits!

There is life insurance that people can take out, or make savings before you TTC!

lyralalala Sun 14-Apr-19 10:16:29

Also despite people saying "obviously disabled and sick people should be well looked after" the fraud hysteria has blinded people to the point that benefits for disabled and sick people have been absolutely decimated. The irony is that adding more and more and more hoops for people to jump through is that the few fiddlers (less than one percent of disability benefit claims are fraudulent according to the DWP's own figures) are those most able to deal with them!

lyralalala Sun 14-Apr-19 10:19:42

One thing I think should have happened once the accidental impact of the way tax credits were implemented was realised was state run nurseries. The cost of childcare boomed because of tax credits (which were actually a really good idea in their original form - they were originally only meant to last a year or so to bridge the gap between benefits and work).

If there had been state run nurseries opened it would have created jobs, the costs could have been kept lower (which would also have kept other nursery costs lower) and therefore the monies paid out in tax credit childcare element would have gone back into the pot.

Oliversmumsarmy Sun 14-Apr-19 10:23:01

WitchesGlove ds only learned to read properly at age 12, he can talk about politics and a wide range of subjects. He isn’t uneducated. He was HE (inter high for a couple of years) and studied lots of different subjects that interested him. But when it comes to writing anything it is illegible (diagnosed with dysgraphia), if there is any comprehension question that asks you to read between the lines then he is stumped and don’t ask him to write a story, his mind goes blank.

Both myself and dp can’t help because we have no idea how to teach him as we are both in the same boat.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Sun 14-Apr-19 10:23:03

@Oliversmumsarmy it wasn't always requirement. They are not well paid. But they should be! Here and there. It's bad for nurses everywhere.

You also should not look at uni loan repayments as a standard debt though. That country has uni for free, but taxes and health insurance (mandatory payment from wages) and social insurance is much higher than here. So it's same shit, different arsehole.

Dimsumlosesum Sun 14-Apr-19 10:23:16

I believe that too many peopletorieslack understanding of the poverty trap, the long term effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and inter-generational trauma

A sweeping generalisation. The Tory voters I know voted Tory originally because the leadership of Labour was horrific. Not because they didn't believe in welfare. But maybe you just know some shit people.

Shutuptodd Sun 14-Apr-19 10:36:19

I think one of the biggest problems is lots of jobs mine included dont pay enough to actually live as the government tops up wages with tax credits. I wasnt in this position with my children when I had them but now my ex has left I couldn't even afford my basic bills on my current wage. It is above nmw and I live in a housing association property and I can only cover the rent and council tax before there is nothing left.

I dont know the answer to this problem I know I will get someone telling me to get a better job(Which I'm training for) but someone has to do the jobs that aren't paid well.

GoneForFood Sun 14-Apr-19 10:41:08

Many TTC’d FULLY KNOWING they’d be reliant on tax credits!

And some people are never going to earn enough to not have to rely on them, due to the way companies are allowed to pay not a penny more than NMW knowing that the tax credit/universal credit system will pick up the slack. So should only the rich have children?

mirime Sun 14-Apr-19 10:43:49

People in the UK not having children until they could afford it would potentially be disastrous though. Our birth rate is already below replacement level and we're looking at huge problems with pensions and social and health care for our ageing population. Allowing more immigration is clearly an unpopular option. If only the well off had children the birth rate would plummet!

DarkAtEndOfTunnel Sun 14-Apr-19 10:44:16

Interesting thread. You have to start by considering what a state is and what it is for. At root it is a group of people who have banded together for mutual support and cooperation to achieve ends that each individual could not achieve alone. That's it, and nothing more.

The problem comes when states grow into huge entities that are no longer responsible or responsive to its members. Same goes for any form of organisation for that matter. The principle of specialised economies - people having very different jobs and trading products and skills - easily becomes a class system or caste system in which people start thinking that their contribution is more worthwhile than others just because. Prestige and status, and defending it from within society, becomes more important than anything else. Then things start to break down because actually it isn't, and people who work just as hard or worse for lower reward and who have no real opportunities to better themselves from their work start to get angry. Not as articulately, perhaps, but with eminent justifications. Eventually the systems start to tear themselves apart. Chuck in environmental overload because separated elites are no longer listening to warning signals, and you have a society in danger of collapse. These is the working conditions that drive the cyclical theory of history imo. That's the situation we're seeing now, also imho. We've already had the obligatory complaints about poor nurses on benefits. It hasn't happened overnight, what about the poor careworkers doing very similar and equally difficult jobs to nurses but paid one hell of a lot less who have been struggling and vilified? Same goes for other middle class professions.

KC225 Sun 14-Apr-19 10:46:14

State help should be a safety net not a hammock. I always agreed to this but there has been such a massive shift in lifestyles. Rents in most parts of the UK are nuts, getting on the housing with out help is a tough one. The lack social housing stock and the increase in the UK population. Low paid, contract hours and the erosion of employment rights have had a massive impact. For certain groups of people, I think things are worse now than 40/50 years ago.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel Sun 14-Apr-19 10:51:04

These are, not these is blush. That was long. Short version, is YADNBU op. Demographics are the problem. We have absolutely unprecedented population levels, unprecedented within human history and no understanding, knowledge of how to organise them. More importantly, no real wish to do so - it's too complicated.

SelkieRinnNaMara Sun 14-Apr-19 10:51:14

I think a secure job is a privilege and a lot of people who pay taxes forget this. They forget that being free from responsibility and being able to work for a minimum wage is freedom and privilege.

I have a secure job now and pay taxes blah blah blah but i couldnt work for a long time as a single mother i couldnt afford to let go of the security blanket and work for minimum wage and need to be thre for my kids too. It amazes me how many people dont understand this.

RosaWaiting Sun 14-Apr-19 10:51:46

there's a lot of scope for how you think the state should be

I agree they should moderate wages, as you say in your PP

I don't believe they should "create" jobs

I do believe they should intervene in the housing market

I tend to see their role as being about basics really. I believe they are failing in those basics, but I have a feeling your definition of basics would be a lot different than mine!

Alsohuman Sun 14-Apr-19 10:54:22

You can’t get a state pension without paying NIC, you have to have a minimum of 35 years contribution for a full pension. One of the reasons people are so resentful of state provision is because they’re not only woefully ignorant/misinformed, but confidently assert that nonsense as fact.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel Sun 14-Apr-19 10:54:31

But if the state does not create jobs, how are its people supposed to live nowadays in an economy that can produce plenty using machines without human intervention? Why should people support such a system?

Answers on a postcard please!

RosaWaiting Sun 14-Apr-19 11:00:51

Dark we are a very, very long way from all the job that can be automated, being automated.

look at the situation as it is now. Do you want the government to "create" more jobs? What does that mean?

I once had 4 people come to a meeting from a government office. I needed to talk to 1 person and I'd have preferred to talk to them on the phone actually. I realised when they arrived that they had naff all to do and they pushed for a meeting as a way of getting a change of scene.

I also temped in a govt office - slightly outing this actually! - but left the temp job because it was literally a non job. My boss was on 80k, had two managers on 50k, and they sat around dreaming up things to do. Also, leftover budget was spent on things like concert tickets.

Now, I would probably stay in the job, but at the time I was so shocked by the waste of money, I didn't want to be part of it.

ChocChocButtons Sun 14-Apr-19 11:02:48

It’s typical socialist left wing attitudes, and why we need a conservative government.

I’m all for helping people in need. But I’m not paying tax etc for people to live a life of bloody Riley.

Inliverpool1 Sun 14-Apr-19 11:05:25

I think most people even the twats that think they pay enough tax yawn fucking yawn are utterly clueless as to how much THEY cost the government. Literally from birth most of us are in a deficit we will never pay back.

CanILeavenowplease Sun 14-Apr-19 11:06:27

No one ever thinks they’re going to end up disabled / have a disabled child / have a serious illness / end up old and in a hospice etc etc etc. Most people who don’t agree with a welfare state have never experienced life on the other side of the fence

I think running parallel to this is everyone knowing someone who’s circumstances are less than perfect but who manages well. I manage as a single parent of 3 - but I do that because I have no mortgage, family support to help when children were ill (although no longer), and a profession that works reasonably well around the children. It also offers a couple of income-making off-shoots which increases my income whilst working from home. It would be easy to stand and look at me and say ‘well, she manages it, so why can’t you?’ to a single mum of three with no support, massive rent, a struggle with Universal Credit, and a minimum wage job but our situations are really not comparable.

In my opinion, people thriving in the face of illness and adversity often do so because they have savings, support, family money to buy equipment needed to be able to work, skills and education that pays higher than average salaries so going part time is still a substantial income, personal resilience, good mental health etc. Of course, thousands succeed despite the adversity but it’s easy to see that for some, the obstacles are just so difficult to overcome. Unfortunately, I believe many make a choice to actively ignore the obstacles and only see people who manage and use them as a stick to beat others with. My disabled friend can work 50 hours a week so why can’t yours?

RosaWaiting Sun 14-Apr-19 11:07:42

Liverpool "Literally from birth most of us are in a deficit we will never pay back."

if that's true, it shouldn't be so hard for women to get sterilised on the NHS.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel Sun 14-Apr-19 11:08:32

We are in a situation where we are losing jobs to automation. It is blindness to suggest otherwise. Have a look at how many retail jobs have been lost in 10 years. Let's start asking these questions now before 'voluntary' euthanasia of everyone over 30 and earning less than £35k becomes a thing.

Inliverpool1 Sun 14-Apr-19 11:09:15

RosaWaiting - shall we reword that to people ? I’m happy to sterilise you if that’s what you want 🤷‍♀️

TheQueef Sun 14-Apr-19 11:09:35

The very ethos of welfare has been eroded by Tory propaganda and Labour malaise.
I'm glad I got ill when I did and feel lucky that I've had a managed reduction of work.
I wouldn't be able to navigate today's support and be ill, no chance.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel Sun 14-Apr-19 11:09:47

Look at the kind of new jobs that are being created too. Social media reputation massager? PR? It's all propaganda, bread and circuses, to keep people quiet and complacent.

Oliversmumsarmy Sun 14-Apr-19 11:09:54

DarkAtEndOfTunnel invest in small businesses.

I run a business. I employ people more on an ad hoc basis. Those people run businesses who employ people on a permanent basis.

Government shouldn’t really do anything which involves creating jobs because they are in government to run things not to be in business.
The problem is when government run “businesses” there are too many “chiefs” and no one person deciding on the direction and it all ends with overly expensive jobs.

Inliverpool1 Sun 14-Apr-19 11:11:10

I think people need to start looking at getting off the grid more seriously. I’m a long way from it personally but that’s my long term plan

DarkAtEndOfTunnel Sun 14-Apr-19 11:11:55

invest in small businesses.

That's a principle of left-wing anti-globalist economics, and yes I agree with it being a part of the solution.

RosaWaiting Sun 14-Apr-19 11:13:57

liverpool

I don't think men have nearly as much trouble getting sterilised on the NHS, hence why I said "women". I am not an expert, but I am a bit of a campaigner and participate in a group linked to the local surgery and hospital.

I won't harp on as I don't want to derail the thread.

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 11:25:04

GoneForGood-

No, not just the rich, but you should be financially stable and able to afford children. People never bother to save up, when they know they can just claim Tax Credits instead.

As I said in my original post, the world is overpopulated- we don’t actually need people of any financial status to have any more children.

GoneForFood Sun 14-Apr-19 11:29:09

I’m all for helping people in need. But I’m not paying tax etc for people to live a life of bloody Riley

May be a few years out of date, but for someone on a £50,000 yearly salary, £6 of the tax they pay monthly goes to the dwp. That’s to cover all benefits, not just Jsa.

And most people on benefits are not living the life of Riley. Most people on benefits work.

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 11:29:31

Mirime- Why is immmigration such an unpopular option? (Apart from racism, of course).

The world is overpopulated, and we have an ageing population, yet we don’t want to pay people Tax Credits, CB, Housing Benefit etc, so immigration is the perfect solution (provided we only take young, healthy, childless ones)

Supergrassyknoll Sun 14-Apr-19 11:34:38

because they're Tory scum.

Anyone can find themselves in need of help; a few mistakes, series of unfortunate events, it's despicable that this type of attitude has become acceptable to some people and they broadcast it on social media, cold and heartless.

RosaWaiting Sun 14-Apr-19 11:35:41

Witches I agree, we have a major overpopulation problem

but you mean immigration as a solution to what? Sorry, you've mentioned benefits so I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying.

SnuggyBuggy Sun 14-Apr-19 11:37:13

You can't save up if all your wages go on your basic outgoings like rent, utilities and commute.

Some smug fucker may come along and say "rent somewhere cheaper" but often the cheapest grottiest place you can find to rent is still going to be a huge proportion of your income.

Livelovebehappy Sun 14-Apr-19 11:39:14

Too many people coming to the well. We are absolutely over populated in the U.K. impacting school places, GP surgeries, A&E, roads and homes. We are at breaking point and it doesn’t matter how much more money the government make available, it will never be enough.

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 11:43:48

RosaWaiting- Immigration is the solution to having to many old people in the population and not enough workers to pay for them/ care for them.

It’s much cheaper than people here having children.

WitchesGlove Sun 14-Apr-19 11:45:08

SnuggyBuggy-

Many people could work overtime/ get a second job if they want to save up. They won’t though, because Tax Credits will pay out.

GregoryPeckingDuck Sun 14-Apr-19 11:47:51

Because these things actually make things worse. State activity costs money. That money is taken away from tax payers and prevent natural economic growth. If it actually helped I doubt anyone would object but it’s been well established that state interference is detrimental to the economy. It’s pretty basic.

GregoryPeckingDuck Sun 14-Apr-19 11:48:47

@lovelovebehapoy it’s woulfnt be an issue if British people paid for their own living costs inteasd of leeching off the state.

RosaWaiting Sun 14-Apr-19 11:49:07

Witches

that doesn't work though does it? People are going to have children, whether they are immigrants or not!

unless you start offering specific jobs and saying "you can't have DC while you are here" but then you won't get many takers!

Inliverpool1 Sun 14-Apr-19 11:49:47

WitchesGlove - so we (boyfriend and I) at the time got second jobs to save up to buy a house before kids. It didn’t help, because the salary I was on in 1999 similar roles are paying less for now.

SilentSister Sun 14-Apr-19 11:51:07

I am very much in favour of a state safety net when a person needs that help. What slightly annoys me, as previous pp's have stated, but each benefit seems to have such arbitary levels. Look at this:

"Families on incomes of up to £58,000 a year (or £66,000 a year if there is at least one child who is less than a year old) can benefit from Child Tax Credit whether or not they are working. This money is to acknowledge and support the costs of bringing up children"

This is fine, but I actually think that's quite a high threshold, they would also be getting CB up to this level.

This quote is from a NHS website for Nurses/Midwives etc, and links back to a pp who said it is awful that Nurses/Midwives are "having" to claim Tax Credits..... but this is available to all workers up to that level, and therefore not necessarily an indication of in work poverty.

Also, pp's claiming the state should run public services without profit. That's fine, until you realise that your pensions are all invested in these large profit making corporations, and that if you penalise them you are putting your final pensions at risk. You see large chunk of profits going out to investors, and think they are all private investors, they are not, they are in the main pension funds, including state pension funds.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »