To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

I've been homeless and even then it never even occurred to me to seek government help, it was up to me to resolve my situation. Decades ago people didn't want to take "charity", nowadays no one wants to take responsibility for themselves and quite happily sponge off people earning far less than them.

I'm glad you got out of being homeless and hope things are better for you now. I've no idea how you managed homelessness, including getting food, without any help or charity? Did you beg? (which is taking charity). Steal? Squatting was legal decades ago so perhaps you did that?

Several decades ago there were better funded public services. Several decades ago disabled people unable to work were supported and people didn't resent it. There was compassion. Several decades ago housing was more affordable and people could afford to do lower paid work without needing extra help. Several decades ago fewer people had to move away for work or housing so were more likely to have family support nearby. Several decades ago you could walk into a job without experience and get trained up. Several decades ago people had family doctors who knew them so there was continuity of care.

'Taking responsibility'. What do you suggest? How do you magically stop illness or disability, or one parent fucking off and not paying child maintenance, or an abusive relationship, or other unplanned shitty life events? Shit sometimes happens and sometimes people need support.

Effective and early help would reduce the numbers of people needing longer term state dependancy. It would also prevent many cases of homelessness in the first place. It all comes down to investing in public services, social housing, the NHS, a supportive benefits system, improved CMS, and work and training opportunities.

Break even is about 36K for a childless person in reasonable health.

The vast majority on here are definitely not net contributors.

Nobody earning £36K a year is paying net tax

They quite possibly are if they’re childless and healthy.

Nobody earning £36K a year is paying net tax let alone a paltry £12K.

The level of financial illiteracy on here says it all.

I've read posts on here saying schools should provide "relationship education" so that women don't end up with men who won't commit to them. No, that's the parents' job. Schools really shouldn't be teaching about relationships beyond the basics, i.e. sexual consent and so on. I really wouldn't be comfortable with my daughter's teachers holding classes where they say things like, "Girls, if he hasn't proposed after three years, dump him." It's not appropriate, and more to the point, it's not the school's duty.

It’s not a constant though. Most working people without school age children are probably net contributors. So you have a few years pre children when you are, followed by about 20 years when you’re not and then the years up to retirement of net contribution and your last years when you’re not again. Across my working life I reckon I was a net contributor for 27 years out of 45, particularly in the 20 years of being a higher rate tax payer.

Whilst "everyone" might pay tax, very few people are net tax payers compared with what they take from "the system". Wasn't it last year that less than 50% of adults actually are net tax payers anymore? i.e. most people take more than they put in. That is not sustainable nor equitable.

Do you not see yourself, and the views you express here, as "very right wing"?

If not, what would "very right wing" look like, to you?

you only have to look at the recent stomping of the feet and ranting in response to the government’s plans to address the benefit/disability process, to see that people are just becoming more and more dependent on the authorities or tax payers

Do you think people choose to be disabled?
It's not a fun carefree life. I know someone who's unable to work. It's really really shit for them. They used to work btw and they're still a taxpayer. Everyone is, working or not.

Do you not realise there's no magic protection for you? You could one day become unable to work and in need of support.

The 'feet stomping' is because the plans 'to address the process' won't address it. They'll make things worse and make people more ill. Even if you don't have empathy for the disabled, it's false economy again. The consequences will be increased demand on NHS, social care, and the police (mental health crisis).

You want the same as me. Less dependancy on the state.

What's needed to prevent increased dependancy on the state isn't a punitive benefits system that makes people ill. What's needed is tackling the root causes.

Provide early and effective support. Invest in public services, housing, education and training, and the NHS, and it will pay off. This is relevant for disabled people but also the other social problems discussed on this thread.

Employer attitudes is another issue that needs addressing. Many businesses no longer want or can't afford to provide training on the job. They also don't want to hire longterm unemployed or disabled people. They don't want or feel unable to make adjustments or offer flexible work options. That needs to change. Encourage and support businesses to do this.

Anyone earning over £12,570 p.a. pays tax and yet that tax often goes to people on benefits getting astronomical tax free sums well in excess of what the tax payers themselves earn.

It is time people took responsibility for themselves instead of taking money from those worse off them than them in many cases.

I've been homeless and even then it never even occurred to me to seek government help, it was up to me to resolve my situation. Decades ago people didn't want to take "charity", nowadays no one wants to take responsibility for themselves and quite happily sponge off people earning far less than them.

When mine were small (they are 29 and 26), pre-school nurseries would not have three year olds who were not potty trained enrolled. It focussed the mind. We also paid about £800 a term for it. Three hours for four/five days a week. No free nursery hours, no nursery vouchers, labour revoked that scheme in 1997.

I wonder if disposable nappies are more comfy now than then? When did was born in 1998 girl nappies and boy nappies had only just ceased. Gah, pampers in pink packaging for girls and blue for boys. Huggies gave DS a rash! Perhaps a damp feeling gave the infant more incentive?

Unfortunately many parents now view school as being a "service" they are a customer of, a.k.a. low-cost childcare, and not a "duty" they have.

I read a thread a while ago by a woman complaining that her son was being "settled in" to Reception. She wanted him in school from 9am to 3pm from day one. Posters pointed out that the settling in period is meant to make it easier for the child to adjust. Her reply was that teachers should remember that parents, not children, pay their wages, and they should put the parents first. It didn't seem to occur to her most parents would want their children's needs to be put first!

And not be embarrassed by it.

Regarding children starting school in nappies, I find it hard to believe that a 5 year old child with no special needs/disabilities is unable to recognise the signs of needing to use the toilet

Look at Bronson Battersby's mother. She left her two-year-old son with his sixty-year-old father over Christmas, and he starved to death after his father died of a heart attack. The mother blamed Bronson's social worker for not forcing her way into the flat when she didn't get an answer, even saying, "we rely on social services to keep our children safe". She hadn't even tried to contact her own toddler or his father for weeks, yet she blamed the social worker.

There was an MN thread a while ago saying children should be in school until late evening every day! People were agreeing and saying the current school day is "not fit for purpose". The purpose of school is to educate children, not to facilitate parent's careers!

Yep, toothbrushing, feeding breakfast and lunch and now increasingly nappy changing, toilet training, use of cutlery, putting shoes on, pulling up pants in the toilet not in hallway, teaching how not to be aggressive, swear at adults, throw things when instant gratification isn't provided, teaching how to self soothe. Expect children to learn how to read, write, become numerate and develop critical thinking skills in addition to the 20 or so other topics on a curriculum... Maybe by age 12 instead of 8.

Exactly right. Once parents realise that the teacher will do their kids morning tooth brushing routine, they will stop doing it at home.

I worked long hours when my kids were small, but would have been ashamed to have a teacher teach my kids to use a toilet, keep clean, use cutlery or read, or provide them with uniform items.

It's utterly shameful how much some parents are expecting the schools and other people to do for their kids. It's always been the way, but I think it's getting worse/

Not state as such, but relating to personal responsibility. The older I get, the less inclined I am to sympathise with people who make poor life choices then expect people to feel sorry for them. We're living in a climate where people feel comfortable to make any manner of fuck up and then blame anything/anyone but themselves (though perhaps the nanny state has played it's part in this attitude?).

Self pity is amongst the most damaging of emotions, but it's become an expectation that we should encourage each other to wallow in it.

#bekind (😬)

Well Mrs Scott was possibly incorrect. Apparently bogey eaters have better immune systems. Good for the microbiome too innit 😂

I think you’ll find paying NI from 16 to 66 is “planning themselves for their own personal retirement for half a century.” Most of today’s pensioners also have occupational pensions on which they pay income tax.

That’s me. And still working a couple of days a week too.
Let’s hope assisted dying and a choice about when to die is passed as law. Because I also would like a safe, pain-free choice, rather than the DIY alternative.

What the heck??

So...the chaotic should pay peanuts?

They probably get a ''Five finger discount'' anyway.

Sadly for some children school is the only normality in their lives, the only guidance they will receive, the only support they will get and the only happy memories they’ll have.

I think you're talking hyperbolic shit.

I've not seen anyone ever say they think the govt should pay for their children to get to school, to pay for all food, to get someone else to do parental discipline.

That doesn't mean people should not get free travel, free school meals, or extra support in the classroom where warranted.

Surely having experienced being homeless firsthand, you wouldn't want anybody else to go through what you did? (Social housing is cheaper for the state than temporary accommodation, btw, for PP concerned about state finances).

You say one of your DC is disabled. Lots of disabled people can work but many others can't (or struggle to find businesses willing to take them on). Your own DC might one day need social housing. Or would you rather they ended up homeless?

Social housing is very much needed and there should be no shame being a social tenant. However I don't think it would cause a massive fall in house prices.
Even if prices fell a little, it would be across the board (except luxury mansions). Your house might see a small fall in value but so would the house where you want to live. Your position would be the same as now. You can't afford where you want. Either that changes one day (higher wages or some other change in circumstances) or they won't.

There wouldn't likely be big falls in prices because many people would still like to own. Later in life the mortgage will be paid off (and there'll be equity if they need to free up some cash). Whereas social renters will, in retirement, still have the extra monthly cost of rent.

You post implies you're struggling to afford your home? Budget stretched to the limit? I definitely hope it doesn't happen but what would you do if you lost your job or became ill and couldn't afford the mortgage payments? Homeless and temporary accommodation again.... Unless there was more social housing.