I do think there is a bit of missing the point on this thread, which I understand due to the judgemental rhetoric used sometimes to talk about this challenge….. resulting in lots of people posting to justify their existence and show that they and others are not lazy or not of value/contributing. I don’t think that’s the key point.
the key point is on a systemic level. So yes, on carers, while each individual is doing a great thing morally and working extremely hard by caring for somebody, that is millions of people not paying taxes, not paying national insurance, and receiving a caring allowance, alongside the person they are caring for, who generally is also costing the state a lot. The idea that this is saving the government money is only based on the assumption that it’s the government’s job to meet all costs and needs of its citizens. While I think the state supporting people as best they can is something to be celebrated, I think somebody who has chosen to have a child, whose child needs extra care, feeling they are doing the government a favour economically and therefore ‘contributing’ by providing that care at a non-commercial rate, takes things a little far. This is actually just as true for any parent of any child. No government on the planet, promises to meet every need and cost of every child - so the parent is not doing an economic favour to the state by providing that child with some of the care (alongside the school and nhs and child benefit, carers benefit etc that the government does manage).
systemically, it’s pretty simple. The state only has the money paid to it by its citizens through taxes. It then pays out that money to cover some of the costs of its citizens being educated, kept healthy, kept safe etc…… if the first amount is less than the second amount, the country gets into more and more debt. Boosting the first amount can be done long term through growth, innovation etc. short term it can be done by raising taxes, but beyond a certain level this tends to stunt growth. The second amount (money going out), is influenced by a huge number of things - the health of people, how they age, the government’s efficiency, and how much the state attempts to support etc. .
Having this many adults non economically active (ie not producing growth/ wealth, and mostly not putting money in, while also taking money out) creates a big problem with the maths - regardless of moral issues or the value and character of any individual.
Where things tend to go wrong is when we try to turn this maths into a tug if war of moral judgement….. ideas of people being lazy/scroungers etc….. or equally, condemning high earners who are contributors as heartless, privileged people who wouldn’t know suffering if it slapped them in the face.
actual changes that change the maths however are necessary if we want the country to flourish…. Whether that be improving the population’s overall mental and physical health so they need less care, or boosting their education and capacity to innovate and become productive, or shifting the country’s ideology towards being more highly redistributive (ie raising taxes for rich), or by contrast, increasing or decreasing immigration, declaring the state has a more limited responsibility for people’s needs than before, grabbing a share of the global pie for major growth areas through incentives etc etc…… generally government is always trying to come up with some kind of winning cocktail.
they then try to justify these hard decisions through political rhetoric that will get people on board…. Whether it is anti immigration, anti scroungers, or anti rich folk….. and the population bounce around like ping pong balls judging each other….
I think we would do much better to simply look at the maths….