Just so concerned about this country

[ninnynonny]

To be honest, we, as a family are 'ok'. We're by no means well off but have a reasonable income and not huge outgoings (at the moment); but I am so worried about the state of the country economically. Just watching the national and local news today - the cost of living is insane; the Government is a huge mess - with no sign of any of them giving a monkeys about the populus, and so many thousands of people are struggling and will be in a terrible position over the next few months.
How on earth is this sustainable? What is going to happen when people simply cannot afford to, well, live, basically.
I work in the homelessness sector and can only see more families and individuals coming through the doors - and with massive funding cuts, honestly, what will happen?
I'm feeling a little hysterical over it all, for want of a better word!!
Will things improve - what has to happen?

2nd home ownership has surged in the last decade, many people really on renting their properties out for an income. A lot of these people won't want to take the hit

It is everywhere. In Australia, my 79 year old mother is on a full aged pension, her only source of income. She rents. Rent is being increased again to 68% of her pension income. No one can pay for food and all other bills on the little that remains.

She is fortunate though, we have space in the house as another older kid has just moved out, so she’s moving in with us.

I do think it's quite sad that people think those on low incomes should be happy as long as they can pay for essentials and have literally nothing spare for the occasional luxury. I'm not on about 5 star Caribbean holidays, just the odd takeaway or day out with the children. It's a sad mentality.

It's a horrible attitude

I do think it's quite sad that people think those on low incomes should be happy as long as they can pay for essentials and have literally nothing spare for the occasional luxury

I agree. The screaming of outrage you hear from some on MN if a care assistant spends £3 on a takeaway coffee is awful.

@Tealightsandd why are you always hijacking threads with pro smoking propaganda it is the most bizarre thing. Of every suggestion even encouraging more people to smoke it the WORST one ever. Yes to tax. But along with that comes all the very expensive health issues (not just an immediate quick and cheap death) that you refuse to acknowledge.
SMOKING IS NOT THE ANSWER!

02:51Tealightsandd

immersivereader

But why do we need immigrants to do healthcare / care fort he elderly? Can't homegrown Brits do it?

They can.

We need to give decent training, pay, and working conditions. And affordable stable housing. Whether British or migrant.

In short we need to start looking at where the money paid for care is actually going, rather than being obsessed with where it's coming from, it's going into the pocket of private providers while they exploit the workforce.

It's not ok to exploit cheap labour. British or migrant both deserve decent employment and housing (eg. not beds in sheds).

No but it keeps the costs down, imagine the fees and costs to the taxpayer if the workers actually delivering the care had decent wages, training and conditions on top of the profits that providers make. No one wants to pay for it as it is, and at the moment it seems acceptable to expect the workforce to soak up some of the costs and subsidise social care by paying them as little as possible, giving poor training and conditions (while expecting top quality care and pointing the finger of blame when inevitably things go wrong) and having expectations that this is ok because it's a vocation.
Care workers are actually giving good value for money to society, it's the middle men, imo, who are short changing both sides here, and that's allowed and encouraged by many because of the general attitude towards low waged workers and their worth only being counted in financial terms.

There will also be robots to do some of the work.

In all honesty I can't see care providers moving to this, robots cannot be exploited for a start. If they're broken they need fixing, they don't have accountability, if there aren't enough of them or they're not programmed well enough to provide care properly then they cannot carry the blame for that, the provider will have to accept responsibility, unlike at the moment where the provider can cut costs and then blame the fall out on their workers being inadequate rather than the resources.
I also cannot see providers investing the money that would be required in setting up and running this technology. Most insist they can't afford enough things like hoists and profiling beds to meet people's needs.
You also can't bully a robot into working when it's broken or delivering unsafe care, like you can with humans.

@Kendodd the thing though with social housing is that the buildings need to be maintained and of course most of the occupants wouldn't be able to pay for that. I own a flat, the freehold is owned by the residents, we pay a managing agent to do the day to day management (its only 34 flats but we couldn't do it on our own), the service charge is £1750 per year. It sounds like a lot, but it is necessary to have a sink fund for roof repairs and decoration etc, plus my flat is low rise and doesn't even have a lift. my uncle in singapore used to be in government and he told me about how the building authority in singapore is basically 100% responsible for the lift maintenance and the government allocates millions of dollars for the sink fund for each building (as it may cost that much to get the lifts repaired and replaced). So even though Singaporeans own their flats (85% own government built and controlled flats) and do pay a kind of tax similar to council tax, the big bills i think are ultimately shouldered by the government even though a lot of people who live in government housing are solidly middle class

The government is willing to do that as its basically a one party authoritarian state and they use the public housing system as a way to win support (and also dissuade people from voting for the opposition). They are willing to invest because they know they will be in power for the next 10 years. in the uk, a party is in power for a while and then it would inevitably lose power. With the exception of the NHS, this is why a lot of social programmes kind of lose funding after a while (and even the NHS is not immune to cuts) and run out of steam. Its why Thatcher wanted to sell off the council flats so the councils would be less responsible for the maintenance as private owners would pay service charges (which later turned out to be quite high due to years of neglect esp for the flat blocks). A public housing system is a long term investment so there needs to be sustainable funding from central goverment).

@Waxonwaxoff0

I do think it's quite sad that people think those on low incomes should be happy as long as they can pay for essentials and have literally nothing spare for the occasional luxury. I'm not on about 5 star Caribbean holidays, just the odd takeaway or day out with the children. It's a sad mentality.

Because they're seen as only having 2 functions in life - A) to provide the service they work in B) to provide tax money to keep services needed running.

And nothing more.
The lowest income people in the population are the ones expected to be the most socially responsible.

B) to provide tax money to keep services needed running.

The lowest income people don't do this though.

As a single person, with no dependents, you need to be earning 30k and PAYE to be a net contributor. The average salary is about 27k. By lowest income people, I'm assuming you mean those on below the average salary.

I do think it's quite sad that people think those on low incomes should be happy as long as they can pay for essentials and have literally nothing spare for the occasional luxury. I'm not on about 5 star Caribbean holidays, just the odd takeaway or day out with the children. It's a sad mentality.

I agree with this btw. I just wanted to mention that @SweetFelicityArkright comment about low income people keeping services running, via their taxes, is incorrect. If you earn less than 30k, then you are consuming more public services than you are paying for. Unfortunately, it's a common misconception on mumsnet that low earners are contributing to the treasury.

@FanGirlX

I just wanted to mention that @SweetFelicityArkright comment about low income people keeping services running, via their taxes, is incorrect. If you earn less than 30k, then you are consuming more public services than you are paying for. Unfortunately, it's a common misconception on mumsnet that low earners are contributing to the treasury.

Yes, so much so that you felt the need to say it twice.
Fair enough, low earners don't contribute to the treasury, point taken.
It's a point that's usually brought up in these discussions about low income and taxes, and used as a stick to beat low earners with, how they take rather than give (not suggesting you're doing that here, but it is done) and how unfair that is on higher tax payers, and used as a justification for why lower waged workers shouldn't be buying things that aren't essential to living and should just be grateful for what they have and should be thinking more socially responsible.
I admit, I got it wrong, us lower income workers aren't contributing to the 'pot' enough to balance what we use, in purely financial terms. However what's always disregarded is the other contributions that are made, that aren't rewarded financially, to keeping society running and functional.

My point was though that lower earners are disregarded as people, they're seen as a means to get essential jobs done and a drain on society for the low wages they earn doing so.

@ninnynonny

I'm sad this has turned into an anti immigration, kill useless old people type argument. I'm just really concerned about anyone in crisis because of the cost of living, energy hikes, lack of support...we all know there is money available - the Government just don't choose to give a toss about 'not them'

I can't be doing with the other dross on this thread.

Yes, op, I am concerned that the amount of money required to live a comfortable life is on the move.

The rising cost of energy doesn't look like a problem that will correct itself until the end of 2023. There is an expected 50% jump in the cap in April and another lesser jump in October.

Because there is a shortfall on the expected amount of oil extraction, the cost may go up to $100/ barrel by the end of the year, with a rise at the pumps and in an increase in goods relying on transportation.

The base rate will go up, possibly to 1% by the end of the year - so that's every variable mortgage on the rise in a fairly significant way.

Food prices, clothing prices, council tax. Basically the only thing not going up is the TV licence.

The only silver lining in this cost of living crisis is that the public will blame the tories for it. A lot of people were doing ok with low inflation prior to covid and low interest rates ( so buying a house in a modest non naice town was affordable for many on ordinary incomes) which is why a lot of red wall voters voted Tory. Cos they felt they were managing well and they probably were. Even better if you were a pensioner with a paid up house and a good pension. You were suffering far less than the single mum with 2 kids paying private rent or the young person trying to move out of his childhood bedroom.

The inflation changes things. People will suffer and they will blame the tories for it. hopefully they don't start blaming immigrants, but actually blame the people who did not help...

The Labour party only seem to be able to offer a temporary halt to vat on energy costs, saving everyone 5% which will look like small beans compared to increased bill.

I read that there are talks in play about the government offering 0% finance to energy companies so that they can even out the very high expected prices in the short term over 5 or even 10. Something like that might be more helpful but I suppose less and less viable the longer the super-high energy costs are expected to last.

@lightand

Hardly anyone is going to like what I am going to say next. But I will say it anyway, then duck. It needs to be said. As a country[and we are not the only ones], we have become less Christian as the years are going on. We are becoming less blessed by God. There, I have said it.

That is incredibly insulting and patronizing to non-Christians.

@canbage

2nd home ownership has surged in the last decade, many people really on renting their properties out for an income. A lot of these people won't want to take the hit

Well they are... through their taxes paying billions and billions on the consequences of the public health housing and homelessness emergency.

There was an interesting but unsurprising report I read today. Re life expectancy and working years. Increasing numbers of people are becoming too unwell to work years before retirement age. It's no coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the more and more get hit by the housing emergency.

The problem is less a small private landlord with just one home they're renting out. Perhaps their old starter home that they outgrew after having a family or an inherited house. We do need some private landlords.

More of a issue are investors snapping up multiple properties (outbidding FTB and pushing the prices up). And also an excessive amount of holiday home second homes (a huge problem in London for years, now spreading to other parts of the country).

We need more balance.

@ninnynonny

I'm sad this has turned into an anti immigration, kill useless old people type argument. I'm just really concerned about anyone in crisis because of the cost of living, energy hikes, lack of support...we all know there is money available - the Government just don't choose to give a toss about 'not them'

This.

And also,

the North is now suffering more - as it will, being less affluent generally than the South of England

Stereotyped regional divide narrative. I mean, compare Rishi Sunak's affluent Richmond, Yorks constituency with the London Borough of Newham, or Jaywick in Essex, or Gillingham, Kent.

London (eg. The south) is the epicentre of the housing and homelessness emergency. Two thirds of all of England's homeless families are in London. You don't get more deprived than being without a stable affordable home.

@FourTeaFallOut

The Labour party only seem to be able to offer a temporary halt to vat on energy costs, saving everyone 5% which will look like small beans compared to increased bill.

I read that there are talks in play about the government offering 0% finance to energy companies so that they can even out the very high expected prices in the short term over 5 or even 10. Something like that might be more helpful but I suppose less and less viable the longer the super-high energy costs are expected to last.

We need to use our own natural resources - coal and gas.

I'm very green. But unless we turn our lifestyles back 500 years, we need energy. There are other ways to be more environmentally friendly without leaving people destitute (eg. education and access to birth control for smaller families, more durable consumer goods including mobile phones and computers, etc).

When we're ready to switch fully to green energy, great. But we're not there yet.

But instead of using our own resources - and investing in and supporting employment opportunities - we import expensive fuel from abroad.

Which is of course, as well as being more expensive, less environmentally friendly.

[quote 4pmwinetimebebeh]@Tealightsandd why are you always hijacking threads with pro smoking propaganda it is the most bizarre thing. Of every suggestion even encouraging more people to smoke it the WORST one ever. Yes to tax. But along with that comes all the very expensive health issues (not just an immediate quick and cheap death) that you refuse to acknowledge.
SMOKING IS NOT THE ANSWER![/quote]
Because when people start spouting thinly disguised eugenics arguments about older people being a 'burden' (seen particularly wrt Covid, including government line of 'personal responsibility' freedom) it's only right to point out the irrationality and hypocrisy, of telling people not to smoke "because it will shorten your life".

And also it is true that smoking is a net economic gain.

www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money

Not that I especially recommend anyone takes it up. But the particular horror, outrage, and contempt directed at smoking is disproportionate.

I mean, the average age of death for a homeless person on the streets is just 40 something. The public health housing and homelessness emergency should be the highest priority - certainly above smoking.

As usual, I'm very glad to be in Scotland. We will have a chance to get away from the choices that are dragging all the UK member countries down.

Onwards and upwards for us.

Destitution, poverty, and unrelenting stress are bigger killers than smoking. And unlike smoking, they give no pleasure, comfort, or relief.

Destitution, poverty, and unrelenting stress are bigger killers than smoking. And unlike smoking, they give no pleasure, comfort, or relief.

I agree with you @Tealightsandd. I'm sure people who smoke know they may be shortening their lives, but there are a lot of other things which can have the same effect, but seem to be okay, it's just smoking that is demonised on MN. Great attitude isn't it - people can live on the streets, or in other dire circumstances, but let's overlook that and concentrate on stopping people from smoking (even though it is their choice to do so)!!!

Because when people start spouting thinly disguised eugenics arguments about older people being a 'burden'

I don't understand this point. Why does saying we have an ageing population & the government need to plan for that as it will be more of an issue in the next 10 years = older people are a burden. It's nothing to do with burdens or who deserves what. It's just factual that our population structure is changing & we need to adjust for that.

I guess this mentality shows why the gov avoids it as some of the population lack the critical thinking to understand that addressing it doesn't just mean kill people once they get past a certain age 🙄

@shakeitoffshakeacocktail

Depends what your disposable income is and what you class as essentials

I am classes as poor
Low income
Single parent
Private rental
35/ week job
Get £120/ month of ex
Have one DD 8 12 days out of 14

Heating (gas and electric) is only £50/ month at the moment I am already frugal with food and fuel

What can I change

Daughters clubs
Holidays
Present spending

I have a car that I need as I live rural
Don't do much shopping in town just supermarket

I can manage but I am frugal anyway
I do get benefits

I think some people don't realise what is TRULY essential

I feel like we are in a similar position. Poor but can manage. I do worry about people but am amazed the amount of skint people I know who piss money up the wall fags, nights out, holidays. I kind of look at things and am well aware a take away coffee = a nice dinner for everyone.