How is the current benefits system sustainable?

[OneLemonOrca]

This is kind of a sub thread from the public enquiry thread about child development.
More and more people are being diagnosed with autism and severe anxiety, and being deemed unfit to work full time or at all.
I am wondering what is going to happen or how this will actually be sustained. Is there going to be changes in eligibility to benefits? Is there anyone that actually knows?

Want a war? Dont worry weve got money for that
Want a tax cut or NI cut? Don't worry we've got the money for that
Inheritance tax cut? No worries we've got the money
Subsidising employers to pay less money in wages while maximising shareholder dividends? We've definitely got the money for that
Pet vanity project like sending demonised immigrants to an unsafe country? Absolutely we have as much money as you need for that

What's that you say a high benefits bill because of people out of work because of illness and not because of outrageous housing benefits costs? Nope sorry no money left

They can’t force employers but they can provide tax incentives and employ these people themselves. A lot of people get their confidence back once given an opportunity, but for many of these people long hours are unrealistic.

Ensuring people have acess to timely and effective help, would reduce the numbers of people needing benefits, reduce the length of time people needed benefits, and reduce the amount of money they needed.

Loads of examples just on MN.

People waiting too long for medical treatment (often extra long waits because of doctor 'fobbing off') so needing benefits because by the time they get the care they need their health has deteriorated.

People fleeing DV having to give up their jobs and go on benefits to go to a refuge because there's not enough social housing

Primary carer parent needing benefits because child support system is a mess and lots of NRPs get away without paying up

People in work needing benefits because there's not enough social housing.

People needing benefits because there's 916,000 total job vacancies in the UK, but over 1 million people on jobseekers benefits (the 1 million doesn't include people on sickness benefits).

As I said in my previous post. The false economy approach not only doesn't work but it makes things worse for everyone. Financially, and effect on quality of life both on an individual level and wider societal one

Universal basic income?

I think this is an interesting idea in principle, but in reality I think it would simply drive inflation up to a point where it wouldn't make a difference anymore, and we'd be back to where we started.

It's not, 54% of people get more in benefits than they pay in tax. The whole thing will eventually collapse, just a matter of time now.

Most of the 'benefits' bill is pensions.

There are far fewer claimants now than 20 years ago. DLA was changed to PIP with much harsher criteria to get millions off it.

Incapacity benefit was changed to ESA with harsher criteria to get people off it.

Single mums can no longer claim income support until their youngest is 16, they have to go out to work from when they are 3.

Have you read the beveridge report? People pay National Insurance so they have a safety net.

Some people are unemployable. You want cardboard city back?

The state pension age will keep rising.
Benefits will be frozen.
Disability benefits will have higher bars to obtain them.

Indeed. If workplaces were forced to actually be disability compliant then more disabled people would be able to access work. However, DLA / PIP is not income related & most people in receipt of benefits are in work / retired.

Yes and no. Yes, workplaces should be more disability friendly in their hiring and retention practices, but No it wouldn't get everyone off benefits.

Firstly because there's not enough jobs (and it looks like there's going to be even fewer soon going by articles posted by a previous poster on planned job cuts. Perhaps the lack of jobs is related to the rise in state pension age? If older people aren't retiring there's less job vacancies.

There's already more jobseekers than job vacancies.
916,000 job vacancies, but over 1 million people on jobseekers benefits (the 1 million doesn't include people on sickness benefits).

Secondly, lots of people are on benefits despite being in work because there isn't enough social housing.

If you earn £30k you pay £7 a year towards unemployment and £753 to pensions.

It's state funded pensions that need looking at before the sick, unemployed and disabled.

But the government won't touch that because it'd lose them votes... Instead they up the cruelty to those at the bottom and the monstrous, immoral and hateful creatures that support the government cheer them on.

Secondly, lots of people are on benefits despite being in work because there isn't enough social housing. or affordable child care, or insufficient wages.

However the severely disabled and elderly being encouraged towards assisted dying may in the longer term, when it's become more socially desirable and a moral obligation to have in place, help balance costs a little.

Most of them can’t be disability compliant in the way posters on here want them to be.

Many employers are relatively small. They can’t afford to dole out 20 ad hoc ‘mental health’ days per year to one employee, they can’t afford multiple bouts of one employee being signed off with whatever health issues, they can’t afford the HR rigmarole and multiple adjustments one person needs.

When disability adjustments meant wheelchair ramps or a disabled toilet it was fine. But now it seems to be a case of making adjustments which mean the work isn’t actually getting done but the wages still need to be paid.

Disability benefits are only a small part of public spending (as you specifically mentioned DLA, i presume you are also hinting at PIP). Even if we stopped all disability benefits we'd only save 4% of public spending. Its about 12% of welfare spend.

I think we need to look elswhere to make the big savings.

When disability adjustments meant wheelchair ramps or a disabled toilet it was fine. Yes, because they could just not put them in! The promised utopia never happened.

So sick of making the short list with disability confident employers, then being interviewed in a cafe because no access 'but of course we'll get them if you get the position.' But funnily enough, I never did.

@Againname It wouldn't 'get everyone off benefits' no but my own anecdata experience is of being employed, with severe longterm mobility issues. I made it clear at interview that I couldn't drive far & that stairs were a problem. 3m in (after I'd come off my ESA) I was told I'd need to drive 100m daily & use an office up a steep staircase. No 'flexibility' available despite my PIP dx etc. This was a MH charity who took on contracted out NHS work. I eventually became unwell & they let me go as I could not do the job (I could not walk by that point). A waste of everyone's time except theirs (no doubt they got 'points' for being disablity friendly when they were anything but. Society can do better.

So, what do you think the cause is? We should go upstream and look at that, yes?

I've worked and paid tax for 42 years and by the time I get my state pension I'll have paid tax and NI for over 50 years. I think I deserve it.

Interesting.

You feel you deserve it, like you feel entitled.

Often on MN I'll see someone say something like,
"Why did you have kids and rely on benefits if you couldn't afford them?"

Well,
"why don't pensioners plan for retirement when they could afford it instead of being reliant on benefits?"

And if they don't need the pension, why claim it?

If pensioners are the goose, the sick, disabled and poor are the gander...

The benefits bill is nothing compared to the colossal transfer of wealth from public to private hands that goes on. They like to keep everyone squabbling about the benefits bill and immigrants so they aren't looking up at how the establishment have perpetually ripped the proles off since time immemorial. The benefits aren't for poor people, they are subsiding rich twats so they can pay their workers crap money, pay their extortionate rents. ''Twas ever thus.

Paying into an insurance scheme that gives you a pension isn't being reliant on benefits, regardless if it is the State Pension, or a Private Pension.

The government re-described it in legislation as a 'benefit' officially "in order to root it within the existing social security framework as a statutory scheme paid out of monies in the National Insurance Fund."
Even the Tories acknowledge it's still the State Pension that they encouraged people to pay into AS their plan for retirement.

I claim PIP for autism and MH issues and my DS also gets UC and PIP for autism. I was on means-tested benefits for over a decade as a carer and single parent, but then I got married and happily we're quite well off as a family now (I have 2 more dcs). Financially we're secure but I am still disabled and a carer so I claim those benefits, but I could manage if we were no longer entitled. But it shows there are ways of coming off means-tested benefits which aren't an awful outcome.

@medianewbie Particularly shocking it was a mental health charity and contracted by the NHS. I'm sorry that happened to you, and you're absolutely right society can and should do better

Separately with state pensions. A previous poster made the point already about the wrongness of pitting vulnerable groups against each other. Both the disabled and pensioners deserve financial support. UK state pension is lower than many other countries, and pensioner poverty is increasing. Haven't got the figures to hand right now but there's something like several million pensioners in poverty.

I’m only commenting as you’ve volunteered all the information but it’s claims like this that mean the system is utterly unmanageable and those in severe need don’t get the level of payment they deserve

I’m also surprised you were able to have the time for further children given your full time caring duties and disability if I’m honest.

@TuesdayWhistler I have planned for retirement. But that planning has included the state pension which I've been told I'll get. And when I started work I was told I'd get it at 60. I have no issue with it being 67. But it has been part of my planning. People who don't bother to save for their retirement should get it but those of us who do shouldn't? How is that fair.

I think they'll change some of the PIP descriptors to make it harder to get. It isn't really fit for purpose anyway.
And the work capability assessment is set to change. So many people are currently being found unfit for work it isn't sustainable.