What would happen to you/your family if there were NO benefits/welfare system?

[Mamajoycewig]

As there's been a lot of talk around benefits in the news and a lot of strong opinions on it I was interested to know what would happen to most people if there were no welfare system in place?

Would your family suffer? Would you be on the streets?

Would you have still had kids knowing if you couldn't work there'd be no government backup?

Would you have made different life choices?

Personally, if all benefits were to be removed tomorrow then we'd be the same financially other than losing child benefit which we use for nappies/wipes etc.

My mum and brother would be screwed as he's disabled. Although if I'm honest I don't think she'd have had as many kids as she did without any top ups (4 kids). She's always worked but needed top ups.

Off the top of my head I'm guessing you're thinking about Scandinavian countries, they are the ones who don't have the indentured servitude of women as a default?

I receive ADP, I don’t know what I’d do without it tbh, wouldn’t be great for me.

No. Asian FSU.

But what I think really made a cultural difference is that when (historically) men had to go away to work, women were able to organise themselves better in their absence. So, yes Viking nations. Also Wales which had very female-friendly legal system in comparison to England and other Roman-law countries. Countries where men went mining or herding on high mountains. Or war-mongering far away.

None of that answers my question regarding those who literally don't have any family support.

Well I'd either be better off than I am now or completely destitute, or dead. I don't claim any benefits now, however I do live in social housing - so for that I'd be about £40 a month worse off because that's the difference between my rent and the 'market' rent for the same type of property.

If the welfare system wasn't there to support low paying industries like (but not limited to) hospitality and social care, then anyone employing people to provide that service would have to pay more for their staff - which means the price goes up to the people using it - because without the people doing the work, the work doesn't get done, and if they can't live on what's paid for that work then they're living under a bridge somewhere and not available to do that work, so maybe I'd be earning more and better off because I'd be getting paid more.

Or businesses would close because they can't make a/enough profit and the services would reduce or disappear completely, or be so expensive they're not used. So I'd not have a job at all and be living under that bridge, if living at all.

Either way it'd affect more than just me, because the people who use the services of those who need top ups would either find themselves paying a lot more, or that the services aren't available meaning they can't actually earn what they do now, or have the lifestyle they do now because they're at home looking after granny, or their own children etc, or they're paying a lot more to have that done.

Ultimately the welfare state supports more than those who receive money from it, but people either can't or don't want to see that and just think that without the welfare state they'd be paying less tax but otherwise not affected.

It is extremely rare for countries to have no safety net at all. Poorer countries generally have family and friends as the main safety net. But religious institutions and charities also offer services to those who have no one. Of course some people just die of starvation or untreated health issues.
But the idea that family and friends meet all needs is simply not true. Go to any country where people say this happens and you will see religious institutions and charities distributing food and helping those in need.
In Britain workhouses which were very harsh, was our official safety net. The idea was to stop people starving to death on the streets.

The other safety net some countries offer are jobs that are ring fenced for disabled people who could not do a job normally. For example, a job where a lesser performance is accepted or it is a basic and easy job. The UK did this as well with second world war veterans. Certain jobs were set aside for injured veterans who could not manage normal jobs. These were car park attendants and lift attendants. I can remember as a child car park attendants whose job was to collect money from cars entering a car park who were visibly disabled and may have had PTSD. I have also been in the Middle East and seen visibly disabled people sweeping streets very slowly. This has now disappeared from the UK.

It would be extremely rare to not have a family, because it you would have had
to walk away from all of them. And family doesn’t just mean nuclear family - it would include aunts, cousins and all manner of relations. You would be unwise to alienate everyone in your network - you can only get away with this here because of financial state welfare. In a precarious society you simply can’t leave a network of people without having a plan. I did have uncles and aunts I was not related to - often friends of my parents or other relatives. Perhaps they had moved area and so joined our household (or worked closely with our household). Perhaps they were complete orphans. You learn from early childhood to cooperate. Here it’s not so vital. But being a lone wolf is a luxury in many parts of the world. You always ensure you have something to offer and you offer it widely to build reciprocity. On mumsnet you don’t even answer your door! This is why you have an individualistic culture underpinned by a system of financial benefits.

@MrsBobtonTrent you are assuming decent family. I have no family except my nuclear family. My sister is dead as are my mother and father. My aunts and uncles are all dead and some cousins but I have three cousins still alive. One is in prison for a vicious violent attack, he is a dangerous man. Another is in a long term mental hospital for a murder. Another is free but a dangerous person. My parents both came from difficult backgrounds and purposely isolated us from our criminal and terrible extended family. The cousins who have died were one murdered, two alcoholics and one drug overdose.
People like you live in a nice cosy world where in your mind people walk away from extended family because they fall out over trivial matters. In reality many people walk away because their extended family are violent and dangerous people who they would do anything to keep their kids away from. You are incredibly naive.

It wouldn't affect me and DH as we are both lucky enough to be healthy and work fulltime but we would have to help out our elderly parents if their state pensions disappeared.

At my wedding, I wasn't able to sit two of my cousins together because one of the cousins refused to take in his disabled sister and care for her for life as he was already supporting his mother (who was living with him and his wife). The rest of the family thought that this refusal meant he was basically the scum of the earth and no one wanted to sit next to him or have anything to do with him..

So I had to give him a seat at a table where another two cousins 'graciously' agreed to sit with him.

When there is that level of societal disapproval, most people don't go against the flow. Imagine your family and friends thinking you are scum of the earth, people talking bad about you etc. And the family is also making plans anyway though it's early days (sister is years away from needing that level of support as her parents are still alive), I suspect he would buckle.

I also have a cousin whose first act after getting married was to buy a condo for her mother to live in while she lived with her in law's. This is so that her mum could look after the grandkids full time, retire from a job as a petrol station attendant and rent out her own place for retirement income. That was years ago and she has since bought a second condo for her father in law in the same development so the whole family can be together and the kids grow up with family on both sides and both parents can continue with hectic careers (which would allow them to support the elderly on both sides).

People consider their family in all life decisions, they plan their lives around it to ensure they are taken care of. And if they don't, it's seen as wrong.

It's a sad situation but you would probably qualify for help in my home country. May even get a cheap rental flat from the government (20 dollars rent per month) if you were young, had nothing and you explained your situation to the MP.

Most countries have a safety net even those which are not official welfare states but it is meant for exceptional circumstances. Hence the multigenerational norm cos most people know they don't have criminals as extended family members or unique circumstances like that and therefore can't really justify why they couldn't just live with family and save up

In my home country, MPs would write off the gas and electric bills of elderly vulnerable people by writing to the power company (government owned). They wouldn't need to pay it. But first question is do you have any children and can they pay it. If they refuse, the government would get the kids into a family counselling session and sit with them, go through their budgets, ask them why they can't spare money to help their mother. I think most people would be too embarrassed by that point..

If you dont, then fine we will write it off and get your some supermarket vouchers and get a local charity involved.

@breadandroses1992 I don't need help. My husband and I work. We earn our own living. But I do need the state pension when I can no longer work. And I do not want charity where I have to go and explain to someone why my family can not support me when I am elderly.

As I said above, we had people in our household and wider network we were not related to. If you literally have no one, then you need to find people. In the UK you can get away with this. But not in a country without a benefits system. People would be your social safety net. I’m not condoning or condemning your family situation. I’m responding to an earlier question as to how people without families manage - the answer is that they make or join a family.

In England people pay for after school care and frequently seem to have no one to call on in an emergency. If you live in a cash-poor country, these are not options. But a family friend who recently moved to your area and needed somewhere to live could cover this, or widowed MIL who moves in for company and only works mornings, or a neighbour with a car that needs frequent attention from the mechanic in your family. This is real social security. But if you prefer the lone wolf life then you have to work more hours and pay more taxes to fund it.

Just a cheery reminder for the posters on here who are so sure that they will never need any support from the state due to their own financial prudence and fiscal responsibility that you and your loved ones are only an accident or illness away from a severe and life-long disability.
All of the financial planning, cutting your cloth to match your means and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps wouldn't be much use then with no NHS and no social care or welfare systems when you suddenly require round the clock care. Also, even if you could afford them, good luck trying to find carers to employ in a country without welfare as this is often a low-paid job and many professional carers rely on UC top-ups to make ends meet so the sector would be in crisis in a future without a welfare system.
Still, if you're comfortable living in a country where only millionaires and their children can surviv while being sick or disabled then I guess you're fine with this distopian eugenicist nightmare.

@MrsBobtonTrent you are being dangerously naive. Why do you think many countries with no or little state support have children sleeping in the streets? Why do you think charities have to set up projects to help despised groups if people such as lesbian and gay people or in some cultures widows without sons? Why do you think many women stay in abusive situations because they have nowhere else to go?
What you outline is a Waltons version of family life. It works for some, and is a nightmare for others.
And by the way, the reason people often have no family who can help out is because communities were deliberately destroyed. People were told they had to move away from where their family was if there were no jobs so they could find work. So they did. Societies with very strong family ties have little geographical mobility.

I would lose child benefit which helps me massively with getting basics for children.

For me benefits have been a life saver when DH was also made redundant during covid. Benefits are not a lot but helped us keep our heads above water. We only needed to claim for a couple of months thankfully.

Again, none of that answers what happens if you don't have family support.

If you don’t have family support, you make or find a family. What sort of a person makes themselves that vulnerable? You are judging this through a British lens. It’s a different world. When you have no money, you need people. In England, when you have no money, you try and get it from the government. What happens to people that have no money and can’t get benefits?

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

No, are you? Anyone mentally unwell enough to deliberately make themselves destitute would end up in a hospital if they were alive. But people just don’t make that choice. Because it’s not a choice. Because there are no state benefits.

@MrsBobtonTrent I have no family support. It isn't something that I chose but I think it's fairly common. I can't imagine why you think it's rare.

Both my parents are dead. I have siblings but one is in the US, the others scattered across the UK. The closest is about 80 miles away. I see them once ot twice a year.

My parents sold up the family home and retired to a different region - again fairly common. Their friends did the same and lost touch.

So no, I don't have any family support. When DS and I left my abusive ex, we moved back to my favourite town. I'm lucky that I earn a decent professional salary, but I've had to work full time since ds was 2, juggling after school & holiday care. My ex does 20 nights a year if he really exerts himself. I have one friend with whom I swapped child-minding while the boys were at primary.

I've never claimed benefits. I just do it alone. There is nothing rare in my situation.

I'm making a valid point.

We would lose DLA and our mobility car but would manage ok without them.