I don't think we are a rich country anymore

[ThisHairColourIsTooDarkIThink]

I've been feeling for a while that the country is in a bit of a mess financially.

Are you feeling this and cutting back where you can (I know I am).

Telegraph headline today
Rachel Reeves ‘heading towards 70s-style IMF bailout’
Economists warn of 1970s-style debt crisis unless Chancellor changes course

I think this is why people are so up in arms about the inflow of all these young men from abroad seeking refuge.

Nobody minds helping others when we ourselves are sorted.

Lets be honest though - it's hard to get an NHS dentist or a doctors appt. Our police are falling apart (which is very scary given what they keep at bay in society), ambulances don't come fast when you have a genuine emergency, housing shortage, food prices rocketing etc.

How can we help all these people when we can't even sort out ourselves?

Anyway watched a few things recently and alot about our economy being in serious shit. It seems we are indeed in a position much like the seventies.

So I just wanted to know if others are feeling like we are on a bit of knife edge and are you all cutting back financially to 'brave the storm'

"If everything belongs to the state, you will not have the liberty to stand up against the state"

"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people"

As of August 25, the % of UC claimants in work had DROPPED to 34%.
Sadly, 2/3 of UC claimants are not working AND this number is increasing.
In relation to PIP, approx 20% of recipients are in any paid work. Again, low numbers.

What you’re talking about is a tax on aspiration. But I’m afraid I believe that where possible (clearly not in the case of moderate/severe disabilities) people should be compelled back to work. And that work should pay - assets accumulated going where you chose!

A tax on aspiration? The person is dead 🤣 the economy would have benefitted during their lifetime from them spending their wealth rather than hoarding it (housing aside). The wealthiest would have most likely inherited their wealth rather than having built it up in the first place

You think the Duke of Westminster became a billionaire from his hard work ethic? 🤣

Many of those on UC have caring responsibilities and/or unmanageable housing costs. If we were able to provide affordable housing, adequate health/social care, and affordable childcare then many of them would be able to return to work rather than relying on the state. Carers on UC are less costly than paying healthcare/social care to do the same job. But in the process carers become deskilled from their time away from work and potentially never have the opportunity or the confidence to return.

If we are going to talk about a tax on aspiration then where is the support for working mothers? Childcare costs are eye wateringly high in the UK with no state provision for the average worker until the child hits 2 or 3 (depending on which area you live in). Many mothers find their household income can't take the hit that childcare will cost them as their income is lower than the cost of childcare. We lose and penalise a large portion of our workforce and deskill them in the process (speaking for mothers who do want to work).

But no let's lick the boots of the seriously wealthy while they laugh at us

So that's the decision you make when you have children!
We only had 1 child because of that exact scenario ie I worked FT but childcare cost us nearly as much as my wage BUT it's only for a short period of time. Once they go into full time education then I was in a better place in my career because I had kept working full time.

It is responsibility of potential parents to understand the cost and make choices based on that. I don't think it's responsibility of taxpayer to fund choices. Having children is a choice, paying for them isn't a choice.

Yes - a tax on aspiration. I’ve worked my (very working class) arse off to provide for my kids. I would hope that provision would go to kids/grandkids on my death not back to the state. Sure, I’m dead. But those coming next aren’t. What you’re suggesting isn’t a tax on the most wealthy (like the Duke of Westminster - talk about choosing the most extreme example) it would apply to anyone, who has ANYTHING.

Many of those on UC have caring responsibilities- where is the data for that?
Housing costs are clearly an issue in general - I agree that we must have more social housing. But - how does that impact a persons ability to work?

Re childcare - here we agree, though I believe the extension applies for 15 hours free from 8 months. I have a 3 year old who I currently fully fund and a 7 year old who I received free hours after 3. I’ve always worked. I agree - we absolutely need to fund childcare adequately for under 5’s to allow women back to work. It’s great for tax reserves and inequality - a net positive financially. I would ensure it applies to ALL in work and looking for work (though I think both parents should have entered work within a reasonable period once In receipt of the free hours).

@twistyizzy part of the reason our economy is in a mess is due to the falling birth rate and its ratio to pensioners/upcoming pensioners. Unless we do something radical to our economic system then it does benefit us overall to enable couples to exceed the replacement rate and have 2+ children that will be future tax payers. And I'm speaking as someone who waited until they had a house, stable employment, stable marriage, savings etc until I had a child and won't have more than two. But I can recognise that having all those things before you hit 40 is borderline aspirational now when it really shouldn't be.

@kitte321 I said many not most, and the data came from the government's own stats . I'm interested in the psychology behind leaving such a large legacy behind for your family, don't you wish they'd also use their own work ethic to reach their financial goals? If you lead a healthy and long life, is there much point in bequeathing money to your 50+ year old children? Wouldn't they have benefitted more from investment during their youth? Why do you have such a strong feeling that your family members deserve large amounts of money by virtue of birth and nothing they've done or achieved? I just find it odd.

Countless threads on mumsnet have shown how inheritance destroys families, even over the most paltry amounts. I honestly think it brings the worst out of people.

How do you know I’m leaving it to my kids? I absolutely will use it to assist them through their lifetimes and perhaps I’ll choose to leave it to my grandkids ( I have have them!) Or my severely disabled niece in trust. Probably a combination. Point is - it’s taxed income and the choice should be mine. Your argument lacks nuance. My parents are leaving their estate to my mentioned niece - a decision I fully support. Should that not be allowed?

We have a demographics problem. We need proportionally more taxpayers, or for current taxpayers to pay more, or to spend less. But public services are on their knees so spending less isn’t really an option. That leaves immigration of working age people (loudly voted down) or higher taxes (loudly voted down).

So now what? 30 years of discomfort to allow the demographics to rebalance so there are fewer older people being supported by younger workers. But no one wants 30 years of that either - fewer care workers, delivery drivers, baristas, etc., and having to do more for ourselves/within our extended families.

There aren’t really other options.

It's all bollocks.

If you want to solve the money problems, start by looking where the money is / has gone.

While all this has been going down, there is one section of society that has been getting steadily wealthier, year after year. Hint: it isn't immigrants, or benefit claimants.

Totally agree with this.
When my parents die I will benefit from a six figure inheritance which I did absolutely nothing to earn. It makes most sense for me to get this, while this country is in the state it is in.

The price of food is ridiculous. Even just a few years ago staying in and having a nice meal at home was a cheap way to entertain. Not anymore.

I actually noticed this week that the price of a whole cooked chicken in Tesco is now £8. I remember a few years ago it was £5 then it went up gradually to £6.5 (which I'm sure it was quite recently). Then all of a sudden it seems to be £8.

I mean I guess £8 for a whole cooked chicken isn't that much but the price increase is huge. Inflation has to be way more than the official number they keep quoting.

And thus the problem. They try to use interest rates to control inflation (raise rates) or help growth (cut rates).

At the moment they need to do both but the rates can't go both ways.

Thus stagflation - no growth and inflation at same time. Not a good place to be

@Kitte321

"But I’m afraid I believe that where possible (clearly not in the case of moderate/severe disabilities) people should be compelled back to work."

And how are you going to compel employers to hire them? The reality is that a very large proportion of the long-term unemployed are simply unemployable - hence why they languish on UC and PIP. Workplaces have changed and unskilled manual jobs that can be done by even the lowest capability individuals are few and far between. Employers have no interest in hiring uneducated, unqualified, unskilled, unhealthy, unfit individuals.

The only solution is extremely longterm and expensive - we would need to re-model our society to ensure that children receive the best academic AND cultural education to allow them to escape toxic, low aspiration families and environments.

So we'll just carry on paying people to do nothing instead.

The price of certain products eg milk, chickens, eggs etc should never have been so low, the amount (and money) of work going into producing these is immense and they are extremely healthy nutritious foods, probably more so than the majority of foods in supermarkets.

I saw someone on a video being shocked and by the fact that a certain bottle of rose was now cheaper than milk, why the hell should milk be cheaper than rose when you think about it!! The labour and money that goes into producing milk is probably more than rose and it’s also much more nutritious and beneficial to humanity

It's all very well to say some people are completely unemployable, but a society where responsible working adults have one kid at 39 because that's when they could "responsibly" afford one, and the unemployable live a better life with more children that the rest of us would love to be able to have... is not a sustainable society.

Being able to build up a store of capital for my children is about 80% of the reason I work a very long-hours, high-skilled job.

Totally agree with this, although you're right about the unpopularity and we are probably about the only two people in the country that feel this way.

Outrage about IHT is the clearest indication of just how hypocritical and insincere our public debate about tax is. It's supposed to be really important to keep tax low in order to make sure people are rewarded properly for their labour. Great, no problem with that. So the logical thing would be to ramp up taxes on the money people get WITHOUT having worked for it (IHT, land value tax etc.) and then use that money to reduce income tax, making work pay better as well as allowing the government to invest in improving opportunities for everyone. Right?

er, wrong - because when people talk about the moral and economic case for keeping tax low, all they really mean is "I wanna get more money". And if that money accrues to them for no other reason than which particular vagina they happened to enter the world from, they'll go to whatever contrived lengths they need to to convince themselves they "deserve" it.

Yes - a tax on aspiration. I’ve worked my (very working class) arse off to provide for my kids. I would hope that provision would go to kids/grandkids on my death not back to the state. Sure, I’m dead. But those coming next aren’t. What you’re suggesting isn’t a tax on the most wealthy (like the Duke of Westminster - talk about choosing the most extreme example) it would apply to anyone, who has ANYTHING.

I believe IHT is currently applied to something like 6% of estates (and that's applied at all - some of those will be where the amount payable is negligible). There's a hell of a lot of room between there and the kind of total state appropriation of everything people here are being hysterical about.

But the basic principle stands: If we're serious and genuine about respecting the link between labour and reward, we should increase taxes on unearned income and use the money to reduce the burden on earned income.

I’ve spent 20 years living in Less developed countries African and South American countries. The comparison is not with them, it’s with other advanced, industrialised economies.

Of course we haven’t yet reached absolute levels of poverty. Celebration time, you’re setting the bar very low.

This!

The Duke of Westminster inherited £10 billion worth of assets and paid ZERO inheritance tax. The rich pay huge amounts to create trusts that use every trick to avoid paying any tax. There is plenty of money, it just never goes into the nation's coffers to help us.

So the money I could give to my children when I die only goes back to the state, then why should I work hard, buy a home, pay in to a pension or do anything to improve my lot as I could just live on benefits and have that all paid for me?

It won't affect the really wealthy as they will work out a way around it, by maybe putting all their assets owned by an off shore company or something.

Even if they just said to these really rich people, look we can try and unravel your complex trusts that will cost you and us loads of money or you can just pay £1 million per £billion you have it would make a difference to our NHS etc.

Silly question but why don't you just give it them while you are alive? I pay extra into my dc's pensions and there is a thread about how one mumsnetter has her wages topped up by her mum.

If we had 100% IHT, everyone would spend more and save less. There would be less money for investment which keeps the economy moving forward, and more people would fall short at the end of life and have to be topped up.

Truss caused this, in August 2022, 10yr gilt yields were 1.8%, a month latter, with her mini budget, 4.4% and they have been around this mark ever since.

Then we had Hunts NI cuts, that costs the Govt £10billion per year to fund... money we haven't got.

To put that in perspective, £10billion would fix NHS dentistry and go a large way towards solving social care crisis.