Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

To want a society where we just pay for ourselves

1000 replies

LettingTheBadThingsGo · 02/07/2026 11:15

Okay this is going to get some backs up but it's also how I feel so..
I wish we could just live in a society where we all just pay for ourselves.
So you want to have children - you pay for it all yourself. No benefits of any kind.
You want to see a GP - You pay a fee and get the service
You need the police - You pay a fee and get the service
You want education for your kids - you pay for it and get to choose where to send them

Nobody gets a pension or any benefits. However we all know this and as such we pay no tax/NI and save for ourselves.

Obviously there would have to be a phased input over a large number of years (like 30)

I want to know that if I need the police I can get them here in 5 mins. If I need an ambulance I want to know I can get it here in 5 mins. I don't want to not have these services because there is a rubbish 'free' service because there is not enough being allocated to them because it's all being spent on things I disagree with (welfare, council houses)

This would make everyone responsible for themselves. Those who work hard would be better off. Those who don't work will be worse off. Seems fair to me.

Everyone would save from day 1 in case they become ill or disabled and need to support themselves or have a disabled child (although they could choose not to have children in the first place).

I find it very weird that we live in a capitalist society where so many people are being supported by welfare. To me that is the opposite of a capitalist society.

Obviously there are some things that could never be allocated to each person such as defence of the country. There would have to still be a 'country charge' to every person to cover things that just could not be split. Street lighting would probably have to come under this as well. However roads could be covered by a charge to each person based on their mileage each year.

Yes it would take lots of thought and as I said would have to be implemented over a large number of years. However this would lead to a more productive society as well as better services. Obviously on the basis of a thread I haven't thought everything out but hopefully you all get the idea.

Anybody who didn't want to live like that could leave of course and live somewhere else.

So anyone else agree - no tax or ni - save and pay for yourself. Just pay a 'country charge' to cover things that can't be allocated like defence of country. Everything else is private (healthcare, police, pensions) and you save for it all yourself.

The only people who I can imagine not wanting this is those that live on the hard work of others ie life time welfare claimants. For everyone else surely they would be better off.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:17

Historical/partial examples: Pre-20th century US/UK had less welfare, more private charity/mutual aid, and user fees. Utah's LDS Church welfare system shows private/religious mutual aid reducing poverty effectively. Private security, schools, and some EMS exist widely today

Luddite26 · 02/07/2026 13:17

We had societies like OP suggests before. Elizabethan times. Poor Laws were established because it wasn't working then. When we only had a tiny population compared to now.
There would be mob rule if people were hungry. @LettingTheBadThingsGo would need the police on hand permanently because crime would be rife.
If everyone chooses not to have all these pesky kids society would die out.
We have what we have now because what OP wants didn't work. It certainly wouldn't now with millions of people.

AnyDayNowChuckJacksonNSoul · 02/07/2026 13:17

frozendaisy · 02/07/2026 11:20

Bit early for gin isn’t it?

And Class A drugs.

Maomee · 02/07/2026 13:18

It all works in theory until you factor in the fact you'll likely get stabbed for your wallet withing 30 seconds of leaving your front door.

Not only would this sort of thing cause people already in poverty to slide further into it, there'd be so many of them it would be impossible to police (without further great expense), people don't get less stabby when they're starving and desperate.

Wheelz46 · 02/07/2026 13:18

I work and fully capable of supporting myself but your option is absurb.

What about the vulnerable members of society who might be exploited by someone.

• What if they lose their life savings due to coercion and manipulation or basic theft? (How will they continue to leave, add in if they lost their job due to redundancy)
• What if someone is being financially abused and in a coercive relationship so no access to money? (They cannot afford to get help)
• What if you need hospital treatment due to violence, life savings taken or don't have any due to an age where you have only just started earning, how will they afford the hospital bill?

That is just a couple of scenarios where it could get extremely messy, thank goodness you are not running the country 😬

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:18

A better reworked model would be a pragmatic, hybrid "responsibility-first" system that retains core elements of the original post (personal accountability, low taxes, market-driven services, and choice) while addressing its key weaknesses: equity for the unlucky/vulnerable, public goods coordination, transition risks, and political/social stability. Pure libertarian models are intellectually clean but fragile in practice; successful real-world high-performing societies (e.g., Singapore, Switzerland, historical Hong Kong) blend markets with targeted, limited government roles.

Core Principles of the Reworked Model

Default: Personal Responsibility — Individuals and families primarily fund their own needs through earnings, savings, insurance, and voluntary choices.

Minimal but Effective Government — Limited to core public goods (defense, courts, basic rule of law) plus targeted safety nets for uninsurable risks. Fund via low, broad-based taxes or charges, not high progressive income taxes.

Markets + Competition — Privatize or voucherize where possible for efficiency and innovation.

Mandatory but Empowering Savings — Compulsory elements to prevent free-riding and myopia, without full welfare dependency.

Phased, Evidence-Based Transition — Decades-long rollout with pilots and adjustments.

Exit and Experimentation — Allow opt-outs, charter cities, or state-level variation for competition.
Key Features of the Reworked Model

Taxation and Funding:
Low flat income tax (e.g., 10-15%) or consumption-based taxes (VAT with exemptions for basics) + user fees/mileage charges for roads.
"Country charge" for defense, national courts, and core infrastructure, scaled by income or flat.
No payroll taxes (NI) for welfare. Revenue funds minimal government + targeted aid. This raises more than zero taxes but far less than current high-welfare
states, minimizing disincentives.

Healthcare:
Mandatory Health Savings Accounts (like Singapore's Medisave) seeded from wages/tax credits. Individuals own and invest the funds.
Catastrophic insurance (high-deductible) required, with community-rated or subsidized pools for pre-existing/genetic conditions.
Private providers dominate delivery; government provides vouchers/subsidies only for the poor/disabled (time-limited where possible).
Incentives for healthy behavior (premium discounts). This promotes responsibility while covering tail risks that pure markets fail on.

Education:
Universal vouchers or education savings accounts for parents to choose public, private, or homeschool options.
Core curriculum standards funded publicly at a basic level; extras paid privately.
Competition drives quality; poor performers lose students/funding. Charitable scholarships for high-ability low-income kids.

Pensions and Retirement:
Mandatory personal pension accounts (expand CPF-style or US 401k/IRAs) with auto-enrollment and employer matches.
Government guarantees only a very minimal floor (e.g., basic subsistence for the elderly who exhausted savings through no fault).
Encourage family support and private annuities.

Welfare and Safety Net:

Time-limited, work-conditioned aid for able-bodied adults (e.g., 2-5 years lifetime, job training required). Modeled on successful reforms that reduced long-term dependency.
Strong private charity, mutual aid societies, churches, and community funds encouraged via tax deductions.
Disability/serious illness: Needs-based, medical-reviewed support with asset tests and rehabilitation incentives. Adoption/fostering incentives for disabled children to reduce "choose not to have" harshness.
Unemployment: Short-term insurance, not indefinite.

Policing, Emergency Services, and Infrastructure:
Core public police/fire funded by the country charge for baseline response everywhere (response time guarantees).
Private security, paid patrols, and insurance-linked services for enhancements. Competition and reputation regulate quality.
Ambulances: Mixed public baseline + private options.
Roads/lighting: User fees + local property-based charges.

Other:

Defense and borders: National funding.
Environment/basic regulation: Limited to clear externalities (pollution, fraud).
Immigration: Skills-based with sponsor responsibility (no immediate welfare access) to avoid importing dependency.
Implementation and Transition

Phased over 25-40 years: Start with younger generations under new rules; grandfather existing benefits. Build mandatory savings first.

Pilots: Test in regions or charter cities (e.g., special economic zones with opt-in rules).

Safety valves: Strong private charity tax incentives, family responsibility laws, and a small "opportunity fund" from growth dividends.

Monitoring: Independent audits, sunset clauses on programs, and data-driven adjustments.
Why This Is Better: Addressing Original Weaknesses

Handles Edge Cases: Pure self-pay ignores bad luck, children with disabilities, recessions, or mental health. Targeted, conditional aid prevents destitution without creating permanent underclass.

Equity vs. Incentives: Rewards work/hardship while providing a trampoline (not hammock). Evidence from welfare reforms shows conditionality reduces poverty traps.

Public Goods: Ensures minimum universal access to policing/defense, avoiding "rich enclaves only" chaos.

Political Feasibility: More palatable than full elimination of safety nets; builds broad support while shrinking government over time.

Outcomes: Likely higher growth, innovation, and personal agency (as in high-freedom economies), with better services via competition. Singapore shows excellent health/education results at lower cost.

Risk Mitigation: Mandatory savings counters behavioral biases; insurance pools spread catastrophic risks.
Potential Drawbacks and Nuances

Still Requires Culture: High trust, work ethic, and family stability help enormously. Low-trust or fragmented societies may need stronger enforcement.

Inequality: Markets amplify differences in talent/luck. Counter with equal opportunity (education vouchers) rather than equal outcomes.

Transition Pain: Elderly/current dependents need bridges; sudden change risks unrest.

Government Creep: Any state role risks expansion—strong constitutional limits, decentralization, and competition (federalism or charter cities) are essential.

Measurement: Success metrics beyond GDP: mobility, life expectancy, crime rates, savings rates, charity levels.
Related Considerations and Alternatives

More Radical: Closer to the original (full privatization + voluntary charity) could work in small, high-capital, ideologically aligned communities but scales poorly.

More Moderate: Nordic-style with high taxes but flexible labor markets and activation policies—good outcomes but heavy burden on workers.

Evidence Base: Look at Singapore (responsibility + markets), Estonia (digital, low tax), or US states with low taxes/high mobility (e.g., Utah's private welfare networks).

This reworked model captures the original post's spirit of fairness through responsibility while being more robust, humane, and implementable. It prioritizes empowering individuals over both unchecked welfare and harsh laissez-faire. Real change would need cultural buy-in, strong institutions, and experimentationstarting with expanding choice and savings vehicles today.

StrictlyCoffee · 02/07/2026 13:18

So what if someone is born with disabilities that means they can’t save at all? They’re left to die?

YABU

Birdsofafeatherrr · 02/07/2026 13:19

OP this is giving tell me you're very young and privileged without telling me you're very young and privileged.

Wait until life catches up with you babe and feel the full horror of remembering you wrote this.

Pinkchickenwine · 02/07/2026 13:20

LettingTheBadThingsGo · 02/07/2026 12:22

Silly answer. I don't even drink at all.

What’s your excuse for such a ridiculous post then?

Stupidity?

Wind up?

what happens if someone is disabled from birth? Do they get left to die, they’ve not saved enough tax and NI to have arranged a insurance policy. Do
their parents pay for it? So only the rich can have children, in case?

What insurance company is going to pay repeatedly for say heart issues?

I think that you need to think a bit deeper into this.

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:20

StrictlyCoffee · 02/07/2026 13:18

So what if someone is born with disabilities that means they can’t save at all? They’re left to die?

YABU

thats what generally happened pre medieval societies

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:20

Pinkchickenwine · 02/07/2026 13:20

What’s your excuse for such a ridiculous post then?

Stupidity?

Wind up?

what happens if someone is disabled from birth? Do they get left to die, they’ve not saved enough tax and NI to have arranged a insurance policy. Do
their parents pay for it? So only the rich can have children, in case?

What insurance company is going to pay repeatedly for say heart issues?

I think that you need to think a bit deeper into this.

they did die before medieval times

Pinkchickenwine · 02/07/2026 13:20

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:20

thats what generally happened pre medieval societies

Is that when OP was born do you reckon?

Lifeomars · 02/07/2026 13:21

Stella1366 · 02/07/2026 13:13

If you feel that strongly fuck off to the US and see how you like it

Just btw, where were you educated. The basics of insurance, supply and demand and basic economics have escaped you.

PS: Edited as I note that you're university educated and worked in finance, albeit not recently. We'll just go with a selfish, mean minded with no care for social awareness kind of personality.

Edited

They claim to have a career in finance before they retired which is interesting as they seem to lack basic maths

lessglittermoremud · 02/07/2026 13:21

Notonthestairs · 02/07/2026 12:55

You wouldn’t just have to pay for the murder investigation but the court, court staff etc and then pay for the attacker to be imprisoned for as long as you could afford the fees!

so I’m going to pay the police to get them to investigate the case before it heads to court so that a strong case is built?! then pay for the cell, the wardens etc
Who is going to pay for the police cars, the roads they are travelling on, maintenance of their vehicles etc if we are all just paying for the bits we use directly 🤔

ByKindNavySwan · 02/07/2026 13:21

Birdsofafeatherrr · 02/07/2026 13:19

OP this is giving tell me you're very young and privileged without telling me you're very young and privileged.

Wait until life catches up with you babe and feel the full horror of remembering you wrote this.

Apparently they graduated 35 years ago so presumably benefitted from heavily subsided if not free university studies.

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:23

Pinkchickenwine · 02/07/2026 13:20

Is that when OP was born do you reckon?

the thing is people want the best of both systems , pay little tax but use all the services, well for that society needs a whole new economic system

Ohveryfunny · 02/07/2026 13:23

LettingTheBadThingsGo · 02/07/2026 12:40

The aim of the thread isn't to ask how every little thing would work. That would need far more thought and working out. Not for one second do I think the change would be easy to implement nor be able to happen over a short term period.

The aim of the thread is should adults pay for themselves? I honestly can't see why this answer is no.

It's not even a moral question; it makes more practical sense to not individualise payment. You've suggested people pay if they want to call an ambulance out. OK, so to even do that, someone's got to buy and equip an ambulance. Who pays for that? Apparently it costs £120-180,000 (courtesy of Chat GPT) so will each individual have to pay that before they can get medical attention? The devil is in the detail, and you can't expect your proposal to be taken seriously if you don't even engage with that.

There's more, of course.You have to employ staff to be on call - who pays for them? Otherwise you'll be ringing 999 and be told 'OK, we'll put it on indeed.com today, so we can get paramedics out to you in two months'. Who pays the staff up till the point where you have an accident? Then to even recruit the staff, you've got to have people who've gone to medical school and qualified - are they supposed to pay for all that before they ever start earning, on the assumption they'll earn it all back? On and on it goes. Compared to this, our current system looks amazingly practical and usable.

AvidMauveCrab · 02/07/2026 13:23

There’s disillusion with the welfare state and the government and then there this…. I definitely think that SOME people do not take enough personal responsibility and are happy to live a lifestyle which is wholly funded by the tax payer and are happy to contribute nothing, but this concept would never work. Who funds our defence, our prisons, our courts? What happens if you’re the victim of an awful crime at a young age or suffer a tragic accident as a child that prevents you from working, or you’re orphaned? Who pays for this person? Who takes on this responsibility? I personally do believe that there’s an over reliance on the benefits system in the UK but that doesn’t mean that those who can’t fully financially support themselves should be left to suffer. As others have said, there are countries with this kind of set up that you may wish to consider moving to.

StarsShiningOnANighttimeSea · 02/07/2026 13:23

This is not a world I would want to live in.

Private police, private fire fighters, private healthcare, private schools. Private water, private sewers, private rubbish collection. No parks, no museums, no galleries, no monuments, zero public events, no conservation, no protection of the environment. Exorbitant food prices. Companies can charge what they want, pay their workers what they want, and have no oversight of pollution. Every road will be a toll road. No control over the cars driving on them either. Or the ability of the driver driving it. Are you only responsible for the road and pavement outside your house? Good luck on everyone else's patches then. Or more than likely what will happen is a group of individuals will come together as a collective to make things better for those who pay into the collective.... I wonder if there's a word for that......

Whether you like it or not there will always be need for low skilled minimum wage jobs. Your worth to society and ability to merely live should not be solely measured by your pay.

If that's what you want, well just take a look across the Atlantic. Or better yet please move there. I don't particularly want my own taxes or national insurance to pay for someone with so little empathy for others.

Wetblanket78 · 02/07/2026 13:24

LettingTheBadThingsGo · 02/07/2026 13:02

Thanks for taking the time to write out your views. I understand what you are saying.
However I think there are lots of arguements.

For example how many people are watching their bright, clever children have a rubbish education because they are in a class too big which is being disrupted constantly by sen children. By having a small education budget nobody seems to be getting a good education anymore (unless they pay to send their kids privately.)
So who is benefitting in this education system paid for by the state/taxpayer. Parents of sen kids are writing threads constantly saying their child is not getting the right treatment. Parents of bright children are writing threads saying they are sick of their kids education being disrupted by the sen kids. The teachers are run ragged and quitting. All this because the needs of the system far outweigh the money we have to run it.

So the answer is to give more money to education and hire more teachers and have smaller classes perhaps splitting children into bright, average and disabled. That sounds great except the country can't afford to allocate more to education because of all the other demands on it.

The same argument could be applied to healthcare and no doubt lots of areas of spending.

Can we all at least acknowledge that the current way of doing things is not working.

Back in the 90’s they closed schools for children with moderate learning difficulties and they were forced into mainstream. We had one in my town close only 30 in the school. They were split between 3 secondary schools one was my school we got 10. Some of the support staff came with them.

I can honestly say it wasn’t the SEN children who were disruptive in class. It was the popular kids. I remember one lad throwing a chair at a teacher and assaulting him. I found out he was taking drugs and dealing at the time he was 15. A few years ago he murdered a man over a drug debt.

But we now have a load of children who’s parents have to fight for support in mainstream because their too bright for the local SEN school. Or they are dumped in mainstream where they don’t want to be but there’s no alternative because the local SEN school is over subscribed.

As a mum of two severely disabled young adults. Do you honestly think I planned to have disabled children? I’m sorry they are such a burden.

Justonemorecoffeeplease · 02/07/2026 13:25

Hello @LettingTheBadThingsGo 1930's Europe is calling they are missing their ideology and would like it back.

Error404FucksNotFound · 02/07/2026 13:25

Id be interested to know how much the average 18 year old would need to have in order to start off in this proposed system where they have to pay for everything themselves, from minor things like bin collections, police investigating a crime against you and Dr appointments and enough in the bank to pay for something serious like a life changing accident.

How old would you need to be to be able to afford to be disabled, or have a disabled child.

How much would you need to have saved in the bank in addition to your monthly living expenses in order to be fully self financing and have enough to cover every possible thing that could happen to you? A million? 5? 10? 20? More?

And you can save this by working the average job, because you dont pay tax?

Pinkchickenwine · 02/07/2026 13:25

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:23

the thing is people want the best of both systems , pay little tax but use all the services, well for that society needs a whole new economic system

Not everyone! I’m not sure why you’re telling me that?

PenelopeJoanSterling · 02/07/2026 13:25

the simple problem of it all is who pays, thats the key issue and everyone wants to tax the rich but why ?

SeenYourArse · 02/07/2026 13:26

oneofftempname · 02/07/2026 11:19

I don't know where to start with explaining how this could never work. And how it would lead to a truly awful society that does not care for its weakest members. Maybe just move to the US who aren't this extreme but getting there?

You say this like it’s possible and easy, for the vast majority of uk citizens it’s not possible to move to the US!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.