Do you think our 21st century society can actually afford the full welfare state ideal?

[TheOtherBoleynGirls]

First things first, I want us to have a full welfare state. I think being able to provide everybody in a country with equal education, equal healthcare, and an equal safety net in times of trouble and illness is the absolute ideal.

But looking at the state our economy is in, do you think that dream is still achievable, with the right taxes and financial management, or do you think it might be a post-war ideal that is economically unviable for a country in the long run?

YABU - we can afford it if everything is managed correctly

YANBU - it’s a great but inevitably impractical idea

You say 'welfare state ideal'.

What do you mean by 'ideal'? A safety net? No one ever being required to take responsibility for him/herself if s/he prefers not to? No one being allowed to have any more resources than anyone else in any circumstances, or achieve any more? Something in between?

Whose ideal? Yours might be different from mine, which may be different from another person's.

Who runs it? Who does the jobs that are necessary for the citizens survival/comfort/safety? What happens if no one wants to do a particular job - are people forced to with no extra benefit to themselves; how would you ensure they actually perform?

I have a GP friend who thinks we shouldn't vaccinate care home residents and should let the 'old mans friend' take people quickly.
I did think it a scandal that the first covid vaccine when to a 91 year old and not somebody working on the front line on a covid ward. Those people, all of them, who had to even step foot on a covid ward, to do work, should have been absolutely at the front of the queue.

That’s why we have to make our wishes clear when we’re compos mentis. If I’m diagnosed with dementia - and it’s pretty much a certainty - no other condition is to be treated thereafter. Palliative care only. My advance directive is crystal clear.

For those who think we can't afford the welfare state, NHS etc.
What are you suggesting as an alternative?

The NHS is doing it because you cannot leave a demented 93yo with a hip fracture lying on the floor of a care home waiting 26 hours for an ambulance without expecting to find your service shamed in the press.

I agree with your friend @Kendodd. That’s why I’ve refused the pneumonia vaccine because it confers lifelong immunity. The day may well come when I welcome the old man’s friend. It’s got its name for a reason.

It's a question of priorities. The Conservatives would like us to believe that it is OK to reward wealthy people at the expense of the poor. Wealthy people want a smaller state as they can afford to pay privately for their health, education and social care. They therefore would rather not pay for services for the general population. I am not happy with this nor will I fall for the bullshit narrative that wealthy bankers like King are now peddling.

The big push to cut down on smokers has had it’s intended effect on life expectancy. Because they’re not dying of smoking related diseases so much, they’re living longer, increasing the pension and welfare bill and healthcare costs and tying up property, causing pollution etc., whilst at the same time costing the Exchequer the considerable revenue of taxes on tobacco. Although treating smoking related diseases also cost the NHS, the same people are obviously still dying, only over a longer period of time, of other causes and often requiring extensive and expensive treatment. Only without the contribution of cigarette duty.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing by any means. But there’s definitely an impact of hundreds of thousands of high tax-paying smokers no longer volunteering to slope off early doors.

DMIL has DNR writ large in red over every piece of paper. But she did not foresee the need to stipulate palliative care only. I suspect she would be thrillled with a generous terminal dose of a pain-killing opiate.

It's not possible or sustainable.
1.People are living longer but expecting to still retire at 67. Many have not made adequate pension provision and cannot rely on 'final salary' schemes of old. The state can't afford to prop up these. Many adults are not even net contributors in terms of taxation even to pay for their own requirements.
2.Living longer putd addiyional strain on elderly care, NHS, and Social Care needs, all of which are currently struggling.

1. There are far less working tax payers per Pensioner 3:1 and this ratio is falling so generating pension provision from taxation will not be sustainable long term.
2. Many of the current working generations are ppaying sufficient into their pensions so that is another time bomb. Of course this generation are burdened with, student loans, far higher property prices, higher taxation so there is little left in the pot.
3. Taxing corporate business is not easy as a head office can easily be moved to a country with lower taxation.

In general people need to be more responsible for themselves, recent governments have generated a population that tends to stand with their hands out waiting for what they're "entitled" to rather than addressing their own actions and poor decisions.

There are far less working tax payers per Pensioner 3:1 and this ratio is falling so generating pension provision from taxation will not be sustainable long term

It doesn’t have to be sustainable. Once we boomers are dead there won’t be a problem. Thirty years at most and it will all be over.

@Kendodd @Blossomtoes , it has to be nuanced though. DMIL is only six years older than DM, who is in robust health (though deaf as the proverbial post). Hard and fast rules don't apply well or uniformly. Both SRNs too..

Exactly. That’s why it’s wise to be very clear in advance what you want.

The pig in the python... the most numerous generation ever in human history. Boomers are a distorting factor. We've all worked hard and seen hard times, but the NHS and the welfare state meant that a disproportionate number of us are still here.

Someone else alluded to the labyrinthine benefits system being over complicated.

I have never understood how it makes financial sense to withhold benefits or assistance to people becoming homeless and then having to house them in temporary accommodation that can cost hundreds more a week than the original accommodation. It causes disruption to peoples work, children education, overall health both mental and physical, and can lead to further over stretched and badly administered services becoming necessary.

Every societal ill now has an industry built around it……

If someone needs 850 a month to keep them stable in their home, how does it make any financial sense to pay a private entity 1000 a week for substandard accommodation that compounds issued for the poor and vulnerable even further?

It doesn’t have to be sustainable. Once we boomers are dead there won’t be a problem. Thirty years at most and it will all be over.

But what happens in that 30 yr interim?

Of course we can afford it. Government is about choices. This sodding creepy Tory government don't make good choices.

You watch our numbers slowly decrease. Covid got rid of a lot of us, the pension savings from that must be massive.

But the NHS & social care need funding. There isn't enough suitable homes either. There was 130k excess deaths during the pandemic, that's not going to save pensions!

Why does social care need funding? You keep telling us how obscenely rich we are, that means we pay for our own.

I think tax credits are one of the big problems. It brought a lot of people into the net takers group and shifted the cost to government, allowing businesses to increase their profits whilst knowingly paying people a wage low enough to require topping up. I think it was an idea with good intentions and awful consequences.

Why does social care need funding?

"There are 165,000 vacant posts – an increase of 52% and the highest rate on record."

"The average care worker pay is £1 per hour less than healthcare assistants in the NHS that are new to their roles."

"n the first three months of 2022 alone it found that 2.2 million hours of homecare could not be delivered because of insufficient workforce, and approximately half a million people were believed to be waiting for an assessment, review, care package or direct payment from adult social care."

You may not see it but clearly there are issues.

You keep telling us how obscenely rich we are, that means we pay for our own.

I've not told you anything...

The things you have listed are NOT investments are they, more likely an ongoing cost? That's the problem, separating a national cost from an investment.
They could be described as a social good though.

Yes have to agree and then sometimes people are better off working less hours

UK productivity (I.e. the overakl amount of wealth that is created each year, divided by number of people living here) is very low compared to comparable nations, and as a result there is less money for public services. So even if the rich get taxed more, there is still less money per person compared to countries like Germany, France, US or Japan. So in order to get better services, we all need to make more money. Best way to achieve that is to make and sell expensive stuff (electric cars, software, planes) and attract lots of foreign investment. UK has already the highest taxes for business and investors among comparable nations, so to get people to build Tesla or Apple factories here, with limited government investment in I frasyructure, is a challenge. Liz Truss clearly saw the problem, but her solution to just wish the problem away by giving away money we don't have was obviously catastrophic. But fact is we need to find ways to make money as a nation, and loads of it, as we are getting collectively poorer and poorer.