To think ‘the system is broken’ but…

[Blinddatez]

We are also breaking the system.

From reading posts on here, it seems a lot of people don’t realise just how little we actually contribute to ‘the system’, how much things cost to implement, and therefore what level of service we can realistically expect from healthcare, education and so on.

40% of people are net recipients (they receive more from the state than they put in), but that doesn’t include pensioners. Yet the expectations on here of what should be provided by the state seem to be sky high - generous benefits, good quality but cheap housing for everyone, a 5* NHS, immediate and thorough mental health support, good pensions even for people who have never worked for dubious reasons.

AIBU to think, while the money could be better spent than it is right now, the expectation of what should be provided by the state on here is a bit head-in-the-clouds?

Completely agree. All these people who constantly say ‘they’ should give me more. Well ‘they’ are the taxpayer in reality. People who work hard and are being hammered for sky high utilities/food/broadband bills (I could go on but you get the picture) There isn’t any more to give unless you take it from the taxpayer and then they’ll decide that they’re better off on benefits so it’s a higher benefits bill. It’s a horrible circle to get into and I’m not sure how to resolve it really 🤷‍♀️

I honestly don't ever hear people say "they should give me more". What I do hear if people expecting adequate public services. Health care, policing, schooling. And yes, making sure children aren't literally starving in one of the richest economies in the world.

Completely agree. All these people who constantly say ‘they’ should give me more. Well ‘they’ are the taxpayer in reality
Or we spend what we have properly, stop allowing taxpayer money to get passed to the already wealthy and have a proper shake up.

Have long term, affordable social housing Vs sending huge amounts of housing benefits to landlords with huge property portfolios of mixed quality

Invest in making teaching more attractive by having more PPA time instead of having several academy chains with: teachers - head of department - associate director of subject for the trust - director of subject for the trust / head of school - executive head teacher - associate executive principal for the trust etc.

Make water companies sort their shit out (literally) instead of underinvesting for years, and then saying they've got no money left so they have to dump shit on beaches.

Stop bailing out rail franchises who run appalling services once they've pocketed what they want and spend the money on a nationalised, well funded and fairly priced service

Stop letting MPs claim a fortune in expenses with their lucrative lobbying gigs on the side.

It's all choices and it doesn't have to be normal average earners who get hammered.

Have long term, affordable social housing Vs sending huge amounts of housing benefits to landlords with huge property portfolios of mixed quality

Genuinely though, how does that happen? Build new houses? Purchase existing ones? Would the tenants be paying ‘rent’? How would we balance the books? How many houses are needed? What about the cost of maintenance? Sorry not trying to hammer you with questions but ‘long term affordable houses’ is a bit like ‘Brexit means Brexit’, just a phrase unless we can work out how to realistically make it happen.

One flaw in your logic is that if the Shirley or George did walk out, their employer could easily replace them, this is the difficulty for unskilled workers.
However, what about the Govt stop paying UC to people working full time and instead increases the min wage? If people need the current min wage + UC to live, then clearly min wage needs to go up.
This to me is the biggest scandal.
Yes, companies will have to pay more, and yes some won’t be able to and will go bankrupt, but if a company can’t pay their workers maybe their business model is flawed and having the state subsidize them is not the solution.

This pops up time and time again.

MPS expenses cover their office costs (staff, equipment, rental) and travel (unfair to expect an MP for a Scottish constituency to travel back and forth weekly out of their own pocket). Some take the piss, far fewer these days now there's proper scrutiny in place. Even if all 650 MPs took the piss and spent 200k on Cornish pasties, it's a drop in the ocean of public spending,

Totally agree with you & this Op.

Tax credits perhaps but what about housing benefit for larger properties to accommodate morev

One idea: selling properties in high value area (Chelsea, etc) and buying in less expensive areas: x5-10 on the number of properties.

Maintenance could be subcontracted with a transparent selection process of the subcontractor, planned reviews, pre-defined penalties if the maintenance is not performed etc.

Also, when tenant’s income increases, they should be charged market rent if they want to continue living in a subsidized property that they got due to low earnings.
In the current economical situation, « they have lived there their whole life » is not enough to justify society paying more than needed to house someone. Private tenants (or even home owners) have to move from properties because of rent/mortgage increases, that’s life.

when tenant’s income increases, they should be charged market rent if they want to continue living in a subsidized property that they got due to low earnings.

That won’t go down well on here…

Could they sell in more expensive areas though or would the tenants claim it’s their ‘right’ to stay there, and there would be a big hoo-ha about ‘moving social housing tenants to run down areas’? I feel that would be heavily criticised on here.

I agree though 🤷🏼‍♀️ I would also add, no single person or couple should be able to block a 2+ bed property. Again, that’ll go down like a sack of shit!

"40% of people are net recipients (they receive more from the state than they put in), but that doesn’t include pensioners."

Pensioners are taxpayers as well, you know. I get a company pension and my tax rate is the same as everyone else's.

@beguilingeyes

Actually, it isn't, because you don't pay national insurance, which really needs to change because unfortunately the ageing population has not paid enough in tax to be retired and claiming pension and healthcare for potentially more than 20 years...

And people will be really cross that I said that because they think NI is somehow linked to healthcare and pensions entitlement, but it isn't in any way ring fenced and if it was the case that people had to pay for their healthcare on an insurance basis like in Germany etc, they would be paying a shit tonne more for it (and would actually value it).

YANBU But I'm wondering why the salaries are so so low here compared to many other developed countries.
We also don't protect local citizens on getting a job. In the U.K. no one seems to care if the whole IT department just got relocated to a different part of the world for example. Many other EU countries have things in place to stop this sort of thing from happening.

The government currently spends somewhere between £17b - £24b a year subsiding rent / paying housing benefit (different reports are giving different figures).

The average cost to build a new house is betwee. £1500-£3000 per m2, with the average house in the UK measuring 76m2 this gives an average cost of between £114k - £228k per house.

This means the government could build between 74,000 - 210,000 new "average" houses a year, if they weren't paying out any housing benefit (obviously that's not going to happen overnight)

The average annual payment to someone in receipt of housing benefit is around £4980 pa or £415 pcm, meaning there is between 3.4m-4.8m people claiming housing benefit. The average rent in the UK is £1175, meaning tenants in private rentals who receive housing benefit are paying c.£760 pcm themselves to a private landlord.

Now on to the point of this, the government could have taken that £42.5b they've spent on a vanity project trainline that only benefits a tiny fraction of the county and instead built between 186,00-372,000 new houses.

They then could have moved 186k-372k people from private rentals to the new houses, stopped the housing benefit payments to them and generated some additional income from the tenants share of rent. Hell, they could even lower the rent so tenants in the new properties only paid £500pcm instead of £760.

This would save £910m-£1.8b in year 1 in housing benefits and generate between £93m-£186m in rental payments (using my £500pcm figure), which could be reinvested.

They could then take the further £70b earmarked for HS2 and build a further 307k -£614k new homes and do the same. Thus would refuce the total number of housing benefit recipients by c.500k-980k, saving between £2.5b-£4.8b pa, and generating between £250m -£490m pa in rental payments.

Again reinvest the money saved into building new properties and within a decade or so you've reached the point where there's no need to be paying out housing benefit.

This would also bring the rental market under control and potentially reduce house prices too, and ensure people living in social housing were living in good properies/conditions. You also don't just have to build new houses, building flats or buying existing properties could probably get you to this point much quicker.

Obviously it's not as black and white as that as you'll have ongoing O&M costs and what not, but the lack of affordable housing and all the issues surrounding it is solely down to government choice.

Ask yourself this, would it be more beneficial to the country to have up to a million new, well-insulated, desirable and affordable houses or a one passenger train line that saves 20 minutes when traveling from London to Birminghan or Manchester?

This means the government could build between 74,000 - 210,000 new "average" houses a year, if they weren't paying out any housing benefit

Have we not lost enough green space as it is without cheap housing ruining what is left? How many wildlife habitats will be destroyed in the process?

improve pubic transport, and build on carparks - double win- people can live closer to work!

honestly, the amount of space given over to carparking in this country with so many people unable to afford a home - that system is well and truly broken! Cars that might actually only be in use for 2% of their life - space for them is given precedence over housing!

break the cycle of private car ownership - it is a very recent and totally unsustainable thing, and the housing issue will magically disappear!

More detail needed. This is what I mean, all these somewhat meaningless phrases like ‘improve this or that’ but doesn’t say how.

Productivity isn't necessarily about "working harder". This is what I mean. If people don't grasp the basic economic principles driving the decline then no wonder they've not been pressuring their MPs to actually introduce policies that would be effective in improving things. Instead it always degenerates into moaning and people fighting over the scraps that are left.

As a lone parent of children with disabilities, I've always had to use private nannies.

Fixing this is going to take radical steps and I fear that our current politicians are to unimaginative/cowardly/disinterested to do anything bold.
They're also also only largely looking as far as the next election rather than long term planning.
I also feel that the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Paul Sacred and have such a stranglehold on British media that rocking the boat can be career suicide.

Yep. Study after study showed how they were propping up the British economy: more skilled and educated, young and fit, paid more tax and used fewer services than British nationals. This country is completely insane. Not satisfied with having spent a couple of decades shooting itself in the foot repeatedly it decided to shoot itself in the face as well.

Yes entitled people who are ‘entitled’ to anything and everything! You see it on here daily ‘ I will be worse off if I work’ gets on my nerves!

The average cost to build a new house is betwee. £1500-£3000 per m2, with the average house in the UK measuring 76m2 this gives an average cost of between £114k - £228k per house.

You have to own the land to build on firsf. Land is the main component in building costs now. Or does your £1.5k-£3k figure include the land itself? If so that seems very low.