To think we are becoming a much poorer country?

[Felixss]

I keep seeing on threads increase taxes on the rich , increase salaries, increase nhs spending and increase benefits. People are acting like we are still hugely wealthy and everyone wants to come over. Poland is predicted to overtake us economically. I can earn twice my salary abroad and I'm thinking of leaving. Where is the money going to come from with a shrinking work force and low investment in new technology? AIBU to think the UK is hugely declining ?

Surely this has to do with many jobs having very low salaries so that they can even qualify for benefits while working. my DH was a higher rate taxpayer when he was doing his first permanent job! I don't think he is working any harder than a nurse (who is a single mum of 4 kids and whose dad just dumped them); in fact he is working far less hours and has a much easier life. However, that nurse would certainly be receiving in work benefits as well as help with childcare. the difference is that he lives in London and works in financial services (which is a big employer here), while the nurse chose to make helping people her profession and also it is too easy for men not to take any responsibility for the children they helped produce.

Yep.

Our dear leader doesn't pay anywhere near 45% tax. It's nearer 22%

If you're not a billionaire, we're not talking about you...or I'm not. It's more the billionaires who hide their money offshore or spend their money on space ships while their employees have to live in their cars. While we're not quite as bad as the US.. we're heading that way.
Sunak's wife has only given up her non- dom status because she was caught out.

I can't remember where I saw it but I found some stats showing the breakdown of UK government spending from about 1950 onwards.

Massive declines in defence expenditure (in the early 50s it was more than 10% of government spending, now it's about 3%.)

Enormous % increased in spending on social security and health, and those increases have continued over time. The reason for some of of this will be an aging population that needs more health care and pensions.

But there are other things that don't. How much is the government forking out to private landlords on behalf of families that can't afford the rent? Go back 30 years and I bet it was way less.

Also there are probably way more single parent families now. They are more likely to need government support because they're poor.

Even if a country remains wealthy there is only so much money to go round.

We are fucked.

Can't get an appointment with a doctor
Can't book a driving test (no slots ever in my city)
Can't convict criminals or if we do, we don't jail them
Can't educate to a high standard in most schools

That's aside from the fact that millions are struggling to heat their homes and eat.

30 years ago, the government owned the social housing so no need to subsidize the profits of private landlords. There are probably more single parent families now. Divorce rates actually have been declining but that doesn't mean less single parent families- poorer people don't tend to marry, they have children without marrying. But the high number of single parent families is in itself a product of economic decline- young working class men don't feel that they are in a favourable position to marry and start a family due to their low wages. Sex is however a human need and living with your partner is quite a good way of saving money....living together often brings out nesting instincts and boom, two becomes three (or more). Many of these couples do end up marrying and staying together but those who don't end up as single parents..it is quite well documented that cohabitating couples are more likely to break up though this may also be indicative of their more liberal positions towards love and marriage. Anyway, money (or the lack thereof) is a big cause of marriage breakup.

If you look at the countries with the smallest households, they are mostly rich countries e.g..scandinavian countries like Sweden where a large percentage of people actually live alone. So yes we have smaller households and that is in itself expensive to support (whether it's the government or yourself). However it is not a problem if it's a wealthy country... it is a sign it's a wealthy country when enough money goes around to support all these tiny households.

Indeed in the post war boom years working class men in UK/USA could buy a house and support a wife as well as children. This shaped the current expectations we have regarding family structures. I know because my husband's grandpa was a black cab cabbie who managed to buy a house in London and even gift a deposit to his son and fund cruises. If you skip to his grandchildren's generation, my DH is the only homeowner. So I see the current decline in living standards as a sign that the country is no longer wealthy and nuclear ,households (single/couple/small two parent family/single parent family- basically with anything less than 5 people) may very well become a luxurious family set up. Most people may end up having to live with extended family or in extreme examples live in 1 room..300k people in the UK live in 1 room with children in tow.

@socialmedia23
I agree with you up to a point. It's true that 30 years ago (and even more 40 or 50 years ago) the private renting sector was very small. I also agree that in the past plenty of jobs that don't provide enough of an income now to buy a house did so in the past. I think that's mostly the value of houses increasing way above inflation and wages not keeping pace.

Incidentally before WW1 hardly anyone could afford to buy a house: provision of social housing depressed house prices, and perhaps we're now reverting to normality.

But we need to beware of things being that rosy in the past. I read a book called A Working Life by Polly Toynbee - published in the 60s - each chapter is devoted to a working class job she did, mostly in factories. They were all pretty poorly paid - awful, boring, dehumanising jobs - and the people she worked along side certainly weren't buying houses. They also weren't generally living in nicely-built new council estates either. They were living in slum housing built in Victorian times. Lots of British people were emigrating in those days to Australia and New Zealand for better prospects. Those countries - particularly the latter - were comparatively very wealthy but, to be honest, the 1960s NZ house I've lived in for the last decade is pretty basic, not very big, cold in winter, and certainly not big enough to fit in a lot of things. But it was a better alternative to living in a damp, cold draughty Victorian house and working in a factory in Britain.

Regarding single parent families: I think the change there is mostly to do with changing moral values, and I actually don't think that's economic at all. I think it's more that before the 80s, when everything started to change, the expectation on everyone was that you would marry and have a family in due course, and putting it off was frowned upon. So was divorce. This expectation was on both men and women. The attitude now is about free choice. Of course no one sensible wants to have children in difficult economic circumstances, but having a plan generally makes things easier, and this includes when society tells you what the plan is. Also - and I'm not making any comment on the morals of each alternative here - it's easier for governments to structure social provision around the former - it's cheaper, and splitting families spreads people across more houses which I suspect reduces the average number of people in houses. Furthermore, back in the day, if you were single, you lodged with a family or a bunch of other lodgers, and your tenure was pretty insecure. You generally did not have a place of your own.

The point of all this is that in the past a) average people often really weren't that flash b) the family was the mainstay and people outside one struggled and c) government support existed but there is now an expectation that the government provide support that b) provided in the past.

They don't. UC is literally designed so that you're better off working.

I work full time and still get benefits because wages are so shit.

It's not true that living off benefits is easier than 30/40 years ago. The safety net has been chipped away so that it's barely possible to live on it. Disabled people have to jump through hoops to prove that they're not fit to work and a lot of people are assessed as fit by people who aren't qualified to judge.
In the early 80 I knew quite a lot of people who lived 'on the dole'. With housing benefit it was possible to be reasonably comfortable even in London, although a lot of people lived in squats, which doesn't seem to be a thing any more.
A lot of musicians/actors/artists famously lived on benefits while building careers. That's almost impossible now...hence so many privately educated musicians and actors. Nobody else can afford it.

I don't think it's just changing moral values. Yes it's a lot more acceptable to divorce or be a single parent or have a child out of wedlock. But if you look at middle class people, the vast majority end up marrying and the compelling reason for this is inheritance tax.you can only qualify for the higher tax threshold of up to a million pounds if you are married. However poor people have no assets. There are good articles on the web on the decline in marriage and economics is a big factor.

And yes a lot of middle class and rich people do divorce but the fact that there is a family home means that at least if the mum manages to hold onto the family home, they are far less likely to qualify for any form of housing benefit as housing benefits only pay rent.

I'm not sure whether that was in response to my point.

Just in case, I'm not suggesting that it's easier to live off benefits now. Clearly it isn't. I would say that in the past benefits were more generous but not accessed as often.

For example, tax credits for the low waged with families weren't really a thing until after 2000 as far as I know.

My family is Polish and live in England and UK. I think it depends where you go. Warsaw, Gdansk, Krakow all feel on the up. Also less affected by the terrible rhetoric of the government.

Yes and also isn't it around 50% who take more than they put in? Recipe for disaster really!

I do agree that for most of British history it has not been normal for ordinary people to own a house with garden. This particular expectation is a fairly recent one and the boomers were a lucky generation. It's also not a normal expectation in other countries, countries like Singapore and Portugal may have high home ownership rates but the majority own apartments. Also in UK, 92% of the land is rural/agricultural. I am a Green so I do want to protect our countryside. But we can't have it both ways- insist on not building on greenbelt and also insist that everyone needs to own their little house with garden.

For me, I am happy just owning an apartment as I see it as a natural consequence of living in London, a global capital in its own right. A lot of people don't agree. And London has also grown to include (unofficially) commuter towns within a 50 miles radius as we have people commuting from there with the effect that house prices there are also very expensive. A 2 bed flat in St Alban's cost the same as my zone 3 flat now.

What I do think is that everyone deserves a home and that we should encourage co-op's (where tenants can get loans to buy out their landlords and form a co op) as well as community led affordable housing (Google citizen house in Lewisham which is pegged to local incomes in perpetuity). In Singapore, affordable housing (which 85% of the population live in) is government owned but we have had the same party in power for 60 years. In the UK, successive governments tend to reverse the policy of previous governments so it's probably better if it's spearheaded by the community.

Before we had social housing, it was people like the Cadburys and Rowntrees who were improving the housing of their workers as they recognised the worth of their employees. Now employers have used tax credits and universal credit to depress the salaries of employees to the point some are having to use food banks.

When my dm was moved into a newly built council house as a dc, they were impressed as they had water in the house. Their previously rented home was pulled down as a slum dwelling. It reminds me of the victorians improving the housing in London- better drainage, less overcrowding, green spaces.

I can't see any political will for even small changes (get employers to pay decent salaries), they won't do it for public sector workers they employ.

My great grandparents budget (we found the ledger), shows that the rent was 20% of the take home pay, food was more expensive though. A massive difference to housing costs today.

This thread pretty much underscores a theory I used to have as a signature for ages back in the days of newsgroups ..

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

Bloody hell @SerendipityJane that's a depressing theory!

Especially when you see it unfold before your very eyes.

These things used to take centuries. Now they can be done in a few decades.

There is a lot to be learned from the fall of the Roman Republic, the rise of the Empire and it's eventual stagnation and decline. Mainly because it follows previous examples and was followed by subsequent examples.

And the "British Empire"s 2 century or so run pales into insignificance with the 10 of the Western Empire and nearly 20 of the Eastern.

Would a way to improve the lot of the public be -
a) Massive increase in number of council houses.
b) Massive increase in public sector pay.

I know, problems, problems. Who would build all these council houses and how could they get planning permission past the nimbyiam. I think the cost is a weak point because it could be paid back by the rent and also provide a long term income stream for government.
Massive increase in public sector pay might force the private sector to pay more to compete, thereby reducing in work benefits. Again, problems, problems, could it fuel inflation etc. Would inflation be less of an issue if accommodation costs came down massively for people because of social housing though?

I'm not an economist so know the above might be economically illiterate, please don't insult me, just explain how its wrong.

Except this is clearly not happening in the UK, where the Tories (who certainly aren't into distribution to the masses) keep getting re-elected.

Agree.

As long as privileged people run the country nothing will change. They will look after themselves, their families and cronies. They have no idea how much standard food costs because it's not a worry for them, they don't know what it's like to not be able to put the heating on because you can't afford it. Etc etc.

The Tories, and more specifically their UHNW doners in the media, have done an absolutely fantastic job of entrenching a "race to the bottom" culture amongst the UK population where as a nation we now actively try to prevent positive societal change.

They've managed this by essentially brainwashing a large chunk of £50-£150k+ pa earners into thinking they're the "rich" who will loose out if any of these changes are implemented and by, quite skillfully I must say, manipulating a decent portion of <£50k workers into thinking that they too might one day be one of the "rich" if they just work hard enough.

Those two things mean there's enough people to consistently oppose any attempts to redistribute wealth more equally.

As much as I despise them you've got to hand it to them, they know how to keep the real rich safe and happy.

As much as I despise them you've got to hand it to them, they know how to keep the real rich safe and happy
@Thebestwaytoscareatory
I'm not sure they deserve any praise for their skillful strategy, by which I mean I don't think there IS much strategy here, more animal cunning/ animal instinct to look after your own interests and do whatever you can to maintain your own advantage.

I think one problem is that there is a 'human default setting' which means that (unless we think hard about what's really going on) we instinctively look up to and trust those who have power and wealth.
I suppose we need to look at the reasons why most of us do not think really hard about what's going on, why we don't see under the surface etc? I think much of it is because we are too stressed and angry and so we default to our kneejerk responses.