To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

[FaeryRing]

It seems like there is nothing the state shouldn’t be responsible for any more! Feeding your kids, getting them to school, hiring ‘behaviour specialists’ for every classroom because parents don’t want to discipline their own children, giving you money towards virtually anything you ask for because it’s not fair you have to pay for anything yourself.. I find it absolutely wild and don’t think it’s at all realistic or representative of what most adults believe?

The difference between the UK and the US regarding school funding is that the taxes for schools in America are locally gathered and spent, so an area with a high tax take can fund the kind of high quality service that @mathanxiety describes.

No doubt there are parts of America with much worse provision. To give one example, when the motor industry in Detroit collapsed, so did local pensions, healthcare and education.

In the UK we have a much more centralised system so for example, I would guess that if my relatively affluent outer London suburb were allowed to spend the income tax and council tax gathered here, we too could also have high quality SEN education, but we don't, as some of it is transferred to the poorer inner London suburbs.

So it's comparing apples and oranges.

You clearly don't teach classes of 5 year olds in 2024 then!

And that's before we get into e.g. the North East, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland etc receiving more government spending than they raise in tax.

We do have some high quality SEN provision my son is 14 and hoes to an excellent SEN school and has gone since reception the problem Is that much like Americs its hit and miss in my LEA we have four special schools ,two primary and two high schools, we also have several autism hubs

But it's area dependent and I'm aware that my LEA is better than most.

Not really no. Generally speaking the people being used as examples in the post don’t go on to raise net contributors. It’s pointless having more people if they aren’t going to contribute.

A lot of the current work force aren't net contributors. From what I remember you need to earn around 40k to be considered one. That's just taking into account benefits and not things like healthcare,education etc. I'm sure hospitals, schools, councils , supermarkets and other essential services would've been so much better off if they weren't around, right?

It wasn’t just ‘support’ though - it was micromanagement and an undue level of handholding. There’s a massive difference between ‘kids should never go hungry or have untreated medical conditions’ and ‘we need behavioural specialists in every classroom because parenting is so woeful the kids are messed up but let’s blame the state’.

I think there needs to be a rigorous assessment of benefits at present because my personal belief is there are a lot of claimants who could realistically work but make every excuse under the sun not to. I think we need to replace ‘cost of living payments’ with 3 free meals a day at school, so the kids are fed and the money can’t be wasted. I think benefits in general should be stopped after 1 year of job hunting. That’s plenty, if you can’t find a job in that time then it’s on you.

Read the post above yours. It’s all there.

The figures are fine, no problem with the figures.

Good. Regardless of reasons, of which there will be many, you can see you were incorrect, it’s higher now than 40 years ago

I think benefits in general should be stopped after 1 year of job hunting. That’s plenty, if you can’t find a job in that time then it’s on you.

Regardless of the reason WHY you can't find a job?

I don’t think net contribution matters because we need people in lower paid work for society to function. A person working 40 hours delivering parcels should have the same right to public services as somebody working 40 hours pen pushing on 60k. Trying to make the point that you may as well just be on benefits if you’re not a net contributor is a false equivalence

Yes. If you haven’t fixed the reason in that time then you ain’t gunna

Well it's even more wrong that provision is so area dependent in a country with a national tax-transfer system. At least in America you can see why it is.

My Borough (by its own figures) "exports" 25% of its SEN DC.

Good job even Thatcher didn't think that was a good idea. There would have been a lot of homelessness and dead people in the 80s.

No government would be stupid enough to cut off benefits completely after one year. Well maybe Tice would if he became PM, cheered on by Oakeshott no doubt.

@FaeryRing another poster made the point about net contributors. I replied to that poster.

Ummm.... So people need to fix their disability that prevents them from working? Ok then. I don't disagree that there are far too many people who fall out of work during a bad patch and then stay there but not everything is fixable.

If you haven’t found a job in a year, you’re not going to. That simple really

I said unemployment not disability.

60-40% of those are typically middle class high earners and send 5 year olds to school in nappies, without SEN. That's the reason it's shocking but it's much deeper than poor standards. Other basics are also very evidently not in place at home. What else is going on that this level of inability to cope with a baby/toddler/young child is happening with parents, particularly in the last 3 years.

So you'd let people starve even though they are not going to be able to get a job?

No one with any sense would think cutting off access to benefits completely after a year is a good idea. That is why it will never happen, regardless of how much you relish the prospect of people you think are so much lower than you being left to starve.

This is already happening. No knee replacement because you're too heavy. Too heavy because can't move due to knee problem ... knee problem just gets worse until the person can no longer work and ends up on benefits.

I’m sorry to hear about your son being upset at school - of course that’s not right whatsoever. But that’s also why I said “sometimes”. It’s not always the case, of course, that children with SEN can learn/not have accidents. But I do think there’s an element today of people with NT children who are too busy to bother, and then ND children where it’s harder and they therefore just give up. The problem is that at some point, NT or ND (except in some cases of course) someone does need to do it, and it’s not fair that the responsibility falls to the school.

I personally can’t stand potty training. The concerted effort and accidents etc but there isn’t an alternative! Tooth brushing is also not very fun (although they are used to it so it’s not as bad as it could be) but again it’s non negotiable so again 🤷🏻‍♀️

I have always thought that those in receipt of benefits who are fit and healthy should be assigned voluntary work that their benefits are dependent on completing. It is not fair on society or the benefit claimant to just leave them parked on benefits. I say that as someone who did a YTS scheme at 17 under Thatcher (having been on benefits as i couldn't get a job) which was where you worked and got £26 per week which wasn't much even then- it was the making on me and eventually became a qualified accountant.

It’s ridiculous . Highlighted by the thread the other day about what’s you’d do if you were PM.

so many posters just wanted MORE handouts.

lots of people want everyone else to be responsible so that they don’t have to be.

so many people have lots all sense of accountability, it’s terrifying.

If you haven’t found a job in a year, you’re not going to. That simple really

What absolute bullshit.

Shit job market.
Disability,health or mental health issues that need time to diagnose and/or treat.
Being fired/made redundant at 50/60 or when pregnant and no one else hiring you.
Collapse of your industry and needing time to retrain.
Fleeing DV with the clothes on your back and a kid or two and living in a refuge.

Plenty other circumstances and situations.

I couldn't agree more.