Where is the money going to come from to meet the UK people expectations?

[Pandersmum]

So assuming that:

• everyone who receives disability benefits needs them and may actually believe they should be entitled to more
• pensioner benefits are non negotiable and again many believe they should be greater than current
• working people (most) believe they are already taxed highly and believe they cannot be taxed any more without further impact to their feeling of unfairness and resentment of the system
• it is unreasonable to expect young people with ADHD or other similar ND disorders / mental health challenges to work, even if they have qualifications and therefore they must be financially supported by the state
• Mental health challenges are very real in any age of person and therefore they must be financially supported by the state and if in work, by their employers
• rent (whatever level) should be supported by the state because it is a basic right to have a home
• NHS treatment (& the best treatment) should be free be all, no matter how expensive it is or whatever their age because people pay their taxes
• businesses are businesses and are there to make profits for their owners - therefore they can choose which country they operate in / pay their taxes in - if they don’t like the UK tax system, they can move somewhere else
• ’in work benefits’ are necessary to support ‘low paid workers, often in essential jobs’ to gain similar amounts of financial remuneration to those on benefits
• high net worth individuals can move if they don’t like the UK tax system

So just where is the money going to come from to fund the UK population of financial expectation of what the state should provide?

But perhaps the population was somewhat more robust then too and were able to cope the challenges? One might argue that life has become just a little bit too comfortable for many and when difficulties do arise, some (many?) are unable to cope, particularly the younger ones.

I disagree with that. But definitely people covered up their issues more.

But not to the same extent

@MyObservations but surely it wouldn't be to the same extent as other countries tend to already spend more on healthcare don't they?

Oh, give a kid an ice cream every day, then slap it for enjoying it, or take it away and punish them for not understanding why when someone else is getting ten because their Dad has a bigger house?

Bingo points for the first person who brings up "resilience" and bemoans the current lack of it.

We have already had that 😆😆

@PiggyPigalle why would money being paid into a current account mean no tax was being paid? Like the vast majority of self-employed people, I'm a sole trader, so my current account is on my invoices but it doesn't mean I'm a tax dodger!

Im not 100% convinced the Scottish house buying system is that much better. Gazumping does still happen but I suppose less so.

Now that the seller provides the survey/home report, we effectively have 3 prices. The advertised “offers over”, the “home report” price aka what the market value of the house is and the “what the sellers actually want price”. Once an offer is accepted, house is “sold subject to concluded missives” which doesn’t actually happen until right up to moving in day and the solicitors exchange money (typically 12md on a Friday).

DS bought his first property last year and here are examples of what happened to him before he was successful on his 4th attempt.

1 bed flat at offers over £148k
Home report value £154k
DS offers £156k - his offer was eighth out of 10

1 bed flat overs over £145k
Home report £149k
Owners “want” £152k -DS offers £152 which is accepted.
DS starts packing up, his friends all arrange a day off to help him move, he orders furniture etc for a moving in date 3 months later
Sellers pull out 36 hours before move in - no reason given and the flat was back on the market 2 weeks later for £5k more and sold immediately ie the sellers were clearly accepting a higher offer but trying to look like they weren’t allowing gazumping.

Back to the drawing board for DS who was eventually successful on his fourth attempt but he spent more than £500 on solicitor fees for stuff that didn’t happen.

Sorry - have gone off at a tangent here!

@fanmepls
Absolutely change is needed but the public won't vote for it. Most don't want to acknowledge the facts hence why people are buying into the utopia Reform are promising.

You make a good point. Traditionally I supported the "first past the post" model, but in recent years have changed my mind. Most of the European countries have coalitions and the only thing that changes seems to be the proportion of each party in Govt. But, it seems, by having multiparty Govt they have a sort sort of "buy-in" for long(or longer)- term projects, which covers most infrastructure projects. By contrast, when the UK has a change of Govt, a number (many?) infrastructure projects get cancelled or changed, both of which result in lost investment. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that we (UK) ought to move to a PR electoral process. Whilst some things might take longer to get Govt backing, the evidence would suggest they end-up being done cheaper and better imo.

Hardly a good example. I'm sure you can do better!

We need much more joined up long term thinking.

I like to keep it simple for you 😘

Mmm, I'm not so sure. If you asked an 18 yr old, a 38 yr old and a 58 yr old what their financial and life priorities are, you would almost certainly get hugely different answers. Effectively a needs analysis. My instinct is that the older the person, the closer their analysis would be to Maslow's basic needs pyramid. That in itself would reflect a degree of robustness to life's challenges imo. Just a thought

The most pampered, cosseted generation are the baby boomers.

It isn't even a competition.

Why can't they do it now? why do they expect someone else to sort their lives out?

Agreed. If they can't cope, cover it up like they did in the past. Why does the country need to know!!

Mental health care is still in it's infancy even now, let alone back then. It wasn't properly understood OR treated. Plus, the population wasn't as big. Now we have immense competition for almost everything, which is a chronic issue.

There is also the issue of climate change, and the cost of living crisis. We also have the constant social surveillance issue due to social media, and almost all children being exposed to adult things on the internet. There's the extremely hyper focused targeting of ads to everyone with a smartphone, mixed with the impossible beauty/aesthetic standards generated by filters, plastic surgery and AI. The need to have the latest and most expensive trendy thing, compounded by viral trends and influencers. All the kids are brainwashed by TikTok to be mindless little consumers, obsessed with appearance and brands.

The internet has a lot to answer for, as does the baby boomer generation who introduced the rampant consumerism that has destroyed the fabric of society, and the planet.

Of course as late stage capitalism approaches, people are going to feel worse. We are living in a way that none of us are supposed to, and it's getting worse and worse. Nothing to do with people being more resilient 50+ years ago, things just weren't as intensely fucked back then.

Feel free to open your eyes to these facts at any point.

Why can't they do it now? why do they expect someone else to sort their lives out?

is this really want you want to debate? 🙄

I mean the outcry over means testing winter fuel isn't giving strong resilience vibes 😆

Nailing down all the expectations explicitly would be a good start. How does one define whether expectations are "too high"?

I would say that affordable shelter is a basic expectation in a functioning economy. How that is achieved is the issue. Enough properties exist to house most in temporary accommodation but they stand empty. They are assets, not homes.

A single person may be able to manage in a bedsit or houseshare. That is "expected" of them. How do they pay for it? They get a job. If they can't pay for it via that means, the state will, begrudgingly, step in, because lack of stable environment causes more expensive problems, and too many shabby homeless types on the streets upsets the "naice" people. It also risks a rise in crime, strain on the NHS, possibly, in extremis, revolution.

A family with children arguably needs more support and better accommodation because the expectation is that we protect and invest in children - they are our future. If this is provided with a sneer and distaste, the hope that they will grow up grateful and productive is greatly reduced.

But the big question - is shelter a reasonable expectation if you can't provide it or build it essentially by yourself, without state assistance?

In our world, I would say yes. It's a basic need. Some however would say no.

There is a regressive tone to much current rhetoric that mystifies me. A hearkening back to brutal times to teach those who appear entitled a damn good lesson. I don't think it will have the positive impact that hardliners dream of, quite the opposite.

A very good question. Is that where the "anxiety" kicks-in?

There is a regressive tone to much current rhetoric that mystifies me. A hearkening back to brutal times to teach those who appear entitled a damn good lesson. I don't think it will have the positive impact that hardliners dream of, quite the opposite.

It's bizarre coming particularly when you consider how much state support has been there in the past.

I think you're right. But, it seems to me, one of the mysteries of the 21st century is that in times of national need, such as the 1940s, "prefab" housing was put up remarkably quickly. By today's standards it was particularly attractive but it was adequate, cheap, and quick to build. Some of those "estates" have become listed and, with the addition of double-glazing etc, have become quite sought after. One could say housing (affordable and in quantity) is currently a national crisis but we seem to have lost the ability to do something quickly. I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of poor regulation to prevent undue profit-taking by property developers, a lack of skills or just an absence of Govt will, but it really should not be beyond us to do something positive.

For crying out loud.

Have you tried "sorting your life out" when it's gone tits up?

Navigating bureaucracy, being passed from pillar to post, watching debt spiral, etc etc. Every attempt to "sort it" on every front dependent on assessment, gatekeeping, and financial constraints? And if you did - IN THE PAST - you don't have current experience of how the services we are told to access as a last resort have devolved because "austerity" .

Honestly I think some people have read too much manifestation bollocks sometimes.....

Sorry, my previous post came before I saw your latest, and I apologise for my frustration in my response - it was more aimed at the poster you were responding too.

It seems we're on very similar pages with regard to some aspects of the current conundrum, and I do appreciate reasoned debate, so apologies for my aggy tone 😘

Interestingly there's a somewhat adjacent thread rumbling along around "expectations" around elderly care and how much adult children should do. Watching that one with interest.

I already have to pay for indemnity working in the nhs.
Yes I would have to cover my own annual leave, sick leave etc, but I would still be much better off. I make a choice to not work privately due to my ethical beliefs that children should receive equality of care regardless of ability to pay, they do not chose which family they are born into.

I wouldn't need a premises, I would see children in their homes or schools, and be able to bill my patients for travel costs and time.