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?

I also think that inheritance tax is reasonable way to raise money.

It’s money that someone (usually an adult child) has not had up until now and if they get a smaller sum than they would otherwise then it’s still money they haven’t had previously.

It could also tackle the ‘inheritocracy’ divide.

Agree with this. I work in benefits and the amounts that some people are getting and the numbers getting them even through our small advice service. I regularly see older people who were previously getting perhaps £900 a month in state pension. We help them to claim Attendance allowance ( either £74 or £110), no assessment needed. Being awarded the disability benefit then makes them eligible for pension credit in a lot of circumstances, then all council tax paid and rent if they rent. Their benefits income has more than doubled their income. This scenario is repeated again and again. I do understand the elderly need help and that adult social care provision is in such a mess that it's easier to jut pay all this extra money for years on end but I just don't know how the country is affording it ( well it clearly isn't ). Also local authorities receiving zero council tax or very little from so many people, it's madness. No wonder they are going bankrupt. Our local city and county councils are on the verge of bankrupcy. I can't help thinking the whole welfare state is at risk of collapse as Liz kendall warned recently. I'm certainly not expecting the same level of help to be available in ten years time when I reach state pension age.

In response to your questions

• less flexibility - nope, would be more flexible
• can't be made redundant if self employed
• expected to work harder - no, I deal with lots of extra admin on the nhs and work several hours unpaid overtime to meet needs of children on my caseload, which is growing due to staff cuts
• couldn't pass interviews - nope, my friend has a private practice and offered me a job paying £50+ an hour, plus sick pay, pension etc
• higher rate for higher band - nope, I'm on highest clinical band can be on nhs, but due to nhs structure I have been at you of band 7 for over 10 years, band 8 is mainly management which doesn't interest me and doesn't pay much more anyway
• stay in public sector for ethical reasons- yes - my job is hard to get skilled candidates, especially with nhs experience, we have lots of changeover of staff due to people moving into private, /going abroad for better pay or lifestyle/quitting due to high stress of the role/moving out of London as salary doesn't cover living costs. The families i work with are going through a horrendous time and staff changeover just adds to that stress. Luckily my husband is well paid so I can afford the lower salary, but it's not doable for everyone

Except there are ways round it via Trusts and gifting so that not much is actually paid. And rightly so. The money our children will receive has already been taxed at the highest rates payable.

Come on Roses, the increase in the value of your property has never been taxed. A fair proportion of the money we could leave our kids is down to the predicated 400% rise in value of our house. That’s hundreds of thousands that has never had any tax paid on it.

This comes back to a point I made earlier, which is the notion of underwriting (some of) our health and care needs through a health insurance scheme. Clearly a lot of thought needs to go into it but, it seems to me, it's the only way we can make it sustainable in the long term. The "how we do it" is the difficult part but at least it should be part of the public discussion in my view.

I totally agree with your view on this @Katypp
The policies wrt pensioners are based on the fact that previous generations of pensioners were a) poor compared to other generations and b) the fact that most people only lived a few years after they retired.

Neither apply now and so they are outdated and inappropriate.
Young people have been consistently discriminated against and the elderly given special treatment. No wonder some young people have just given up. This applies to many countries, not just the UK. The suicide rate in young(ish), white males in the US is shocking; deaths of despair. There's also the Chinese phenomenon of 'lying flat'. Major fiscal and financial policy errors have led to this.

For my dd when she was unwell due to her MH, that meant no care. I suppose there's some equality in zilch. Further the standars of care that was available through CAMHS and their associated charities was such poor quality it was not worth having.

I think young people are entitled to have a hard line drawn between school and clinical care and that it is equally inappropriate and boundary crossing to deliver it in their homes.

This is what Jeremy Hunt, former Tory health minister, says in today’s Times.

Many wonder if the time has come to switch to a social insurance system used in many of those countries. What I am going to say will disappoint some but I really believe that would be an enormous distraction. No party will persuade voters to change a free-at-the-point-of-use system to a state-funded system that allows wealthier people to pay a premium for better care.

Politics is ultimately the art of the possible. So the better question is how to achieve the high standards of care delivered by countries like the Netherlands with system that remains free at the point of use.

Ageism is rife in this country including with employers.
Are you aware as soon as people hit the late 50s early 60s many are suddenly made redundant. No one wants them.
They then end up on benefits
Raising the retirement age to 75 is ridiculous

You have to fill in a huge form giving medical evidence to claim attendance allowance. Most of it will go towards care costs as it is included in the assessment. Health care professionals like hospice nurses can fast track an application but it’s actually difficult to claim.

What stopped their parents buying property? Afterall, people keep saying boomers had it so good and could buy cheap property.

Direct your grievance at your parents mistakes.

@Katypp
when did these workplace pensions become so available to people now the same age as you.
Not for those in the private sector until 2018. !
Employers didn’t have to pay a penny in until then and families were paying for childcare ( no free 30hours), food as getting it free at school wasn’t a thing unless you were a very low earner etc.

So if we work forward from 2018 assuming a person was 18 then it will be 2067 before a pensioner has the benefit of a decent workplace pension.
Not everyone works in the public sector so didn’t all have the luxury of good pensions or in fact any pensions at all.

Lets not forget
a managed pension used to cost a minimum of 2% of your salary just in fees rising to 4% in some cases. So you had to first pay in 2%/4% and then anything over that was a £ benefit to the pension. With employers not required to pay a penny until 2018. There were / are no guarantees that you will get anything though if the money is invested in an area that crashes. Public pensions are not affected by that yet people in the private sector could lose everything in a crash.

Exactly. Why are so many people blind to the fact that most huge property gain of the last few decades is unearned and has not been taxed? There is zero CGT on gains on your primary property in the UK. That's a fact.

I think it depends on the type of care. In my area of work it's absolutely routine for children to be seen in school or at home whether that's by nhs or privately.

We provide and train families and school staff in children's therapy programmes, it's completly logical and appropriate to do that in the setting where the family/school will be implementing this. The vast majority of families we work with prefer this, their child has to miss lots of school for their orthopaedic, paediatrician etc appointments, so if we can see in school this reduces how much they miss. Some children are in pain/extremely unwell/end of life, and it's much more comfortable for them to be seen at home rather than sitting in a car for ages with a parent in London traffic.

It also depends medicalises what for many of these children are lifelong conditions which they will need to learn to manage themselves, as adult services are very minimal.

So it's completly appropriate and in many cases much better for us to see them at home or school. For other profession or needs it may not be.

That's a total straw man argument. Pensioners have had plenty of opportunity to save and benefited from rising salaries, better job security and promotions, affordable house prices, no need to take on tens of thousands of £ in debt to get a decent job, no Uni costs for their children, etc.

I hadn't seen that but I think he's wrong on a few counts. The first is that social insurance schemes are still free at the point of use. As far as I am aware you show your social security card to indicate your right to use the national system and, broadly, whenever (if ever) there's a bill, your health insurance just picks up the tab. I'm not entirely sure he's right either about public opinion, especially if the alternative (at some stage) is a complete crash in the NHS's capacity. I can't recall any of his major success as SofS for Health but perhaps my memory isn't what it was.
The really critical point though is the political point he makes. If we had PR and, by extension, coalition Govts, then there could well be cross-party buy-in to an alternative funding (or part funding) model in which case the proposition would not be a political football so to speak.
BTW, my knowledge of the French system (for example) doesn't suggest better or quicker care for the individual but does give them the element of choice. So if you want WiFi, TV and a private room, then you have a more expensive insurance scheme (which you might never use or need) but the care would be exactly the same as far as I am aware.

Many wonder if the time has come to switch to a social insurance system used in many of those countries. What I am going to say will disappoint some but I really believe that would be an enormous distraction. No party will persuade voters to change a free-at-the-point-of-use system to a state-funded system that allows wealthier people to pay a premium for better care.

Why is there such resistance to this? I know lots of older people who are going private because waiting lists are too long. Surely this costs more?

The vast majority of the pensioners I help claim AA are not paying for care.

Exactly. Why are so many people blind to the fact that most huge property gain of the last few decades is unearned and has not been taxed? There is zero CGT on gains on your primary property in the UK. That's a fact.

I think a lot of the reticence around IHT is because people recognise that generally these days hard work will only get you so far. A lot people can only get on the ladder & this increase their future wealth because they have help.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong poster? This makes no sense.

The vast majority of the pensioners I help claim AA are not paying for care.

Some of my relatives get AA. They are legitimate but don't need care now. Many have assets of at least 1m.

That's what the OP is asking - because she doesn't know where the money can come from.

@DrPrunesqualer 70% of today's pensioners have a private pension. Nest pensions for those on low salaries isn't giving anyone a great pension plus you can opt out.

I know the current welfare reform is only looking at PIP. I do think they will start to look at AA next. I don't see how they can make PIP harder to get and not AA.