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?

Oh really? And the evidence is what exactly?

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.

So exactly the same as paying privately now. The amount of disruption caused by changing the funding model would cost billions to very little advantage. There’s a huge amount wrong with healthcare in the UK and the funding model doesn’t even make the list.

I’m an architect and couldn’t afford to buy ( with my dh) till I was 33 having to move areas to somewhere cheap to do so and buying a run down property with no doors and pebble dashed ceilings.

There was no job security in many sectors with a hire and fire culture at the mere whiff of a downtown.
No promotions were not so available especially if you had the audacity to have a kid.
Uni fees were introduced in 1998 at £1000 to start but have been rising since. So many pensioners of today may have been supporting there kids who will be in their 40s now.
I have three at Uni and they all work part time to help fund themselves, even the ones doing medical / science related degrees with heavy lab hours and workload.

Upthread a lot of people have been talking about the rich leaving - this policy (although the Telegraph are unsurprisingly trying to paint it as a bad thing) - looks like a possible solution to that (in combination with a wealth tax etc):

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/capital-gains/european-exit-taxes-could-come-to-britain/

Oh ok , must have changed. Was very much only needed if you had unmet care needs that needed equipment or help that needed paying for. Very surprised it’s going to people that don’t need help especially the full rate which pays for overnight needs.

Thank you to all contributions. Positive and negative. This was never meant to be a benefit bashing post. My day job is too anticipate and solve problems and I was trying to understand a wider viewpoint. The UK has a financial crisis of its own making looming and I for one would try to work on a solution rather than focusing on my entitlement.

What is clear to me is that it is a huge challenge for any govt to fundamentally improve the financial situation that we as a country find ourselves in whilst peoples ‘expectations’ of what the state should provide remain, IMO, high.

Long term thinking and investment into infrastructure could lead to economic growth if managed properly - providing improved academic outcomes and public sector services including health and housing which would in turn support business growth and lead to more secure jobs and higher tax revenues to ensure those who need to be supported are and we have public services at a level we feel is appropriate.

But the chance of any govt elected for 4-5 years at a time making fundamental changes that a significant (vocal) minority of the electorate find unpalatable is slim. Just look at the backlash/u turn on WFA and PIP. They would not get re-elected and then a new govt would change policies and we would be back where we started. Also the govt’s ability (any party) to execute improvement and infrastructure project cost effectively is not good historically.

Also, as unpalatable as it is, there are some people who able to claim govt financial support who should not be (think people who don’t exist in Romania) and as a PP suggested, money spent on removing these opportunities would be money well spent.

I also people should think very carefully about unintended consequences of significant decisions. Think

• ‘the right to buy’ has lead to 45% of the ‘bought’ council stock ending up on the private rental market and I feel is fundamentally the root cause of the current housing crisis.
• High net worth individuals are leaving the UK with their taxes, because they can.
• Changes to IHT on farming and family businesses will lead to them being bought by faceless offshore private equity corporations who won’t care about local jobs/pricing - UK food prices will go up as a result and the stability that local landowners bring to local communities will disappear. The tax revenues of family operations will also disappear offshore

Any further significant changes on income tax, pensions and IHT to the current ‘everyday’ worker will have unintended consequences. People may

• spend /giveaway more money during their lifetime, (which may provide a short term sticking plaster to local economies), but leave them short of money in their old age when the state support has to kick in
• Or they may choose to retire earlier (think of the recent Dr exodus) because they will live on what they have then work longer and give more money to the treasury

My own view is that we will all have to compromise in some way - but prioritise growth of the economy and spend the resulting money wisely - if all groups make a contribution to the solution, it maybe more acceptable eg.

• small changes of 1% of additional income tax,
• take a little less in benefits - especially if I don’t need them (think a £69k income retired couple income household)
• make work pay by reducing non working benefits
• pay a little more (1%) IHT,
• tax all new savings interest
• a 1% wealth tax above assets of £10m etc.

I personally would leave businesses alone. They are being hit enough with NI and employment law changes.

That may well be the case but things have only got worse in all these regards for middle aged and younger people. That is the key point.

We need to tax corporations, but the government is afraid of their huffing and puffing and threats that they will move overseas (they won't).

We also need to implement a robot tax. Companies that automate jobs (like self checkouts or jobs automated by ai) should be taxed at minimum the equivalent these job would have generated to buffer the shortfall in tax made my the loss of the job. Ideally they should be taxed much more to encourage them to retain staff instead of automating everything.

People don't tend to point at corporations, but we find it easy to blame individuals or certain types of people. Then you end up with hate, we blame immigrants coming and stealing jobs sending all the money back home, the elderly who had it so good and could buy cheap houses, people on benefits who we deem not sick enough, humans really struggle to comprehend and therefore blame, enormous faceless entities. We simply aren't designed for it because we evolved socially and to resent/fear outsiders and people who may drain resources when things are hard.

We haven’t had a proper property crash since the 90s, high unemployment since the 80s or run away inflation, widespread strikes and blackouts since the 70s. It’s not outrageous to think we could have all three in the next few years. Our system of welfare isn’t that generous in my opinion. If the IMF come calling it’s the companies that live or die through government contracting that will be in trouble not someone on £100 a week.

They’ve got worse because of, I believe two main issues

1. high rent
2. zero hours contracts

Rents have increased because of subsequent Governments increasing costs on landlords. Something that a lot of non landlords were delighted with at the time. No idea why. Envy perhaps and / or a complete lack of forward thinking.

Zero hours contracts need to be abolished. Businesses have been allowed to take advantage of employees for too long. What would the fallout be though….perhaps less employment?, less jobs ? Of that I have no idea but businesses need to commit to their employees

We could add a third issue ie, less work ethic in terms of what a full working week actually is.

also worth looking at @HelloPossible s comments re last crash, unemployment figures, black outs etc.

I started work in 1980. There were 3 million unemployed.

1981 was a particularly fallow year for unemployment with teachers and newly qualified doctors unable to find work. It was also extremely difficult to find acceptable property to rent.

1987 - stock market crash - many people in financial services were quietly made redundant.
1988-1992 very hard to find work with many redundancies.
1992 - crash and recession - high numbers of repossessions and much negative equity arose - 15% interest rates.
1997 - New Labour and the start of the Great give away which left an economy built on sand but boom, boom with tax credits, etc. We will look back on this working tax credit initiative, together with PFI as the greatest errors in relation to a stable economy.
2008 financial crisis and Gordon Brown sold the gold at the bottom
We have never fully recovered since.
2015 Brexit
2020 Pandemic

I think some of the backward looking rose tinted specs need to come off.

Agree
No work and redundancies in the 1980 / 90s were a constant issue.
That and many people losing every penny of their pensions and homes with crashes affecting the private sector.
People haven’t got a clue!

So ... where do we house people who live in the houses owned by private landlords?
Let me guess - build more houses??

How many of them are living with family? I know quite a few people eligible for AA not paying for care because the care is being provided by family members (usually daughters or mothers whose own work ability is compromised).

Just as well really. £110 a week would barely make a dent in the cost of the 24 hour care it’s supposed to cover.

I can accept this generation are the luckiest living generation (although don't forget, despite young families being convinced they are the unluckiest, most shafted generation since time began, we don't know how the future will pan out)
I can't however accept they are the most pampered, that's ridiculous.
Just this week on MN, there have been threads about protecting children from being spoken to, not being sent to school because it's too hot and endless discussions justifying faddy eating by assigning a syndrome to it.
Boomers find this nonsense.

The vast majority not living with family. The vast majority have family members popping in a couple of times a week to help with bed changing or shopping but not providing personal care or helping on a daily basis.

Possible solution to get rid of anyone wealthy pronto? so they run quickly and never look back?
And people think not twice, but ten times before trying to set up any business here?
Yeah, this would be quite successful

Exactly this - MN hate the word resilience but it is truly lacking in many . Teenagers don't need much encouragement to sit on their arses all day and are not as stupid as they look. Many have cottoned on to the MH card and use it to their advantage. We are animals after all ....no other animal survives by navel gazing

The private landlords would have to sell if they couldn't rent them out. They're not going to sit on empty properties. That means all the renters wanting to buy would have more chance of buying rather than being trapped paying rent to line the pockets of landlords.

Oh OK. So all renters will suddenly have the funds and inclination to buy a house. That makes complete sense. It's so simple - I wonder why no one has thought of this before 🙄

Yes, except that Gordon Brown raided many people's private pensions and made them nearly worthless. My Dads lost at least 60-70% of its value.
And many will have had uni costs for their children. Fees came in in 2000. Luckily I went in 1999 but a year later I would have paid fees, my parents are in their 70's.
They also went through 25% mortgage rates, 3 day working weeks due to economic crash and miners strikes, multiple redundancies. In their eyes me and my brother have had it so much easier than they did.

And many will have had uni costs for their children. Fees came in in 2000.

Fees were pretty low then though as I went to uni in the early 00s

Who said "all"?? What it would do is change the property market. There'd still be social housing etc for people wanting to rent. At the moment, far too much of the market is being used as additional pensions for elderly people meaning far too many renters who want to buy are priced out of the market and can't save because they're paying someone elses' enhanced pension.

They also went through 25% mortgage rates, 3 day working weeks due to economic crash and miners strikes, multiple redundancies.

🙄 Easier is not the same as easy