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?

The market will readjust so that either wages will rise or that these will most likely be automated.

Why would the "market" re adjust? Have they in social care? a privatised, non union industry.

Employers would demand you pay them to work if they could get away with it, why do you think Unions were formed or why we need a NMW ?

Look to the Victorian era if you want to see how employers will and can act with no regulation.

Because if people leave and don't do the job and it's needed to be done the market will adjust so people do the job.

An employer demanding you pay them to work would lose out to employers who pay the employees. That's how competition works. No one would work and lose money when they can not work and get 0.

As I said, that's not how it works. It's a huge simplification. Same answer to @Foddplqf who doesn't seem to understand this either.
It may work in for an essential job eg HGV driver's pay rose considerably during the pandemic period because these drivers are essential for our economy.
Consider whether that is how it works if the business is non essential eg a restaurant/pub/hotel/travel industry. Then consider that these sort of discretionary industries form a huge part of our GDP nowadays so the potential impacts are huge.
We have seen some of this playing out already because the government(s) keep raising the NMW and now Labour has increased NI and reduced the wage at which it starts to be paid. This has meant that a lot more people are losing their jobs and having their hours cut because businesses are no longer profitable and have to cut back of cease trading. So people don't get a pay increase but a pay cut or, no pay in this worst case scenario.

@Foddplqf labour markets are often not competitive. They're largely characterised by local monopsony power, like when an Amazon warehouse or supermarket is the only employer in town for someone who doesn't have a specific, specialised skill set.

For salaried jobs, work and pay can also be quite insulated from the actual labour market - if you're asked to stay an extra hour to finish a task, or to have a security check before you're allowed to leave a retail job, or a chat with a manager about not smiling enough at customers, for example, even if these things would mean your hourly wage fell below minimum wage or just below the wage you actually seem acceptable, you are simply not operating in a market - you're contractually obliged to do whatever your employer tells you too, or you can quit, which is costly and time consuming - a functioning free market needs alternatives, and at that moment in time you don't have any.

The growth of "flexible" employment, where you're not guaranteed any hours, also massively tilts the employment relationship in favour of employers. If you complain or don't stay late or don't do a task that's dangerous or that you didn't agree to do when you got the job, you can just not be given any hours next week.

For all of these reasons, jobs that people don't really want to do can still be badly paid.

That's another issue.
Monopolies have been allowed to develop, which crowd out competition and have the very opposite effect, anti competition and control. Obviously, that suits the Bezos and Bransons of the world brilliantly! Everyone else, not so much.

This happened in the late 80s in the Architectural sector.
Many people worked for nothing just so that they could be around if anything came up. We were all paying to get to work and sitting in the office doing nothing. We organised the library, played games and did the very small amount of work that was outstanding. We weren’t paid a penny and it wasn’t just our practice it was lots in London.
I went for an interview thinking there was a job for me at a practice that specialised in historic buildings and was offered a short term job, no pay to design a wardrobe / closet for Madonna . You’d think she could pay but whatever she was wasn’t going to come my way as the practice was trying to hold on and pay other bills.

That shocking @DrPrunesqualer but I guess you do what you need to do when you are desperate. I suspect the job losses are only just starting and that, if we look back in 20 years time, the jobs landscape will look very different.

@DrPrunesqualer this sounds quite similar to what's happening in the film industry at the moment. Over half of people in film and TV are out of work, and this has been pretty consistent for the last 18 months. Despite news reports saying Harry Potter is going to be the most expensive TV show ever made, everyone that's been offered work on it that I know, including actors, has been offered rubbish money.

We are constantly told that the creative industries are vital to our economy and that there's a skills shortage in the sector, but there are dozens of green lit British TV shows that can't begin production at the moment because their funding hasn't kept up with the cost inflation of the last few years, and plans to increase studio space are being shelved.

Oh 🤯 that’s the Industry one of our sons will be moving into as a cinematographer in two years time. I really don’t want our kids to suffer constantly the way dh and I did. It’s all very worrying !!!

Business owners pay between 19 & 25% corporation tax plus the employer element of National insurance and pension contributions, it's far from a free ride.

The government has made it harder and harder for a landlord to own rental properties as a business, because of this the government has driven rental prices up and property prices down as it is no longer a decent business proposition. I don't get the landlord hate, I am not one, it is just a business.

Why would you means test state pension? This is a system that everyone has contributed to for all of their working life, they are entilted to the return on their investment just like any other pension scheme. For anyone that has other income, their pension will be taxed.

Why would you means test state pension? This is a system that everyone has contributed to for all of their working life, they are entilted to the return on their investment just like any other pension scheme. For anyone that has other income, their pension will be taxed.

And this is the problem!

You think the majority of people have contributed enough? They haven't.

Current pensioners have not contributed anywhere near as much as they are taking out on average. People who haven't worked at all still have access to state benefits so the contributions argument doesn't hold water. Essentially, they are a benefit, paid for by younger generations which is no longer working well due to demographics and increased longevity of the current pensioners compared to previous generations.
Because it is a benefit, any government can decide to means test it or get rid of it. It is extremely likely that this will happen, which adds to the resentment that some feel at paying pensions for what is now the wealthiest generation ever, past and future.

Yes I think we all know that.
But, much as i know that MNetters think pensioners should be the sacrificial lambs for everything that is wrong in our economy, you can't take something away from someone who is planning on a certain level of income.
DH and I have five smallish private workplace pensions between us, and have made our financial plans for retirement (five years time for DH and nine years for me) based on the state pension we have been told we would get.
I would very much encourage a discussion around changing the state pension for people entering the workplace now, but people down to road to their pensions, no.
On the subject of pensions, a sizeable sum could be saved by the Government looking at the huge contribution it makes to public sector pensions. There is no need to pay in 28% when most people in the private sector are lucky if they get 5% from their employer.

No they haven't, at least not yet.

BTLs are increasing rents or selling up because they have mortgages, the effects of Govt legislation on costs is small, a EICR every 5 years - @£150 and a gas safe cert @£80 pa is about it.

Sect 21 is still allowed and the changes to EPC wont even happen, if at all, in this Parliament.

If you don't have a mortgage, BTL is still a good investment.

Many people jumped on the bandwagon, took out interest only mortgages, convinced they could make a killing, then interest rates shot up.....

I don't believe rent should be subsidised by the state, because overall it means landlords can charge whatever they want and people claim benefits to afford the difference between what they can pay and the price of rent. Landlords don't care where the money comes from, if housing benefit was scrapped they would have to charge less.

I don't believe everyone who is disabled can't or won't work, but better funding for the NHS will help society in the long run and mean less people will be unfit for work if they can access the help they need. Including mental health issues.

In my opinion money needs to be channelled into nhs, schools, social care, housing, so the next generation are better equipped to live happy healthy lives. People are having less babies or choosing not to, living with parents longer because they can't afford housing, there's a mental health crisis... get to the root of all that and overhaul it and there wouldn't be as many people applying for benefits.

Clearly most people don't know that- see other poster's post.
It's ironic that you suggest that most people on MN think that 'pensioners should be the sacrificial lambs for everything that is wrong in our economy', when that is exactly the opposite of what has and is happening, and then proceed to propose that young people are the sacrificial lambs instead! Perhaps you haven't picked up on the irony.

What public sector has the employers paying 28% of salary in? You seem to be making things up. Wrt the difference between public and private sector pensions, these difference were made very clear when people planned their careers. I have no sympathy for people who chose the private sector for a better salary relative to their skills and then moan about the pensions 40 years later, having taken the salary. I can't understand jealousy when things are clearly inequitable but not in this circumstance.

@Katypp

No one wants pensioners to be sacrifical lambs, but we do want a level playing field. A worker earning £25k pays more taxes than a pensioner with income of the same amount. That can't be justified on any level. Likewise there are more reliefs and exemptions for interest received than there are for wages - again, unfair on workers and beneficial to pensioners who are more likely to have savings etc. Pensioners shouldn't be treated more favourably by the tax system than workers, nor should landlords etc who likewise pay less tax than workers on the same income.

It’s much the same as private pensions but with a cap.
The more years you pay in the more you get up to 40 years. If you don’t have the max years you get less. If you don’t pay anything you get a minimum.

The amount accruing on private pensions is not equal to how much you pay in…it’s more. Just as state pensions are.
This is simply because the money is invested along the way to make money.

@rainingsnoring given the legality of state pensions for current and previous people paying in it won’t be taken away or means tested. That would never stand up in court as it would be regarded as Government miss- selling.

It depends how long you live, doesn’t it? You won’t have contributed enough if you live to be 100, if you die at 70 you’ll have over contributed.

The employer contribution to tps is 28%

But its an unfunded scheme. There is no pot, it just goes back to the treasury who also pay teacher pensions amongst other things

It's not ring fenced and the existing liabilities would still need to be paid, even if a different scheme was set up starting tomorrow.

One of my sons was offered 25% working in Government position.

@rainingsnoring

you are assuming every type of job is available in the public sector and You forget our economy relies on the private sector