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?

And finally, I was referencing some really nasty posts on MN about 'greedy boomers' as if pensioners had planned all the luck they have had and were enjoying seeing younger people suffer.

Tbh the outrage over means testing winter fuel has made me not quite so charitable towards them.

I agree!
My beef is the easy way posters assume all pensioners can just lose some of their income without noticing.

That “outrage” was largely political point scoring. Quite a large number of pensioners said they didn’t need it.

Not forgetting too that it's always easy to blame those that have gone before. The same happens with a wide range of social problems we are all facing right now.

I was also shocked how high the employer contribution was and only found out through ds job application.
I think the ‘outrage’ is that those %s are tax payer funded and not equally available in the private sector.
Which, of note, is in no way better or with advantages to the private when these are taken into account of course

These high rates I believe aren’t sustainable given our Govn seems to be having a hard time of making the books balance.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they fell more in line with the private sector with salary increases to offset any potential lower salaries. Those salary rises would then reduce UC benefits ( if applicable) and could be an overall cost benefit to the country.

Although obviously public sector workers would be losing the higher pensions

Everything always comes at a cost it’s just making the whole system as fare as possible

What about outrage at means testing disability payments. Would that have the same affect.

Globalisation has enabled the rich to hold the world to ransom now.

No, because they still benefit from the education of other people, i.e. doctors, scientists, etc., plus they benefit from the full range of public services. Taxes aren't a "personal piggy bank" - they're for the full suite of services that EVERYONE benefits from, i.e. education, health, defence, infrastructure, etc.

What is your definition of rich?

At a rough guess, an income of £20-£30k a year more than the poster.
That's usually where it's set 😂

Don’t patronise me, please. And you can’t have it both ways. Either you drop the entire net contributor schtick and stop moaning about people not contributing enough to cover their pensions or you accept the (correct) societal approach you outlined above.

Yes, it basically means ‘richer than me’ and we need to increase taxes means ‘taxes I don’t have to pay’.

Most houses in the SE are edging towards that price so I totally disagree.

Self respect? Prospects? Even if you are not a penny better off initially its easier to get a better job from a job, to make progress to better wages or opportunities. Sitting on your arse waiting for something you will nobly contemplate getting out of bed for just gives you a worsening work record and even less change of a decent job.

When it comes to those able to work this language of “we must motivate poor little Peter/Jane to feel work is worth their valuable time” simply hands voters to Reform on a plate who are already ploughing the populist left in this vein.

My WC parents and their friends would share their last penny with a friend or relative down on their luck, it was common where I grew up for families to sub each other when one had a tough week (and by sub I mean pennies not pounds or more often a bag of tea or sixpences for the meter).

However they and all their friends had absolute contempt for those who would not work and chose to live off the work of others. They were considered scroungers who damaged the good will within a community by taking advantage. Everyone has met such people, everyone recognises the reality of that minority who are happy to live off others. Its a really easy message for Reform to push at the next election.

You can't say that someone doesn't benefit from education because they didn't have children. Presumably they were educated themselves, and live in a society surrounded by educated (to some extent) people providing them with services, etc. It's not patronising to point out that everyone benefits from an educated population, whether you have your own children or not!

That will mean that houses are built where it is cheapest and easiest for the developer not necessarily where they bring the most benefit for local residents. That's just corporates marking their own homework.

‘Local residents’ LOL I think you’re in for a shock.

It is a tad hypocritical though when you’re a firm believer in individualism and constantly talk about net contribution and lifetime contributions covering the cost of pensions. Like I said, you can’t have it both ways.

Shock? Unlikely. I have a bit of an understanding about how things work. Local residents means those living there and those who will live there following the new homes being built. My LA must deliver 1000's of new homes. There are several local areas developers are pushing to build these homes in, near me. Brownfield sites that would provide better quality of life for local residents have been overlooked in favor of cheaper t develop greenbelt. These new homes have been proposed in areas where the local infrastructure is already struggling, there are no new schools planned even though the local schools are all over subscribed , underfunded and with staff retention issues. No new Drs surgeries (its virtually impossible to get an appointment before any new homes are built). The wait times are at local hospital are longer than the national average and so on.
Corporate greed is rife in real estate; how else do you explain why HMOs are so profitable for developers.

How though?

I like the idea of new taxes on luxuries...

What shall we include?

I am a (very) high earner. I am ok with:

• paying a bit more income tax
• losing (for eg) the higher isa allowance

I'd also be ok with limits on inheritance tax reliefs.

I'd like to see higher CGT - passive income should simply be taxed at the same rates as earned income.

There should be punitive taxes on for-profit landlords to fund incentives for housing associations.

We need to limit the proportion of the workforce being classified as "disabled".

We need to limit the proportion of the workforce being classified as "disabled"

How will that generate money/savings? Disabled people in the workforce is a good thing.

But you are in effect being punished by those not turning up, as they make the wait lists longer. If a child's doesn't turn up for an appointment then we have to offer them another one, which makes waits longer for others.

Although I agree we cannot charge. But maybe a deposit type system like in some hotels, a hold it put on a card and then released as long as turn up, so no actual money taken.

My son has regular scheduled appointments under outpatient clinics with several specialities, no wait lists involved because the clinics are at the same place and same time on the same day.