Aibu it's not the Government's role to bail people out?

[Katypp]

The UK is massively in debt and money is short.
AIBU to think that families should be expected to manage their own household budgets instead of constant calls for Government subsidies every time prices go up?
It's coming up to summer. Surely it's not unreasonable to expect householders to manage their own bills by cutting back their energy use?
Surely adults could be expected to manage their own grocery bills? Obviouly covid was exceptional, but oil prices rising have happened many times before with no expectation of bailouts.
My question is, given the state of the economy, do we need to wean ourselves off expecting the Government to step in every time prices go up and learn resilience again?

Errrr no they are ripping off the taxpayer by generously giving our tax to a selected few when it’s needed for schools etc

Those families were average/above average earners. They weren't benefit scroungers or the unemployed that people on here are throwing stones at. In fact they are the "squeezed middle" that posters have been defending. Their spending on cakes etc has no relation to the spending habits of those on benefits.

However, I don't think the main point of the story is that we should feel sorry for people who can no longer order a starter. Or who are cutting back on cinema trips. It's still a news story because changes in consumer behaviour have an impact on the economy.

Not all reporting is about making a "victim" for you to have an emotional reaction to. It's a story about consumer spending trends. That's important.

Prices have been rising for quite some time though, and salaries have not risen equivalently. So there will always come a point where people can no longer make ends meet.

There was snow on the ground where I live last week. For elderly people, those with health conditions, tiny babies etc it would be dangerous not to have sufficient heating and I do think governments have a duty of care to the people they are paid to serve. We elect our representatives and then we pay their salary in the hope they will support us and guide us as leaders. So I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those representatives to actively work to avoid people falling into poverty that could then compromise their health and wellbeing.

The other issue with this is that poverty has other knock on consequences such as more families being accused of neglect, links to rises in crime, links to rises in dependency on the NHS. Being able to pay your bills doesn't only impact your immediate household, it impacts social cohesion and civil order. When people are struggling to manage rising costs we see increased anti immigration sentiment and more overt racism. We see rioting and increased community violence.

So while yes, ideally everyone would be able to pay for what they need and budget accordingly that's only going to work when you have the salary coming in to physically be able to do that.

What I will say is that I think help given needs to be significantly more scrutinised and managed. The last time there was assistance given for home heating costs some wealthy family friends of my parents were laughing at the fact they got a triple payment as they have 2 holiday homes when the payment was really meant for primary homes. That bothers me.

@deskdog people in most cases aren't struggling because of stupidity. I support vulnerable people with their budgeting and its becoming harder than ever to make a plan that covers all the essentials, not even including things like replacing clothes and shoes, toiletries etc. More full time working people than ever before have been relying on food banks because of increased costs and that's before the oil prices started to rise recently. I would also say that what you're describing as 'stupidity' is often actually vulnerability.

only if we also wean corporations off subsidies and tax avoidance schemes and using minimum wage agency workers for 11 weeks then sacking them so they don’t accrue rights then rehiring them, always pushing responsibility for them onto the benefits bill.

I believe it shows entitlement (whether squeezed middle or any other pigeon hole you choose).
Lunch on a family day out - 3 courses, additional extras and alcohol?
Entitlement vs. Personal responsibility.

We never had the heating on in the morning as a kid (something that has continued with my own family), we managed/manage.

What the Gov should be doing is getting people back to work- that’s where money should be going - the neets, those on benefits, the over 50s no one wants to employ, the anxious and depressed - they don’t even mention this in all their pandering to this group or that group or Trump. FGS get people working and the country cleaned up and don’t make employing people any harder!!!!!!!!!

There’s a lot of wealth in this country, but it’s nonsense like this that means it’s not distributed fairly. Why shouldn’t the government bail people out? We pay in, there’s no reason they shouldn’t pay out to people who need the help.

I was born in the 50 s - no central heating, one fire in the living room -in some ways it was better than trying to heat a whole house. Definitely cheaper but babies didn’t die of cold -they just wore cosy woollen clothes and blankets.
I suppose we just got used to it

If we are supporting people now what will happen next winter -I would say hang fire and keep the money for then

So what's the answer? These are people spending money they have earned on what they choose, and discussing with a journalist (who has asked them about it. I doubt they went up and started ranting) that they are likely to cut back a bit in the future. They also aren't demanding government subsidies. That wasn't the point of the article. Is it that families on decent incomes should be taxed to the point they can't afford starters on days out etc specifically because it is "entitled" to want it?

I am generally not opposed to tax by the way. I think we need it to pay for public services and even (shock horror) supporting those in society who need support. But that doesn't mean I think we should tax people purely because it's wrong for them to have disposable income. I pay a decent amount of tax and sometimes treat myself. I'd accept paying more tax if needed (grudgingly) and cut my spending. I don't much like people "laughing" at the economy tanking because they think people have it too easy. That's deeply spiteful behaviour.

And of all the things people chose to spend disposable money on a day out with the family is quite wholesome. If noone spent money at Pizza restaurants those pizza restaurants would close and the staff would also have less money to spend so other businesses would also suffer. And then we would have more people claiming unemployment benefits for posters on here to castigate.

As someone who's worked with NEET individuals this is not a straightforward fix. Almost half of benefits claimants are in employment. There is a significant portion of claimants who are genuinely unable to work due to ill health (including anxiety and depression which are valid and life impacting mental health conditions) or caring responsibilities.

The number leftover from those demographics who could be working but just aren't is actually quite small comparatively and the reasons why they aren't in employment are usually complex social, economic and generational issues. It's a bit of a myth to be honest that we 'just' need to be getting benefits claimants back to work.

I absolutely can't stand the idea that just because previous generations struggled and survived, subsequent generations should get it equally hard. I personally want better for my child and future grandchildren than what I grew up with. We should be pushing for things to be better, more affordable and more stable/ secure for future generations, not less!

Absolutely agree, we need people to be able to spend in order to float our economy. Plus it also speaks to how satisfied and content people are, the impact of that on society, public mental health etc. If you are struggling so much that you can't go out for a birthday meal with your family that's a very stressful place to be at and can really grind people down. That then creates issues with both physical and mental health. Both of which then cost money to rectify. I think this current generation is maybe just more aware of that connection and rightly so.

I use heating oil, so am resigned to being more cold than I would like. I'm thinking of channelling The Good Life, planting an array of veg, only using a bike and knitting my own knickers. Large salads all the way.

In fairness, when you were born the maximum tax rate was 90%. The NHS had been created at great expense along with the welfare state. People remember rationing but that was done with the intention to protect the most vulnerable from going without. And the generation just above you had fought a brutal war to allow you to grow up safely in a democracy. You are the first generation incidentally to have never known war in Western Europe for 2000 years

If your general point is that it's possible to cut back, and we shouldn't doom monger then fair dos. But you had it a lot easier than the generations before. I don't understand the almost schadenfreude some people in that generation get at the idea of younger generations suffering/the desire to smash up all the safety nets that they benefitted from as children because somehow the next generations were scroungers. Even though the social safety net has been steadily cut since the 80s so it's got far more holes than the one you grew up with.

Also coal was effectively nationalised and therefore the fuel in that "one fire" was effectively subsidised or at least price manages by the government. Although for lots of reasons it's good we no longer rely on coal (childhood respiratory disease, smog etc) if you had a coal fire or a gas stove you HAD heating. Coal isn't an option now and gas is expensive. But any suggestion of helping out people struggling for fuel bills now is met with derision because... You coped just fine with your government subsidised coal fire in the 50s?

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that sometimes life is hard and if you’re poor life is even harder.

However there is a massive entitlement culture as a pp has mentioned. People who don’t work should not have a cheaper heating bill than those who do work. We have heating on from 5-8pm. That’s what we can afford. But then we’re out at work all day.

Going back to the BBC article- I still find it astonishing that a “squeezed middle” family think this is a reasonable lunch order. It’s just not necessary. I also think it represents what people consider ‘normal’ or ‘nothing special’ which is ridiculous.

But the point is, if someone on a decent income is able to cut back, and finds it necessary to cut back, someone on a much tighter income who is already counting the pennies is going to struggle to make further cuts without really suffering.

I really don't think the people interviewed were saying they were poor. But using the fact a middle class family on a decent income is cutting back on treats to imply therefore people on benefits are wasting money is very odd logic.

I don't spend money on eating out. I spend money on books (second hand and new). I don't care if anyone thinks that's entitled. Its my money and I'm helping the economy. I don't think I should be subsidised. I do understand that if I have to cut back my spending it means people on much lower incomes could be really struggling.

Persephone
Blooming heck - my point was people won’t die with very little heating which has been stated above.
But make sure you lay into a boomer when you can.
my life walking miles to school, no car, one bath a week, plain food, almost no holidays, limited medical care, was simple compared to what people expect now - I don’t live in a bubble and have children and grandchildren so see exactly what life is like for younger generations
but I’m sure you feel better for getting that off your chest

People absolutely do die from inadequate heating and the home maintenance issues that go hand in hand with inadequate heating. I've worked in social housing and some tenants are red flagged for heating related repairs compared to others for this very reason.

If you have an inadequately heated home in the country then it's quite likely you'll have issues with damp which we now know can have very negative impacts on people's health, especially anyone with the likes of asthma. Children have died as a result.

Maybe don't write a stupid post in the first place.

No, we didn't just get used to it. We grew our economy and improved our technology so we didn't have to live so uncomfortably cos it was shit.

I didn’t think it was shit.

It was shit
The 80s was shit
The ice on the inside of the window windows and the electric fire that caused house fires was shit
People look back with rose tinted glasses but children died regularly in entirely preventable accidents

Heard a great remark on the radio about this today. There's no such thing as government - it's other taxpayers.

I agree it's maybe a bit of rose tinted glasses, plus when you're a child growing up in something it's what you know and what you're used to because you don't know any other alternative. And that's then mixed in with happy childhood memories because obviously things are rarely ALL bad all the time. I know I really enjoy living off grid sometimes as a holiday. I also know I have zero desire to do it full time!