To think there will be many more disabled adults in 20 years?

[Walkyrie]

I’m disabled myself, just to put that out there.

It just seems like the number of people with a disability, usually a psychiatric one, is going through the roof.

40% of disability benefit claimants are claiming for mental health related reasons. The number of anxious children and teens on here, and that I know in my own life and family, is really really high. So many schools refusers and kids in need of extra support, special school placements and so on. It seems there are a lot of unemployed young adults living at home who simply don’t have the mental acuity to get a job, live independently, have a life of their own.

3 children in my family are currently school refusing, one we only found out about today but it was not a surprise as she’s always been very anxious and has selective mutism.

My AIBU is, should we be doing something to prepare for what may be a very high number of adults not working in years to come? How will we sustain them all?

You might want to ask why people like Elon Musk are advising their kids to qualify in hands on trades then, at least in the short term, and also have a gander at his contract for huge numbers of humanoid robots to be completed by 2030.

And if your post is satirical, fair play.

If not, meditation might take the edge off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_(robot)

In case anyone has missed it.

Of course it's a value judgement - disability benefits are only very high if you're very severely disabled and qualify for all components which most people don't. Or if you have a condition that wins you a high number of points in the various tests but doesn't actually have significant costs associated with it so the money that's meant for extra costs can be spent on luxuries. Most disabled people do have high costs though which wipe out any extra amount and those who don't qualify for Universal Credit (and it's around a third from what I understand) get far less than minimum wage to begin with - I know of people getting £6,000 a year to cover everything, including housing costs. Their partners are expected to subsidise them but many are not earning enough for a decent quality of life. This is why your average disabled person is more likely to be in poverty than the average able bodied person. Those who do get UC but have kids are often denied PIP on the basis of the kids so won't get the full whack either. If you're disabled and getting a very generous amount you have to realise that not everybody is as lucky.

Easily. Over 25% of people claiming state pension welfare are millionaires. Over 50% have a higher income that the average UK full time salary. We need to adopt an Australian-style pension system and means-test the state pension. This will save £70-80bn in the current tax year and far more in future, if it is means tested to be taped away even at the generous level for a “moderate” retirement as set out in the PLSA retirement livings standards: this is currently £31,700 for a single adult after tax and housing costs and £43,900 for a couple. This measure, therefore, would leave absolutely nobody in poverty.

Auto-enrolment needs to become mandatory (no opt out) with gradually rising minimum contribution levels from both employees and employers until a situation is created where everybody who isn’t severely disabled is providing for their own retirement and saving is not optional. Even at current contribution levels, if someone worked in a minimum wage from 18-68 and contributed the minimum 3% employee contribution and their employer contributed the minimum 5%, if this was invested sensibly even in a simple global equity tracker fund then this market tracker generates average growth of 8% (based on the last 70 years) which would result in a pension pot of roughly £1.5m in nominal terms by the age of 68 which by then in real-terms (i.e. factoring in inflation) is likely to equate to circa £300k per person (assuming this person never progresses beyond minimum wage at all and that minimum wage rises with inflation - since it was introduced it has risen far more quickly than inflation). A similar, mandatory scheme needs to be put in place for the self-employed unless they can demonstrate sufficient existing assets already to self-fund retirement. There is absolutely no reason that the majority of people’s retirements should be funded as a welfare expense and this isn’t sustainable with an ageing population, as Australia and others realised several decades ago when they reformed their systems.

We then need to completely change our healthcare model to be one of the combined models successfully used elsewhere in Europe and in places like Australia and Canada which have far better health outcomes for comparable (or in some cases, lower) costs per person. This will ensure that people have timely treatment which will save a great deal of money in unnecessary welfare, lost tax revenue, housing support, etc.

For social care, for younger workers we should add a further 1% salary mandatory contribution throughout working life to be saved into a separate fund and invested for each employee which would be a starting point towards ensuring people save for their care costs. This percentage could be gradually increased. At retirement age the fund can be used to buy an insurance policy to cover any care needs therefore spreading the risk/ cost but without inefficient state care/ lack of choice of providers leading to poor care/ private payers subsidising those who pay nothing. Of course, like with pensions, there will always be some people born so severely disabled that they can never work and there should be state funding for them but not for everyone else who can work and save for this over a lifetime. For those already retired who - as I’ve pointed out repeatedly - as a cohort have paid far too little tax to fund their lifetime costs to the state, the pensioner exemption from national insurance should be removed immediately and that money should go into a central fund to cover the care costs for their entire cohort.

That would be a good start. Obviously there are far, far more things to do related to the other economic issues I have highlighted but none of this is rocket science, we don’t need to invent new systems; we can simply look around the world at functional systems that are already in place in other countries and far superior to our own in terms of cost efficiency, fairness and outcomes, and emulate them. But the above would be a good start, to free up tens of billions of pounds per year. Just means-testing the state pension so that we aren’t handing out £80bn per year in unnecessary welfare to those who are more than capable of supporting themselves and far better off than most households of working age (who also have childcare and rent/ mortgages to pay whereas most retirees do not as they have mostly either have paid off their mortgages or get housing benefit to cover their rent!) would enable us to double the education budget, invest in defence and infrastructure, and start to finally improve things for younger and future generations.

Thank you - that's both interesting and informative! I can see how it might well work.

It’s not conspiratorial. That’s precisely what the nefarious and extremely wealthy people funding political parties private companies like Reform are trying to do, hence the enormous discrepancy between the interests of the “party” (aka Farage’s pocket) funders and the messages in the advertising/ propaganda directed at those to whom they are trying to appeal, which bear no resemblance to their actual motives.

One would think that people would at least have the sense to question why multi-millionaires/ billionaires want to pay so much money to fund the politics of a country in which they do not even live, and whether they genuinely believe these wealthy people are buying this influence over UK public policy because they have interests aligned with those of the average person living in the UK and care deeply about our living standards.

Thank you for engaging with what I’ve said! I’ve worked in economics for over two decades but often it feels like shouting into the void.

People start threads here or elsewhere online saying they want to discuss an economic issue but the moment you try to highlight the data and numbers and the actual problems that need addressing it is met with tumbleweed, or the Four Yorkshireman sketch and personal anecdotes, so it really does make me despair of any hope for the future and it is nice that your question was genuine and you were actually interested in and willing to consider my answer.

There are solutions to these problems. There is no perfect system because we are humans, but we could easily make things many times better than they are with some quite simple reforms. It’s sad that people keep voting for things which will accelerate the decline and refusing to engage with the obvious solutions to the main underlying causes of our economic problems.

There is still time to turn the UK around before the doom loop that has been instigated over the last few decades becomes a vertical drop from which there is no coming back and I just hope that the electorate will wise up to the reality of what needs to be done rather than being distracted by all of these “squirrels” about disabled people/ immigrants/ SEND spending in schools (which, incidentally, is one of the best public expenditures in terms of value for money and return on investment that is available to a nation, if done competently - i.e. the opposite of what Bridget Phillipson is proposing to do…! - or whatever other arbitrary target is the flavour of the day) in time to turn things around, otherwise the country will become increasingly impoverished and divided and I will be encouraging my children to use their EU passports to escape.

Hahaaa do you even know what these words mean?

This thread has been a masterclass in ignorance.

Presumably that is why is was subsequently deleted. Are you going to apologise?

No, I won't. I said 'some people', and I added 'I'm sorry for those who are genuinely disabled.' I used modality, which means I restricted my comments to those who are not disabled, but misdiagnose themselves as such to avoid taking responsibility for their lives. Perhaps the person who deleted it did not notice that I avoided absolute statements. Hedging language (modality) means I was addressing a specific group, not everyone. I feel for anyone who has a disability, and sincerely hope they will get the help and support they deserve.

Its interesting on what turned in to yet another benefit bashing thread how quiet certain people have suddenly become when they have realised they will likely be unemployed themselves in 20 years with advances in technology and will be begging for benefits themselves.

The government's latest stats would disagree that people are gaming the system. I can't believe you've said "threads on here daily proving it". But no one talks about the billions saved by unpaid carers or that goes unclaimed every year

Yes I do. There is nothing incorrect in what I said.

You have oversimplified things. Several different issues,with different drivers and trade offs. These don't just neatly tie up.

It matters, but not in the way you’re saying. The bigger problem isn’t pensions, it’s fewer people working. That means less tax and weaker growth. Fix health and help people stay in or return to work — that’s what will do most to improve the economy.

France is not perfect and will end up where we are even, with its current syatem,unless there are changes. They just have a buffer because they have managed healthcare a bit better than us - dont forget they also have a system where children may have to contribute if their parents can't afford care cost.

Same for Australia, they are fortunate to have valuable natural resources which contributes towards a buffer. They will still face the sane issues with an aging population. Again just delayed unless nothing else changes.

,

I read what you said with interest and obviously concede to your experience.

Economically though what will be the long term effect of rising unemployment and dependence on benefits for mental health issues? We are not yet in a position where these children are adults, but that time will come and so yet the effects aren’t entirely obvious.

How do threads on here prove people game the system?
Just because some posters think that Mandy next door with her spray tan and gel nails is gaming the system doesnt mean she is and isnt proof of anything
I also take what some posters say about people they know ,telling all and sundry about their " Benefit fraud " with a large pinch of salt .@

People promoting healthcare systems from abroad. You cannot necessarily compare what works elsewhere with here. We have often a completely different society. Older, diverse, poorer often with different health needs.

Means testing the state pension. Be careful what you wish for. All that would happen is this. The cost of doing so would be very high. And over the years the threshold would reduce. Either literally or be frozen so it reduces that way.
And what you think is a good threshold now might not be the one that exists when your time arrives to get your pension. Invariably, it will be for the very poor only. Not your average bod.

No thanks.

Totally. And it's funny how every benefits basher seems to know a 'Mandy', too, yeah course they do. 🙄

Not RTFT but there'll be a crashing silence after the local elections because this is a shit-stirring Reform bot's dream of a thread.

Many people understand the problems but don't buy into over simplification or unrealistic assumptions.

Fairness and trust works both ways. If you work, pay in and save, you should absolutely see the benefit. Changes shouldn’t break the link between what you contribute and what you receive.

I know this post was a while back, but it's simply not true. No pensioner is surviving on that amount (some non pensioners are, but who cares about them, eh?🙄)

They would get housing benefit to pay their rent and council tax support to pay that.

Without a full state pension they'd also get pension credit to top it up, and that comes with various extras.

If £1000 a month after housing costs are covered doesn't sound like plenty to you, you have no idea how so many of the working population are living.

So none of that's based in reality or could even be partly true, then? Here's a tip, don't get a job as a benefits assessor because they'll be queued up down the street and fighting to be assessed by you.

This idea of people "gaming the system" is equated with anyone who is able not working to "stick it to the man" in such a childish way. That could be me. 57, widowed, 3 further bereavements last year, and all the sadmin for two of them, failed business, forced house move - massive downsize as landlord needed to sell up, not that I could afford to stay anyway, debts, etc etc and yes, ,"mental elf issues" plus a dearth of relevant qualifications for the ever changing world of work. On such a tight budget that having checked even a full time minimum wage job, if I could get one, wouldn't make a difference to my circumstances. My therapist says I'm not fit to work, and I feel trapped and a complete failure due to a series of unfortunate events that wiped out every bit of safety net I had.

I hate it. I hate myself. Every avenue I investigate throws up another road block. I have considered goung back to Uni to retrain, but all the things I thought might get me out of the trap are being consumed by the rise of AI. And the labyrinth around the finances is baffling.

When ones cost of living and "income" effectively cancel each other out, leaving nothing with which to pay for travel or other expenses associated with getting or keeping a job, it becomes a case of just keeping oneself off the streets and trying not to be a bigger problem or burden than I already feel I am.

No inheritance to buffer me, nothing worth selling, and fighting passive suicidal ideation every day.

And so many people are in this trap, and so many are much worse off - and some of them are working.

So is it "gaming" the system or survival in a world where keeping up is a constant headfuck and one feels as if it's just getting worse?

A benefits assessor receives a skewed perspective of these things, though. By definition, those who actually are scamming the system are going to be known to benefits assessors, whereas it's not uncommon for people who are entitled to benefits to waive them.

Well i hope a benefits assesor would mske a proper assesmrnt
Rather than relying on mumsnet threads as " proof "....