To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

I don't have to "imagine knowing my child needs that support and not being able to fund it". It's my reality, in one of the richest countries in the world, thanks to our ridiculous socialist healthcare system.

It's not a case of "having to pay if I want it quickly", it's a case of having to pay if I want it at all and even then, it being inadequate or unavailable. There is zero private pediatric provision outside of London/SE, and the NHS care for my son's multiple conditions is non-existent. As in, not funded, no specialists, no clinics, does not exist in my part of the UK. Yes, I pay to consult with GOSH specialists privately in London, but that means travel, hotels and time off work, all funded from net income which apparently will be reduced still further because it needs to pay for more NHS. It's an absolute fucking clown show.

The standards in my local hospital would - and should - embarrass a developing country. Paperwork is trivial compared to that - and many of us would actually like to make sure that our healthcare system is only routinely used by those for whom it is intended, and not anyone who rocks up to its doors, which means a few checks.

So you're objecting to my choice of expression rather than the substance of what I wrote. Got it. 👌

I don't disagree with this, but it's rather like the argument against an unelected head of state. The grim likelihood of getting "President Blair" (or even worse) does not make inherited privilege acceptable, it just means we need better politicians in every party. Similarly, clinging to a healthcare funding system that has been ruled out or jettisoned by the entire civilised world does not become rational simply because the British state could not organise a piss-up in a brewery.

We have a private paediatrician in Cheshire. That’s who we used for our son’s ADHD diagnosis, and for some of his relevant medication.

We are widely missing the point that we’re both able to access that paperwork, with relative ease.

It would add to my never ending pile of admin, but I could do it. There are many who would find that far more difficult, and more than just a time consuming admin task.

The last part seems like a thinly veiled immigration comment, which I don’t especially want to engage with, beyond saying that I’m comfortable with people, of any background, accessing health provision when they need it.

I suppose so - in the sense that I'm objecting to your choice of expression because it implies a course of action that is entirely opposite to what the IMF actually can do.

If you mean you have "got it", as in you have now understood that sovereign nations go to the IMF if they need a bailout, and you've twigged that the IMF doesn't go to them, then congratulations!

I rather think you haven't got it at all though.

The last part seems like a thinly veiled immigration comment, which I don’t especially want to engage with, beyond saying that I’m comfortable with people, of any background, accessing health provision when they need it.

Oh do please stop it. It's perfectly fine to comment on immigration, and I write that as someone married to a first generation immigrant (who - ironically - works for the NHS) and has a mixed race child. Common sense dictates that a functioning welfare state is incompatible with the healthcare equivalent of open borders.

I would be interested to know the name of your Cheshire pediatrician - my DS does have ADHD (actually diagnosed by the NHS, but only after complaints to PALS, our MP, the media and the ombudsman), but it's not his core issue and I have been unable to find a private specialist outside of London.

I really dislike this juvenile approach to debating, i.e. I don't want to engage with you on the substance of the UK's parlous financial position (admittedly not yet parlous enough for IMF help, as I wrote in my subsequent post), so instead I will heavily imply that you are educationally subnormal. Fwiw I'm not, and I suspect you are perfectly aware that I am not. You simply don't like what I have written. Which is fine, btw.

DH works 50 hour weeks and is a higher tax payer and I often feel it’s unfair that we’re subsidising some who choose not to work and keep pumping out kids they can’t afford! Where’s the incentive to work if it’s all free handouts!

I don't like what you've written because it is fundamentally incorrect.

Whether you like my debating style or not is irrelevant. If you want to believe that I'm educationally subnormal, go ahead. It makes no difference to me.

FWIW I don’t believe that. And I think it’s obvious what I meant - this is a MN thread, not Hansard. But the whole “you don’t agree with me so you must be stupid” has no place in a debate between educated women. Or anywhere outside a Y2 playground, really.

Do you realise that "educationally subnormal" is now considered an offensive and outdated term?

No, why would it be considered that? Ironically, I was trying to use the expression least likely to cause offence, and thought "thick as mince" might upset someone. Is "daft as a brush" any better?

SEN schools* used to be known as ESN a few decades ago and that's how their pupils were described. So it's a derogatory term for people with learning disabilities, essentially calling them abnormal, lesser than supposedly normal people. Think along the same lines as former terms for people with Down syndrome - that's why it's offensive. Also it was abolished as an official classification in the early 80s so it's fair to say language has moved on since.

• The way that those schools operated is worthy of a discussion on its own.

Okay, every day’s a school day I suppose!

My son has significant SEN but is of normal intelligence, so I thought it was a more specific term used for learning difficulties, low IQ or whatever. I shall retire it from my lexicon!

What you do?

See I never think this, but then again DH and I both work with beneficiaries (social services) and not one do I want to trade lives with. There might be some gaming the system, I've known a few, but generally speaking people on benefits have had something or many somethings go wrong in life to end up there.

Would your DH trade his life for theirs? I think that's only fair to ask if you're counting everything they've experienced and have, not just whether they work or not, or how much money they have versus how much you have. It's very rarely that simple.

I'm interested in the experiences of people who've had different experiences to me. I've only ever come across one person in my life who I thought might be cheating the system and even then I'm not totally convinced. The people that think that's what's happening do have some ableist views which makes me doubt their opinions. However, the stats for places like Blackpool are incredibly high. It's hard not to conclude, however, that disability claims rates are masking long term unemployment. If you had no prospect of stable long term employment, could you live on £400 a month or whatever you get for unemployment benefit for decades without it causing depression, anxiety and mental breakdown? I don't think I could. I'd be interested, OP, to know how many people you know who you believe to be genuinely disabled? I know half a dozen from my normal life (people I went through life with who became disabled) and a further dozen or so who are friends or acquaintances of family or friends. Their disability claims seem solid to me and while I don't struggle to believe that there are people who know more people who might be playing the system what I do struggle to believe is when they know many people doing so but somehow almost nobody they think is genuine - or one or two people only. Surely everyone with a wide social circle knows a lot of genuinely disabled people. If they don't you do wonder if they are just misidentifying genuine disability as "scrounging".

Oh I know quite a few genuinely disabled people. I never suggested I didn't. I also would say that a decent proportion of the people I know have genuine health struggles even if they aren't deemed to be officially disabled. It's a complex area and it isn't the case that you are either severely disabled or totally fit and healthy. There is a huge grey area and obviously that's why this topic is so controversial and I have tried to steer this thread away from it.

Studies have consistently shown that being unemployed can lead to anxiety and depression. Social isolation and not having a purpose are hugely detrimental, especially to young people. I have witnessed it a lot amongst my own family and friends. It's a viscous cycle but one that some people never even try to break by meaningfully looking for employment in the first place. Some families and even wider social groups simply don't have a culture of working so the norm is very much to claim benefits. As you suggest, it's very hard to cope on benefits without the disability element. That's my experience of growing up in an area like Blackpool. The level of truancy is my school was unreal as they genuinely didn't see the point of going when they thought they wouldn't need anything that was taught there anyway.

The issue here is that there is clearly benefit fraud and it is bad and we should clamp down on it. But how much does it really cost?

AI says £8.6 bio (including non fraudulent but incorrect overpayment). That sounds a lot but is out of about £1.4 trillion total government expenditure, or 0.6%.

Even if we look at total health and disability payments, they have increased by £20 billion over a decade, significant but not all avoidable. Some of it is due to an ageing growing population.

OTOH, the ‘tax gap’, the difference between what should be paid and what HMRC actually gets is over £50 billion, or closer to 4%, a significant number.

And then, of course, there is the crazy pension triple lock which guarantees, over time, increases in pension cost will dramatically increase in real time. This costs a (small, but still 1.5X benefit fraud) £12.5 bio per annum, which is totally crazy and unaffordable.

Now, of course, there are many other factors at play in fairness, and the total welfare expenditure is a large number which could be made quite a lot smaller with more incentives for people to work and tougher criteria for disability payments.

In conclusion, people should ignore the TikTok dog whistle videos of Sharon with 10 kids from 5 fathers who drives a brand new BMW on benefits. If she exists at all, she is vanishingly rare, and makes little to no difference to UK PlC’s finances.

The big levers are still Income tax (including NICs), VAT, corporation tax (only 11%) and Council tax (only about 3%).

Expenditure is incredibly hard to cut unless we can make serious efficiency gains in the public sector. Otherwise it will be very painful.

Gary Stevens (economist/ex trader) makes a powerful case for a one off wealth tax. He argues that 0% interest rates. QE and Covid subsidies have meant that a lot of wealth has effectively been given to the asset rich by the government and this would just be a readjustment. I like the idea in theory, but not sure how practical it is.

Of course, if it were a significant amount, we could pay down debt. It currently costs us 8% per annum or over £100 bio to service our debt! This is only going up and will make the tax/spending balance harder every year.

The problem is, in a SM dominated age, where people are served videos to reinforce what they already think, politics will become more and more simplified and polarised.

Videos are easy to watch and get people pleasantly riled up. But anecdote is meaningless (even when true, which it often isn’t) but real data is really important in a political discussion.

I suspect a lot of people exist in this "grey area" for years before something tips them into a clearly definable area where they need more help. I did for years, until I had a stroke. I'm afraid it's again an attempt to cast shadow by effectively saying "well lots of people manage, why can't they?".

I totally agree.

I am from a deprived area. I left that area and moved to an affluent city to go to Uni, then I lived and worked there. I lived frugally to scrape together a deposit for a flat. My DH is the same as above.

We then took a gamble and worked abroad for 16 years to work and save. Overseas I saw that it was quite normal for people to go where the jobs are and move for work. I also saw that people continuously went on courses to better themselves. In the UK people just don't make this much effort.

Back here in the UK you just get hammered on tax every which way you turn, and you don't really see any positive tangible results for yourself or for society. Every thing is just in dire straits.

People come on here and say that it is only a small proportion of people who are on benefits for the wrong reasons but I absolutely disagree. Everyone I know on benefits is absolutely milking the system. All I hear is "working is a mugs game". In one of my jobs (I have 2) my work colleagues reduce their hours every time the govt increases the minimum wage as it affects their benefits.

Everyone is moaning about pensioners getting a state pension but this will be a hill that I die on. I will be outside no. 10 violently protesting if that ever changes. I've paid all my NI and there is sh*t loads of tax coming out of my house. Also, this is not the problem. The state pension would not be an issue if people were not milking the system dry. Do you know how many people I know who get an attendance allowance, which is up to an extra £500 a month? Someone applied for one of my relatives, they got the full whack and there is nothing wrong with them. They have a state and private pension as well. I work with someone who works FT and they get it as well. Why, if you work full time, do you need an Attendants Allowance, which if you are wondering is to pay people to come to your house and "attend to your needs e.g. do the garden, cleaner etc." because you are physically incapable of doing so.

Yes, let's tax the working people more, so we can hand out more free money to chancers.

Benefits should be for people with a genuine need. Not for those who choose laziness as a lifestyle.

@Sceadufaex Yes, let's tax the working people more, so we can hand out more free money.

This was Starmer's government.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/39280557/mandelson-files-starmer-labour-hell-bent-raising-taxes/

It remains to be seen what Burnham does.

Dh was saying the other day that 50% of his bonus goes away in tax. How is that fair? We'll be looking to leave this crappy country soon.

One of the reasons why our benefits system is ballooning is because I think it is getting easier to claim them.

As mentioned, one of my relatives recently got a £480 top up a month. A form was filed in online, with no supporting evidence, and it was granted 3 days later. Ever since no one has ever asked them a question about what they spend it on, it wasn't means tested. That is £480 a month given to them, for no reason other than it was asked for, because we heard someone else got it.

I have to work quite hard to get to pay £480 a month tax 😕