Social security spending out of control?

[Wizeman]

The UK spends about £334 billion on social security. Around £177 billion of that goes on pensions, which as a young person I’d definitely want when I’m older — especially if I’ve worked all my life and paid into the system. What I don’t understand is why some younger people are against older people getting a pension, because one day they’ll want one too.

About £145 billion goes towards working-age benefits, which is a massive amount of money. Around £76 billion of that is for disabled people, which I think is fair and necessary. But you hear so many stories about people taking advantage of the system, and a lot of those stories turn out to be true.

They say about 1 in 3 people in Britain are on some kind of benefit. I’ve personally been in hospital with serious injuries and had operations that put me out of work for months, and it never crossed my mind to claim benefits. I’ve also been out of work for about a year before while working towards getting a new job, and I just lived off my savings.

That said, I’ll be honest — I’ve always had support from my parents, like being able to stay at their house. I know not everyone has that kind of support.

But it does feel like fewer people want to work and some would rather claim benefits.
I also don’t think removing the two-child benefit cap will really solve the problem.
In Poland, for example, people get tax breaks for having kids, which encourages people to work.

Either way, £334 billion just sounds like an insane amount of money to me.

People consistently miss the point.

Full employment's never going to happen again. In fact, the world in general is heading towards unemployment being the majority situation - and heading there fast.

If people have no money, economies stop functioning. There's nobody to buy goods and services. More people become 'redundant'. There's nobody to fund public services. Infrastructures decay, people starve and get sick, societies become very unsafe because of so many in extreme need.

The answers to this require radical economic restructures, which will only work if many countries restructure in similar ways at the same time. We aren't there yet. What we're living through these days is a gradual shift towards 'universal basic income' while policymakers grapple with questions of how to make the very wealthy (those responsible for the move away from human employment) pay what they must towards a functional human world.

If they don't pay, there will ultimately be no customers for their products and precious few people making what they wish to buy for themselves. They all know this, but the big old cans are still being kicked down the road.

It's not difficult to get a taste of what it's like to live among inadequately supported people, though. Go anywhere that fails to provide full 'social security', like huge parts of South Asia, Africa, some Central American countries and even some American cities. Be surrounded by sick, desperate people begging for help or simply wasting away underfoot. Learn to live with constant crime. Smell the sewage, get sick from the dirty food and water.

Where we are is halfway between the industrial age and ... the future. Be careful what kind of future your views mean for us and the next generations.

True. However It doesn’t seem reasonable to lump in people who are not able to work with those who are able to work but don’t have a job.

The reason why so many people are unable to work is a whole other question. I expect the ravages of the pandemic, the length of the NHS waiting lists, high levels of obesity, high dose of childcare and poor quality housing will be some of the factors.

That doesn't mean that only 34% of households are in work. For example, I'm not in work. DH works. I'm a full time carer for my disabled child.

I have said many times there would need to be extenuating circumstances. At the moment claimants are increasing and we need the opposite, The system needs to be tighter with higher thresholds if it is to continue. This ensures the most deserving don't suffer.

'extenuating circumstances'

'the most deservimg'

And those not meeting your requirements?

If they want money they work. Crazy to think that anyone would think that is a shocking suggestion.

Do you want the magic money tree to give to everyone? Why would anyone bother to work.

And if a job doesn't pay enough to live off, tough luck?

Do you ever wonder why benefits are increasing? Or do you think benefits provide the Life of Riley?

And if a job doesn't pay enough to live off, tough luck?

Isn't this why someone might take on a 2nd job or change career and in the meantime economise. The fundamental reason why people go to work is to earn money. That applies whether you are rich or poor. Why do you think the rules do not apply for everyone.

And having a failing health service doesn’t help. People awaiting treatment for issues preventing them from working.
The number of claimants rising isn’t because it’s too easy to claim. The default for disability benefits seems to be decline and only award to those with the support required to appeal to tribunal,
You have no idea @DrivinginFrance

Surely any job should pay an actual living wage? Why should some people have to work a full time job and then take a second job in order to make ends meet? The first job should pay enough to live on for full time hours. This isn't America.

Aside from disability claimants, what about all the others claiming social security. Why are they not supporting themselves?

More people will need help with the costof living soon now Trump (your president @DrivinginFrance ?) started his war

If the UK stopped the pending fuel duty tax everyone would be helped.

Jobs should pay a decent wage.

Well some of those out of work are probably people who don’t qualify for disability benefits seems(or don’t have support to challenge a decision) but don’t have the ability to secure employment/compete with more able applicants.

Yes it does, but it’s a minority of top ups going to those that are working full time. If you look at the stats, only 34% of those receiving working age benefits are in any kind of paid employment. Then for the ones that are working, the AET thresholds are so low - very part time. The AET thresholds for a couple are not even the equivalent to one full time time job between them

Housing benefit is probably contributing to raising rents. If they stopped dishing out housing benefit rents would fall to the natural affordable level.

Unless they are funded under Continuing Healthcare (CHC), which is extremely hard to get, then all people who receive Social Services funded care have a Financial Assessment. DD1 receives PIP and UC. She will be expected to contribute about £120 per week towards her care. She's allowed to keep the rest for clothing, food, travel, etc.

Would you rather we got UC, or the State picks up a care bill for DD1? Because if I work, she needs to go into residential care and for her needs you're looking at £3000-£4000 per week.

They could nail absent parents. Naturally single parents will struggle to work and care for DCs and need benefits. Mail the other parent

Many countries run welfare systems - Denmark,Norway etcetc but don’t have thousands of neets or many permanently on benefits.

Have you heard of zero hours contracts? It’s really not easy to find full time work at the
moment

Because the Government knows that the jobs aren't there. DH's job is at risk. I've been scouring the jobs pages. Most of the jobs, even minimum wage, require either trade certification, degrees in a particular field, experience of x, y, z. He has lots of transferable skill - risk assessment, health and safety, fire marshalling, legionella testing, light plumbing, light electrical, light carpentry, repairs, fire alarm testing, site surveying, etc., but because it was all trained in house by the Local Authority, he doesn't have 'qualifications' in those things, so it doesn't transfer to a trade job in them, or a quality control job.

Many jobs are 0 hours. The administrative cost of taking someone in and out of conditionality groups outweighs the UC that many people actually receive.

We're fortunate that, at the moment, we get a top up because the DC have disabilities. But they are getting older and will move off of our claim into their own claims. We'll still be looking after them, though. Once they are off our claim we'll get less than £800 per month UC. Yet I'll still be at home, unable to work, because DD1 can't be left alone safely and can't leave the house safely.

There are so many people who are too ill to work but have been assessed as ineligible for PIP. It's actually really hard to get PIP for physical illness unless there is functional deficit. In other words, people who are in pain, or 'sick' but can still get washed and dressed and chop a few veg just can't tick the boxes. There's a reason that so many PIP recipients, proportionally, have ASD, LD, or mental health illness. It's because they are more likely to have 'global' difficulty and therefore tick the boxes, even if they feel physically well.

Who wants to employ DD1? I'll give you her profile and you can tell me what job you would have her do:

• Requires 1:1 support at all times for safety
• Fine motor difficulties so likely to drop things and limited strength
• Very limited sense of danger - underestimates danger of some things and thinks that other things are dangerous when they aren't
• Will speak her mind without a filter. Will tell strangers off for their behaviour
• Impulsive and unable to discern appropriate social responses
• Fatigues easily and needs naps in the day time to remain emotionally regulated
• Periodic episodes of psychosis
• Angers quickly and becomes erratic
• Intellectually challenged
• Unable to write fluently and can't spell
• Severe speech and language disorder on the 0.1st centile (1 in 1000 would perform worse)
• Profoundly slow processing speed
• Autistic

Bear in mind that she is classed as relatively 'able' in the LD world.

Oh dear. Need to free up funds first war ship, I suppose.Sigh.

Yes I have heard of zero hour contracts. I was just providing the figures to correct what you had asserted previously

The Government doesn't pay SSP. It's funded entirely by the employer.