What will it take for the Government to enact welfare reform?

[Schlossadler]

What has to break, before the Government is finally willing to enact welfare reform?

The definition of preventable is relatively straight forward. There’s common definitions that exist already.

No, I didn’t say treatment works be refused. Just that the NHS shouldn’t pay for it. They’d be treated, should they wish, and charged accordingly.

Insanely expensive? I don’t think so. I mean, no more expensive than a doctor ticking a box to say preventable or not and then an admin to issue an invoice. Given the cost of one, for example, cardiovascular disease related surgery, we could fund said additional admin easily.

Sure, but there’s also plenty of evidence that suggests the two child benefit cap also shifting costs elsewhere: more kids in poverty ultimately costs the tax payer more: https://fairnessfoundation.com/two-child-limit

More importantly, in terms of the discussion around welfare and long term unemployment, the two child benefit cap was strongly opposed by school leaders who argued it had a negative impact on attendance and attainment https://cpag.org.uk/news/school-leaders-governors-teachers-call-minister-scrap-two-child-benefit-limit

Re-instating it when we have a massive youth unemployment crisis would be madness - we need more kids attending and engaged in education and training, not less.

It would be much, much more expensive than investing in preventative health care - which research shows gives the tax player value for money.

We need to be much more pragmatic and evidence based.

You post a lot, without actually backing up your posts with substantive data.

Exactly.

Not to mention the fact that it can also be hard to prove and where does it end? Car crashes, sporting accidents etc all could be considered self inflicted and can also cause long term health issues.

No government will ever reform what actually need reforming, the state pension.

Not many employers refuse to hire disabled people do they? I mean, legally they can’t so how can they be?

They do. If you've a visual disability it's especially difficult because you can't hide your disability until you're in, but if you've got a hidden disability and disclose your disability during the hiring process or ask for reasonable adjustments then who do you think employers will hire? Someone fit and well who they don't have to be lenient with in terms of absence or costs associated with adjustments? A lot of people with hidden disabilities don't disclose their disabilities at all, or wait until they've got their foot in the door and then find themselves managed out.

Re. the bus driver, there’s a difference between a power and an ability. Consider the poor bus driver who in your world has the power to disembark the group of drunken thugs refusing to move from the wheelchair space. What might the bus driver do?

Would I expect a bus driver to put themselves or other passengers in danger? No. But let's be real that it is actually usually people putting pushchairs here. It is a daily occurrence up and down the country that wheelchair users up and down the country are denied access to the priority wheelchair spot by drivers or by passengers refusing to move or fold down their pushchairs. If you've one bus every half an hour, and then 2 buses in a row refuse to let you on because you can't get into your space due to non wheelchair users, you're already an hour behind the first set of passengers who boarded. How will that help if you need to get to work?

Can you explain what you mean by changing redundant KPIs please.

Some metrics that employers use are completely redundant, and/or unrealistic. Things like X days in office per week, but you've just missed 4 buses because you're a wheelchair user, you get there and none of your team are in. Or targets that squeeze the energy out of it's employees but are wildly unrealistic to achieve - seen a lot of this in call centres. There are many other metrics too but I am sure they vary from industry to industry.

Can I also remind you that employers are people at the end of the day. If running a business (inc providing jobs for others) stops being attractive (or even viable!) they’ll just stop. As why would they? What would all these entitled (able bodied and disabled) employees do them? Demand “more jobs”? Think about it.

Well you sort of answered your first question here. Why would they hire those pesky entitled disabled people. At the end of the day employers have a duty to offer reasonable adjustments. It scales depending on the size of the business as to what is reasonable but there are a lot of things that are reasonable that employers aren't doing.

But this specific cut would genuinely be economic madness, in the midst of a NEET crisis. School leaders were really clear about the negative impacts on attendance and attainment.

I really do think we have to be pragmatic, rather than performative and pay close attention to the research into the cost-shifting effects of cuts.

These are problems for people to solve themselves. You can't sit on benefits until you pass your test! Or.maybe you can...who knows in this mad country.

It's fairly obvious. Being on benefits can pay more than work. The government has buggered the jobs market with its extra tax and regulations. The qualification criteria for benefits is too wide. Scrap the triple lock. Extend the period you qualify for benefits for the Boris wave.

We already have it. A single £100k earner already contributes more than 20+ median earners? It’s shockingly unfairly on the shoulders that already contribute the most. Don’t get lost down the rabbit hole of “billionaire wealth” vs high income. It’ll get you nowhere.

What makes you so entitled to others money anyway? It’s very grabby.

There should never be a scenario in which someone gets more in benefits (apart from serious disabilities obviously) than they do working full time on minimum wage. It is ridiculous that this has to even be said - but it happens. If you have kids, you'd better get busy working to feed and house them. Not expect some random taxpayer to do that for you.

Well no of course not everything is self-inflicted or preventable. I didn’t say it was.

I was referring only to those that are preventable.

So an argument that not everything is preventable makes no relevant points.

The lifestyle of someone that has worked to get a half-decent job should be vastly different to that of someone that doesn't work. Labour seem hell bent on evening it out by taxing people to the hilt.

How about parents not having kids they can’t afford? Would that radical concept (= budgeting) help?

yes, circumstances change but many are reasonably foreseeable and thus can be accounted for in the “can I afford another child?” Decision.

No-one should have anything they can't afford. Be it kids or a holiday or a Birkin handbag. I don't see why someone should work to pay for someone else's decisions.

That’s simple.

insurers already decide who is at fault is a car crash.

individual at fault = they pay the NHS bill (or in reality, their insurer would as the system would evolve).

other party at fault = other party pays

no fault = NHS pays.

Simple eh?

The next budget may prove a turning point - the tax payer has had enough. You only have to look at France to see where that might lead.

You realise people’s circumstances change - unemployment, illness…..

Have you ever left your house and actually met people? Tens of thousands of women are in shitty abusive relationships. They aren't in a safe position to report, leave the relationship with their children, and be safely homed without having to see their abusive ex again.

But the evidence is the two child benefit cap did not have any affect on how many children people had. https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-research/our-position/two-child-limit

You can’t run a country like a sixth form debating society. There is no point pursuing an economically damaging policy - that costs the state money in health, education and social care, just to make an ideological point.

I'm not sure I believe that system would actually save money in the long term. Especially if the other party could appeal the accusation they were at fault, it takes ages to come to a decision etc.

As a full time carer in receipt of Carer’s Allowance, which equates to the princely sim of about 47p an hour, this saving the taxpayer a fortune for a period of —relentless— years, I would welcome welfare reform.
i suspect this isn’t what you’re seeking from this glossy thread though is it OP?

The would-be employer can, and often will not take on a disabled person, to join their workforce. Do you honestly think that they give them an honest reason, when they are rejected? They obviously cannot tell them that they did not get the job due to their disability, they use other waffle instead. It happens!

Only having the number of children you can afford just seems a too obvious and reasonable solution.