Please or to access all these features

Politics

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

1000 replies

Schlossadler · 17/09/2026 16:00

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
KittyCorncrake · 18/09/2026 20:19

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 18:04

Yes of course they should. Either pay for it or provide it themselves.

why should others pay for it if they’re not prepared to pay for it themselves?

In other European countries is absolutely is expected that the family pays for the care of the parent if they can’t pay themselves.
Why should random strangers pay when the actual adult children don’t want to?

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:24

KittyCorncrake · 18/09/2026 20:19

In other European countries is absolutely is expected that the family pays for the care of the parent if they can’t pay themselves.
Why should random strangers pay when the actual adult children don’t want to?

Exactly. I’ve European family. It’s expected that grandparents move in with their adult children when they need help. Their now adult children look after them and provide for their needs.

Why people here don’t think they should look after their own parents whilst simultaneously expecting others to is beyond me

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:26

NorthXNorthWest · 18/09/2026 20:17

Efficient use of land.

What exactly is this efficiency?

Land tax allows people to keep what they earn.

Do you know any other good jokes? A recurring land tax means that even after you've bought your home and paid off the mortgage, you still have a housing cost you don't control. If the paper value of the land rises while your income doesn't, even thought you haven't seen a penny, your financial liability rises with it. That's hardly the definition of housing security or keeping more of what you earn.

Any other pearls of wisdom in this race to the bottom in the spite and envy steeplechase?

Efficient use of land: not having sprawling premises when compact ones will do. Doing as much with the land as possible to maximise ROI. Not leaving residential buildings to decay whilst people sleep rough.

I am already subjected to a tax that can increase based on any increase in the paper value of my land and the house on it. It's called "council tax". Your objection isn't the win you think it is.

A land tax would subject businesses to the same form of tax.

Far from being a "race to the bottom", replacing other taxes with land tax is the fairest and most progressive tax possible.

NorthXNorthWest · 18/09/2026 20:32

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:16

You are completely ignoring:

  • Smaller shops just don't have that kind of POS system, full stop.
  • The benefits claimant whilst walking around the shop has to keep track of the value of the trolley contents. The scene in Brassed Off where Sandra gets to the till and doesn't have enough money for everything and is panicking trying to figure out what her family can do without that week was based in reality. Keeping track of multiple totals, one for each voucher, will be impossible. The claimant will get to the till and that they don't have enough money on one of their vouchers for that week's shopping and has to choose an item to return. Frustratingly, they may have unused money on another voucher but cannot use it to buy the item, because the item is the wrong type.

Far from making sensible budgeting easier for claimants, it will make it harder.

I lived that reality, with two working adults in the house. How lucky for you that your experience of it was from the comfort of your own home, watching the scene play out on a drama on a colour TV.

As for the stress of keeping tally. In a point of sale type scenario the person can see what they have left in each category as they put it in their basket they don't need to keep a tally.

People managed with the guesswork that went along with Green Shield and Co-op stamps without having a breakdown. I’m pretty sure people today could cope with an electronic, scanning based system that keeps the tally for them.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:34

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:24

Exactly. I’ve European family. It’s expected that grandparents move in with their adult children when they need help. Their now adult children look after them and provide for their needs.

Why people here don’t think they should look after their own parents whilst simultaneously expecting others to is beyond me

How about because the relative in question lives 200 miles away? Or because the adult children don't have a big enough place to accommodate granny? Because the adult children have disabled children of their own that take up all the care time? Because the adult children can't afford more than a room in a flat share? The elderly relarive owns their home and refuses to leave it?

Norman Tebbit told people to get on their bikes and look for work. We did. Some of us moved overseas looking for that work.

You cannot espouse a benefits policy that will force people to move away from their parents to look for work and then expect those people to magically be able to look after the parents they moved hundreds of miles away from.

Kirbert2 · 18/09/2026 20:34

jobnotsure · 18/09/2026 20:02

Agree it would be bloody awful.

It would open up a whole new world to organised crime.

Would have administrative costs - have we seen any calculations on how much a new system like this would cost to get up and running...

Potential stigma associated with any such scheme - we already know many people don't claim benefits they are entitled to, because of such reasons.

I would like to see the evidence that cash is misused.. posters often claim this but I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this is true. While I am sure there is some misuse of benefits. Is the level of misuse is large enough to justify restricting everyone else's choices - I don't agree it is.

I agree with everything you said.

It's also very condescending. I'm on benefits but I'm not stupid, I know all too well how to make money stretch and manage. Vouchers would actually make that harder assuming they would only be able to be used in the likes of Asda and Tesco.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 20:37

KittyCorncrake · 18/09/2026 20:19

In other European countries is absolutely is expected that the family pays for the care of the parent if they can’t pay themselves.
Why should random strangers pay when the actual adult children don’t want to?

Which countries?

Germany only if you’re a higher earner & can afford it - that wouldn’t go down well here.

France - again only if your income can take the hit & you’re parents weren’t neglectful etc

Poland - similar to France

People who do pay aren’t spending thousands a month. And don’t forget the whole system is different

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:40

The vouchers suggestion is nonsense.
It's an old suggestion that does the rounds now and then but is only popular with a small percentage of voters and would bring many practical issues, not least costing a fortune.

It's stupid.

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:42

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 20:37

Which countries?

Germany only if you’re a higher earner & can afford it - that wouldn’t go down well here.

France - again only if your income can take the hit & you’re parents weren’t neglectful etc

Poland - similar to France

People who do pay aren’t spending thousands a month. And don’t forget the whole system is different

If only for higher earners that won't be many people but could be popular electorally I guess as most won't be affected.

It's impossible to enforce for most anyway - most people do not have the funds.

Oopstheregoesanotherhouseplant · 18/09/2026 20:42

Summary of Gary’s economics. I think he’s right.

Tax wealth, rather than work: extreme concentrations of wealth generate large passive incomes, push up prices of scarce assets such as housing, and make it harder for ordinary people to accumulate wealth themselves. Gary therefore advocates a 2% annual tax on wealth above £10m, arguing it would both raise substantial revenue and slow the compounding of fortunes at the very top.
The broader economic case is that taxing wealth can reduce inequality while allowing taxes on employment and earnings to be lower.

2% on 10 million won’t be felt by the very wealthy. Once you reach a certain level of wealth, more doesn’t improve your wellbeing or quality of life.

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 20:43

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:40

The vouchers suggestion is nonsense.
It's an old suggestion that does the rounds now and then but is only popular with a small percentage of voters and would bring many practical issues, not least costing a fortune.

It's stupid.

It looks like Timms is suggesting other methods than money in some instances.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:43

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:34

How about because the relative in question lives 200 miles away? Or because the adult children don't have a big enough place to accommodate granny? Because the adult children have disabled children of their own that take up all the care time? Because the adult children can't afford more than a room in a flat share? The elderly relarive owns their home and refuses to leave it?

Norman Tebbit told people to get on their bikes and look for work. We did. Some of us moved overseas looking for that work.

You cannot espouse a benefits policy that will force people to move away from their parents to look for work and then expect those people to magically be able to look after the parents they moved hundreds of miles away from.

The answers really aren’t that hard to work out for yourself…. Besides, and it should be obvious to you but for some reason isn’t…. The system already works elsewhere and there’s nothing unique about our country meaning it wouldn’t work here.

PS it also used to work here until we got so self entitled and wrapped up in ourselves that we stopped wanting to care for our loved ones in their old age, instead expecting others the foot the bill for it….

NorthXNorthWest · 18/09/2026 20:46

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:26

Efficient use of land: not having sprawling premises when compact ones will do. Doing as much with the land as possible to maximise ROI. Not leaving residential buildings to decay whilst people sleep rough.

I am already subjected to a tax that can increase based on any increase in the paper value of my land and the house on it. It's called "council tax". Your objection isn't the win you think it is.

A land tax would subject businesses to the same form of tax.

Far from being a "race to the bottom", replacing other taxes with land tax is the fairest and most progressive tax possible.

Calling land tax “the fairest and most progressive tax possible” doesn't make the statement true.

Even countries that actually use land taxes have had to so introduce so many tweaks, exemptions, caps, and other restriction for homeowners and pensioners to deal with fairness and affordability issues.

If it is so fair why does it needs adjusting on such a large scale.

We all pay council tax - its for local services. If you want the the fairest and most progressive tax possible isn't that a tax per adult living in an area and using its services.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:47

NorthXNorthWest · 18/09/2026 20:32

I lived that reality, with two working adults in the house. How lucky for you that your experience of it was from the comfort of your own home, watching the scene play out on a drama on a colour TV.

As for the stress of keeping tally. In a point of sale type scenario the person can see what they have left in each category as they put it in their basket they don't need to keep a tally.

People managed with the guesswork that went along with Green Shield and Co-op stamps without having a breakdown. I’m pretty sure people today could cope with an electronic, scanning based system that keeps the tally for them.

If we are going to play Four Yorkshiremen, then I'll tell you about the period of over six months when we couldn't afford to put the hot water on for a morning wash every day, never mind a bath. Stress about running out of money was something I grew up with whilst also autistic, which is why I have sympathy for the dysnumerate, the learning disabled, and the autistic who would be subjected to this needless added complication.

In a point of sale type scenario the person can see what they have left in each category as they put it in their basket they don't need to keep a tally.

Do you know what "point of sale" means in retail? It's the till. People aren't seeing how much money they have left in each category as they shop. They are finding out at the till when the computer says no.

A electronic scan-as-you-shop system restricts people to shopping in big supermarkets, not local small shops. Even Tesco Express doesn't have scan-as-you-shop, it's only the big branches that have that. The handheld scanners cost money. It's not worth a small shop's while getting them. Even Big Retail doesn't bother in smaller branches.

Green Shield and Co-op stamps weren't limited to one class of item, so much less complicated for the shopper than this voucher proposal would be.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:48

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 20:37

Which countries?

Germany only if you’re a higher earner & can afford it - that wouldn’t go down well here.

France - again only if your income can take the hit & you’re parents weren’t neglectful etc

Poland - similar to France

People who do pay aren’t spending thousands a month. And don’t forget the whole system is different

Of course it’s not only for higher earners.

it’s the cultural norm across the board.

my own family example:

MIL moved her mother in with her (in her 3 bed apartment in which she lived with her partner, adult son, and mother) until she passed away.

FIL (separated from MIL) did similarly. Moving his parents in with him (+ his partner), again in an apartment (they’re still alive).

so it’s not hypothetical and impossible. It’s real. And it used to be real in this country too until, like most things, people try to pass the most basic expectations (in this case care for their loved ones in old age) onto the state (ie everyone else).

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:49

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:48

Of course it’s not only for higher earners.

it’s the cultural norm across the board.

my own family example:

MIL moved her mother in with her (in her 3 bed apartment in which she lived with her partner, adult son, and mother) until she passed away.

FIL (separated from MIL) did similarly. Moving his parents in with him (+ his partner), again in an apartment (they’re still alive).

so it’s not hypothetical and impossible. It’s real. And it used to be real in this country too until, like most things, people try to pass the most basic expectations (in this case care for their loved ones in old age) onto the state (ie everyone else).

Yes but legally enforceable?

Or the cultural norm?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:50

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:43

The answers really aren’t that hard to work out for yourself…. Besides, and it should be obvious to you but for some reason isn’t…. The system already works elsewhere and there’s nothing unique about our country meaning it wouldn’t work here.

PS it also used to work here until we got so self entitled and wrapped up in ourselves that we stopped wanting to care for our loved ones in their old age, instead expecting others the foot the bill for it….

The answers really aren’t that hard to work out for yourself….

Then tell me what they are. You make the assertion, you evidence it.

It worked here when people didn't live for so long and people weren't expected to move hundreds of miles for work. It works in other places where people aren't expected to move hundreds of miles for work.

theyneverchangedothey · 18/09/2026 20:52

Theseagullwhisperer · 18/09/2026 20:19

I don’t have a simple, sound bite answer to what it is an incredibly complex problem. But my main answer would be to listen to the experts on child poverty and to frame the government’s response accordingly - almost certainly including better access to family planning and contraception, tackling low wages and job insecurity, more social housing, better access to affordable childcare etc etc. If you are genuinely interested here are some good places to start:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/a-protected-minimum-floor-in-universal-credit-to-cut-deep-child-poverty
https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e004370
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/ending-poverty

So you’ve no suggestions yourself?
For what it’s worth, I do care. I’ve worked in and around this sector for decades and nothing changes, irrespective of what government may be in power or what policies they may have.
I would say though, from experience, that family planning advice and contraception are freely and widely available. These children are NOT being born due to a lack of access to contraception. It is a far deeper issue.
Low wages and job insecurity? Sometimes, although a far greater issue is no aspiration or expectation to ever work. How do we address that?
More social housing. Absolutely yes.
Better access to affordable childcare. Perhaps. But only 65% of parents eligible under low income criteria take up the free childcare provision for 2 year olds.

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:53

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 20:43

It looks like Timms is suggesting other methods than money in some instances.

Whoever considers it my view remains the same.

I understand it's under consideration but that doesn't mean it'll be a proposal. But I will not predict as governments can do anything!

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:54

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:48

Of course it’s not only for higher earners.

it’s the cultural norm across the board.

my own family example:

MIL moved her mother in with her (in her 3 bed apartment in which she lived with her partner, adult son, and mother) until she passed away.

FIL (separated from MIL) did similarly. Moving his parents in with him (+ his partner), again in an apartment (they’re still alive).

so it’s not hypothetical and impossible. It’s real. And it used to be real in this country too until, like most things, people try to pass the most basic expectations (in this case care for their loved ones in old age) onto the state (ie everyone else).

people try to pass the most basic expectations (in this case care for their loved ones in old age) onto the state (ie everyone else).

Here's a different framing of that: people don't regard elderly relatives as property of the carers, but as citizens with the same right to state support as every other citizen who can no longer care for themselves.

When I reach old age, there will be no one to care for me. My siblings and I all had no children. Nonetheless, we deserve old age care.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:55

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:50

The answers really aren’t that hard to work out for yourself….

Then tell me what they are. You make the assertion, you evidence it.

It worked here when people didn't live for so long and people weren't expected to move hundreds of miles for work. It works in other places where people aren't expected to move hundreds of miles for work.

I won’t waste my time doing your thinking for you as if the answers aren’t obvious to you, I suspect my effort explaining them to you will be wasted as it will go over your head.

As a starter, if you’re interested, go look at other countries in which it already works and you’ll find the answers yourself.

I will however give you one answer for free as a clue to how you might go about answering the rest….:

Granny too far away….? Move Granny closer.

Go on. The rest are on you 😉

EasternStandard · 18/09/2026 20:56

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:53

Whoever considers it my view remains the same.

I understand it's under consideration but that doesn't mean it'll be a proposal. But I will not predict as governments can do anything!

I have just seen a proposal re decreasing business tax rates for small shops, that and the Timms proposal are fairly conservative-like in approach.

Obviously leaks are just that, but still the gov must be briefing it out.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:57

concertinacornflake · 18/09/2026 20:49

Yes but legally enforceable?

Or the cultural norm?

Exactly.

If the kids had all moved abroad, granny would fall to the state to care for.

At least that way the women caring for her would get paid, unlike the daughters and daughters-in-law who do all the kinship elder care whilst the men opt out.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/09/2026 20:58

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:55

I won’t waste my time doing your thinking for you as if the answers aren’t obvious to you, I suspect my effort explaining them to you will be wasted as it will go over your head.

As a starter, if you’re interested, go look at other countries in which it already works and you’ll find the answers yourself.

I will however give you one answer for free as a clue to how you might go about answering the rest….:

Granny too far away….? Move Granny closer.

Go on. The rest are on you 😉

Granny won't leave the home she owns.

Source: my family.

You aren't giving answers because you don't have any. It's Debating 101 that the person making a claim is responsible for proving it. You haven't because you can't.

ExpectMore · 18/09/2026 20:59

theyneverchangedothey · 18/09/2026 20:52

So you’ve no suggestions yourself?
For what it’s worth, I do care. I’ve worked in and around this sector for decades and nothing changes, irrespective of what government may be in power or what policies they may have.
I would say though, from experience, that family planning advice and contraception are freely and widely available. These children are NOT being born due to a lack of access to contraception. It is a far deeper issue.
Low wages and job insecurity? Sometimes, although a far greater issue is no aspiration or expectation to ever work. How do we address that?
More social housing. Absolutely yes.
Better access to affordable childcare. Perhaps. But only 65% of parents eligible under low income criteria take up the free childcare provision for 2 year olds.

from your experience, why are children being born to families who can’t afford them, if they already have access to the information and resources they need re. Family Planning?

it’s something I’m genuinely interested in an answer to as I just can’t my head around why anyone would want to bring a child into an environment in which they can’t provide for them. That’s from the perspective of the issues it will cause the child (I grew up in poverty so understand it first hand) and from the sense of not having the audacity to expect others to raise my child.

similar logic applies to those giving birth in war zones and refugee camps (in the case of they were they when got pregnant rather than it happening after they’ve decided to get pregnant). I just can’t imagine why anyone would choose to bring a child into that world.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.