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?

Cutting business rates for small businesses is an across the board policy.

You do. But given you know you won’t have children to rely upon, why aren’t you saving up to pay for that care yourself? Why aren’t you expecting other people (the state) to pay for it for you?

genuine question on perspective.

It is now. Obviously not under Starmer and Reeves. What a shame those two years hit so many.

ok… so move closer to Granny!

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)

The answer, in that instance, can be summarised as "there is no contraceptive access and the men don't take NO for an answer".

Why anyone with easy contraceptive access would have children they cannot afford is beyond this childfree woman.

I’m not sure that having children means you should expect them to care for you or pay for your care when you are old. It often doesn’t work out that way.
But, I agree with you, we should all, if capable, be sorting our own old age provision.

Are*

I don't think anyone understands that decision.

I already pay taxes and pay into a pension fund. The cost of living crisis has made saving beyond that hard.

People with children shouldn't expect to rely on them. You are one car accident away from your child being dead and unable to carry out care, even if the child is willing.

How does a working adult care for an elderly person anyway? You can't be at work and at home to care at the same time. Or are you assuming a stay-at-home wife to do this work? There might not be one.

My work is where I live. I cannot get another job in my field where granny is.

I own my home too and I don't want to leave.

A parent might not want to move their children to schools hundreds of miles away.

The elderly person's child is willing to move but her spouse refuses.

Some families are able to offer this, hence the concept of the "granny annexe". But many families cannot or don't want to, and that's OK.

In my experience, “audacity” doesn’t come into it. Many children who have grown up in less than ideal situations want….a family, someone to love and someone to love them. Biologically, it’s understandable. And so they have a child….someone to love and someone to love them. But they don’t know HOW to parent or look after a child, they’ve never been shown, so they repeat what they were shown…and the cycle continues.
And no, not everyone and yes, some break the cycle. But a lot don’t.

Naysayers will always find a million reasons why not.

it’s possible. It’s doable. It’s the cultural norm many places.

Explain how my cousin in Seattle is meant to care for his mum in Wigan.

Or me for my dad 200 miles away when I own my home, he owns his, and he won't leave.

A cultural norm doesn't mean that something is legally-enforceable. These "many places" that you have yet to name one of will have some kind of state fallback provision.

Why are you comparing these entirely unrelated figures?

You can't heat water when the electricity has been disconnected or the there is no money to put credit on the electricity card. Just saying.

It's not a competition - you were the one trying to shame me into submission with the fictional characters poverty. Joke is on you though.

The main difference between you and me seems to be that I have actually lived in poverty and worked hard to get out of it. I also believe in the welfare state and supporting people to be self sufficient. Whereas you just seem to want to jump through increasingly obscure and fictitious hoops to justify taking other people's money and possessions for no other reason than envy and spite.

I know, right? Income tax isn't the only tax revenue from private citizens. Mentioning those two figures isn't evidence that the people aren't collectively playing for themselves.

Why are you not? The government doesn’t actually MAKE any money, everything it gives out is taken from someone else. If they are giving more than they take, that is a problem, no?

Nonetheless, we deserve old age care.

And there it is...

Entitlement! No talk of what provision you are making, even though you know you will need others (who will need to be paid) to care for you, just what you deserve.

Straight out of the freeloaders playbook.

But so many defended it, including on here. Of course if that leak is true lower rates will be all the rage.

So much projection here. You could run a cinema.

I wasn't trying to shame anyone. I was making a point about the reality of getting to the till and not having money, using a film that many people have seen. I don't know what your background is, so I have no way of knowing whether I can appeal to your memory of your own lived experiences. I went for a commonly-seen film. To accuse me of trying to shame people is projection.

What makes you think that I haven't worked hard or have never been poor? Living in a bedsit on benefits isn't fun, neither is fleeing domestic abuse, and neither is living with parents on benefits. My line manager considers me a hard worker, I got name-checked in a project delivery announcement just this week. Again, pure projection, a stream of untrue assumptions about me.

I believe in a welfare state that treats people like adults who can budget their own money already or be taught to do so, without needing paternalistic interference in the form of ring-fenced vouchers.

And I believe in tax being fairer.

"Freeloader". I pay my taxes just like you do. I am no freeloader.

Because income tax isn't the only revenue source?

You’re proving my point without realising it. You’re demonstrating different ways your own family are being entitled and aren’t willing to make sacrifices (for their own loved ones!), instead insisting on others paying for them. My point entirely!

again to help you:
cousin moves to Mum. Or Mum moves to cousin. Should neither wish to do that. Mum pays for her own care.

you move to your dad. Your dad moves to you. Or he pays for his own care.

Being legally enforceable is irrelevant. My point was a point of principle and the law can be changed to what the government of the time decides it should be. My point is a proposition for what I believe it should be. That’s how laws evolve

Why aren't you recognising that "your kids" is a sub-set of "other people", and that assuming your kids will care for you is also a form of "expecting other people to pay for it for you"?

Thanks a lot.

What do you think is the solution to breaking the cycle and solving the problem?