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?

Where it is identified a child is not receiving what is needed, society can either A) support the child/family early at relatively low cost or B) not support the child/family and spend more in the long term.

The cap was always illogical, as it caused more problems which cost more to deal with.

It was symbolic, not practical.

Policies should work, not just be sound bites.

Surely a better welfare reform would be holding employers accountable when they refuse to hire disabled people or refuse to make reasonable adjustments without making disabled employees jump through hoops to simply access work?

It would be making public transport more accessible, like giving bus drivers more power to disembark people refusing to get out of the wheelchair bay when a wheelchair uses that space?

It would stop employers forcing presenters in inaccessible buildings and allow more flexibility for working from home or shared accessible office spaces?

It would be a limit on how often employers can change their redundant KPI targets which disproportionately affects disabled people?

It would force employers to take on more costs for DSE equipment, on a scaling basis depending on whether an organisation was a large or small business.

You can't strip benefits but not provide an alternative. Removing a lifeline doesn't remove the barriers disabled people face when trying to access an income. If you're proposing the benefits get stripped but employers shouldn't be held accountable you're actually saying you just want those people to die or force families supporting those people into further poverty.

Not all disabilities are disabilities you're born with, many are acquired later in life. Most accidents happen in the home. We have just left years of lock down for an illness that has killed and left others disabled. PIP is already given on a needs basis.

Our health and social care system is not fit for purpose. Our population is increasingly ageing. Our birth rate isn't keeping up. The job market and astronomical nursery fees are a huge deterrent.

If you want welfare reform, these areas all need fixing first.

Because we need to be pragmatic, and focus on what actually works. Evidence shows that investing in preventative health care that supports people to live healthy lives saves the government money in the long run: not least because it means less people with chronic illness, reducing the number of people who are too unwell to work. Same with properly funded mental health support. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/investing-preventative-support-can-save-more-ps3-every-pound-spent

Performative toughness won’t actually get the welfare bill down. Pragmatic reforms based on evidence and research might.

We need to be much less blinkered, much less party political and much less ideological about this, and focus on the reality, looking at evidence and research to figure out what might actually work.

This.
Only problem is that vouchers can be sold on the black market - so has to be insistence of ID when redeeming them. And made illegal to accept vouchers for anything other than the owns they are for.

Any cut could be argued against. The debt is too high though.

Why is it the state (= other peoples) responsibility to put in place better preventative health care?

It is in a nation's pragmatic interests to invest in preventative healthcare because:
-a healthy workforce and potential future army is a huge asset
-a healthy population is economically and socially stronger
-investing in preventative healthcare is known to save the state money

Can you break out the numbers to support your assertion?

Seems wrong to me.

If you are concerned about the debt, you should oppose the reintroduction of the two child cap.

You can either be pragmatic and focus on what is known to save the state money, or you can have the two child cap.

Can you break out the numbers to support your assertion?

There are academic departments who study welfare policies, health economics, education. They produce many papers.

But who decides what is preventable? Do you refuse to treat someone who crashed their car? Do you stop treating sports injuries because it was a choice to take part? How do you get people to prove their illness isn’t because they didn’t eat their 5 a day?

Aside from the morality, it would be insanely expensive to administer: it would waste an enormous amount of medical professionals time assessing what was and wasn’t preventable, it would be wide open to extensive costly legal challenges and the administration costs would be sky high because the guidelines would be changing all the time to adjust to new medical research on what is and isn’t preventable.

We need to be pragmatic. There is plenty of evidence into how you actually get people into work in a sustainable way. Spending more on preventative health care is one of those things - it delivers value for money to the tax payer.

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

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?

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

I had to reread your post a few times but yes, you did literally say you’d force employers to take on more costs. Have you dialled into the mood music recently? Have you picked up that employers are already at breaking point with all the additional costs they’re expected to carry?

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.

Note: please don’t misinterpret my post as saying we shouldn’t be supporting disabled people. We absolutely should, and in better ways than at present. But your view of how to do about it and how employers currently behave is what I disagree with.

Not sure about that, you haven’t put much to go on. I have a feeling the answer to any cut is we can’t. Spending and debt is too high so something will have to change. That onerous debt is always for the next generation unfortunately.

These threads are always the same:

OP - makes unsubstantiated claim based on personal opinion
Posters - express a range of opinions in response
OP - demands substantiation of the opinions they don't support

You what?

So, lets have the one/s you relied on.

Feel free to hide or scroll on by, then.

But you’re not going to do that, are you?

A friend in the civil service within s team of highly paid specialists all of whom have some disabilty or illness that means they are off work a lot. Would be cheaper for the taxpayer list to give them ‘benefits’ than the cost of all their sick leave.

Yep.

A lot of these suggestions seem to be more about punishing people rather than actually saving money.

There's a lot of research about the two child cap. If you haven't read any of it, that's your choice. You are free to hold any view you like.

If anyone else is reading this thread, they can either do a bit of reading about the financial impacts of the two child cap, or not.

Removing the two-child benefit cap costs the UK government £2.3 billion in the 2026–27 financial year, rising to £3 billion a year by 2029–30, according to projections from the OBR.

So a biscuit rather than just hide it?

What we need is wealth redistribution.

Currently, people are working health depleting hours, in health damaging jobs, for minimum wage, which isn’t enough to provide the basics yet alone buy a house and create financial security - so that then if something goes wrong you have a safety net. No ability to save for a pension if you live hand to mouth.

We need a drastic overhaul of a system that allows billionaires to reap vast rewards through asset hoovering and passive income and then avoid paying a fair amount of tax.

The far right want you blame benefit users and immigrants and want to stir up division and anger to get themselves into power so they can make themselves richer. Russia wants the same - instability, division etc.

I personally don’t want a Dickensian UK. I want more social equality and less suffering.

There is plenty of money but it’s hoarded by the few in the form of assets. A wealth tax is needed. And quickly.

Don’t get sucked into blaming the most vulnerable in society or you are walking straight into the trap set for you and history will not view a move to the far right favourably.

Why would I hide? The thread is not upsetting.

I'm content to respond with my view that an OP who offers no substantiation has no right to ask others to provide substantiation.

Agreed. Some people are BORN with didabilities/health conditions that make them more susceptible to health problems, particularly as they get older. And others (like your son, if I remember rightly) develop illnesses they can do absolutely nothing about requiring harsh treatments which themselves cause further problems.

Not everything is self-inflicted and preventable!

That's one side of the equation only. Maybe you know that or maybe you don't.

That money reduces future health costs, support costs, social work costs, justice costs, education costs, housing costs etc etc etc. That money delivers potential future earnings, tax revenue etc etc etc.

There's so much info out there on this.