Our Welfare State. Is it broken?

Doodledog

Yes, Pammie, that's the problem that those with lots of money (or no money) seem to miss. It's all 'they can afford it', and 'I wouldn't mind paying for X', with the implication that therefore neither should others. It's so performative. There is nothing to stop anyone who feels guilty about getting a free bus ride or prescription from giving the money they've saved to charity or just buying a ticket, instead of pointing out to the world at large that they'd be willing to pay, as a virtue signalling boast. It's the same when someone in a house worth a million pounds boasts that they'd be happy to sell it to pay for social care, knowing that there would be hundreds of thousands left over for their children, and ignores the fact that the same house in another area might be worth less than a quarter of that and after care fees would leave nothing behind.

Why shouldn't people be able to save for a cruise on their Golden Wedding (or whatever their dream has been) instead of having package holidays every year when they're young, without risking some busybody saying that they've got too much in the bank to qualify for a grant that the regular holidaymakers get as a matter of course? It goes on and on.

I think that a universal income would end up being used in the same way. If people have paid into a private pension or saved money they would find the UI taxed to oblivion and be no better off than if they hadn't, so there is no way of having something they want (eg the cruise) however hard they save. As I keep saying, means testing keeps people 'in their place'.

There’s a very small trial currently in place in two places in the UK, due to end in 2025. The trouble is it’s so small in the UK, and in Wales only with a small group of care leavers. It’s a fairly generous amount too, £1,600 per month.

I believe not only is its concept to replace every single benefit, incl state pension, but it’s tax free, non means tested and would “do away” with any means testing. The idea is to see how people fate and who, if anyone, still gets additional paid work.

Yes, Pammie, that's the problem that those with lots of money (or no money) seem to miss. It's all 'they can afford it', and 'I wouldn't mind paying for X', with the implication that therefore neither should others. It's so performative. There is nothing to stop anyone who feels guilty about getting a free bus ride or prescription from giving the money they've saved to charity or just buying a ticket, instead of pointing out to the world at large that they'd be willing to pay, as a virtue signalling boast. It's the same when someone in a house worth a million pounds boasts that they'd be happy to sell it to pay for social care, knowing that there would be hundreds of thousands left over for their children, and ignores the fact that the same house in another area might be worth less than a quarter of that and after care fees would leave nothing behind.

Why shouldn't people be able to save for a cruise on their Golden Wedding (or whatever their dream has been) instead of having package holidays every year when they're young, without risking some busybody saying that they've got too much in the bank to qualify for a grant that the regular holidaymakers get as a matter of course? It goes on and on.

I think that a universal income would end up being used in the same way. If people have paid into a private pension or saved money they would find the UI taxed to oblivion and be no better off than if they hadn't, so there is no way of having something they want (eg the cruise) however hard they save. As I keep saying, means testing keeps people 'in their place'.

Doodledog

I don’t think that punishing girls for getting pregnant is right. The thought of those horrible ‘mother and baby homes’ where babies were taken from the arms of their mums to be adopted is just awful, as is blaming them for the immaculate conceptions they must have had to ‘get themselves pregnant🙄.

If after school care were free, however (and available to all) the mothers could work when the child reaches five or so, the same as most parents do. I think parents are expected to seek work when their child is five anyway, and there is a cap on benefits for more than two children. I don’t think parenthood is a licence to print money, although I do feel for single childless people who are low priority for everything from housing to benefits. Nobody wants to see children do without, but I know it can be galling for those who would love a house (and maybe a baby too) to be unable to afford it and see others being supported to do it.

Would a universal income get rid of the unfairness (perceived or real) that causes so much resentment? If the level were high enough it would do away with the need to means test too, so people could avoid the poverty trap that means testing brings with it. I think that might be a better way to make the welfare state work than punishing those at the bottom. My concern, though, is that it might raise prices to the point where the income is swallowed up, and it could put people off saving for the future if taxes rose so much to pay for it that they were better off not bothering. That way, we might have fewer pensioners (as an example demographic) in poverty, but the standard of living of the group as a whole would be dragged down in the way that means testing does, with the poor doing a bit better, the rich doing well as the income would be additional to their wealth, but those in the middle losing their modest savings to tax. I don’t know - I’m just thinking aloud.

I’ve seen your thinking aloud on quite a few occasions. Keep going. I’m on the same wavelength with a universal income. It would address so much. The problem is the politicians. They would find a way to over complicate and add layers of conditionality and qualification. Personally I’ve never been a fan of means testing. It’s a race to the bottom and inevitably the thresholds are set so low as to rule out levels of need by a few pounds.

I'm not saying anyone needs to be judged, or should be looked down on - of course not. I was just musing about a universal income, which I think is a good idea in principle but would be more difficult in practice.

I love the idea of Universal Income for all replacing every single current benefit, which would also include Child Benefit and State Pension. The theory and principle are great and it would save money long term, it would allow older people to study, help family members who provide care, and lots of other pluses, BUT I’m still a bit on the fence about it working in practice:

growstuff

Doodledog

MissAdventure

Surely those in the middle bracket, if they are judged as lower bracket people are, have only themselves to blame?

Should have tried harder, studied more, and ensured that they could afford the lifestyle that those who are more clever/harder workers have?

Meritocracy, and all that.

Judged by whom? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just not following your argument. I need coffee

I think you've missed the irony.

Possibly . I slept badly.

I'm all for a fairer distribution, but am wary of allowing governments to pull people down, which is what happens if limits are set above which people are deemed to be 'able to afford' things that would otherwise be free. These limits never impact much on the rich, but make saving for dreams (or whatever) impossible for those who are neither rich nor poor, as any 'spare' money is taken up by paying for things that would be free if they'd spent it - it's basically a tax on deferring gratification.

I'm not saying anyone needs to be judged, or should be looked down on - of course not. I was just musing about a universal income, which I think is a good idea in principle but would be more difficult in practice.

I think the overriding message here, which some people refuse or are unable to believe, is that ALL medical conditions, whether they are physical, mental, emotional or a combination of these, affect each individual person differently.

Some cope well, some cope less well, some don’t cope at all.

In terms of MH, why on earth do you think people end up being sectioned?

Because they find themselves unable to cope on their own any longer, ditto why people commit suicide. We have both recent and historical close family experience of suicide and attempted suicide. It’s utterly horrific for all involved and leaves those left behind with life long feeling of guilt, regret and grief.

It’s not as easy as simply stating we should all be in paid work because it’s better for us (& the state).

We are not all the same.

growstuff

Callistemon21

No, the system was an unsuccessful mess.

It most certainly was, which is why I didn't receive any child maintenance form my children's father.

My DN was in that position. The ratbag ex-H lied as did his father.

Nor me, and neither any from my grandsons dad.

Callistemon21

No, the system was an unsuccessful mess.

It most certainly was, which is why I didn't receive any child maintenance form my children's father.

Doodledog

MissAdventure

Surely those in the middle bracket, if they are judged as lower bracket people are, have only themselves to blame?

Should have tried harder, studied more, and ensured that they could afford the lifestyle that those who are more clever/harder workers have?

Meritocracy, and all that.

Judged by whom? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just not following your argument. I need coffee

I think you've missed the irony.

Exactly!

MissAdventure

I'm saying that since it is ok (for "some people") to judge certain sections of society, let's have a free-for-all and judge everyone just as harshly.
Those is the middle kind of section, well, why are they not in the top one, earning enough to have as many children as they see fit?

Is it because they're lazy, not clever enough, or have no aspirations?

Not clever enough.

We haven't all got first-class brains !!

The daft thing is, that for every single parent woman, there's a single parent man, so that's a fair old few, probably including the sons of some posters here.

Never hear a word about those, though.

The workhouses were cruel and inhumane. I thank God we have moved away from that idea. For many they were a death sentence.

I'm saying that since it is ok (for "some people") to judge certain sections of society, let's have a free-for-all and judge everyone just as harshly.
Those is the middle kind of section, well, why are they not in the top one, earning enough to have as many children as they see fit?

Is it because they're lazy, not clever enough, or have no aspirations?

MissAdventure

Surely those in the middle bracket, if they are judged as lower bracket people are, have only themselves to blame?

Should have tried harder, studied more, and ensured that they could afford the lifestyle that those who are more clever/harder workers have?

Meritocracy, and all that.

Judged by whom? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just not following your argument. I need coffee

Curtaintwitcher

This is another problem which can be traced back to the then government being too lenient. Unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies and given a house and benefits. As a result, many young women deliberately got themselves pregnant. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. 'Why should I work when the government will pay me to stay at home?'
Bring back the workhouses. At least the truly destitute will have a roof over their heads and perhaps those who are able to work will do so.

What a thoroughly nasty post.

What about the men?

How about a system that actually goes after them for maintenance? At the moment all they have to do is get their employer to pay them cash under the table and abracadabra no record of employment and no legal requirement to pay maintenance for their child/ren!!

Surely those in the middle bracket, if they are judged as lower bracket people are, have only themselves to blame?

Should have tried harder, studied more, and ensured that they could afford the lifestyle that those who are more clever/harder workers have?

Meritocracy, and all that.

I don’t think that punishing girls for getting pregnant is right. The thought of those horrible ‘mother and baby homes’ where babies were taken from the arms of their mums to be adopted is just awful, as is blaming them for the immaculate conceptions they must have had to ‘get themselves pregnant🙄.

If after school care were free, however (and available to all) the mothers could work when the child reaches five or so, the same as most parents do. I think parents are expected to seek work when their child is five anyway, and there is a cap on benefits for more than two children. I don’t think parenthood is a licence to print money, although I do feel for single childless people who are low priority for everything from housing to benefits. Nobody wants to see children do without, but I know it can be galling for those who would love a house (and maybe a baby too) to be unable to afford it and see others being supported to do it.

Would a universal income get rid of the unfairness (perceived or real) that causes so much resentment? If the level were high enough it would do away with the need to means test too, so people could avoid the poverty trap that means testing brings with it. I think that might be a better way to make the welfare state work than punishing those at the bottom. My concern, though, is that it might raise prices to the point where the income is swallowed up, and it could put people off saving for the future if taxes rose so much to pay for it that they were better off not bothering. That way, we might have fewer pensioners (as an example demographic) in poverty, but the standard of living of the group as a whole would be dragged down in the way that means testing does, with the poor doing a bit better, the rich doing well as the income would be additional to their wealth, but those in the middle losing their modest savings to tax. I don’t know - I’m just thinking aloud.

People are reassessed, though.

Urmstongran

Pammie1

Granmarderby10

Every time I read comments about claiming welfare benefits because of illness, particularly anxiety and depression I come across the same phrases……Something along the lines of “ you’ll feel better if you return to work” / “you’ll be better off if you go back to work” as though there is an actual job there waiting for you.
Am I alone in thinking that in the competitive job market with young, healthy, biddable applicants in steady supply, that someone who has not been to work for decades perhaps, will not manage to get to interview stage let alone be offered a job (necessarily with training) and without actual proper help as apposed to the plastic attempts that countless governments have spent fortunes on.

As Sunak was making his speech on disability and sickness benefit reform the government were quietly cutting the help available to disabled and long term unemployed to get back to work. Remember Remploy and the SRJ workshops ? Closed completely by the Tories a few years ago, and the then minister for the disabled made an announcement that specialist help would be available to find work for those (severely disabled) people who had lost their jobs. I was a benefit adviser at the time and as far as I know not one single ex employee received any extra help and the majority are still unemployed. That’s how much the government actually cares about getting sick and disabled back to work. Anyone who thinks that the looming cuts are about anything but money is deluded.

Well, it’ll be Starmer’s problem to solve in a few short months.

Won't be a problem for Starmer, they believe in state dependency, during Blairs time,spending on Social benefits
rose drastically. PIP is a different matter, even then should it be that no one is reassessed re their disability, or long term illness.

No, the system was an unsuccessful mess.

I seem to recall that efforts to make the fathers pay to support their random children weren't totally successful.

MissAdventure

Curtaintwitcher

This is another problem which can be traced back to the then government being too lenient. Unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies and given a house and benefits. As a result, many young women deliberately got themselves pregnant. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. 'Why should I work when the government will pay me to stay at home?'
Bring back the workhouses. At least the truly destitute will have a roof over their heads and perhaps those who are able to work will do so.

Blimey.
Those girls all needed a male to "get themselves pregnant".

What should become of them as they merrily dance away to father some more children with different girls?

Quite! It takes two to tango.

I live on a council estate in a part of the city that was always considered somewhat disadvantaged. Not the worst, but not the best either.

I know only two people who "live on benefits" and I know a wide range of people here of all ages, it is a very social and friendly area.

The first person in question cares for his mentally and physically disabled daughter. She is 30 but has the mental age of a 2 year old. He pushes her religiously in her wheelchair wherever he goes. He has cared for her single handedly since his wife died of cancer 5 years ago. He is in his late fifties but he looks about 70.

The second man is a schizophrenic in his early 60's. He has worked here and there as a car mechanic but, not surprisingly, has never managed to sustain employment and now spends his days wandering the streets. His mother used care for him but she died 3 years ago, probably worried to death about her son.

How many of you actually know anyone who lives on benefits?