2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
And yet not enough people being parents is THE problem.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
so for the NHS, near enough 10% of roles are unfilled vacancies. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-nhs-workforce-in-numbersey
Same in care, roughly: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/social-care-360-workforce-carers#:~:text=Between%202021%2F22%20and%202022,the%20wider%20economy%20(3.4%25).
20% of Defra digital roles unfilled due to low pay: -https://www.publictechnology.net/2024/02/09/education-and-skills/one-in-five-digital-roles-at-defra-unfilled-minister-claims/
0 -
The burden for all DB schemes falls on the employer. Increased longevity, changes in interest rates all affect the liability and the funding positions.
When many puvlic sector pensions have to be paid from existing annual budgets, that's not great.
There is a reason such schemes don't exist in the private sector - they are simply unafforable for employers when longevity has increased so much. So why should they still exist inthe private secotr?
0 -
That's because it is means tested, buttercup.
1 -
TBH given the general labour involved in bringing up children, who will be taxpayers when you're in your net-beneficiary era, you should be grateful ;)
0 -
I am simply pointing out two of the bigger numbers there. If you want to shave 5 or 10 billion from somewhere, you would start by looking at the biggest costs first.
Paying out child benefits and tax credits for households with people in them earning £80k seems intuitively to be one of those things we might want to revisit.
0 -
Sure. The trade off is you build more houses so that those families can afford to work and have children.
The longer you make people take time out for childcare (because rent AND third party childcare is incredibly expensive. You have no idea), the bigger the hit to their earnings, and that hit is compounded over the rest of a career.
0 -
Means-testing makes sense in one context - Mrs W&G and I didn't really need the help with childcare / child raising that was on offer, but we trousered it, as you'd be a fool not to, and spent it on holidays. With the kids, of course.
Adding means-testing to a benefit that was previously universal is more problematic, as even if you don't "need" a particular benefit, gearing down your family lifestyle to adapt to having a benefit removed is not necessarily pain-free.
0 -
Well, housing benefit is one of the other big numbers, after all.
The other big drain on the economy is the NHS. We've discussed it before, but I don't see how the UK can carry on funding healthcare the way it is.
Of course, an economy 5% smaller than it would have been had idiots not been in charge is also not helping.
0 -
HB and WTC do illustrate why a "large state" is not necessarily ideal. These things were introduced with the very best of intentions but the world adapts to them in ways not envisaged by somewhat idealistic politicians and we soon end up in the situation that such benefits are politically very hard to remove, whilst most of the ultimate beneficiaries are not as intended.
0 -
It is slightly the housing problem of everything. If we had enough housing there's a significant amount of state subsidies that could be stopped.
0 -
Don't disagree with any of that and I agree they have had their day, but that huge number will be spread over decades.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think WFA still wins the out-of-control spending prize. There are otherwise sensible commentators suggesting its removal is one step away from consigning all pensioners to their doom, rather than canceling an election year gimmick that got out of hand.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Without googling, does anyone want to guess what the Cambridge University nursery charges for 5 days a week childcare? Per year per child.
0 -
£15k?
0 -
-
I googled it. Not by much.
It's only for 2-3 years total per child, in reality.
Would you like me to chip in for you?
0 -
I remember when HB first came in - I think 1983, as bizarrely we could claim it as students in halls of residence.
Just like abolishing VAT on certain items, and I suspect WTC, it doesn't end up in the pockets of those who actually need it, but in the pockets of those running the industries. But as sure as eggs is eggs, if you withdrew them, the first people to feel the pain, and to be hit hardest, would be those whom you were trying to help in the first place. I've no idea how you undo these extremely expensive unintended consequences.
1 -
IMHO, people view childcare costs the wrong way. What you should be comparing the cost (less earning whilst working during that time) against is the total lifetime foregone earnings of the parent who would otherwise have to give up their job to be a stay-at-home parent. I guess this only works for professional folk, but the loss in earning power for being out of the job market for 5 years in a technical field is huge.
0 -
Steady now. You'll be concluding that RTB while banning councils from making up the shortfall didn't actually save taxpayers money in the long term.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The other (presumably) unintended consequence my wife used to find quite a lot in the care sector was that it was difficult trying to get people to do paid overtime to cover illness / holidays etc. as it would impact on the benefits the staff got paid.
0 -
-
Yup, people ain't stoopid. Equally, big business will take advantage of state top-ups (unintentionally, probably) to pay the lowest wages they can get away with.
0 -
You have a household income of, what, about £200k? I know it's a bind, but you literally can afford it and you are intelligent enough to have been forewarned.
To be honest, you need to let a parent who earns merely twice the national average salary take up the role of spokesman for these sorts of issues.
0 -
Hi.
Not sure how it makes the slightest difference someone else posting the obvious.
People young enough to be starting a family and old enough to earn enough to fund a £19k a year nursery fee are relatively rare. Which is part of the problem.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Career break, part time work, grandparents, combinations thereof. It's only a problem if you expect the solution to be cheap or easy.
And there literally is government funding for people who aren't in the top 1%, which was more my point.
Being a parent is not unique in being able to compromise people's lives. And in exchange for these compromises, parents have children. Literally the biggest investment of your life, if you are a parent, but a fraction the cost of a house. Bargain.
0 -
A question born out of blissful ignorance: has the nursey care sector suffered the same fate as the veterinary sector (and care homes, IIRC) having been taken hostage by a few big businesses turning them into quasi monopolies?
0 -
I had understood that nursery costs are getting pushed up by the compulsory government provision, for which they are paid less than the cost of providing it. So they make it back from the hours that people need to pay for.
It's dumb as toast if you look at it like that.
So, to the parents out there paying £15-£19k themselves, what's the solution - increase the cost to all taxpayers, reduce the state provision to bring overall costs per hour down for all hours people pay for themselves, or the status quo?
0 -
True, but my comparison is still the correct one for a household where the choice is pay for childcare or give up professional job.
I've got no idea what your other half does for a living, but I guess the gap between childcare costs and her post-tax earnings (plus employer pension contributions) is relatively small, (if there's a gap at all) given the alternative is earning nothing for 5+ years. And that's before you even consider foregone earnings.
But I assume you've already done the sums and gone down the childcare route!
0 -
No, the house is far, far cheaper. Compromise is fine. If there's a shortage of people starting families to the extent that there are not enough working people to pay for everyone else then maybe the compromises need a review.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
