Why we have a welfare system

[Skeptisk]

For some reason videos of homeless Americans explaining why they are on the streets appeared on my feed. One example here:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGekpEHg3/

For those not clicking on it, guy lost his wife and daughter in an accident. He had a breakdown and ended in hospital for 7 months. When he came out he had lost his job, home, car and life.

There were lots similar stories where people who were doing well in life and normal citizens were hit by a disaster and there was no one to stop them slipping through the cracks. Once homeless I think it becomes a vicious circle because with no fixed address how do you get a proper job?

The press and certain parts of the Tory party frequently criticise welfare and try to turn us against it. People should take a closer look at the US and how precariously people live there before wishing away our safety net.

[paulw123]

We are right to have a welfare system, but it should be a safety net, not a way of life.

[smifffymoto]

The UK and most European countries have many faults,a welfare system isn’t one of them.

[Silenoz]

And yet we still have homeless people and an abundance of empty property.

Agree America is a whole other level of brutal, but our system is far from a safety net for some.

[QJumper]

paulw123 said:

We are right to have a welfare system, but it should be a safety net, not a way of life.

It should also be a balancing mechanic in any market driven economy.

Once the government sets a minimum level of benefit payments, if people then choose that as an option over working, it's a signal to the market that wages aren't high enough to be an incentive.

One can argue as to whether the government sets that level too high, but the government's role in a democracy is to prioritise the needs of those least able to influence things.

[jonsp]

Silenoz said:

Agree America is a whole other level of brutal, but our system is far from a safety net for some.

Depends what you want.

Example, when I lived in the US my then girlfriends brother worked at a Goodyear tyre plant in Oklahoma. Semi-skilled work - learn on the job rather than existing qualifications/experience. They ran production 24/7 with 2 alternating shift patterns - 6am/6pm or 6pm/6am. 4 days on/2 off. Obviously to run 24/7 production in the UK you'd need 3 shifts rather than 2.

Excellent health coverage for self/family provided by employer, way beyond anything we have from the NHS. On site nurses/pharmacy/dentist or external doctors/hospital for more serious issues. But of course lose your job and lose your health cover.

Oklahoma's an at will state meaning he could be fired at any time for any reason - or even no reason. He has zero employment protection, there's no such thing as an employment tribunal. But he took the view why does he need protection - Goodyear need to make tyres and he's doing a decent job. Of course given a drop off in demand for cars/tyres he'd be screwed.

He lives in a nice 4 bed detached with inground pool. New pickup for him and SUV for wife in the drive, boat on the local lake, supports wife + 2 daughters and has plenty of disposable income. Basically the same lifestyle as a middle class professional in the UK, way beyond what a working man could have in the UK.

Seems to be a difference in people's appetite for risk. We can either have better when things are going well on the understanding of worse when things go badly. Or vice versa.

[GroundEffect]

EmailAddress said:

If you were British, male, financially middle-class with a home as a part-paid asset, and your wife and child died, you had a breakdown, couldn't keep up repayments, and subsequently lost your house...

You'd get sweet fk-all from our 'welfare state', and would be looking at a minimum three month wait for any psychological help.

Best case scenario they prescribe antidepressants and you talk to the Samaritans while your monetary world crumbles around you.

The difference here is that if you have a job for 2 years, you have many more rights than someone in the US. Proper disciplinary procedures. And then there's the equality act. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discriminat...

[QuickQuack]

EmailAddress said:

If you were British, male, financially middle-class with a home as a part-paid asset, and your wife and child died, you had a breakdown, couldn't keep up repayments, and subsequently lost your house...

You'd get sweet fk-all from our 'welfare state', and would be looking at a minimum three month wait for any psychological help.

Best case scenario they prescribe antidepressants and you talk to the Samaritans while your monetary world crumbles around you.

bks. For a start, as a part-paid asset, your wife would likely be on the mortgage and would therefore have to have life insurance. If she dies in an accident, the insurance would kick in and the mortgage would paid paid off in full, so you'd now have a fully paid off asset. You'd be signed off sick from your job due to your mental health, whether either by your GP in the first instance, or by psychiatrists if you ended up in hospital in the unlikely scenario. Your GP visits and your hospital stays wouldn't cost you a single penny. Even if you ended up losing your job after a prolonged period of absence, you'd still have your house becouse you wouldn't have had to sell it to pay for the medical fees you incurred while in hopital without a job and without medical insurance. That's the biggest reason why people in US lose their homes.

No, best case scenario is very far from what you've ineloquently fabricated out of nowhere. As it happens, between Dr/Mrs QQ and I we have seen this scenario play out multiple times, and it the Samaritans is the worst case scenario, not best. For the vast majority who suffer painful changes in circumstances, our system of free at the point of need NHS, employment protections, financial regulations and welfare provisions combine to work pretty damn well.

[johnpsanderson]

QuickQuack said:

have to have life insurance

That’s a new one on me. We have had a mortgage for about 18 years and no ever told us we had to have life insurance. So we never have.

[Jim on the hill]

QuickQuack said:

EmailAddress said:

If you were British, male, financially middle-class with a home as a part-paid asset, and your wife and child died, you had a breakdown, couldn't keep up repayments, and subsequently lost your house...

You'd get sweet fk-all from our 'welfare state', and would be looking at a minimum three month wait for any psychological help.

Best case scenario they prescribe antidepressants and you talk to the Samaritans while your monetary world crumbles around you.

bks. For a start, as a part-paid asset, your wife would likely be on the mortgage and would therefore have to have life insurance. If she dies in an accident, the insurance would kick in and the mortgage would paid paid off in full, so you'd now have a fully paid off asset. You'd be signed off sick from your job due to your mental health, whether either by your GP in the first instance, or by psychiatrists if you ended up in hospital in the unlikely scenario. Your GP visits and your hospital stays wouldn't cost you a single penny. Even if you ended up losing your job after a prolonged period of absence, you'd still have your house becouse you wouldn't have had to sell it to pay for the medical fees you incurred while in hopital without a job and without medical insurance. That's the biggest reason why people in US lose their homes.

No, best case scenario is very far from what you've ineloquently fabricated out of nowhere. As it happens, between Dr/Mrs QQ and I we have seen this scenario play out multiple times, and it the Samaritans is the worst case scenario, not best. For the vast majority who suffer painful changes in circumstances, our system of free at the point of need NHS, employment protections, financial regulations and welfare provisions combine to work pretty damn well.

You do not need to have life insurance, who told you that?

[QuickQuack]

johnpsanderson said:

That’s a new one on me. We have had a mortgage for about 18 years and no ever told us we had to have life insurance. So we never have.

I'm surprised. Our mortgage conditions state that we have to have life insurance, that was the case for my first property purchase back in 2004, too. We don't have to use our mortgage provider, but we have to have insurance in place.

[valiant]

jonsp said:

Oklahoma's an at will state meaning he could be fired at any time for any reason - or even no reason. He has zero employment protection, there's no such thing as an employment tribunal. But he took the view why does he need protection - Goodyear need to make tyres and he's doing a decent job. Of course given a drop off in demand for cars/tyres he'd be screwed.
.

That is some scary st. Goodyear could move production to Mexico tomorrow and he’s screwed with absolutely no recourse.

Saw a video a while back of a factory that did just this. Staff meeting called and told that that was it - you’re all fired as production was cheaper in Mexico. I know some people here hate various regulations that hinder business but there has got to be some sort of employment rights and protections for workers.

[johnpsanderson]

QuickQuack said:

johnpsanderson said:

That’s a new one on me. We have had a mortgage for about 18 years and no ever told us we had to have life insurance. So we never have.

I'm surprised. Our mortgage conditions state that we have to have life insurance, that was the case for my first property purchase back in 2004, too. We don't have to use our mortgage provider, but we have to have insurance in place.

But the mortgage is secured against your property, not your life?!

[Bairn]

jonsp said:

They ran production 24/7 with 2 alternating shift patterns - 6am/6pm or 6pm/6am. 4 days on/2 off. Obviously to run 24/7 production in the UK you'd need 3 shifts rather than 2.

You don’t need 3 shifts to run 24/7 operations in the UK.
I’ve seen multiple plants work 12hr shifts with 24/7 coverage.

[secret_stu]

The lender may make it a condition of borrowing to have life assurance in place.

[QuickQuack]

johnpsanderson said:

QuickQuack said:

johnpsanderson said:

That’s a new one on me. We have had a mortgage for about 18 years and no ever told us we had to have life insurance. So we never have.

I'm surprised. Our mortgage conditions state that we have to have life insurance, that was the case for my first property purchase back in 2004, too. We don't have to use our mortgage provider, but we have to have insurance in place.

But the mortgage is secured against your property, not your life?!

It is, however:

secret_stu said:

The lender may make it a condition of borrowing to have life assurance in place.

Ours does.

[GroundEffect]

My first house/mortgage provider made it a requirement in 2014. Since then I've moved house and provider. They don't require it.

[jonsp]

johnpsanderson said:

But the mortgage is secured against your property, not your life?!

You would think. If one - or even both - die the bank takes possesion of the property. They sell it and get their money out, absent a collapse in property they won't lose money.

Perhaps the requirement for life insurance just gives the mortgage provider an opportunity to sell their own life cover - maybe if you're worried whether you'd be offered the mortgage you'd think best sign up for their life cover to make sure they approve?

[Missy Charm]

johnpsanderson said:

QuickQuack said:

have to have life insurance

That’s a new one on me. We have had a mortgage for about 18 years and no ever told us we had to have life insurance. So we never have.

Whilst there isn't a requirement to have life insurance with a mortgage, the overwhelming majority of products are sold with some sort of cover. The policy is as beneficial to the lender as it is the mortgagee (surviving spouse in this case), so there's no reason for the lender not to want it to be there. My own mortgage has a life insurance element that costs something less than £10 a month. It's nothing, and only registers as a separate payment thanks to the enforced Lloyds-TSB de-merger some years back (mortgage went to one, insurance to the other). Before that, the whole thing was done as a single payment and there's no specific paperwork. It's more than possible that you have actually got life insurance as part of the mortgage deal and either don't know or have forgotten! Hardly the sort of thing one thinks about day to day.

Anyway, having a welfare system is far better, long term, than not having one.

[QuickQuack]

We're getting away from the point a little. Some mortgage providers require life insurance, others don't; in any case, all of them will advise that you do. They will provide you with decent, impartial advice if they don't require it.

However, most people in the US lose their homes in these situations, not because of the death of the loved one and being unable to pay their mortgage anymore, but as I mentioned earlier:

QuickQuack said:

Your GP visits and your hospital stays wouldn't cost you a single penny. Even if you ended up losing your job after a prolonged period of absence, you'd still have your house becouse you wouldn't have had to sell it to pay for the medical fees you incurred while in hopital without a job and without medical insurance. That's the biggest reason why people in US lose their homes.

It's because of the cost of medical care, loss of medical insurance if you lose your job, and having to pay enormous sums if you're unlucky enough to have to have inpatient care without insurance, or at the wrong hospital, even if you do have insurance. That is something we all take for granted here and in many part of Europe, even with various co-pay systems. Nobody has to go bankrupt to pay for basic and essential medical care.