To think that there is no hope here?

I so wish Labour sympathised with you. I have two young people just going out into the world. Desperate to work to support themselves. Not fussy what they do. It's such a shame that Labour have reduced so significantly the number of job opportunities that young people can get to start the employment ladder. It's as if they want people on benefits for some reason. As if they want people to be beholden to the party of benefits.

@Taxed are the stats you're referring to?

Full breakdown (of the adult population reliant on the state)

State Pension Recipients: 12, 635,000 (23.29%)

Universal Credit Recipients, including unemployed people: 6,340,000 (11.69%)

Public Sector Employees: 5,940,000 (10.95%)

Higher Education Students: 2,937,155 (5.41%)

Higher Education Employees: 240,420 (0.44%)

Human Resources Employees: 139,623 (0.26%)

Planning Sector Employees: 22,000 (0.04%)

The vast majority of the 52% are employees (presumably includes NHS, teachers etc), students and pensioners.

Only 11% are people who are unemployed or needing their income topped up.

Which part of this do you object to?
You want fewer people to access HE?
You want older people to work until later in life / die earlier?
Fewer public sector employees?

Thank you @JHound !

@Taxed you really are a bit dim aren’t you? Because if this is the study and it includes pensioners then these are people who have contributed via earnings for 40plus years. And earners in the public sector who themselves will be paying tax back in (2 experienced economists working at HMT could easily both be higher rate tax payers but they’d still be included in the Adam Smith study as “reliant”).

As ever the devil is in the detail…

This is from ONS, most recent when searched and matches that figure

• The proportion of people living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes decreased from 53.6% to 52.6%; this is the continuation of a downward trend following a sharp increase during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (FYE 2021).

It talks about the proportion of households receiving more in benefits than paid in income taxes

It’s ONS not Adam Smith and doesn’t mention public sector salaries.

Most of those people are working. The state isn’t really subsidising them, it’s subsidising companies to pay wages that do not cover the costs living.

You are in the top 1% of earners, so what is it to you? Most people who are on benefits are also in work, but it's not enough to live off. The ridiculous house prices and greedy landlords are taking everybody's income. In London, rent is often more than 50% of wages.

It will! I think that those people who are ‘high earners’ have no idea of how utterly desperate it is being at the opposite end of the scale. Especially single parents who work full time and still don’t have enough to even ‘beak even’ paying the bills…let alone have any disposable income! Families on low income (I’m not talking about unemployed…just your average family with working parents in low paid jobs) have it really tough! They are not lazy or work shy, but are still struggling to feed and clothe their children.

I would love to see how some of the high income people on here would cope, for even a week, with the annual ‘working family income’ of the poorest fifth of our population, which is £16,800pa. Then let them come back and complain about it.

I regularly read on this forum, people asking for ideas for their holiday with a budget of 10-15k and my mind is blown! Yes, I get that they’ve earned this money and absolutely deserve their well-earned holiday, but the same people will be the ones complaining about private schools being taxed and ‘benefit scroungers’, without the first clue about the actual reality for so many people. What they pay for one family holiday, is around the same income that another family lives on for a whole year.

I don’t begrudge anyone their income at all (it’s not a race to the bottom!) I just wish they’d have a little more compassion and empathy for others less fortunate.

Agree. I’ve clarified this upthread with a full explanation of how motability actually works. So sick of ignorant and ableist posters like this talking shite on every available benefit thread.

I’m really interested in how employing people in the public sector affects the economy.
these people are employed, they pay taxes, they buy services and goods that create jobs and employment.

so presumably it’s fairly cyclical.
If you privatised those jobs, the wealth from that business goes up the chain to share holders. some of that wealth goes out the country, or tax is managed to pay little.

its a little like selling off the council houses. Those houses kept any housing benefit received going back to the council. Now that goes to private landlords or large corporations so is “lost”.

id love to see the figures of which provides more income for the government.

Don't flame me for using Chat GPT but...

ChatGPT said:
In the UK, determining whether someone (or a household) is a net contributor or a net recipient is based on comparing:

1. Taxes paid → all forms of taxation
2. Benefits received → all cash transfers and the value of services received

How the UK Does It (ONS Method)
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes an annual report called
“The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income”
It uses survey data (mainly the Living Costs and Food Survey) and applies these steps:

1. Calculate Taxes Paid
Includes:
Direct taxes:
Income tax
Employee National Insurance contributions
Council tax
(For self-employed) Class 4 NICs
Indirect taxes:
VAT
Fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, etc.
Other minor consumption taxes

2. Calculate Benefits Received
ONS includes both cash and in‑kind benefits:

Cash benefits:
Universal Credit, Child Benefit, State Pension, Disability benefits, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit, etc.

In-kind benefits (valued at cost to government):
NHS healthcare received
State education for children
Social care and some housing services

3. Compare Net Position
For each household:
Net fiscal position = (Direct + Indirect Taxes) − (Cash Benefits + In-kind Benefits)

Net contributor: Taxes paid > Benefits received
Net recipient: Benefits received ≥ Taxes paid

4. Who Is Counted?
ONS analysis is at the household level and then equivalised (adjusted for household size and composition).
Individuals are then classified based on the household they live in.

Important Points

Retired households often count as net recipients because:
State pension is classified as a cash benefit.
They receive NHS healthcare and other services but often pay less tax.
High-income households are nearly always net contributors.
In-work but low-income households can still be net recipients due to tax credits/Universal Credit and in-kind benefits.

Example
Imagine a household:
Pays £5,000 in income tax & NIC + £3,000 VAT/fuel/alcohol duties = £8,000 total tax
Receives:
Child Benefit £1,800
NHS healthcare valued at £2,500
State education for 2 children valued at £6,000
→ Total benefits: £10,300
This household is classified as a net recipient.

I believe in having a welfare state, in helping those who are in need but 52.6%?

This from the OP. The deliberate inference that 52.6% are reliant on welfare benefits.

I am sure you will argue that OP wasn't twisting statistics to suit their agenda, though.

No one owes you a living though. What's the alternative to work? It shouldn't be relying on the State unless your circumstances genuinely mean you can't work and support yourself. You can't not work just because you're chippy someone else is getting rich..assuming you are on the legal wage.

100%

Many of us are in full agreement with you.

It’s over.

Te breakdown of it. Which OP steadfastly refuses to provide - presumably because it doesn’t suit her me me me narrative.

This 👍

Stop talking out of your arse. You're just using this thread as an excuse to parade your prejudices.

The public sector is too large and too expensive. Yes services such as education, roads, prisons etc are essential. But they do not generate actual wealth. They make the generation of wealth possible in that they create an environment where wealth can be earned. But they do not generate wealth in and of itself. They are a service that need to be paid for. Anyway that's just my own thoughts on the matter.

No, the actual fact is that not everyone is afforded the same opportunity and for most of us, ‘putting your back into it these days just means making someone else wealthy.

My god, how dense is the OP?! This 52% he/she insists on quoting but refuses to reference, includes ALL public sector workers, so the entire NHS workforce, all teachers, police, armed forces, rail workers, etc. etc.

Yes they are reliant on state handouts. It's called a salary as they work for the state😂

Just fuck off to Magaland already. See how they treat immigrants. It might broaden your tiny mind just slightly.

So that’s surely where we need to start. The tax payer is effectively subsidising the wages bills of employers who could afford to pay better wages if they were better regulated and unable to pay themselves and their shareholders massive bonuses and golden parachutes. Similarly wealthy landlords who are effectively living off the tax payer by way of UC rent contributions, and who increase their rents in line with the yearly uplift in benefit contributions.

The "actual fact" is the both DH and I started life at the very disadvantaged end of society and really did "put our backs into it" and reaped the benefits, so we didn't have to stay there for longer than around 8 years each. I know what it is to do lowly badly paid work, and I know just how much social mobility there is in this country for people who are genuinely hard working and talented. So many excuses being made for under performers. You want a good quality of life, you have to earn it. There is no other way.

What’s the lie? The 52% part?

For a finite period. Not for permanent residency assuming they win the War or at least keep part of the country. They will need to go back.

Anyway I don't see large groups of Ukrainians stuffed in hotels and pestering little girls on the streets.

How would the private sector generate wealth without an educated workforce? With public transport infrastructure and workers? Roads etc?