Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Helping the government save money

467 replies

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 18:49

I think free prescriptions for people with certain conditions should be means tested. What else could the government cut to save money?

OP posts:
pam290358 · 25/01/2026 17:01

I have a stoma, which qualifies me for free prescriptions. Of my own volition I pay for anything not connected with the stoma supplies because it doesn’t seem fair to claim for meds not directly as a result of my condition. But I would just like to ask the OP where they would draw the line at means testing, given that if I had to pay for my stoma supplies, at current per item rates on the NHS, I would be paying in excess of £500 per month. How much is too much ?

Arlanymor · 25/01/2026 16:52

Ferro · 25/01/2026 15:32

I think bank interest should be means tested and only paid to those who need it.

Regardless of how that money was earned? So if people save for ages and deposit then no interest? What about charities with bank accounts? No interest for them either?

Samdelila · 25/01/2026 16:52

dreamiesformolly · 25/01/2026 15:17

I'd be interested to know your definition of this too, OP.

I was thinking of people who live in Britain, is that a problem?

OP posts:
Samdelila · 25/01/2026 16:51

Arlanymor · 25/01/2026 15:11

Who are British people - just to be clear?

People who live in Britain.

OP posts:
JugglingMyNuts · 25/01/2026 16:21

Ferro · 25/01/2026 15:32

I think bank interest should be means tested and only paid to those who need it.

So you are discouraging anyone to save money for emergencies or redundancies or illness. We really should be encouraging people to self reliant and having money in the bank to get you out of life’s difficulties is a good thing (investing in stock market is long term and risky short term)

FurForksSake · 25/01/2026 15:56

Universal basic income is massively expensive and would see tax hikes. It would also mean those who cannot work would be on the lowest amount with no additional help. There’s good reasons that no major economies have adopted the process.

government has moved further and further away from universal benefits and more towards means testing and targeting benefits and I can only see that increasing.

gamerchick · 25/01/2026 15:34

taxguru · 25/01/2026 15:25

Trouble is that UBI wouldn't be the only benefit people receive. There'd still be "top ups" for disabilities, rent subsidies, council tax reductions, free prescriptions, etc for certain groups of people under certain criteria. So we'd be back to where we are today.

The tax rates to pay for it would also be ridiculously high, creating a disincentive for people to work as they'd probably "take home" less than half the wage, and of course, also lose out due to commuting costs, work clothing, etc.

It doesn't have to be like that though. How did the trial I wonder, the 2 years are up now surely.

Ferro · 25/01/2026 15:32

I think bank interest should be means tested and only paid to those who need it.

taxguru · 25/01/2026 15:25

gamerchick · 25/01/2026 12:18

It's not really all.about the money though. It gets said repeatedly that it isn't but yet that's all that people see.

Personally I'd like to see the universal income that was trialed come in. Every household gets that and they can either live on that or work on top for more coin. No other types of benefits available. If you're pure minted you can opt out.

Stops the almighty taxpayer feeling hard done too.

Edited

Trouble is that UBI wouldn't be the only benefit people receive. There'd still be "top ups" for disabilities, rent subsidies, council tax reductions, free prescriptions, etc for certain groups of people under certain criteria. So we'd be back to where we are today.

The tax rates to pay for it would also be ridiculously high, creating a disincentive for people to work as they'd probably "take home" less than half the wage, and of course, also lose out due to commuting costs, work clothing, etc.

dreamiesformolly · 25/01/2026 15:17

Arlanymor · 25/01/2026 15:11

Who are British people - just to be clear?

I'd be interested to know your definition of this too, OP.

Arlanymor · 25/01/2026 15:11

Samdelila · 25/01/2026 12:14

Ourselves = British people.

Who are British people - just to be clear?

gamerchick · 25/01/2026 12:18

TheBlueKoala · 23/01/2026 19:43

PIP and DLA. It's ridiculous handing out money to millionnaires who don't need it. I can't even imagine applying for it if I didn't need it. Know 3 people who get it for autism/adhd and anxiety. One is very well off and is not anxious at all but likes to play the system. Her family is embarrassed and even offered to give her the 400 £ per month but it's like a game to her. The other two both work and don't have any extra costs due to their autism and adhd for the other which I think should be a criteria to get it.

It's not really all.about the money though. It gets said repeatedly that it isn't but yet that's all that people see.

Personally I'd like to see the universal income that was trialed come in. Every household gets that and they can either live on that or work on top for more coin. No other types of benefits available. If you're pure minted you can opt out.

Stops the almighty taxpayer feeling hard done too.

Samdelila · 25/01/2026 12:14

dreamiesformolly · 25/01/2026 12:03

Define 'ourselves'? Because you seem very keen on the idea of the needy being squeezed further.

Ourselves = British people.

OP posts:
ByQuaintAzureWasp · 25/01/2026 12:11

Stop paying for train, bus, taxi fares for biological parents to see their children who have gone into foster care. Expect biological parents to contribute financially if children in foster care.

dreamiesformolly · 25/01/2026 12:03

Samdelila · 24/01/2026 21:47

I was on a thread about the need for the UK to become less reliant on the US - which highlighted that to do this we would have to pay more for our own defence. We cannot afford to do that without economic growth and cutting spending. This was the catalyst for me looking for ways to cut government spending. I was already interested in identifying ways to do this because I am constantly reading news articles and comment pieces talking about the fact this country is spending more than it can afford. That prompts me to want to try and figure out how cost cuts can be achieved. It is dispiriting that you cannot believe that I am honestly simply trying to identify ways in which we can help ourselves.

Define 'ourselves'? Because you seem very keen on the idea of the needy being squeezed further.

Samdelila · 25/01/2026 11:57

WutheringTights · 25/01/2026 11:40

But if high earners (who pay the majority of tax) don’t get anything out of the pot that they fund, you might find them less willing to fund it. They then leave, or vote for tax reductions, meaning less money to pay for stuff for everyone else.

They’re not going to leave on the back of a £120 pre payment certificate. I actually agree that we should try and retain wealth creators in this country. I’m not suggesting they should pay more than average earners for their medication.

OP posts:
Samdelila · 25/01/2026 11:55

LilyBunch25 · 25/01/2026 11:40

Spot on.

I am dedicated to cutting waste in the council budget.

OP posts:
Samdelila · 25/01/2026 11:54

Jamsponges · 25/01/2026 10:47

And yet someone could be a multimillionaire and get all their medication for the price of only 120 pounds so it seems very bizarre to begrudge free prescriptions but be chill with the idea of the prepayment certificate

As many people have pointed out it would be expensive to means test so it is easier to have a blanket rule that applies to all. Therefore we cannot distinguish between millionaires, quite rich people, middle earners or those who are struggling just above the line at which they would qualify for benefits. I regret this, but it is the best way to avoid the expense of means testing. I still think that people who can afford it should not be exempted from paying the £120 for a pre payment certificate when the country needs to save money. I have no desire to fixate on this issue - I am looking for other sensible suggestions as to how the country can save money - preferably in the least painful way possible.

OP posts:
LilyBunch25 · 25/01/2026 11:40

Nevermind17 · 25/01/2026 11:00

Crikey. You’re privy to the colossal wastes that are council budgets, yet you’re focusing on a relatively small number of people being given £100 a year?

Spot on.

WutheringTights · 25/01/2026 11:40

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 19:20

If we can’t claw back unneeded freebies from someone on £200,000 then we’re never going to save money in this country.

But if high earners (who pay the majority of tax) don’t get anything out of the pot that they fund, you might find them less willing to fund it. They then leave, or vote for tax reductions, meaning less money to pay for stuff for everyone else.

Jamsponges · 25/01/2026 11:24

givemesteel · 25/01/2026 11:05

Completely disagree.

This poor woman is already paying at least £600k a year in tax and you think she should also pay for her prescriptions for essential medication that keeps her alive?

Should she not get anything in return for working hard and paying tax, or do other people just get to benefit off her hard work.

Always easy to spend other people's money.

Working Hard while managing a complex chronic condition to boot

givemesteel · 25/01/2026 11:05

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 19:20

If we can’t claw back unneeded freebies from someone on £200,000 then we’re never going to save money in this country.

Completely disagree.

This poor woman is already paying at least £600k a year in tax and you think she should also pay for her prescriptions for essential medication that keeps her alive?

Should she not get anything in return for working hard and paying tax, or do other people just get to benefit off her hard work.

Always easy to spend other people's money.

Nevermind17 · 25/01/2026 11:00

Samdelila · 24/01/2026 20:43

Yes.

Crikey. You’re privy to the colossal wastes that are council budgets, yet you’re focusing on a relatively small number of people being given £100 a year?

Jamsponges · 25/01/2026 10:47

Samdelila · 25/01/2026 10:39

I am am not suggesting getting rid of the pre payment certificate just free prescriptions for those who can afford £120 a year.

And yet someone could be a multimillionaire and get all their medication for the price of only 120 pounds so it seems very bizarre to begrudge free prescriptions but be chill with the idea of the prepayment certificate

Jamsponges · 25/01/2026 10:46

Samdelila · 25/01/2026 10:31

So we might as well just keep giving free prescriptions to people who could easily afford £120 a year for a pre payment certificate and make no effort trying to identify other ways the government could save money? The problem is deeper than just saving a couple of pounds but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and save them anyway.

Because as many people have pointed out it would just be a false economy. With the listed conditions it's important to ensure people take all medication they need to take and never miss any. If I don't follow an exemplary treatment regime for my condition I would end up with lengthy and expensive ICU stays. £120 wouldnt even cover the first hour or so of that stay,

I don't get any benefits and yet my condition costs me an awful lot more to live with, for instance I have to pay for cleaners and I have had to purchase a wheelchair with my own money in order to have any quality of life.

Begrudging this small difference of 120 pounds is just a really weird thing to fixate on. Maybe it will make you feel better if you think of it as a tax credit for those of us who are in work? Because working with a long term serious condition is no mean feat.

The systemic problems in the NHS aren't going to be tackled by changing this. And it's likely it would have expensive consequences.

Swipe left for the next trending thread