Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread gallery
10
Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 13:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:59

yoshigizzit · 24/05/2026 12:45

You’ve not heard the term “welfare state” in the UK?

Yes.

Usually by right wingers who haven't a clue how some people live.

Though I have never heard people calling state pensions welfare.

It used to be called "social security", as that's exactly what it is.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:59

SerenaCat93 · 24/05/2026 12:58

Shame. It's this attitude from far too many people that is the reason no one understands what the fuck is going on and keeps voting for people who ruin our economy. Fuck the generations behind you right?

Edited

Exactly this.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SerenaCat93 · 24/05/2026 12:58

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:56

I told you I hadn't read. Life is too short.

Shame. It's this attitude from far too many people that is the reason no one understands what the fuck is going on and keeps voting for people who ruin our economy. Fuck the generations behind you right?

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:56

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:52

Which you clearly haven’t read as I stated precisely what I’d do to start to fix the UK economy and put the conditions in place for living standards to rise.

I told you I hadn't read. Life is too short.

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:56

NoWordForFluffy · 24/05/2026 12:42

I opted out to pay off (quite a chunk of) debt. I've since opted back in. I followed Martin Lewis' advice to do this.

When I started work (LG) it was compulsory that you joined the pension scheme. Then a number of years later, they allowed people to opt out. Some did. I was used to paying it, so stayed in. As did my husband.

There were times over the years (15% interest rates on our mortgage eg) that we could have done with the extra every month. But we stayed with it.

He retired 3 years ago on his 60th birthday, I followed him a year later on mine.

He has 4 years until SP, I have 5.

We have no mortgage obviously, have savings, gave our sons house deposits and have a home that is wind and watertight (and lovely imo 😁). We have a great life.

You are doing the right thing. Everyone is skint when you're young and bringing up children. It passes. But I am so grateful that we both have private pensions and will never rely on the state pension.

I don't know how people survive on £12.5k a year, yet there are people on this thread begrudging them it!

I don't.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Which you clearly haven’t read as I stated precisely what I’d do to start to fix the UK economy and put the conditions in place for living standards to rise.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:50

yoshigizzit · 24/05/2026 12:45

You’ve not heard the term “welfare state” in the UK?

Exactly! Thank you.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Why ask if you’re not interested? What a waste of everyone’s time.

It’s pretty obvious that your intention was to attempt to cast aspersions on me. Perhaps engage in the discussion about economics if you wish rather than trying to discredit facts presented by other posters by asking them it they are “foreign”, which for some reason seems to be some kind of obsession with certain people in the UK now.

yoshigizzit · 24/05/2026 12:45

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:29

It wasn't to discredit you. You used the term "welfare" which isn't commonly used in the UK. I read that one post. I can't discredit you for the rest as I haven't read them. Just scrolled past.

You’ve not heard the term “welfare state” in the UK?

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

NorthXNorthWest · 24/05/2026 12:42

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:39

Why would it raise an eyebrow given the spending levels by cohort and differentials in tax rates/ inflation/ salaries asa proportion of GDP/ tax threshold reduction in real terms/ reduction of reliefs, far higher state pension costs for far many more years being paid from current tax revenue, far higher healthcare and care costs for longer being paid from current tax revenue, declining share of GDP being used for infrastructure and education therefore falling productivity alongside far higher taxes on the same real-terms income, student loans which are effectively another tax that has to be paid when higher education or adult learning was previously free/ highly subsidised, no MIRAS now, the higher rate tax band to pay 40% would begin at nearly £100k if it had been uprated with inflation each year…. Etc? When you put all of this together is it really surprising to you that people now are paying far, far more than they receive in welfare and services, to pay back the debt of those who took out far more than they contributed? This is a simple, evidenced fact not something up for debate. You can look up the studies yourself.

If you can’t understand the compound impact of that over a lifetime (and hence the national debt run up as well due to the ongoing over-extraction from the state exceeding contributions in tax over many decades, which now means £100bn of tax money per year is used just to pay the interest on the debt - around double the entire defence budget and far exceeding the entire budget for education!) then I’m not sure anybody can explain it to you because it is mathematically verified from data in large scale peer reviewed economic research, and hardly just a niche issue of which only economists are aware; some of the economic studies on this have also been widely reported in newpapers such as The Times (despite its very anti-young people stance in general due to its current editorial staffing and readership demographic).

It’s hardly my fault that you are commenting on threads about economics without having bothered to research anything about it at all, even reports and research highlighted numerous times by mainstream media.

Edited

Do you have anything constructive to add other than well know facts and sticks and stones? We all know the facts. We are more interested in sustainable solutions not strawmen.

NoWordForFluffy · 24/05/2026 12:42

LoyalMember · 19/05/2026 21:42

She'll, more likely than not, never opt back in. In this day and age, once you gets your hands on a bit of extra money you never manage to do without it again.

I opted out to pay off (quite a chunk of) debt. I've since opted back in. I followed Martin Lewis' advice to do this.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:39

BIossomtoes · 24/05/2026 06:48

All your posts here have done is demonstrate your total incomprehension of even the most basic maths that my primary school children understand

The facetious insults are all in one direction. An economist who wished to be taken seriously would accept that an assertion that Economic analyses show that as a cohort people in the Boomer generation have a shortfall of over £200k of tax per person over their lifetimes i.e. they are withdrawing from the state £200k more per person in welfare (such as pensions) and services like the NHS etc than they contribute in tax over a whole lifetime, when adjusted for inflation. In contrast, those of Gen X and the Millenials will be paying £300k more per person over the whole cohort to the state than they receive over their lifetime in services/ welfare.

A difference of £500k between generations would make all but the most gullible raise an eyebrow, particularly when 11% of people of state pension age are still higher tax payers, obviously a much higher percentage of those people would have been when they were salaried.

I thought I was going to have an interesting and nuanced debate with an expert who would be happy to explain how their conclusions had been reached. It’s disappointing that hasn’t been the case.

Why would it raise an eyebrow given the spending levels by cohort and differentials in tax rates/ inflation/ salaries asa proportion of GDP/ tax threshold reduction in real terms/ reduction of reliefs, far higher state pension costs for far many more years being paid from current tax revenue, far higher healthcare and care costs for longer being paid from current tax revenue, declining share of GDP being used for infrastructure and education therefore falling productivity alongside far higher taxes on the same real-terms income, student loans which are effectively another tax that has to be paid when higher education or adult learning was previously free/ highly subsidised, no MIRAS now, the higher rate tax band to pay 40% would begin at nearly £100k if it had been uprated with inflation each year…. Etc? When you put all of this together is it really surprising to you that people now are paying far, far more than they receive in welfare and services, to pay back the debt of those who took out far more than they contributed? This is a simple, evidenced fact not something up for debate. You can look up the studies yourself.

If you can’t understand the compound impact of that over a lifetime (and hence the national debt run up as well due to the ongoing over-extraction from the state exceeding contributions in tax over many decades, which now means £100bn of tax money per year is used just to pay the interest on the debt - around double the entire defence budget and far exceeding the entire budget for education!) then I’m not sure anybody can explain it to you because it is mathematically verified from data in large scale peer reviewed economic research, and hardly just a niche issue of which only economists are aware; some of the economic studies on this have also been widely reported in newpapers such as The Times (despite its very anti-young people stance in general due to its current editorial staffing and readership demographic).

It’s hardly my fault that you are commenting on threads about economics without having bothered to research anything about it at all, even reports and research highlighted numerous times by mainstream media.

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:30

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:29

It wasn't to discredit you. You used the term "welfare" which isn't commonly used in the UK. I read that one post. I can't discredit you for the rest as I haven't read them. Just scrolled past.

That is literally how all benefits and the state pension are classified in the national budget. Do you think the DWP is American?!

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:29

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:25

What?

These responses are hilarious.

No, I am British. Why would I be making detailed comments about the UK economy if I was American?! Why would I even care?

The attempts to try to invent ways to discredit anything uncomfortable to hear really are off the charts. 📊

It wasn't to discredit you. You used the term "welfare" which isn't commonly used in the UK. I read that one post. I can't discredit you for the rest as I haven't read them. Just scrolled past.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:29

NorthXNorthWest · 24/05/2026 08:39

Thanks.

I have been waiting patiently for their informed solutions. Instead, it has been one strawman argument after another, all used to prop up a very selective and condescending narrative.

I’ve written exactly what I would do as a basic starting point to fix UK economic policy several times.

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:28

NorthXNorthWest · 24/05/2026 08:22

No, worse, they are an economist. One of the very groups that helped get us into this mess in the first place!

I think you’ll find it’s politicians and the electorate ignoring economists who have achieved that. The Brexit voters, for a start, and many more including the current and previous Governments over recent decades. 👏

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:25

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 07:24

Are you American?

What?

These responses are hilarious.

No, I am British. Why would I be making detailed comments about the UK economy if I was American?! Why would I even care?

The attempts to try to invent ways to discredit anything uncomfortable to hear really are off the charts. 📊

DrRylandGrace · 24/05/2026 12:21

january1244 · 24/05/2026 09:45

@DrRylandGraceI think you and I are in agreement on some points. I’m politically homeless also, and I think triple lock needs to go, and I think free prescriptions need to go. However when you account for increasing amounts of tax on pensioners and the inheritance tax expected, especially when it captures pensions now which is new, I don’t think the shortfall gap is so big as that.

The reality is you can’t blame pensioners now. Everyone is just trying to get by, you can’t blame people for previous government actions. Right now the data is showing that 45% of working age people aren’t making ANY pension contributions. And these aren’t people that were promised ‘cradle to grave’ support - it’s been well publicised now for decades that we need to make provision for ourselves. People aren’t, and we can’t support this almost half of the population in the future when they come to retire. Means testing the state pension just means loads more people won’t bother saving. We already have a ludicrous system in place where those that didn’t save get pension credit, which makes them better off than those that didn’t save try to make provision for themselves. The government needs to ensure it’s compulsory to save into a pension. With 25% or working age people not working though, that’s 25% presumably that won’t be saving at all. I don’t know what the resolution is

My earlier posts on the thread stated precisely this: that the auto-enrolment opt out needs to be removed and pension saving made mandatory because too many people who could afford to save are being irresponsible and not doing so. I also stated that a similar mandatory scheme needs to be put in place for the self-employed unless they can demonstrate sufficient assets to self-fund retirement and a pension is therefore not necessary (13% of the workforce derive their income solely from self-employment and only a tiny percentage of them make any pension savings at all).

It seems some people here zeroed in on specific comments of mine that would disadvantage them without reading the others and then started trying to discredit me because they didn’t like the facts I presented on one particular matter. This happens regularly here and is precisely why the UK economy is such a mess with no sustainable long-term planning based on evidence: people are not prepared to contemplate anything that might disadvantage them personally even when it is necessary.

The state pension needs to be means-tested. For me personally this will mean I don’t get one despite having funded those claiming one currently. It still needs to happen and trying to find spurious reasons to reject this mathematical necessity just because it would disadvantage me would be irrational and ridiculous. We need people to behave like adults and capable of looking at the big picture but many refuse to do so.

Meanwhile, as I also stated we need a credible industrial strategy, huge investment in infrastructure and education, to adopt a functional healthcare model similar to our European neighbours, and a total overhaul of the UK tax system to remove cliff edges and levy tax on a household unit basis like all other sensible countries in order to remove perverse incentives and distortions and raise productivity and growth which is the only way to sustainably raise living standards.

Due to our dysfunctional political and electorial system, our largely economically illiterate electorate and the refusal of large numbers of people to accept the changes that need to be made or have any sense if social responsibility - preferring to try to find scapegoats and bang on endlessly about what are often trivial irrelevancies from an economic perspective - I highly doubt that this will happen and therefore living standards in the UK will continue to decline. We don’t have a single UK party even prepared to put forward the evidence-based policies required to improve things let alone one capable of actually implementing them.

SerenaCat93 · 24/05/2026 12:15

NorthXNorthWest · 24/05/2026 11:43

I have already acknowledged that the State Pension sits within welfare spending in accounting terms. My point is that it is not the same thing as means-tested welfare like Universal Credit.

The State Pension is based on qualifying National Insurance contributions built up, by the individual, over decades and subject to qualifying years. Todays NI payer pay fir tidays pensioners. That is materially different from benefits based mainly on current financial circumstances.

People are perfectly capable of understanding those differences. Not everything under the welfare budget is interchangeable or works in the same way just because it sits under the same Treasury heading.

Yes you have to qualify for the state pension. Buy it is still a benefit in that it is tax payers money being given to you at a rate decided by the government, and if the government decided to stop giving it to you one day, they could. Because they have that power, because it's not your money. They are literally within their rights to one day decide the eligibility criteria has changed and you don't meet it anymore so no more pension for you. it's not your own money that you have saved and are guaranteed to have it/own it until it's run out. The fact that you don't own it, you only get it if you meet certain eligibility criteria and the government can change that criteria and stop giving it to you if they want to is what makes it benefit.

Is part of the welfare state because the whole point of a pension is to give money to people who aren't earning enough to live on, just like UC and JSA. The difference is people on JSA aren't earning enough to live on because they can't get a job. Pensioners aren't earning enough to live on because they are old. If the government decided no more state pension, you have to work or claim JSA like younger people, they could.

Differentforgirls · 24/05/2026 12:13

EilonwyWithRedGoldHair · 24/05/2026 12:06

But if you have too much in savings you can't claim UC.

I was made redundant last year, a welcome boost to our depleted savings, but it means we can't claim UC (which we'd be eligible for otherwise) without spending the savings. I desperately don't want to spend the savings as it might be our last chance to have what is, for us at least, a reasonable amount of savings. So we're just trying to manage as best we can.

I have two pensions, last statement from each them predicted an income of around 1k a year from each. DH has fuck all pension, and now earns fuck all self employed because it means he can work around our autistic son's needs. So I cover 95% of all costs except the car, which DH pays for. I'm now on a lower wage with higher travel costs, so no option to put extra in my pension.

I do feel a bit trapped by trying to be sensible. I am trying to have a pension, I am trying to have savings, I'm trying to be financially responsible, but it does feel like you get penalised a bit for that.

You can claim 6 months of the Job Seeker element as it's contributions based rather than means tested.

EilonwyWithRedGoldHair · 24/05/2026 12:06

museumum · 19/05/2026 18:01

I put most of my retirement savings into a pension but also some into an investment isa. This is because there's no point in having a great pension but going bankrupt in my late 50s. I'd advise anybody self-employed to have a pension pot but also a 'hopefully won't be dipped into till retirement' savings pot that can be if the worst were to happen before then.

But if you have too much in savings you can't claim UC.

I was made redundant last year, a welcome boost to our depleted savings, but it means we can't claim UC (which we'd be eligible for otherwise) without spending the savings. I desperately don't want to spend the savings as it might be our last chance to have what is, for us at least, a reasonable amount of savings. So we're just trying to manage as best we can.

I have two pensions, last statement from each them predicted an income of around 1k a year from each. DH has fuck all pension, and now earns fuck all self employed because it means he can work around our autistic son's needs. So I cover 95% of all costs except the car, which DH pays for. I'm now on a lower wage with higher travel costs, so no option to put extra in my pension.

I do feel a bit trapped by trying to be sensible. I am trying to have a pension, I am trying to have savings, I'm trying to be financially responsible, but it does feel like you get penalised a bit for that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread