Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Social security spending out of control?

305 replies

Wizeman · 15/03/2026 15:06

The UK spends about £334 billion on social security. Around £177 billion of that goes on pensions, which as a young person I’d definitely want when I’m older — especially if I’ve worked all my life and paid into the system. What I don’t understand is why some younger people are against older people getting a pension, because one day they’ll want one too.

About £145 billion goes towards working-age benefits, which is a massive amount of money. Around £76 billion of that is for disabled people, which I think is fair and necessary. But you hear so many stories about people taking advantage of the system, and a lot of those stories turn out to be true.

They say about 1 in 3 people in Britain are on some kind of benefit. I’ve personally been in hospital with serious injuries and had operations that put me out of work for months, and it never crossed my mind to claim benefits. I’ve also been out of work for about a year before while working towards getting a new job, and I just lived off my savings.

That said, I’ll be honest — I’ve always had support from my parents, like being able to stay at their house. I know not everyone has that kind of support.

But it does feel like fewer people want to work and some would rather claim benefits.
I also don’t think removing the two-child benefit cap will really solve the problem.
In Poland, for example, people get tax breaks for having kids, which encourages people to work.

Either way, £334 billion just sounds like an insane amount of money to me.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Smeuse · 06/05/2026 19:18

Brexit promised higher wages but raising the minimum wage has the Brexiteers up in arms.

As long as care jobs are perceived as low skilled, wages are not going to rise anytime soon.

Sometimessmiling · 06/05/2026 19:18

stargirl1701 · 15/03/2026 15:34

Half of it is pensions. End the triple lock?

No way....I have paid loads in tax. Child benefit was scrapped when I had my kids if you earned 30k. Only free nursery places for over 3. No pension contributions paid when I was at home with the kids. I now owe contributions to make it up
Never claimed any benefits......still working but paying for nursery places and child benefit......so it works both ways

matresense · 06/05/2026 19:10

Honestly, @blossomtoesyes we could if the government was more imaginative - after all, lots of these places receive quite a bit of public funding. We could choose only to give out care contracts to people who employ well qualified carers and pay wages on the official carer scale and require care homes to disclose this information so that those with private funding can vote with their feet. We could only allow a certain percentage of profit per patient as a condition of ongoing public funding. We could choose to change the system if we wanted to. We should be requiring people to fund their own care using housing wealth, as per Theresa May’s plans, with the quid pro quo of having a better joined up care system.

And even if the system doesn’t change, it’s not reasonable to import people into the U.K. to work as carers for 5 years, then give them and their families access to public money and no requirement to keep working as carers or even at all because they have “made a contribution”’for 5 years. It’s not a good use of public funds.

BIossomtoes · 06/05/2026 18:56

matresense · 06/05/2026 18:46

@BIossomtoes

but in a world in which we did not bring people over on carer’s visas, allow them to bring their family, have no restrictions on what they might work as when they get ILR in 5 years (at which point we have to pay Universal credit top ups to them regardless of whether they are still working as a carer), we might have the funds to pay British trained carers more….

Yes. Pigs might fly. You seriously think care home owners and agencies would forfeit their profits?

matresense · 06/05/2026 18:46

@BIossomtoes

but in a world in which we did not bring people over on carer’s visas, allow them to bring their family, have no restrictions on what they might work as when they get ILR in 5 years (at which point we have to pay Universal credit top ups to them regardless of whether they are still working as a carer), we might have the funds to pay British trained carers more….

Badbadbunny · 06/05/2026 18:33

Yellowshirt · 06/05/2026 18:23

We can't just keep ignoring the extra pressure being put on working class people with the flooding of immigrants into the country.

Everything is becoming premium because of more demand. Housing, food and energy is absolutely astronomical. Take 10 million people out of housing for instance and housing may become available and affordable for working class British people.

The country needs to come together and start a national strike until rapid changes are immediately bought in to start fixing the country. If that also means an emergency general election to get rid of labour then it needs to happen

Nail on the head.

Yellowshirt · 06/05/2026 18:23

BIossomtoes · 06/05/2026 10:58

No, they make their contribution to society in other ways. It’s not all about the amount of tax paid.

We can't just keep ignoring the extra pressure being put on working class people with the flooding of immigrants into the country.

Everything is becoming premium because of more demand. Housing, food and energy is absolutely astronomical. Take 10 million people out of housing for instance and housing may become available and affordable for working class British people.

The country needs to come together and start a national strike until rapid changes are immediately bought in to start fixing the country. If that also means an emergency general election to get rid of labour then it needs to happen

dastardlydani · 06/05/2026 14:48

BIossomtoes · 03/05/2026 13:24

That’s spectacular point missing.

@Badbadbunny I agree with you re tax avoidance, I pay into ISAs, overpay my pension etc. That reduces my tax burden but it’s not illegal.

BIossomtoes · 06/05/2026 10:58

Skybunnee · 06/05/2026 10:48

Immigrants working on minimum wage jobs eg carers pay almost no tax

No, they make their contribution to society in other ways. It’s not all about the amount of tax paid.

Skybunnee · 06/05/2026 10:48

Immigrants working on minimum wage jobs eg carers pay almost no tax

matresense · 06/05/2026 08:04

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 15/03/2026 18:29

Yes and this is where I disagree. Our population has exploded over the past 20+ years meaning our infrastructure has been completely over run meaning spending goes up to try and make up for it.

Then you need to ask why, when increased population means increased tax take, there has not been a commensurate increase in public spending for provision of services to accommodate the needs of increased population.

Imigration must come down

Yet time and time again, research proves immigrants are net economic contributors, contributing more per head to GDP than indigenous population, so if anything, if you want to better the economic situation in your country, you should be begging for more migrants, not fewer.

Since Brexit the UK has had to massively increase the number of work visas being granted to migrants from Africa, Asia, and the former Commonwealth countries simply to meet the requirements of the health services and care industry. If we hadn't done this, there would be an even greater shortage of provision that the crisis the care industry is already trying to deal with, the end result being UK citizens wallowing in their own filth simply because there is nobody to care for them. It's bizarre watching the issue continually be reduced to an argument about too many people arriving from foreign shores, when the entire problem stems from the fact that industrialising care provision turns it into a profit-making venture like any other, and therefore, costs and overheads will always be cut in order to drive and maintain profit and dividend. Private companies don't give a hoot about the wellbeing of granny or grandad, but they do care about making money, hence why care roles are invariably underpaid, the jobs are under-resourced, and nobody has the blindest bit of interest in doing them aside from people who can be tempted here from developing nations, yet when they do come here to care for our grannies and grandads, we turn around and pillory them for hogging and clogging our public services and start demanding the government sends them back home?

Make it make sense.

Edited

Unfortunately only some of this is true. Believe it or not, our immigration economic modelling does not actually take into account all the costs of immigration. It looks at a four year cycle for net contribution immediately upon entry according to what job you do then, so it doesn’t cost in the fact that people might stay and require elderly care, pensions etc (and they are very likely to when they are non away migrants. Even for EU migrants, there was a massive undercosting because no one accounted for the fact that many Eastern European families came and settled and has kids). It says “you’re a young person now, so you contribute x per year”. Our NHS does not record statistics on how much treatment people on visas have. Shabana Mahmood has recognised this. It’s actually a complicated picture with a lot of failures in recording and analysing data.

BIossomtoes · 03/05/2026 19:23

Badbadbunny · 03/05/2026 16:02

Not it isn't, legal tax "planning" includes things like investing in ISAs, or pensions, or a business claiming a specific tax relief for R&D expenditure etc. It encompasses a whole host of reliefs and allowances specifically created to encourage certain behaviours.

Tax evasion is illegal, i.e. not declaring income, or illegally claiming expenses, or claiming reliefs/allowances you're not entitled to.

There's a very clear difference. Yet, HMRC made a decision to muddy the waters a few years ago by muddling up the "avoidance" and "planning" into one, so they're basically trying to fiddle the figures by including perfectly legal planning, reliefs and allowances as "avoidance" which they make out is wrong, when in fact a lot of it was actually encouraged by successive governments!

Illegal evasion is what matters. Just like illegal benefit fraud. Ie people lying whether on tax returns or on benefit claim forms. They really can't get away with bringing "behaviour" into things when it's actual legal.

The point was that non payment of tax costs considerably more than benefit fraud. You’ve missed it too. 🤷‍♀️

dastardlydani · 03/05/2026 18:43

Think about the average salary & the tax paid on that & then the state pension, life expectancy. The maths doesn’t work when the demographics change.

dastardlydani · 03/05/2026 18:41

Boomer55 · 03/05/2026 16:54

But they will still have paid in a lot more than those that have never/rarely worked. 🙄

Well some will or are you saying every current pensioner worked?

It’s just maths & no need to be offended. When demographics were pyramid shaped it wasn’t an issue.

bestcatlife · 03/05/2026 17:08

Much of that will be housing costs. Going straight into private landlords pockets

Boomer55 · 03/05/2026 16:54

dastardlydani · 15/03/2026 15:52

Pensioners are not getting something for nothing they’ve worked and paid taxes all their life ( unless they’ve always lived on benefits) . Their NI contributions would have paid towards the previous generations state pensions .

The vast majority won’t have paid enough NI though which is the issue.

But they will still have paid in a lot more than those that have never/rarely worked. 🙄

Badbadbunny · 03/05/2026 16:02

BIossomtoes · 03/05/2026 13:24

That’s spectacular point missing.

Not it isn't, legal tax "planning" includes things like investing in ISAs, or pensions, or a business claiming a specific tax relief for R&D expenditure etc. It encompasses a whole host of reliefs and allowances specifically created to encourage certain behaviours.

Tax evasion is illegal, i.e. not declaring income, or illegally claiming expenses, or claiming reliefs/allowances you're not entitled to.

There's a very clear difference. Yet, HMRC made a decision to muddy the waters a few years ago by muddling up the "avoidance" and "planning" into one, so they're basically trying to fiddle the figures by including perfectly legal planning, reliefs and allowances as "avoidance" which they make out is wrong, when in fact a lot of it was actually encouraged by successive governments!

Illegal evasion is what matters. Just like illegal benefit fraud. Ie people lying whether on tax returns or on benefit claim forms. They really can't get away with bringing "behaviour" into things when it's actual legal.

BIossomtoes · 03/05/2026 13:24

Skybunnee · 03/05/2026 11:54

tax avoidance is permitted tax evasion is illegal

That’s spectacular point missing.

Skybunnee · 03/05/2026 11:54

tax avoidance is permitted tax evasion is illegal

BIossomtoes · 03/05/2026 10:34

I’ll just leave this here.

Social security spending out of control?
Zonder · 03/05/2026 07:30

JohnofWessex · 03/05/2026 00:05

The poor and the middle class pay taxes
The Rich pay accountants
The very rich pay lawyers
The super rich pay politicians

George Monbiot

Edited

Excellent post.

Zonder · 03/05/2026 07:29

cotswoldsgal1234 · 03/05/2026 07:09

My figures come from HMRC.
where do your figures come from?
It is also estimated that benefit fraud is much greater than quoted, involving criminal gangs.

HMRC.

As I said, you're using semantics. You can take the tax fraud figures or you can take the tax avoidance figures. Tax avoidance is just as bad as benefit fraud of course.

cotswoldsgal1234 · 03/05/2026 07:09

Zonder · 02/05/2026 23:49

Semantics. Tax avoidance is actually £46 billion. Proves my point.

My figures come from HMRC.
where do your figures come from?
It is also estimated that benefit fraud is much greater than quoted, involving criminal gangs.

JohnofWessex · 03/05/2026 00:05

The poor and the middle class pay taxes
The Rich pay accountants
The very rich pay lawyers
The super rich pay politicians

George Monbiot

Zonder · 02/05/2026 23:49

cotswoldsgal1234 · 02/05/2026 23:12

Where are the facts?
HMRC state that around 7.4 billion is taken in benefit fraud.
in comparison around 5.5 billion is lost in tax evasion.
Both are shocking.

Semantics. Tax avoidance is actually £46 billion. Proves my point.

Swipe left for the next trending thread