Should non-citizens pay the same tax if excluded from benefits?

The problem with that is that there are many countries which do NOT take this approach. And when a country needs immigrants in order for its economy to function, the social safety net will be a factor those immigrants cconsider.

You know full well that without immigrants, the UK economy would collapse.

Aside from that, you haven't answered my question: why are you so opposed to the concept of treating immigrants decently?

If they cannot support themselves then they return to their country of citizenship.

that is the reality for many many expats, not just in the uk. There is a level of risk and uncertainty tied to being an expat. I would hope people making that move are clear eyed about that.

They are choices, but what I listed are barriers to access. You assumed many don’t pursue citizenship after ILR because little perceived benefit. That is rarely the case. Usually it is more about the cost of getting British citizenship in more ways than the fees that make immigrants hesitate.

It's not entitlement though. The only difference between worker A and worker B is their nationality. Everything else is the same - in fact, if the non-British worker came to the UK as an adult, they are contributing MORE, because the UK government has not had to pay for their childhood healthcare and education. They're getting a ready made worker.

I've just looked up France and the Netherlands, and they're pretty similar to the UK in terms of access to welfare - if you've worked for a set period and you're there legally, you're entitled. As I've said, I have no objection to qualifying periods. You can quibble over how long those should be.

But Reform wants to do away with it altogether - you could have a foreign national who has worked and paid in for 30 years and gets nothing, while a Brit who may not have contributed at all gets welfare. If you think that's OK, your moral compass needs work.

"able bodied British people relying on the state is a travesty of its own, but doesn’t create an obligation to support a foreign worker indefinitely when they fall on hard times"

A travesty, in what way?

What do you suggest should happen when a foreign worker falls on hard times?

There is very little connection between what is paid in and what you get out of the system on many levels. And virtually all EU countries will have foreign workers paying a great deal of tax but not having the same access to public funds- often for years and years with varying levels of difficulty to achieve sufficient status before that changes. Feel free to highlight the one that is not that way, but it will be an outlier.

your argumentation is a weird blend of social ‘fairness’ and individual entitlement that isn’t really congruent.

I come from a country which has a contributions based benefits system. If you pay in, you get out - and as long as you are legally in the country, you're included in that. It's an EU country.

Why are you so set against someone who has worked and paid into the system getting the same support that a national would get? I have no issue with qualifying periods - but what Reform is proposing isn't that. I've been here half my life, but under Reform's plans, if I ever lost my job, I'd get nothing (mind you, I wouldn't get anything under the current government either, I'd have to spend my savings first. Which is fair enough.)

Moreover, do you really trust Reform not to try to take entitlement to the state pension away from people who have worked here and paid into it? Some will be people who were born here.

Nationalism is a sickness.

Sorry, but that is just bonkers. Most countries (including EU) differentiate by nationality and immigration status when it comes to opening purse strings,

and the uk has had a system where they restrict immigrant access to public funds for at least the last 15 years- I know because I was / am one! Reforms proposal represents a tightening of criteria, but it isn’t a major shift in approach.

And i wouldn’t vote reform if I could vote (another way the uk differentiates by nationality and immigration status) - there is a lot I disagree with them on - but this is pretty non controversial in my book. Honestly shocked by the level of indignation/ outrage by some posters on this.

I support a system where people are not discriminated against on the basis of nationality. So if you pay in and contribute equally, you get equal access to facilities and support. I always thought Brits were known for their sense of fairness...

My son emigrated to America 15 years ago (married an American). He pays taxes etc but can't claim a thing.

Just depends on what system you support.

But you do get many of the benefits - even before I had ilr (the first decade of my time in the uk) I paid the same taxes as I do now. I enjoyed access to the nhs, used the infrastructure (roads, public transit), and generally enjoyed living in a (mostly) functional civil society. I just wasn’t able to fall back on the state if I couldn’t support myself, which in my view is fair enough.

able bodied British people relying on the state is a travesty of its own, but doesn’t create an obligation to support a foreign worker indefinitely when they fall on hard times.

pension is a whole other knot - personally I am not counting on it being there in any meaningful way for me and I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who expect the state to provide comfort in old age and are then surprised when it falls short. That said, many countries have reciprocal agreements recognising contributions across systems. Depending on your citizenship you should plan accordingly but no, I don’t think the uk (or any other country you aren’t a citizen of) inherently owes you anything regardless of how many years you contribute.

@dwordle well said. I suspect the people who run Reform know full well that if their plan is fully executed, it will collapse the UK economy completely. This begs the classic question - cui bono?

Difficult choices, interesting. Why the fixation with citizenship and benefits. So we are happy for people to come here and work, pay tax, national insurance and yet get none of the benefits. Paying into a system that will be used by British people and in turn propping up a struggling pension system.

I don't think that sounds fair. Some British people have never worked...it all sounds very complicated, unethical and damn right wrong.

I'm not British, I've paid tax since I was 16....I've worked since I was 15. So at 65 you are saying I'm not entitled to claim anything. To these policies that reform are touting would see a huge shortage in skills.....as we would all leave....but maybe that's what you want.

You're assuming that Reform and/or Restore are to be trusted to allow naturalised citizens to keep their citizenship and stay in the UK.

That's a level of trust in these people that I would say is for the most gullible.

It's not cheap.

Would you trust a Reform government to accept foreigners with citizenship?

'British born' has already been touted.

And that is a choice. None of the examples above are truly a barrier to citizenship, it just comes down to weighing the pros and cons of available options. If you want to settle in the uk permanently and have the security and entitlements associated, then you sometimes have to make difficult choices.

Immigrants without ILR also pay the same taxes, but do not have access to the same safety net. ILR is an arbitrary threshold, and there’s nothing illogical or immoral to changing who has access to which benefits.

I don't think they have thought it through, all they need is soundbites.

A bit of scrutiny and they run a mile.

Looking closer at the report, 8.4m are on Universal Credit. Around 37-39% are in work, they are getting top ups.

7.1m (84.5%)are British citizens or CTA (Irish) with right of abode.
748k (8.9%) are settled EU citizens (preBrexit)
235k (2.8%) are settled EU postBrexit and 3rd country with ILR
134k (1.6%) are authenticated and checked Refugees
76k (0.9%) limited leave to remain, including family reunion
59k (0.7%) are either other (0.4%) or no status recorded (0.3%)

I really don’t think excluding noncitizens is going to save much money and is it really worth it? When it is mostly likely to affect households with British citizens in them?

It makes logical sense not to provide benefits and housing to non-nationals.

Hows that work for mixed couples & families? You have British mum with non British husband and they have British children. He loses his job, and is disabled, So how’s that going to work? He can’t claim PIP which is required for his British wife to claim carers allowance. She would get no exemption for looking for work as a FT carer for a disabled partner. Any UC would be calculated based on her and the kids only..

So this logic will mean lots of British parents and kids unable to live hand to mouth.

Citizenship isn’t accessible to everyone. Many countries don’t allow dual citizenship so if the immigrant applies for British citizenship, they have to renounce their birth citizenship(s). For obvious reasons such as:
-wanting the ability to pass birth citizenship on to any future children,
-wanting the ability to go to their home country to look after ailing parents in their old age without having to apply for a visa, many immigrants with ILR stay with ILR.
-wanting the ability to return to the home country if the UK becomes a toxic, racist, xenophobic mess (which it is honestly sliding towards)
-keep the right to claim home country state pension if they had enough contributions from working there before coming to the UK
-inability to afford the cost to renounce citizenship and apply for British citizenship.

Your comment was rude to them. You implied that they are so stupid when they mentioned noncitizen, legal UK residents needing to claim benefits after losing a job that they’d do so without even bothering to look for any other job first?

Yes, there are thousands of jobs out there as you say. I took a quick look and based on simple maths there are 3 unemployed job seekers per job advertised. You do also know that not all the job adverts are for active vacancies? A good % of them are for recruiters to refresh their CV banks. And 30% of jobs tend are in London, whereas most of the unemployed are up north or in the rural coastal areas but can’t afford to move to London.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/what-proportion-of-universal-credit-goes-to-non-british-citizens/

Reform UK has corrected part of a claim in its welfare plan that “the share of Universal Credit paid to foreign nationals rose to 15.5% in January 2026.”

The proportion of non-British/Irish claimants slightly fell to, not rose to, that figure. We explain 👇

Totally agree re ILR. Hopefully pps are correct that there's no 'IF they take rights away'.... they simply wouldn't be allowed to remove their rights.

I am not at all sure that Reform will survive the focus on its financial affairs - and that isn't going to go away. Then there's the ongoing poor performance Reform councils, and the level of tactical voting displayed in Gorton and Denton and in Makerfield. There's a finite number of racist xenophobic thugs in the UK, and Reform are doing nothing to appeal to more moderate right wing voters. And they still have almost 3 years to go until the next GE. Ongoing vigilance and activism are needed, but Reform's guns absolutely can be spiked.