If today’s crop of post budget threads are anything to go by…

[CurlewKate]

we should just go straight back to work houses. I’m sure we could boost the economy by having children working in factories or making mass market clothes.

Given this is the case I don’t think we’re close to the op’s claim

The OBR forecasts that UK welfare spending will increase by £16 billion more than previously expected, reaching £406.2 billion by 2030-31.

From an outside perspective... is the issue ue that TAX is individual but UC is household?

Also... the media is likely being deliberately provocative finding the extreme cases.

How does that fit with the benefits cap which is £1835 a month outside London and £2110 within London, including UC, Housing Benefit, Child Benefit etc

www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/benefit-cap-amounts

just incase anyone’s interested, I will be starting self employment across the next few months. I have worked out that atleast initially I will be worse off working, but I’m still going to do it.
so far, I get about £2.9k benefits including rent.
In order to be better off working, I’d need to be earning about 3k a month after tax to be even £100 better off.
I’m also aware that I will be taxed to pay for families to have children they can’t afford -but I know it’s not as simple as that and that will always happen, and those children being raised in poverty helps no one. I’d rather have the self esteem that comes with earning my own money

Thing is.... The definition of poverty is not what most people think it is...... It's just a statistic, not an observed state of being.

Which is what many people deemed to be in poverty will be managing well, others not so much.

Increasing benefits to above the median household income will effectively wipe out poverty, but it doesn't, because then the median rises...... Statistics and damn lies etc

DP and I chose not to have kids. Why should we take home less to pay for those unable to stop at 2 children?

I do
I work for it

And so they bloody should. Good luck to them.

They also have every right to moan about it when they are paying their taxes and they feel that others are getting a free ride.

And you are being disingenuous to make out that people want people living in poverty. The two are very different things.

Because council housing was sold off and private landlordism given tax breaks in the 80's. Most of that money goes to landlords, the 'recipients' don't see it.

Maybe other people's kids will be contributing to society and your lives in different ways as you grow older?
The country needs the next generation of workers.

Yes, for 14 years!

I don’t know. I was told that someone gets that. Didn’t believe it put it into the calculator

Apparently there is a 9 month period of grace for benefits cap on uc

What then?

People who earn the money that other people are given still have to pay rent you know. Who do you think pays it. Take the single earning 80k example. They will get around 4400 a month. Out of that they have to pay their own rent, childcare and everything else. You say the benefit money goes to landlords, but the difference is, they didn't earn it. It's fucking painful shelling out 1k plus a month on housing on a post tax income.

Anyway, I'm off now as these threads give me the rage. The socialists will keep banging their drums. I won't change their minds, and they certainly won't change mine.

I am saying they are attacking/blaming the wrong people @Catatemyhomework

Which is pretty convenient for those who own lots of property

Maybe we should be paying crap
parents not to have more children?

Popcorn76 and DustyMaiden The benefits' cap does not apply if you (and partner if a couple) earn over £846 a month. So in the example of take home pay at £1800 p/m, they will get high levels of UC to cover childcare presumably.

Kinda need to see your sums on that one, and whatever strawman scenario you have invented.

Housing policy is a shambles

My labour council in London has an application in to build a 30 storey block with some smaller blocks around on the site of an old hospital. Application is for the tower to be student accommodation

it’s going through appeals but why on earth aren’t they insisting it be homes

Large organisations are heavily audited and have in house tax and compliance functions to ensure their obligations. They have to publish their tax strategy annually, which has to be approved by the Board.

Can you name, with examples, some of these large organisations you’re accusing of using “dodges and boltholes” to achieve tax avoidance (defined by HMRC as achieving a benefit inconsistent with the intentions of parliament)?

Shell - sets up "new companies" solely to record losses

https://www.stopcambo.org.uk/updates/investigate-shell-and-equinors-new-north-sea-venture-adura

Amazon - cyclically shifts profits between HQs

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/01/amazon-uk-services-main-division-pay-no-corporation-tax-for-second-year-in-row-tax-credit-government-super-deduction-scheme

Starbucks - pays itself £40 million

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/15/starbuckss-uk-retail-business-paid-no-corporation-tax-last-year

Amazon and Starbucks aren’t doing anything wrong though - it’s part of the international tax system and if the UK went against that there would be double taxation and a mighty row with Mr Trump!

the shell thing I agree is shady but actually the bigger issue is their ability to run up losses and then dispense of the company - but that’s a company law point

Most of the tax gap comes from individuals, sole traders and small companies.

HMRC has really tightened up on large corporates and I imagine Amazon and Starbucks have lengthy TP audits ongoing

if you want to keep the money in the country it’s best to shop local

Direct your anger at the Labour government who refuse to tackle the issue.