Where is the money going to come from to meet the UK people expectations?

[Pandersmum]

So assuming that:

• everyone who receives disability benefits needs them and may actually believe they should be entitled to more
• pensioner benefits are non negotiable and again many believe they should be greater than current
• working people (most) believe they are already taxed highly and believe they cannot be taxed any more without further impact to their feeling of unfairness and resentment of the system
• it is unreasonable to expect young people with ADHD or other similar ND disorders / mental health challenges to work, even if they have qualifications and therefore they must be financially supported by the state
• Mental health challenges are very real in any age of person and therefore they must be financially supported by the state and if in work, by their employers
• rent (whatever level) should be supported by the state because it is a basic right to have a home
• NHS treatment (& the best treatment) should be free be all, no matter how expensive it is or whatever their age because people pay their taxes
• businesses are businesses and are there to make profits for their owners - therefore they can choose which country they operate in / pay their taxes in - if they don’t like the UK tax system, they can move somewhere else
• ’in work benefits’ are necessary to support ‘low paid workers, often in essential jobs’ to gain similar amounts of financial remuneration to those on benefits
• high net worth individuals can move if they don’t like the UK tax system

So just where is the money going to come from to fund the UK population of financial expectation of what the state should provide?

They seem to be making policy then u turning. A bit of a mess so far.

I have ADHD and I work. Always have. And I'm consultant diagnosed not self diagnosed off some internet quiz.

@DrPrunesqualer - the point is that the local council workers themselves described it as "free money". When clearly it's not is it.

No one is saying many don’t @CarlaLemarchant but it’s not the point of the thread.

I know where u are coming from but to the worker it is free money. Just like all employer pension contributions private or public. It’s on top of your salary and not earned.

We’re still suffering from the 2008-9 financial crisis (I’m sure other countries are too). Not labours fault, it was the financial systems and not enough oversight/regulation to keep them in check, worldwide . Years of austerity followed, no investment, public services decimated - possibly necessary, hard to say. Uk debt doubled from 1 trillion to 2 trillion, wages stagnated. The tories opted for austerity and it might just have started to come good but then - Brexit- and we threw all chances of reducing the debt away. Then Covid which hit all countries - another half a trillion debt. And because of Brexit, Boris and Liz Truss other countries have bounced back but not us- no investment because we look like a basket case . Then liz Truss had her magical moment and the cost of servicing the UK debt massively increases.

Starmer is a boring pragmatic manager and has a really good chance of fixing things but no, we can’t cut benefits or winter fuel allowance. The anti-left press is extreme. And people seriously think of voting for reform and Farage which is so far from what we need. Oh yeah we need a UK doge- look how successful that was in America🤷‍♀️

@GoldPoster Because rich people and companies are taking more and more and more, in rents and profits and share buybacks, and leaving everyone else with insecure work, expensive and insecure housing, and shit public services (yes they're funded by the gov but supplied by Serco, Capita etc) - they can't keep taking and taking and expecting to get away with it at the expense of an increasingly impoverished society!

Yes DrPrune, but all this 'free money' in the public sector comes from the taxpayers. In the private sector it comes from the consumers in the price they pay.

None of any employer pension contributions are free; and when a local council sets its budget for any year, employee costs are writ into it and these are laid down by the LGA and can't be questioned.

It's just a shame that too many consider these contributions as free money in the public sector without considering where the money comes from.

Can you define rich people? If you have a company it is getting harder and harder to make any money, then you have to pay between 19 & 25% corporation tax before you ever see a penny and after that personal income tax on any income you take. At the moment some company owners are earning less than their staff.

I think a reasonable definition would be the wealthiest 10 per cent of the country, who became £280,000 richer during the second decade of the 21st century, while the rest of us were told we needed to accept austerity:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/10/29/the-uks-wealth-gap-has-grown-by-50-in-eight-years/

Local government pensions should be viewed as a bonus. 17% employer contribution. What do I get as a private sector employee? 3%

And fre money means free to you, obviously it's generated somewhere first. I mean, even a lottery win isn't free money by that definition as the other lottery players hapaid for it

They need to raise state pension age to 75 or so. People are living a lot longer.

Clearly you’re a very long way from 75. I’m not there yet but I’m way too tired to work any more. I started work 55 years ago and had put in 46 years when I retired - that’s enough for anyone.

NICs need merging into Income Tax. That will close a few loopholes and ensure that those over the state pension age who earn more than the Personal Allowance will pay the same taxes as the rest of us.

Roll the Winter Fuel Allowance into the basic state pension. At least then it will be taxable for those earning over the limit and we won't have to have the arguments about means testing it.

End the triple lock. specifically the bit about it increasing even when wage growth and inflation rates are low.

State Pension Age to 70. Sorry, but we'd be lucky if it didn't end up higher, demongraphic changes are not in our favour.

Inheritance Tax is too easy to dodge. Instead of IHT, charge CGT on assets when they are liquidated, backdated to the last sale of the asset. This could be quite lucrative for inherited properties in London. Dividends and CGT need taxing as any other income is.

Phase out child benefit for new claimants. It was introduced as an alternative to the minimum wage, but we have the highest minimum wage in Europe now. The marginal tax rate when it is withdrawn for higher earners harms productivity. At the same time, kids should be accounted for in the tax system like the French do - if you have kids in France then you can share their tax thresholds (which are half of an adult's) which takes a bit of the sting out of the cost of raising the next generation.

Restore the personal allowance for high earners. It's another marginal tax rate cliff edge that is damaging productivity.

Build more medium-rise development. Sprawling suburbia is expensive to run public services to. This is more efficient, without being the tower blocks people hate. Council Tax reform is long overdue, the valuations are arbitary and outdated. Instead the property's footprint should be used - it's something you can measure properly and again sprawling properties cost more to serve. Agricultural land, woodland and nature reserves exempted of course.

Non-resident parents must pay towards their offspring's upkeep, regardless of their declared earnings. No more dividing the same amount between ten kids from several different mothers as you'd have had to pay for one, the costs of bringing them up don't drop. A kid costs X amount to bring up, therefore you must pay Y. No use working cash-in-hand or sitting on the dole to avoid your obligations, you still owe it - and expect some sanctions if you don't pay.

Social care funding cannot remain the responsibility of local councils. The money needs to be found by central government. Even if the politically courageous solution of selling the patient's assets to fund it is required.

Phase out child benefit for new claimants. It was introduced as an alternative to the minimum wage,

It wasn’t.

https://revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started

We could save on the huge bill we pay for housing asylum seekers in hotels.

What does a Walmart employee earn and how does that compare with ASDA?

The top 10% of PAYE earners already contribute over 60% of all income tax collected in the UK. That’s not a typo. So, before asking “who funds the NHS, schools, and welfare?”, we might pause and realise: they already are.
Yet government spending continues to balloon, and tax revenue isn't catching up. We can't just keep squeezing the same people harder and hope for the best. You don’t fatten the cow by milking it dry.
We need serious economic growth—not performative taxation. That means creating an environment where enterprise, innovation, and hard work are rewarded, not punished. But let’s be honest: that’s a tall order when the public expects more from the state and balks at the idea of spending cuts.
So yes—it’s a bleak picture. And what’s worse, we’ve got policymakers still toying with ideas like wealth taxes—which would not just be economically damaging, but philosophically troubling. If the state can slap a charge on something you already bought, built, or inherited, do you truly own it? Or are we all just renting from HMRC?
A wealth tax isn’t about “fairness.” It’s about control. It tells creators, savers, builders: “Don't bother. You’ll be punished for succeeding.” That’s not envy tax—it’s a dream killer.
And don’t even get me started on the social commentary. The level of snark and sneering directed at high-earning women on these threads is... surreal. Honestly, if you swapped out the targets and the tone, it would read like an Andrew Tate fan page in reverse.
Let’s grow up a bit. Britain isn’t going to fix itself with spite. We need growth, aspiration, and smart policy—not a bonfire of productivity and talent.

I get where you’re coming from — really, I do. The housing market has turned into some surreal Monopoly game where people who just happened to buy early now have life-altering “wins” to pass on. And yes, that can feel deeply unfair when you're trying to get a foot on the ladder in 2025, not 1985.
But I think we’ve got to be very careful about letting that frustration push us into punitive policies that risk doing more harm than good.
First, let’s talk scale. Most people receiving inheritance aren’t getting yachts and castles — they’re getting modest help, often from the sale of a parent’s home after death. You propose starting taxation at £200k, which sounds like “super rich” territory, until you realise it now includes the average semi in a lot of southern England. It’s not private jet money—it’s “finally pay off the mortgage” money.
Second, it’s not unearned in the way people imagine. That house? It was bought, maintained, taxed year after year, often by people who scrimped and saved to own it. If we start viewing family support as immoral simply because it's unequal, we’re punishing intergenerational care and responsibility. That’s not solving inequality—it’s just taxing people for loving their kids.
Third, hitting inheritance hard won’t magically level society. The truly rich—the mega-wealthy you want to target—are already experts at structuring their estates through trusts, offshore holdings, and other legal wriggling. BUT they also pay taxes, buy products in the country and financially sustain the nation. You end up catching the middle—not the mega-rich. As usual.
Fourth, it can backfire economically. Forced sales of homes, businesses and farms to pay tax? That doesn’t create growth. It kills small family businesses and sells off assets to the already-wealthy or foreign buyers, consolidating power even more. It's like eating the seed corn instead of planting it.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about reform. But if we want to reduce inequality, let's do it by improving access to great education, home-building, and opportunity—not by telling people that when their mum dies, the government’s entitled to half of what she left them.
Because that, to be blunt, feels less like fairness and more like grief with a side of invoice.

YANBU, OP.

I am much further to the left than Starmer - in terms of economic policy, I would be more in the Corbyn camp (although I don't like Cornyn himself).

My preference would be root and branch restructure of the economy, and a far more equitable distribution of wealth, but British people don't seem be into that (hence Starmer moving further and further to the center, as the last election approached), so I might as well ask for a unicorn.

At best, we're stuck with a mixed economy (because that's as "progressive" as the public will tolerate) that already cannot sustain its social safety net and is facing down the barrell of a demographic crisis.

I do not see a radical leftward shift happening soon, particularly as Reform's rise seems to suggest we're trending the other way (likely slashing the safety net and tanking the economy at the same time).

So, we're left with someone like Starmer having to try and play the adult in the status-quo room, to a nationwide chorus of boos, and recognize that trying to cling onto the unsustainable is very likely to mean even worse pain to come.

I guess we're probably left to either hope the robots come and save us all, or that after Reform deliver the worst of both worlds and (internationally or unintentionally, who knows) burn the place down, something better might spring from the ashes.

A few questions. Those saying to increase retirement age: who is going to employ these older people? Seriously. Do you really think an employer in say the tech world is going to employ a 68 year old rather than a 28 year old?

The ultra rich unless they are aristocracy or royalty will just get up and move.

The sad fact is the productivity in the UK is shockingly low. The UK is just about the only European country not to have returned to pre-pandemic levels of employment. Why, I wonder, do we seem to have more work-shy people in the UK than other countries?

Productivity has been low since the 08 crash which we never really recovered from.

Those saying to increase retirement age: who is going to employ these older people

why should it increase when healthy life expectancy hasn't increased?