The autumn budget should cut benefits before increasing tax

[Leett]

There is talk of Labour breaking their election pledge and increasing income tax by 2p. I doubt they'd do that because voters will revolt. However they need to do something with the state pension due to increase by 4.7% next year.
I really hope they cut benefits / pensions before the deciding to increase taxes.

Meanwhile the prevailing attitude from the 'boomer' age group is that all 'young' folk waste money.

My friends who live in Canary islands all get winter fuel allowance ... ridiculous!

‘Saved for them’ probably doesn’t feature or doesn’t matter if it does. The messaging is very much aimed at see how many years you’ve contributed and are you at 35 / full pension number

I agree with this . I’ve just turned 60 and was shocked when I collected a prescription at no cost . I’ve paid for my whole working life and can afford to carry on paying .

Yeah because why should disabled people be allowed to live a half decent life? Why can't they just be locked in asylums and forgotten about?
I absolutely despair. I'm terrified of what life is going to be like for my DS with severe learning difficulties and my DD with less severe learning disabilities especially with this attitude of just don't give them any money and let them live in the gutter.
So many people on here don't have a fucking clue how hard life is for people with disabilities or their carers. It makes me cry to see society is desperate to go back to a time where the disabled were ignored.

My GP would just tell you to buy them, same as if you take a young child in and want Calpol.

That must be so hard for you but hopefully there are enough people who don't feel like that. Best wishes for your children.

Don't be daft. The UK already has some of the lowest benefits and pensions in Europe, despite the right wing media telling you that people on benefits have a "lavish" lifestyle.

Labour needs to get rid of its incompetent chancellor and focus on growth, not taxing and cutting everything. It also needs to implement a wealth tax.

I suppose that’s what comes of having lived through an age where fast food, fast coffee and all the benefits technology has brought, either weren’t available or weren’t affordable. When l was younger l couldn’t imagine spending £5 on coffee or eating out more than once a month. And not at all when you were saving for a house deposit - credit was much tighter then and interest rates a lot higher. So saving for a deposit meant living with family and staying in. And l don’t think that attitude is limited to boomers.

And a wealth tax will absolutely definitely bring in more revenue than it costs will it?

I'm a boomer, my husband, siblings and lots of friends are boomers. None of them think that. Maybe your idea of the prevailing attitude isn't correct?

It’s “doing nothing” in terms of its not working in investments that benefit the wider economy in the way that money in a s&s isa is. I don’t mean it’s “doing nothing” for you.
Being able to have £1000 interest from savings without paying tax plus all the interest on £20k a year in a s&s isa plus all the interest on the proposed £4K a year in a cash isa is a lot of untaxed passive income by anyone’s standards. What do you think the tax free allowance on savings in cash should be? Infinite?If we reduce the tax on passive income then where do we increase it? Wages, that’s where, so the money you earn by working, which is inherently driving the economy, is taxed at a higher rate than the money you don’t.

I’d love to see big business paying more tax. They profit off of all of us and use up our ressources in so many ways- environmental but also roads and infrastructure. I think it’s scandalous that they pay so little in comparison to what they generate.

Yes, because famously nobody talks about immigration in any way, shape or form on MN or the national media and is certainly not the hottest topic with all the political parties...

My point exactly. Even a really modest additional pension will take pensioners over the allowance.

Good for working people but not for pensioners who pay tax too.

Why should I be happy for my tax money to go to people that don't work?

I work, my DH works, my DS works. Why should we all be so happy to pay welfare for people? We are high earners and see our money get squandered. And no DH and I were not born into wealth. We

I understand the people who are too disabled to work or have life long debilitating health conditions. That's a fair point and I understand they need government support.

But how many people (of sound body and mind) can honestly just expect to live off government assistance forever?

You would get a lot of disgruntled people who have paid into private pension schemes and then see colleagues who didn’t receive an equal amount from the state. I suppose it’s the same as for the working population but where would be the incentive to pay into a private pension? Also on the subject of NI. When current pensioners were young it was sold as paying into an insurance scheme which would pay out if you became ill, unemployed or in old age. It was then seen as separate from social security and income support. Obviously the system has gradually changed but this is where some people’s confusion about NI which is being ridiculed is coming from.

I don't think that disability payments should be means tested but I do agree with them being cut for certain types of problem, which is what's been happening lately.

I know someone who is applying for PIP after claiming DLA throughout her childhood. I don't think she will get it but she says lots of other people in similar circumstances get it. She's predicted a full spread of 8s and 9s at GCSE, currently looking for a part time job, with loads of hobbies and extracurriculars and independently travels around the country. She has AuDHD and thinks that because she's reluctant to wash and sometimes forgets to eat lunch when she's on her meds, she can claim PIP, and will use that for theme park tickets which she needs because ADHD means she gets bored easily.

I also knew a Mum of a child with autism who didn't work for YEARS because his benefits paid for her lifestyle. When I asked what the money was for- since his special school and the transport to it was fully paid by the LA, he's out of the house from 7:30am-5:30pm and he only eats microwave pasta- she said it was for sensory toys and because it's stressful being a parent of an autistic child so she couldn't work.

I have AuDHD and there are small expenses that fall under the ADHD tax- losing things for example, missing transport and having to pay again, breaking things because I'm impulsive, forgetting what's in the fridge until it goes bad, that kind of thing. In a utopian society where the government can pay for everyone, it would be nice if that was covered but it's not possible and the money shouldn't be taken from working people so that I can pay a parking ticket because I lost track of time again.

According to many you should be delighted to paying tax so they can perfect their xbox skills. I think some people have got so used to the state mothering them and giving them everything they need, that they can't see any alternative.

Why this debate is focused on pensions?
Let me repost what I posted on another thread:

Top 1% (about 310,000 people, on £160k taxable min) pay 29% of all income UK taxes. This is about 80bn.
Top 10% pay 60%, which is 166bn.

About one third of working age population don't pay any tax at all.

Social security spending in Great Britain

In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £316.1 billion on the social security system in Great Britain.
Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.5% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.

Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025 to 2026 we will spend £174.9 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £145.6 billion in 2025 to 2026.

In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £141.2 billion on working age and children welfare. This includes spending on Universal Credit and its predecessors, and non-DWP welfare spending.

In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £75.3 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, and £35.3 billion on housing benefits.

Guidance and methodology: Benefit expenditure and caseload tables - GOV.UK

So welfare payments are only 4.4bn less that all state pensions.
Only 35% of UC claimants are working.

Proportion of Universal Credit claimants in employment in England | LG Inform

There were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024

Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 9 January 2025 - GOV.UK
23.7 million people claimed some combination of DWP benefits in August 2024 (of the 17 benefits included in these statistics). Of these:

• 13.1 million were of State Pension Age (including those in receipt of their State Pension)
• 9.9 million were of Working Age
• 750,000 were under 16 (and in receipt of DLA as a child)

These are shocking numbers. To add - there is another analysis showing that no other country in the world has similar financial compensation for disabilities like PIP. There is support in terms of equipment, care etc, but not paying people - this system is so up for "fiddling".

This is the real problem, but let's blame the poorest in society instead.

The pension increases should be linked to average public sector earnings increase. If doctors / nurses / police officers / teachers don't deserve a 4% increase then neither does anyone else.

@IDontHateRainbows

In ye olden days pensioners were seen as poorer than working age people in general now it is often the opposite

This is the most underrated comment on here. It succinctly sums up the huge issues around the demographics of a growing elderly population, a steady drop in childbirth rates nationally and the squeezed middle, who are characterized by their working age and the fact that they pay out in bills (and childcare) and pensions with a dubious claim date, almost more than they earn. The majority of pensioners I know are considerably more wealthy than the individuals of working age I know, who are raising families and in the main, working two full time professional jobs. This shouldn't ever be a war of the worlds age-wise but unless the Govt put some serious strategic thought into levelling the playing field fiscally, we are heading into a complete shitstorm and everyone knows it.

People or working age now know it. The younger generation knows it too, which is absolutely why younger people are deferring, and in many cases, absolving from having children at all. Which of course, contributes to the snowballing fiscal inequity. The other issue is that younger people see that the social contract is broken. They are asking hard questions. Why should they work their asses off with no real promise of a decent retirement in sight? What's waiting for them at the end? When will they be able to retire? They look ahead and compare their future selves to the pensioners of today, the boomer generation who did have it made (theirs was the exception rather than the norm but younger people don't see past this - they want the same deal.)

So yeah, it's tits up fiscally and people are living a hell of a lot longer too - we can safely say we will certainly not be retiring anytime soon. There's no way I'll be able to retire at 55 and lead the life most of the pensioners I know do - multiple cruises, eating out, city breaks. Boutique shopping. But even so, it's not their fault. Who wouldn't grab that with both hands if they could? The issue now is that the chickens are coming home to roost and I honestly believe no Govt, whatever their leaning politically, knows what the actual fuck to do to shore things up for the future.

It seems to be this or a cartoon. We might be stuffed.