I’ve easily found £30bn of savings, so why can’t the government do this?

[OwnGravityField]

How about this state pension adjustment proposal?

Currently, the state pension system pays the same to everyone, even to households with very large private pensions and investment incomes. Much of this money ends up funding luxuries.

The proposal is simple:
*full SP for everyone who depends on it (60% of pensioners)
*households with more than £12,000 a year from private pensions, work, or investments have 50p of SP withdrawn for every £1 above that level, up to the value of the pension itself
*A quarter of pensioners would only have a modest reduction, and only the wealthiest 15% would no longer receive a publicly funded pension they do not need.

I used chatGPT to do the calculations.

Savings? THIRTY BILLION A YEAR

That’s 1% of GDP

List of things that could improve?

restored trust between generations so young taxpayers see their money spent on genuine need, not luxury.

national renewal: homes, NHS, lower childcare costs, investment in schools, training, the police force. It could be used to help families who are struggling with mortgage costs.

re-directing spending from low-value consumption (luxuries, imports) to investment (homes, healthcare, infrastructure) improves living standards

Positive effect on the bond markets, sterling value, credit-rating agencies, inflation trends, reduction in government debt - the UK really really needs this right now

I’d absolutely get up off my bum and vote for a party that proposed this. Would you?

Not-quite-pensioner here.
Yes, we know that. Nobidy with any political awareness or general knowledge is ignorant of that. We paid for the pensions of those older than us, on the understanding that those coming behind would do the same for us.

We dont need to cut, we need to increase income. Im wondering how much taxing money before its sent offshore would bring in. Plus making sure big businesses pay the correct amount of tax

Yet the last Tory government put more money into the NHS than ever - so your facts don't add up.

We dont need to cut, we need to increase income. Im wondering how much taxing money before its sent offshore would bring in. Plus making sure big businesses pay the correct amount of tax

I think this is a daft idea but if it or something similar happens, it should be phased in. My retirement planning over 40 years factored in my state pension. Changing the rules while people still have the opportunity to modify their plans is one thing. Changing them substantially and throwing people's plans into disarray when they can no longer do anything about it is quite another.

that's interesting.....IHT doesn't affect the older generation, it affects their kids and grandkids.

I’m a pensioner; a much fairer idea is to increase income tax (paid by pensioners) and reduce National Insurance (not paid by pensioners). Better off pensioners would pay more, but would ease the burden on working people. Very simple to administer as well.

As ever Labour votes want to punish those who have worked to improve their lot.

@yellowshirt. Not all pensioners have been given £200 winter fuel allowance. Married couples have received £150 each; single pensioners have received £200. Those with sufficient earnings will repay it through theor tax codes.

The elderly were not given houses. They largely bought them with interest bearing mortgages and repaid the debt. Their children will benefit from the capital when their parents die. Also, not all pensuoners are owner occupiers.

Can you please confirm your own situation. May I assume, you have a full time job, pay tax and national insurance and are not in receipt of any benefits whatsover: child, tax credits, universal credit, fsm for your children?

May I also assume that you don't drink, smoke or eat too much rendering you obese and a potential drain on health services.

I can’t find the post now, but a PP mentioned that Australian pensions are means tested. They are, but their entire system is quite different. There is no NI, and employers are required to pay about 11% minimum to their superannuation, whereas it’s 3% in UK. Their higher rate tax band is also set at a higher level than ours, and higher rate itself is a lower tax percentage.

The level at which they start taking away pension though does seem low, for a single home-owner it’s AUD325k in financial assets.

All pensioners have not just ' been given' £200 for winter fuel. The payment is £100, and higher rate taxpayers will have theirs clawed back. Riches.

And I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by 'all got given cheap houses' I don't know anyone who 'got given ' a house. When the interest on our first mortgage went up to 10% the monthly repayment was 60% of our total household income. We thanked our lucky stars we had fixed it at 10% for 5 years, because we literally cou!d not afford any more. My husband and I and 3 children all survived on the remaining 40%. It really didn't feel as though we were being given anything.

I've got a great idea. Let's impose punitive taxes on the monumentally stupid.

Why would Millionaires apply for that?

Great idea. It would only reduce my income in retirement by £4500 per year. Still,I could always get a time machine and make different career and savings choices over the last 4 decades.

I wouldn't be averse to the idea of cutting National Insurance and increasing income tax.

Big question re the original idea is why the whole £30billion is to come from pension cuts.

When I was in my laye 40s I expected to retire at 60. My state pension age is currently 66. I have already worked an additional 5.5 years, paying tax and NI than I expected to. I don't mind because I like work. But my generation is already being squeezed.

My grandparents generation was heartily squeezed by IHT in the late 70s. That's why my family no longer owns a working farm.

While the data source might be legit, unless you query ChatGPT several times you will still get a narrow answer. For example, did you ask how people could circumvent your proposed changes? What about different scenarios where people changed their behavior re personal pension saving? Did you also factor in differences in the home nations?

Here is some savings!
The UK is projected to spend over £15.3 billion on asylum accommodation between 2019 and 2029, with current daily costs reaching £5.5 million.

Here’s a breakdown of the key figures and context:

---

💰 Total Cost of Asylum Accommodation

• £15.3 billion: Estimated total cost for asylum accommodation contracts from 2019 to 2029, tripling from the original £4.5 billion projection Sky News +3.
• This includes housing, support services, and administrative costs.

🏨 Hotel Accommodation Costs

• £4.76 billion: Spent in 2024–25 alone, with 76% of that going toward hotel accommodation visaverge.com.
• £5.5 million per day: Current daily expenditure on housing asylum seekers in hotels Internationa....
• 32,000 people: Still housed in hotels as of mid-2025, down from ~56,000 in September 2023 visaverge.com.

🚫 Failed Asylum Claims

• £62 million annually: Spent on housing and support for asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but remain in the UK due to destitution risks Daily Express.

🏘️ Government Strategy

• The Home Office and Prime Minister Keir Starmer have pledged to end the use of hotels by 2029, shifting to military sites and private rentals Inverness... +3.
• Two military barracks (Cameron Barracks in Inverness and Crowborough Training Camp in East Sussex) are already being repurposed to house asylum seekers Inverness... +1.

---

⚠️ Why Costs Are So High

• Backlog of asylum claims: Record 111,084 claims in the year ending June 2025—the highest since 1979 visaverge.com.
• Flawed contracts and delivery: MPs have criticized the Home Office for mismanagement and failing to reclaim excess profits from providers Sky News +2.
• Shortage of long-term housing: Reliance on hotels surged due to limited rental supply and slow processing times.

Even though the Conservatives increased spending, they did not increase it sufficiently to cover the rise in costs caused by inflation, and nor did they significantly increase expenditure on capital items - building new healthcare facilities, replacing worn out and obsolete equipment, improving IT capability or on maintaining and repairing existing buildings.

I won't dispute that the last Conservative government put more money in - but it was still not enough to cover the consequences of shortfall caused by previous Conservative and Coalition governments, and nowhere near enough to cover the increased demands of a population where many more people are growing older and requiring more health care. It is clearly possible for a government to "put more money into the NHS" and for the NHS to still be starved of the necessary funds if the amount of "more money" is far from what is needed.

Exactly. AI is very good at sounding convincing. It'll swear I lead meetings I didn't even attend. It hallucinates and makes stuff up. Economic policy can't be based on ChatGPT on mumsnet. I suggest you send your policy recommendation to your mp and they may choose to ask a question in parliament on it that'll be answered by actual experts

Oh, here we go 🙄

It doesn't matter how much isi put into the NHS, it will never be spent on the right things. 170 PCN's prevail, each with a budget of £10m, probably each and every one of them pissing a significant amount of that money up the wall. Each with IT depts, HR depts, Finance Depts, Comms Depts, etc.

Why means test at a paltry £12000 a year ? Or are you happy to make the divide between rich and poor even wider ? Even the cut off point for WFA is a realistic £35000.

Pp was kind enough to post you a link to social contract theory, as it appeared to be a new concept for you. Why not give it a read and see what we’re referring to.

The majority also goes on treating women… how does that to pact your argument?

@MrsSkylerWhite

Sorry Mrs White. I want my tax spent on UK citizens that have contributed and work hard.

Just as today’s pensioners paid the pensions of those who went before them, with the expectation that those who came behind would pay theirs. That’s how it works.