Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

462 replies

OwnGravityField · 02/11/2025 10:36

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*households with more than £12,000 a year from private pensions, work, or investments have 50p of SP withdrawn for every £1 above that level, up to the value of the pension itself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?

OP posts:
Kendodd · 02/11/2025 19:39

LaserPumpkin · 02/11/2025 19:21

I’d track the economic issues back to Gordon Brown, but he was also a History graduate so I agree with your point overall.

Perhaps the real lesson is not to let History graduates anywhere near the Treasury.

I'd track it back the Thatcher for selling off everything that wasn't nailed down.

Rosscameasdoody · 02/11/2025 19:40

Kendodd · 02/11/2025 19:39

I'd track it back the Thatcher for selling off everything that wasn't nailed down.

Not to mention the blueprint for signing off everyone they could onto the sick to hide the unemployment figures. She was the architect of what’s happening now.

nicepotoftea · 02/11/2025 19:43

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 18:47

The housing is affordable for people doing those jobs, what isn't affordable is for those people to necessarily own their own homes and have a couple of kids. However the notion has taken hold that everyone is entitled to own their own home and have a couple of kids no matter how unable they are to provide for them

So your argument is that people working in essential jobs shouldn't have secure housing or children?

Seems a bit short sighted.

Kendodd · 02/11/2025 19:47

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 18:47

The housing is affordable for people doing those jobs, what isn't affordable is for those people to necessarily own their own homes and have a couple of kids. However the notion has taken hold that everyone is entitled to own their own home and have a couple of kids no matter how unable they are to provide for them

Actually I think the opposite is true.
People doing those sort of jobs used to be able to get council housing and raise children in the pass. They felt a family was something they did have a right to have and could afford to have.
Not true anymore. Look at birth rates.

EmeraldShamrock000 · 02/11/2025 19:50

Kendodd · 02/11/2025 19:47

Actually I think the opposite is true.
People doing those sort of jobs used to be able to get council housing and raise children in the pass. They felt a family was something they did have a right to have and could afford to have.
Not true anymore. Look at birth rates.

💯 true.
There is no security for this choice anymore.

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 19:54

nicepotoftea · 02/11/2025 19:43

So your argument is that people working in essential jobs shouldn't have secure housing or children?

Seems a bit short sighted.

They will have children regardless. It's the higher earners who are opting out of parenthood.

LaserPumpkin · 02/11/2025 19:58

EmeraldShamrock000 · 02/11/2025 19:50

💯 true.
There is no security for this choice anymore.

The virtual extinction of council housing for most people definitely has a lot to answer for.

nicepotoftea · 02/11/2025 20:01

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 19:54

They will have children regardless. It's the higher earners who are opting out of parenthood.

So they should have children, but not earn enough to have secure housing?

Are you not considering that we need people to do these jobs?

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 20:04

nicepotoftea · 02/11/2025 20:01

So they should have children, but not earn enough to have secure housing?

Are you not considering that we need people to do these jobs?

I haven't said they should have children, I have said they will. And yes we need people to do these jobs.

Crikeyalmighty · 02/11/2025 20:04

Rosscameasdoody · 02/11/2025 19:40

Not to mention the blueprint for signing off everyone they could onto the sick to hide the unemployment figures. She was the architect of what’s happening now.

@Rosscameasdoody just posted this on another thread- it was always a disaster in the making and so has come to pass- I predicted 35 years for it to finally come to fruition and cause major issues-and yep I was about right

nicepotoftea · 02/11/2025 20:05

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 20:04

I haven't said they should have children, I have said they will. And yes we need people to do these jobs.

So you support taxation to fund the building of secure affordable housing?

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 20:07

nicepotoftea · 02/11/2025 20:05

So you support taxation to fund the building of secure affordable housing?

Not sure how you have put 2+2 together to make 5. If people want to have children and house a family, then that is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the state.

ShyLilacBiscuit · 02/11/2025 20:37

OwnGravityField · 02/11/2025 10:44

I ran the calcs on chatgpt about public sentiment:

Whether people would back this reform depends on how it is framed, who explains it, and when it is introduced. Yet the evidence suggests that, if presented clearly and fairly, a majority of voters would support it.

Around thirteen million people currently receive the State Pension which is about one in four voters. The remaining three-quarters are working-age, and many of them feel that the system no longer reflects today’s realities. Research by YouGov and Ipsos shows:

  • 60–70% of under-50s believe the triple lock and universal pension payments are unsustainable.
  • Around 40% of pensioners agree that wealthier retirees should receive less.
  • Roughly two-thirds of all voters support the principle that people with large private pensions should get a reduced State Pension.

So, it looks like it would actually be a vote winner at election.

Everyone had a meltdown when they suggested means testing winter fuel payment for pensioners. It's a similar argument in many ways - why do pensioners who are wealthy need more money from the state to pay for their heating? So I struggle to see how it would be a vote winner.

RosesAndHellebores · 02/11/2025 20:59

ShyLilacBiscuit · 02/11/2025 20:37

Everyone had a meltdown when they suggested means testing winter fuel payment for pensioners. It's a similar argument in many ways - why do pensioners who are wealthy need more money from the state to pay for their heating? So I struggle to see how it would be a vote winner.

It was the way it was done. The current way is correct. My mother and MIL don't need it. MIL always donated hers to charity.

There are plenty of idiocies. I have had free prescriptions since I was 31 because I need levothyroxine for surgery induced hypothyroidism. I can rationalise the free levo but not other prescriptions I have needed. Prescriptions are free for all over 60 - yet we are expected to work until 66/67/68. Ditto free eye tests.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 02/11/2025 21:06

Pleasealexa · 02/11/2025 19:19

I loathe the "Rachel from accounts" insult as it's clearly misogynistic.

George Osborne was a chancellor yet had a History degree, then a quick stint as a journalist, then straight into Tory government with his Eton mates. Completely unqualified and the roots of UKs decline can be traced to his mismanagement, post 2008.

In contrast RR studied PPE at Oxford and then a Masters in economics at the LSE. She joined the Bank Of England and then went into politics.

Her CV is way more suitable over Osborne for chancellor. However I think we should have some minimum qualifications for Ministers. Too many have very little experience other being political.

The roots of the decline can more fairly be traced back to Gordon and Tony…

Yellowshirt · 02/11/2025 23:17

mumsnit1 · 02/11/2025 20:07

Not sure how you have put 2+2 together to make 5. If people want to have children and house a family, then that is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the state.

The right to buy and the massive discount on the purchase price of a council house was brilliant for my parents.

What's not working now is people stuck with massive rental prices due to lack of council houses and houses being built with a 2 bedroom starting at £220000.
Labour is fixing anything.
They should be given a short period to make massive changes or just call a general election as it's not working.
The French would bring their country to a standstill if this chaotic situation wasn't being bought under control

CanadianJohn · 03/11/2025 03:23

They should be given a short period to make massive changes or just call a general election as it's not working."

It isn't easy to turn an economy around. I wish Rachel Reeves the best of luck. Apart from damage from the Brexit decision, from my 5000 mile perspective, an awful lot of people in the UK are not willing to take any responsiblity at all.

CanadianJohn · 03/11/2025 04:34

Too late to edit my post above, the first line should have been tagged as a quote from @Yellowshirt at 18:17

PrettyDamnCosmic · 03/11/2025 07:56

OnlyOnAFriday · 02/11/2025 17:43

Totally agree. Why should I subsidise someone else’s housing.

the thing is as well get increasingly squeezed this sort of attitude is going to become more prevalent as we feel we’re having the piss taken out of us. I didn’t get given a help to buy or right to buy scheme. I got a job, I saved and I got a house. I have new neighbours, ftb, they’re in their mid 20s doing normal jobs and have managed to buy a house costing them 220k.

yeah we all know house prices aren’t what they were in the 90s. Well neither are wages. My first job was 10k a year, my house cost me 34k. I think a nmw job would pay 25k still, you can still buy houses round here for 75k- 80k . So the wage to house prices ratio is about the same.

Am I taking more out than I’ve put in? State pension might get it for 10-15 years at 12k a year. I pay 10.5k a year tax just on income tax and NI and by the time I get my state pension and will have paid tax for 52 years (ok not all at 12k a year of tax payments). But actually I’d expect for the next ten years or so I’ll pay more than 10.5k a year as my wages are still rising. So even with the odd nhs bill I think I’m probably a net contributor by the time I’ve added on all the VAT and council tax I pay.

people earning over 41k a year are generally a net contributor

Edited

Am I taking more out than I’ve put in? State pension might get it for 10-15 years at 12k a year.

Average life expectancy at UK state pension age is 18 years for men & 21 years for women so you should receive your pension for more than 10-15 years.

HostaCentral · 03/11/2025 08:35

The UK pension is low to comparable countries, we still have later retirements than many, though they are catching up. We have similar demographics and GDP and debt to France for example but pensioners are worse off.

We do not overpay pensioners.

SomethingFun · 03/11/2025 08:51

I remember when killing grannies by cutting pensions was seen as a terrible right wing way to save a few quid but now apparently it would be the policy of the people. Does no one remember old ladies living on cat food, tea and biscuits in the dark and cold because they had no money? I suppose if you’re understanding of pensioners is middle class final salary folks jetting off to the Bahamas every 5 weeks then you probably don’t understand, but if that is your understanding of pensioners you’re living a very privileged life yourself.

RosesAndHellebores · 03/11/2025 09:13

PrettyDamnCosmic · 03/11/2025 07:56

Am I taking more out than I’ve put in? State pension might get it for 10-15 years at 12k a year.

Average life expectancy at UK state pension age is 18 years for men & 21 years for women so you should receive your pension for more than 10-15 years.

OK but that's an average and many people will live fewer years than that and others will live longer. MIL and mother have already exceeded it at 89 but father and FIL died at 71 and 78 respectively.

If I get 21 years that's the equivalent of about £250,000. Since 1981 I've paid in far, far more than that just in NI and income tax: add on IHT, CGT, stamp duty, rates/community charge and VAT and the Chancellor's laughing all the way to the bank.

Someone upthread noted that others had had education, health roads, emergency services, etc, for free. I've thought for a long time that we should have a cost calculator opened at birth. We start with zero, there's an annual figure debited for defence and infrastructure, NHS interactions, state education interractions, benefit payments, etc. It would be good to see how much individuals had taken or contributed (repaid) at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 etc.

LaserPumpkin · 03/11/2025 10:27

Someone upthread noted that others had had education, health roads, emergency services, etc, for free. I've thought for a long time that we should have a cost calculator opened at birth. We start with zero, there's an annual figure debited for defence and infrastructure, NHS interactions, state education interractions, benefit payments, etc. It would be good to see how much individuals had taken or contributed (repaid) at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 etc.

While this would be interesting, I’m not sure I’d trust any government - whatever their politics - with that data!

godmum56 · 03/11/2025 10:28

Traceysgoingtobelivid · 02/11/2025 17:22

You don’t suddenly become a different person at 67, why would someone who was perfectly happy at 66 suddenly want to move to the equivalent of the old age pensioner Big Brother house? Maybe 80 plus year olds are perfectly happy living in their “isolated” houses? After all, according to people like you on this thread they are absolutely rolling in cash so can afford carers, cleaners, gardeners and companions.

This definitely.

nicepotoftea · 03/11/2025 10:58

RosesAndHellebores · 03/11/2025 09:13

OK but that's an average and many people will live fewer years than that and others will live longer. MIL and mother have already exceeded it at 89 but father and FIL died at 71 and 78 respectively.

If I get 21 years that's the equivalent of about £250,000. Since 1981 I've paid in far, far more than that just in NI and income tax: add on IHT, CGT, stamp duty, rates/community charge and VAT and the Chancellor's laughing all the way to the bank.

Someone upthread noted that others had had education, health roads, emergency services, etc, for free. I've thought for a long time that we should have a cost calculator opened at birth. We start with zero, there's an annual figure debited for defence and infrastructure, NHS interactions, state education interractions, benefit payments, etc. It would be good to see how much individuals had taken or contributed (repaid) at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 etc.

The calculation is made more difficult by the fact that we all benefit from living in a country where other people are educated and healthy.