Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Welfare spending to rise by £73.2bn to £406.2bn

1000 replies

topicalaffair · 23/01/2026 14:25

Over the next five years, the OBR is forecasting that UK welfare spending will rise by £73.2bn to £406.2bn.

How does everyone feel about this? I’m livid because I pay lots of tax. I don’t mind paying tax to maintain a civilised society - but this? This is surely taking the piss and will result in weaker and weaker services as the amount of £ available reduces day by day.

YANBU - it’s totally deranged. The every growing uk population can’t function effectively on such a benefits for all basis.

YABU - this welfare spending bill is truly representative of need.

Welfare spending to rise by £73.2bn to £406.2bn
OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
WhaleEye · 23/01/2026 14:45

.

bathsmat · 23/01/2026 14:46

you want to make any real change to welfare spending, you have to look at pensioners. I suspect few governments would be brave enough to tackle this in any meaningful way.
One way to immediately ease this problem would be to abolish the triple lock. It would cause quite a bit of outrage, however

it’s ridiculous that a household bring in up to 70k still gets the winter fuel but look at the outcry. People will vote for what benefits them.

Bagsintheboot · 23/01/2026 14:46

dottiedodah · 23/01/2026 14:41

AreyousureaskedNaomi Old age pensions shouldnt be included really .I am still waiting for mine! In my 60s still some way to go though.We have paid our dues and havent claimed any benefits at all.DH worked 40 years!I also think the job market generally is hard .Many younger people struggle with Interviews and are not really equipped for jobs nowadays .Should they all starve ?

The state pension is a benefit both in form and in law, and has been since 1948.

Of course it should be included under welfare payments.

rereturner · 23/01/2026 14:47

I’d want to know more about what costs come under this definition and the breakdown/proportion of spending on each aspect.

Id also add that, when attempting longer term projections of costs, it is a useful exercise - but pretty much the only thing you can guarantee is that the figure you come up with will turn out to be wrong in the end……

bathsmat · 23/01/2026 14:48

And the vast majority of us (i.e those of us who reach pension age) will benefit from this

Younger people won’t see it, the age will keep increasing or it will be means tested or both.
I don’t think the NHS model will remain unchanged either.

Ablondiebutagoody · 23/01/2026 14:48

I think it's a fucking joke but Labour (prob Tories too) were always going to do that. The working population and business cannot continue to fund so many freeloaders. It's crippling the country and killing growth.

If Reform commit to slashing welfare, they have my vote at the next GE.

SnipSnipMrBurgess · 23/01/2026 14:48

Allseeingallknowing · 23/01/2026 14:30

What annoys me is that there is a large chunk of the population who won’t be assessed further and are not required to look for work-ever! I know some never will be able to, but I think that with advances in medicine and possible adaptions to the work place, surely some could do some type of work, instead of being written off for ever!

Jesus what a privileged mind set. Many people with disabilities would love to be in work maybe have a word with the companies who refuse to hire them.

Kit1n · 23/01/2026 14:49

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

CloakedInGucci · 23/01/2026 14:50

I would say I almost agree with both your YABU/YANBU statements. Clearly it’s an issue for it to keep growing, however I don’t think the solution is to simply decide a chunk of people don’t need support and just cut it.
You need policies that reduce the need for support, not that reduce the support itself. And I don’t know what all of those policies would be. Although I’d say that fairly obviously, just from a basic maths perspective, the triple lock will have to go.

I’ll caveat that by saying that I’m sure there are examples of individuals that don’t need the support they are getting.

Allseeingallknowing · 23/01/2026 14:51

Bagsintheboot · 23/01/2026 14:44

At least half - two thirds of that goes on pensioners. The spend is only going to get larger as our population continues to age.

If you want to make any real change to welfare spending, you have to look at pensioners. I suspect few governments would be brave enough to tackle this in any meaningful way.

One way to immediately ease this problem would be to abolish the triple lock. It would cause quite a bit of outrage, however.

Outrage? Rightly so! The state pension isn’t generous anyway and any rises get swallowed immediately. They should be looking at assessments of physical and mental conditions, and not be so quick to write people off. Getting people back to work should be the priority. If people are offered jobs and refuse more then once then benefits should cease.

Playingvideogames · 23/01/2026 14:52

YANBU at all.

But you’ll be told you ‘want to see workhouses back’ and ‘hate the disabled’.

This will be treated as an emotional argument rather than a financial one, hence it is pointless.

feellikeanalien · 23/01/2026 14:53

The pension age is rising all the time and there are going to be more and more people required to work until almost 70 . It stands to reason that more and more of them will be claiming sickness benefits.

As others have also said the lack of affordable rentals , wages not keeping up with prices and inflation and the fact that it is becoming harder and harder to find employment all adds to this.

All this talk of supporting people back into work is all very well but where are the jobs going to come from? If employers have a choice do you really think they will choose someone who needs extra support over someone who doesn't?

I suspect what will actually happen is that eventually it will become more and more difficult to claim benefits but without the corresponding help to work for those who are no longer eligible.

I dont know what the answer is but I think in all areas of government there needs to be more long term thinking and cross party co-operation. Unfortunately with the way politics is at the moment that seems highly unlikely.

I do have skin in the game as I have DD who is very unlikely ever to be able to work. I am quite frankly terrified for her future especially when I am no longer here to advocate for her.

SnipSnipMrBurgess · 23/01/2026 14:53

Ablondiebutagoody · 23/01/2026 14:48

I think it's a fucking joke but Labour (prob Tories too) were always going to do that. The working population and business cannot continue to fund so many freeloaders. It's crippling the country and killing growth.

If Reform commit to slashing welfare, they have my vote at the next GE.

God imagine saying you are a Reform voter out loud.

How embarrassing.

Allseeingallknowing · 23/01/2026 14:53

SnipSnipMrBurgess · 23/01/2026 14:48

Jesus what a privileged mind set. Many people with disabilities would love to be in work maybe have a word with the companies who refuse to hire them.

Fine, so concentrate getting them back to work- which is what I said.

bathsmat · 23/01/2026 14:54

I dont know what the answer is but I think in all areas of government there needs to be more long term thinking and cross party co-operation. Unfortunately with the way politics is at the moment that seems highly unlikely.

we absolutely need cross party consensus as this won’t be a quick fix.

bathsmat · 23/01/2026 14:55

@Ablondiebutagoody you are aware the biggest spend is on pensioners?

Playingvideogames · 23/01/2026 14:56

MissyB1 · 23/01/2026 14:40

How do you suggest that is fixed OP?

No out of work benefits for under 25s.

Benefits destroy lives. I see it time and time again at work.

Person leaves school.
They get a part time, low paid job for a few years. Eventually leave or get sacked.
Sign on. They’re living with family so the £500 a month is just pocket money.
Spend it all on takeaways, vapes, weed and rubbish. Spend all day in bed gaming or hanging out with other unemployed mates.
After a few years of this all work ethic and energy is gone, replaced by laziness and low level addiction.
Due to low level addiction and never doing anything remotely healthy, they develop MH ‘issues’, get a diagnosis, and hop on to ESA or PIP. More money for rubbish.
After 10+ years, they’re completely unemployable, their brains are addled, they barely know what day of the week it is. Ricocheting from one ‘support service’ to another. They have kids, who also ‘need support’ as they’re neglected.

What would’ve happened had we not given the benefits to start with?

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 23/01/2026 14:56

Another day, another benefits thread🙄

Msube employers should pay proper wages? That would be a start.

As a taxpayer l don’t really care how many people are on benefits, apart from subsidising tight employers. I’m not a benefit fascist though.

EasternStandard · 23/01/2026 14:56

I’m not sure where the funds for that will come from.

SnipSnipMrBurgess · 23/01/2026 14:57

Allseeingallknowing · 23/01/2026 14:53

Fine, so concentrate getting them back to work- which is what I said.

The point is there is no work! You cant force people into companies that dont want them. So dont concentrate on getting people with disabilities ready for work, concentrate on the companies who refuse to hire!

DogsbodyHumanHead · 23/01/2026 14:57

Typical @topicalaffair - you believe the first thing you see that agrees with your own views and make no effort to check anything out. This is the problem with this country - it's going the same way as the US and look who they ended up with in charge of their country.

Summary

  • The OBR did not forecast welfare spending rising from £73.2bn to £406.2bn.
  • Official OBR numbers show welfare rising from £313bn to £373bn over five years.
  • “Welfare” is a broad category dominated by the State Pension; narrower definitions can cause confusion.
  • The £406bn figure appears to be a misinterpretation or miscommunication rather than a real OBR forecast.
  1. *How accurate is the claim that the OBR “forecast” welfare spending rising from £73.2bn to £406.2bn?*
Nothing in the OBR’s November 2025 Economic and Fiscal Outlook resembles a forecast of welfare spending rising from £73.2bn to £406.2bn. The OBR’s published figures show something very different:
  • Total UK welfare spending in 2024/25 was forecast at £313.0bn.
  • Total welfare spending in 2029/30 was forecast at £373.4bn.
These are the official numbers. They are nowhere near £406bn, and the baseline is nowhere near £73bn. So where could £73.2bn → £406.2bn come from? There are a few possibilities: a) It may refer to a subset of welfare spending, not total welfare. The OBR breaks welfare into dozens of categories (pensions, disability benefits, UC, housing benefit, child benefit, etc.). Some individual lines can show large percentage changes if a policy change shifts costs between categories. But no major welfare line starts at £73bn and rises to £406bn. b) It may be a misreading of a table showing policy‑driven changes rather than total spending. The OBR often publishes tables showing the change relative to baseline over a multi‑year period. These can contain large cumulative numbers, but they are not forecasts of total spending. c) It may be a misinterpretation of DWP’s “benefit expenditure and caseload tables”. These tables contain many granular lines, but again, no line matches the £73bn → £406bn trajectory. d) It may simply be incorrect. Given the published OBR data, the most likely explanation is that the figure is either misquoted, misinterpreted, or refers to something other than welfare spending.
  1. What does “welfare” actually mean in UK public finance?
“Welfare” is a broad term, and this is where confusion often arises. In UK fiscal reporting: A. The OBR uses “welfare” to mean all social security spending, including:
  • State Pension
  • Pension Credit
  • Universal Credit
  • Disability benefits (PIP, DLA, AA)
  • Housing Benefit
  • Child Benefit
  • Carer’s Allowance
  • Statutory payments (maternity, sick pay, etc.)
This is why the total is so large (over £300bn). B. Journalists and politicians often use “welfare” to mean only working‑age benefits. This excludes the State Pension, which is by far the largest single item. C. The public often thinks “welfare” means only out‑of‑work benefits. This is the smallest definition and the source of most confusion. The key point: Nearly half of all “welfare” spending is the State Pension. This is why the OBR’s total welfare figure is over £300bn, not £70bn.
  1. How meaningful is the £406bn figure?
Given the official OBR forecasts, the £406bn number is not meaningful as a description of total welfare spending.
  • The OBR’s actual forecast for 2029/30 is £373.4bn, not £406bn.
  • The baseline is £313bn, not £73bn.
  • No OBR table shows a rise from £73bn to £406bn.
Unless Peston was referring to a very narrow and unusual subset of welfare spending—and even then the numbers look implausible—the figure does not reflect the OBR’s published forecasts.
  1. Why welfare spending is rising (according to the OBR)
The OBR attributes the rise to:
  • An ageing population (more pensioners)
  • Rising disability and health‑related benefit caseloads
  • Demographic pressures on UC and housing support
These drivers are explicitly discussed in the OBR’s November 2025 outlook.
Ablondiebutagoody · 23/01/2026 14:58

I'm not sure that any political parties come with cool points.

Playingvideogames · 23/01/2026 14:58

EasternStandard · 23/01/2026 14:56

I’m not sure where the funds for that will come from.

Cuts or borrowing.

Has to be one of the 2.

And then nightmare starts again 🤷‍♀️

Dullmary · 23/01/2026 14:59

Oopsylazy · 23/01/2026 14:42

🙄

Someone on a £100K salary in the UK pays 40% in taxes. Are you aware of this?

If you tax the rich so highly there’s no point in them being here they’ll move to another country - as is happening. Last time I checked the UK had lost 15% of high earners under the new Labour government.

I don’t mean someone who earns 100k, I mean the billionaires.

🙄

topicalaffair · 23/01/2026 14:59

HoskinsChoice · 23/01/2026 14:44

Do you work for a newspaper? Or is this going to be used for some other kind of research?

No not at all. 🤷🏻‍♀️

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.