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

[topicalaffair]

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.

You cannot really alter the pension landscape overnight, and with auto-enrolment the building's foundations have gone in but we need more people to contribute more over time so the state pension's place shrinks. It will be another 25 or 30 years before people's own personal pension contribution pots can displace the state pension central role.

However, it would be a "brave" person who would trust any future chancellor not to upend the plan for another.

Care to elaborate?

Personally, I think it’s immoral to simply pass the country’s day to day bills onto the next generation. Welfare is completely out of control - the govt should be required to balance the operational budget every year.

@Badacrowe state pension is a benefit, what is so hard to understand?!

You cannot really alter the pension landscape overnight, and with auto-enrolment the building's foundations have gone in but we need more people to contribute more over time so the state pension's place shrinks. It will be another 25 or 30 years before people's own personal pension contribution pots can displace the state pension central role.

The trouble with auto enrolment is that pension schemes are far less generous now then they were. And far more people will be renting into retirement.

And who is going to pay it? Most of tax payers can't afford a big tax raise. I think they will address something in between because there won't be money other than depth to pay for that.

But it's counted as welfare/benefits in this number, which should teach us all not to take things at face value.

No one is written off. Re-assessments were paused due to Covid, and there is now a huge backlog. People on ESA were still getting re-assessed, although they have been migrated over to UC now. The priority is assessing people that have reported worsening conditions.
People in Northern Ireland are still having re-assessments as normal.

Some people do recover and go back to work. There is a scheme being rolled out where people in the LCWRA group can have voluntary meetings with a work coach to work out a plan going forward about getting them back into work. Someone in the LCWRA group can work too, as there is a work allowance, the amount depending on their housing situation. I know many who have part time jobs with understanding employers.

If you want disabled people to be in the workplace, then you have to make employers and workplaces disability friendly. That wont happen though as the job market right now is terrible and employers wont take chances on someone who needs time off for appointments and might be off sick a lot.

They need to review and overhaul the whole benefit system, and in some areas reduce it but they won't want to do this, vote loser. However, even if this is something that will take time they could surely review the administration, management and consultancy usage across the whole of the civil service and save millions per year. Whilst not directly reducing the benefit bill will help reduce the deficit and the need to keep on squeezing those who are working and considered to be 'rich'.

Bet you’re not a pensioner!

It is often just passed to the next generation and kicking the can. I think a couple of other countries have stricter controls on that.

Unfortunately we can't reduce the benefits bill without investing in other areas.
We need more funding for the NHS so that people who can't work because they're on the list for operations can be dealt with more quickly. We need better mental health support so that people can manage mental illness without it becoming so dehabilitating they can't work.
We need to invest in meaningful back to work schemes where people are properly trained rather than spend 6 months using the photocopier before being replaced by another placement.
Work needs to be done with employers so they can implement adjustments to employ people with disabilities.
There needs to be greater investment in childcare.
We need more social housing so less money is pouring from the public purse to pay high rents to private landlords.
More money needs to be available to charities and not for profits who are trying to address a multitude of social problems that exacerbate worklessness, on a shoe string with demand far exceeding capacity.
Unfortunately all of these things need to happen before we start whipping money away from people. Because without viable alternatives, people will simply become poorer and poverty is very expensive as it causes strain on other services such as the NHS, the CJS, social services etc.
So if you want to pay less tax for welfare, the only viable way is to initially pay more. Which I doubt very much you'd be keen on.

This is what I mean.

I am curious why the rules change on some 'benefits'

State pension- requires NI contributions and it is taxed

Pension credit and universal credit- no contributions and not taxed.

Yes we can call state pension a benefit but we have to bring the others in line. Make them Contribution based and taxable.
Applying the same rules would remove pension credit.

Bet you’re not a pensioner!

Regardless the facts are the facts.

But this level of debate highlights why governments have been able to avoid even planning for the demographic changes, so much of the electorate prefer to put their fingers in their ears.

• In the last 40 years, the number of people aged 50 and over has increased by over 6.8 million (a 47% increase), and the number aged 65 and over has increased by over 3.5 million (a 52% increase).
• Over 10 million people are currently aged 65 and over, making up 18% of the population.
• The number of people aged 65-79 is predicted to increase by nearly a third (30%) to over 10 million in the next 40 years, while the number of people aged 80 and over – the fastest growing segment of the population – is set to more than double to over 6 million.

It can't keep going on like this, sooner or later things have to change drastically. There are far too many economically inactive or economically underachieving people in this country and we can't keep taxing everyone else more and more to pay for them all.

Why are we keeping elderly people alive with no quality of life? I'm not saying put them down so to speak. But why keep dragging life out with endless needless tests, medicines just so that can exsist like a living corpse in a hospital bed or care home?
My grandad had obvious symptoms of bowel cancer [I was Marie Curie nurse for 20 odd years] His gp sent him to hospital for barium meal, he collasped at the hospital through stress and was kept in over night before demanding I take him home the next day. He died at home 2 days later, I'm sure the stress helped finish him off. Had he stayed in hospital god knows how long they would have pumped him with drugs.

Well no, I’m not, but I would be in the group mentioned that would never get a state pension.

firstly, a large percentage of pensions are millionaires and therefore don’t need the state pension in the slightest.

secondly, whilst I think means testing would be a good idea in the near future, my other points (remove triple lock and stop pensions entirely) should be phased in slowly over time, giving everyone time to prepare for this. For example, announce the triple lock will be reduced to a double lock in 10 years, before only increasing in line with X in 20 years, before the pension is phased out by say 2080.

my suggestion/opinion isn’t an overnight fix, but a total reform of the system that would take place over many years. It’s tied into changing the mindset around pensions (ie that you’re entitled to one due to paying tax) as well as encouraging people to save for themselves by incentivising this.

What do we do about a generation that will have no children and an aging population of people not yet reached retirement age but are living longer with chronic illness that prevents them from working until retirement.

Yes we can call state pension a benefit but we have to bring the others in line

Its a benefit, end of.

Welfare should go up to what it needs to go up to, surely? This is just what it’s going to cost in 5 years’ time.

Given how controversial a topic it is, governments are hardly going to increase it willy nilly.

Pensions should only be paid to citizens who were born in the UK.

But she might be a pensioner one day and will probably U turn on that comment.😀

State pension is a benefit - you haven't paid into it - current tax pays current pensions.

This was predictable - I did an economics degree nearly 40 years and was writing essays in population economics and the impact of the 'boomer' population ie. an increasing population of older people supported by a decreasing working population.

People have prioritised tax cuts over investment and now they need pensions / healthcare / social care and its not there and due to the falling birth rate , anti immigration etc sufficient workers are not there to pay the tax to support.

@Jan1205 to have any hope of productivity improvements I think we need to reform it now. This generation of pensioners as a whole are wealthier than upcoming ones.