AIBU to very nervous about what Reeves is doing to the economy?

[ProudAmberTurtle]

The data for the last financial year is out and, for the first time in British history, the benefits bill (£333 billion) was higher than income tax receipts (£331 billion).

This didn't even happen during financial crises like when the banks were bailed out in 2008-09, or during Covid when the government paid private sector staff's wages.

What's worse is that the government did not predict this and the benefits bill is projected to rise significantly over the next three years to about £390 billion.

In fact, from what I can understand, income tax receipts have always been significantly higher than the benefits bill, and there's always been an understanding between the two main parties since the 1940s that that needs to be the case for an economy to function properly.

I've worked very hard for more than a quarter of a century and always plan for the future, ie paying the maximum in NI so that my partner and I will receive the full state pension. For the first time in my life, this year the amount I'm earning in savings is going up at below the rate of inflation, even though I've got the highest interest rate available, because I've hit an income tax threshold (£50k) which means 40% of everything I gain in interest goes to the Treasury. This means my savings are actually depreciating in value.

AIBU to think this is just the start? That it's inevitable that taxes will have to rise even further and the state pension will be cut?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/04/labour-welfare-bill-income-tax-revenue/

150% is actually possible... in many cases... eg. 150% growth of benefits bill over x number of years

And of course we want some sort of welfare provided by the state, but we don't want 8m working age population living off it.

It's not just money that are taken from tax payers to subsidise them. It's also economic output which they don't generate, which could generate more tax to fund better NHS, education, etc

It's a big bulk of women. So he can share his 'wisdom' with us all en masse.

He's not the only one that does it.

Really? How many children are so disabled that their parents are unable to work? Here’s only 5.2% with ECHPs and the majority of those children will. Or be profoundly disabled.

I work in the fiscal sector. Mumsnet on the whole seems to be an educated bunch but elsewhere there seems to be little understanding that increased benefits payments = reduced public services. All of the pensioners outraged that their cruise cocktail budget was to be curtailed as it would only apply to those on less than £35k a year each. All of those chronically hard of thinking left wing ‘rebel’ MPs that are too thick to realise that handing out benefits like sweeties harms the UK (disincentives working) not helps.

GCC? Less violent than there.

It's not really Reeves though is it. It's the collective government ... benefits are a joke and needs an overhaul. One example. We pay for nursery (30 hours per week) for children whose parents dont even work ... need to get a grip ... why the hell do they need nursery if not working.

Still be in lockdown. Sir wetwipe was clamouring for more lockdown and more masks. The "Johnson Variant". Boris was sensible, ignored the doomsayers and unlocked.

The argument was that we don't want such a welfare state. The welfare state exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, societies tend to be more dangerous and violent.

Please try to read and understand what I'm saying so you don't have to constantly respond with red herrings.

and there will be more who have had EHCP's declined and are now appealing or are going through the process for the first time which can be incredibly long.

A percentage of children with EHCP's is hardly the whole picture.

And that's why they raised the retirement age, and will again.
Government will have massive increased revenue from fuel duty at the moment, that will be a massive bonus for them ... The US/Iran warm

How is limiting yourself to 2 children ‘not being allowed to breed’?

A lot of people think that Reeves has caused more long term damage than Truss. However, surely Reeves should be compared to Kwarteng and Starmer to Truss.

"Let the bodies pile up"

We need babies. Lots of babies. 2 isn't enough.

I don't think people realise how shit it is when it comes to the birth rate. Like they actually want to get to 75 for a pension.

Another plan if you don't want the babies, is to expand the assisted dying to include the elderly infirm. That uses up a large chunk of change. If they can be helped on their way, there'll be enough for everyone.

Probably less palatable than writing off offspring born into benefits. Doesn't have the same bite to it.

You are saying having children so disabled that you cannot work is not rare. I’m saying it is. Where’s the confusion?

We need babies that are going to work and earn taxes in the future to pay for public services. We don’t need lots of children born into a cycle of welfare dependency, so we?

The workforce will probably look different for workers in 18 odd years time, having too many idle and reliant on the state as another consideration. More than now even.

What's tonights lottery numbers?

It doesn't take a statistician to work out that a child born to parents on welfare is more likely to end up on welfare themselves - compared to a child of working parents. If AI is going as we are told it will, also bring in assisted dying, where is the huge need for as many people in the future?

Unless the child was born clutching a crystal ball, you have no idea what direction their life will take.
A lot of people that were born to benefit claimants go on to have good careers.
And some high rate tax payers have kids that also go on to do fuck all with their lives. I have some in the family. Living off the bank of mum and dad in their 30s.

Tbf it’s not crystal ball territory, if you look it up.

Maternal education is a primary predictor of children’s academic success, cognitive development, and long-term well-being.

It's a difficult balance to get right. If people have more children then those children grow up to be the pensioners of tomorrow who will be living even longer when you think of what the medical advances will be like in 60 years time.

I do think that disability benefits will eventually be given to only the most severely disabled in society because as it is at the moment it's unsustainable.

I also think as a society we will have to decide whether prolonging an elderly person's life when they have no quality of life is the right thing to do.

I had an elderly relative in a care home who was in her 90s, had dementia, was bedridden and doubly incontinent. She had no idea who anyone was, was very confused and scared. Her care home fees were £1500 a week which was paid by the tax payer. When she deteriorated and was put on end of life care it was distressing to watch.

I'm here cos it reminds me of my late wife. She would have been having these debates, I'm happy to carry on what she would have been doing. There's lots of bullshit on here that needs to be pushed back against. See that previous post saying 80% of Pakistani heritage women not being in work, whereas the actual figures are far lower. Why shouldn't I point out this?

No, No they don't understand cause an effect. At all.

Exactly. It’s a thoroughly researched phenomenon that those born to welfare dependent parents are far more likely to grow up depending on welfare. I cannot believe people haven’t heard of this! It’s not exactly ground breaking stuff.