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/

Government need to change policy for UC to be time limited - full amount for e.g. six months, then 75% for another three months, then stopped. Ideally the amount to be based on previous earnings.

Disability based payments to be paid for certain amount of time, e.g. six-twelve months as is, then only based on objectively diagnosed conditions, supported by tests, not self reported impact. So not to harm people waiting for diagnosis, but then it needs to be confirmed independently. Conditions serious enough to prevent person from any work are usually diagnosed reasonably quickly.

Savings from this change can be invested in NHS and social housebuilding. And shock horror - reduction of taxes to make economy grow.

So to you is Self ID a sensible idea - Something people should embrace not reject?

I'm sorry you are struggling.

Being man or woman is not subjective and has nothing to do with belief.

Why should people be taxed more and more to support the idle? When the benefits bill exceeds what's coming in, something needs to be done and not tax the ones that can be bothered to work even more

What do you suggest can be done to lower the Pensions bill?

Disability benefits for limited time? You do realise most disabilities are permanent don't you, and many get worse over time?

So what happens to those unable to get a job after 9 months? Destitution?

It's not that hard to identify a theoretical discussion is it? My personal beliefs don't come into it - that's my point.

I'm not remotely struggling. Thank you for your faux concern. In future keep it to yourself as it's a waste of everyone's time and will no longer be responded to.

It’s because the framing given is a fortunate one, but aside from that you think it will happen?

At some point Self ID will be viewed as sensible and we’ll look back in the same way as we do gay rights, children’s rights?

I did not say that disability related benefits should be temp - I said they should be awarded as per current process until objectively diagnosed, but then only based on diagnosis, not self assessment.

UC when out of work should be only temporary. People will have to find jobs after then, maybe not the jobs they like, but nobody apart from truly disabled or caring for disabled should be funded by taxpayers forever.

Well clearly you don’t know how the system works because non-disabled UC claimants are required to apply for many jobs every week and are not allowed to turn jobs down. If they don’t do those things, their UC is not paid.

You said Disability based payments to be paid for certain amount of time, e.g. six-twelve months as is, then only based on objectively diagnosed conditions

So 6 to 12 months when there's been an objective diagnosis

What has that to do with this thread?

please re-read what I posted

you ignored word then

No but scientific realities do. And the scientific reality is that people cannot change sex. It’s physically impossible. Just like the earth is not flat, a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man.

Other facts are that hundreds of thousands of women are sexually assaulted in the UK every year. >97% of the time by men. Other facts are in the social attitudes towards trans people survey the majority of women thought that biological men should not be allowed into women’s single sex spaces.

Do we just over ride these facts to stop men getting upset?

and that's why we have over 6% of working age population "disabled"

also re-read the thread I linked above about part time work

People are already expected to look for jobs of any type. UC is highly conditional. Even if you like the idea of plunging people into destitution on the basis of moral failing, it's fairly evident that it would be counterproductive in terms of getting people back into work.

Not to mention that some disabilities are not easy to diagnose. PIP is awarded on the basis of how a disability affects day to day life. The name of the disability itself is irrelevant in terms of eligibility criteria and points awarded.

If people want to make bold statements about the benefits system, don’t you think you should first of all learn how it actually works??

@ForWittyTealOPit’s your post that brought them up, here.

I read it then as a stipulation to getting the benefit at all.

So do you think that disability benefits are paid without any diagnosis/investigation currently? You're incorrect if so

women’s rights hasn’t got a lot to do with this thread and I don’t want to see if derailed, but when you assert that GC people are misandrists you have to expect to be corrected!

That has nothing to do with (a) this thread or (b) my point. Feel free to start a thread on trans issues if that's where your interest lies.

I think probably we'd need to move away from this Ponzi scheme and onto mandatory savings instead.

Maybe give people a lump sum equivalent to what they've "paid in" with NI. But move away from this and get to people saving up for their retirement. You pit some away employer matches. That's how it should be

@ForWittyTealOPthe pp is responding to your posts on it.

Theoretically. I'm really not interested in people's actual opinions on trans issues or in sharing my own.

Who knew that would be such a difficult concept to understand?