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/

So your counter argument is that you say that this is discredited but without providing any actual evidence.

This is not how an intellectual debate works- otherwise it turns into a primary school playground debate of "you're wrong", "no you're wrong ", "no you've wrong " etc etc.

So let me provide the actual figures for you based on a non working couple with three children:

1. Universal Credit (basic + child elements) Standard allowance (couple): ~£6,000/year Child elements (3 children ): ~£10,000/year Subtotal: ~£16,000
2. Housing Benefit (via Universal Credit housing element) Example: £1,500/month rent £1,500 × 12 = £18,000/year
3. Disability / health-related benefits. For example Personal Independence Payment (PIP): ~£5,000–£7,000/year Assume : ~£6,000
4. Other additions Council tax support: ~£1,500 Free school meals / extras (estimated value): ~£1,000–£2,000 Approx: ~£3,000

Total : £43k to £46k

Meanwhile a £71k salary after tax and student loan gives £46k net income and a salary of £63.5 k gives a net income of £43k.

If I have posted anything that is factually incorrect please let me know or if you disagree then with explanation why - rather than a playground "you're wrong ".

There are definitely claimants like this. They pretend to seek work, they say they have 'mental 'ealth' etc. Also although leaving a job without good reason can result in loss of benefit. That only applies for 91 days and then they can claim.

Your figure only applies if someone is not subject to the benefits cap, i.e. disabled, working or a carer.

So what is your motivation for posting this? To say that people become disabled for money? To whip up division? I really don't understand where you are coming from.

People are people. Why would you expect someone to be a paragon purely because they claim benefits? Some of my colleagues over a lifetime's work have been lazy, a few actually dishonest. No posts moaning about that though.

Voluntary work would not go down well on mn. Any suggestion of working for free and benefits generally doesn’t.

Lucky Mumsnet isn't in charge then. I'm a big believer in a bit of routine and structure but that doesn't have to be paid work. There are a lot more people than the average poster here realises who wouldn't be able to hold down a job but don't deserve to be written off.

Voluntary work is encouraged by the DWP as a pathway into work but the common response is that people won't work for nothing but obviously many are happy to receive their benefits for doing nothing. Obviously my comment does not apply to the sick, carers etc before everyone pounces with the usual gotchas

It is lucky but electorally it’s a hard sell too.

I don’t disagree btw that it could be good. Just how to get it voted in.

People don't make themselves disabled for money. But some people do fake disabilities and it's easy enough to do. Introduction of benefits cap and disabilities being excluded from it miraculously coincides with huge increase in disabilities claims.

So what is your motivation for posting this? To say that people become disabled for money? To whip up division? I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Maybe to respond to your statement which doesn't have any evidence? PP is correct, all you're saying is "you're wrong"

In quite a time limited way for people who are just on the basic element of UC. There's a lot more focus on applying for a ton of jobs every week.

Didn't the government already do this years ago? It was called workfare I think.

All that happened is retail, hospitality etc used people for 3 months, made up an excuse as to why they couldn't keep them on and then got some new people in who they didn't have to pay to work and repeated the cycle over. It didn't work in the end because they rarely actually employed anyone at the end of it so it got scrapped.

She’s incompetent, Labour is incompetent full stop. I was one of those who thought the tories need a time out but I never imagined this lot would be just so awful. They may actually be stupid, I thought it was ideology at first but now I think they are literally just stupid.

I work for a charity and we have quite a lot of people doing stints of volunteering with us to boost their work skills. Sometimes we end up employing them if an entry level position becomes available but many more go on to find jobs elsewhere in the sector.

I think that's great because it is actually volunteering and beneficial to all involved. It clearly didn't work when people were forced to or when places can just get by with not paying people, not offering them a job and then going through the cycle again a few months later with new people.

No, they can’t ‘pretend’ to seek work.

How do they manage to make sure the law doesn’t apply to them? I assume you have evidence to back this up.

’they say they have mental health’ - so you are talking about disabled people and assuming they are lying about their disability? This is hard to do and the DWP themselves admits the fraud rate for PIP is very low. You cannot fabricate MH conditions and claim without evidence.

Yes, that’s also what I’ve heard when people apply via indeed.

Part of the problem is that AI filters out applications and human eyes don’t see them…

@RaininSummeralso I like the way you say ‘that only applies for 91 days’ as if the average person in this climate could live for 3 months with no money at all!

https://benefitsinthefuture.com/lies-damned-lies-and-the-telegraph/

To generate the dramatic figures they use, they have found a way of avoiding the overall benefit cap by making someone severely disabled. By doing so, they have not only done that but made the out of work income even higher and the comparison even more invidious.
Otherwise, this family would have seen their benefit capped at £22,020 a year, £1,835 a month.

This family, that they have used to compare with the financial resources of a healthy couple, can now be seen to have a member who is not merely severely disabled in need of care but also in receipt of the highest level of help with their mobility needs. They have three children and are paying rent of almost £1,000 a month.

It doesn’t seem fair to leave the comparison at that. What would the situation be if the working couple were in the same position? PIP, remember, is a benefit that can be received by working people; it’s not a benefit for people who can’t work.

In a surprise, no doubt to the readers of the Telegraph, whose over 3.500 comments on this article are largely united in attacking the generosity of the benefits system, these hardworking people would also qualify for help from the benefits system, despite their earnings.

Self ID should never be a thing. You are either male or female sex and sex based rights, sports, safety etc are vital.

You can pick a gender, any gender and change as and when you want, but sex based rights are what must decide. Safety always trumps feelings and ideology.

💯

Yes they can pretend to seek work. Other examples I’ve had in the last year are a chap who sat being interviewed by us who knew the salary, the role and the hours. But in the interview when we discuss it he can’t get out of their fast enough as he thought we should be paying as much as his last job. He’d been unemployed for 3 years with virtually no skills.

Another one who we offered the job to, did 3 days work then disappeared.

They clearly don’t say out loud to anyone I don’t want the job. But they make themselves virtually unemployable. A lot of MN I think just never come across people like this. It’s a big problem and it’s getting worse.

Are pensioners idle?

He must have had skills that pertained to his previous job? Being unemployed for 3 years isn't relevant to his skillset and salary potential?

This insight of your actual experience of people dealing living with the uncertainty and difficulties of not finding employment, dealing with the DWP, using food banks, worrying about sanctions is the actual reality for so many and one of the most valuable contributions to this thread. I’m sure it will be brushed over by some who prefer to just rant and focus on rage-bait tropes instead, but what can you do?

Food bank use rose massively under the Tories - 94% over five years leading to 2023/2024 with over 3 million food parcels delivered that year and 1.1 million were provided for children. So essentially, amazing charities and those with a social conscience, helping vulnerable people while the useless government wasted millions of taxpayer money on things like corrupt fast-track/VIP lanes and useless Covid contracts for their friends. Michelle Mone’s company alone received over £200m in PPE that wasn’t fit for purpose, while people in poverty were relying on food banks to eat. Sickening.

Labour are for from perfect, but I want a government who work towards ending child poverty, rather than the opposite.

And while I understand people have frustrations about what they see as misuse of the benefit system, I’d also urge them to feel at least an equal level of outrage at the wealthy who evade tax while honest working people pay their share.

Almost as if when a society uses charity and looks after their own we don't need state funded welfare.

The Tory government were not "useless". These COVID contracts were rushed yes. But it was a time of national emergency. And of course they'd prioritise contacts and people they knew.

I'd rather see people take responsibility for their own children.