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/

Your logic is flawed.

Glad your friend enjoys the UAE and doesn't let the funding of genocide in faraway places* spoil her lifestyle. It wouldn't be for everyone.

Prepared to accept that the UK has a passive role in the Sudanese genocide but at least I didn't actively choose to come to live here eh?

I get the impression the pp doesn't quite get the point of anything if there's no cold hard cash involved.

Because not everyone wants to be a teacher? How hard is that to understand? Not to mention the fact TA's are also needed. My son wouldn't be able to go to school without TA's.

Nobody really wants to be a teacher now. It is a nightmare job. Although I love you

Nobody really wants to be a teacher now. It is a nightmare job.

Honestly, you could not pay me enough to teach. Please teach your children some manners, self control and to understand school is not all about them before you send them in. Toilet trained is a good start. How can any self respecting person send a child to school at 4 who doesn't understand the basics of toileting. I'm 70 and my DM, paed nurse, told me I was out of nappies at 15months but not totally reliable.

Some of us do. Though my son is incontinent due to his disability so he needs to be changed at school.

Well done @Kirbert2. I could cheerfully cope with a disability issue, but I would think any parent of a "normal" kid that was not toilet trained by age three was also probably intellectually feeble. It makes me sound horrible and very judgemental, I concede, but I don't think we pay teachers well enough to tackle toilet training for a whole class. I'd like to think that most parents have enough pride to want their kids to be competent and teach them to know when they need the loo.

His teacher has never changed him, he has 2:1 TA support and they are the ones who change him.

Generally, I agree that children should be potty trained by the age of 4. I do think it can be hard to tell at such a young age if a child who isn't potty trained at 4 is due to additional needs or just a lack of toilet training.

Leon, the company that was bought out by private equity then expanded too quickly using debt to pay for it? And was then bought back by one of the original co-founders?

I think there are more issues at play there than just a Labour government.

Is there insurance for DH being made redundant at around the same time we realised DS had additional needs and somebody was going to have to stay home with him? And would you take an 8 year old who was having multiple violent meltdowns a day to live with your elderly parents? He put me in A&E on more than occasion, he could have left my DM permanently disabled if he'd kicked her in the knee during a meltdown. And then he'd have had even more meltdowns out of guilt and distress.

So yes we get DLA & CA. I earn about 14k a year, DH makes a few thousand being essentially self-employed. We don't get UC, too much in savings because I was made redundant last year. We actually ringfence the DLA, a chunk goes on counselling, some of the rest replacing clothes because DS chews holes in them constantly. A bit has gone on keeping the car running as it's that or DS wouldn't go to school or counselling at all.

So sorry you've been through all this. I do think there is a (willfully?) blind reliance on insurance as the answer to all situations on here.

The thing is, situations like your are what make up far more of the welfare claims than people who just don’t fancy work.

But the ones who can’t see past the image of dole dossers with 50 kids will always claim “oh we didn’t mean you”.

Re Leon. I am sure the details are complicated, and are unlikely to be publicised. More important are the reasons behind UC and worked hours.

If you are Tesco, for example, you can offer a person a few hours. Once their earnings per week hit £96, you become liable to pay NI at the lowest level. So you don't. You hire another person for 16 hours per work, still free. The cost of employing a NMW person ratchets up from £25 pw from 16 hours upwards. No pension contribution required, no sick pay, in fact no benefits or security at all. Once you pay for more hours, the employer's cost to employ that person increases fast; it goes from £25 per week to £59 just in National Insurance. Don't get me wrong, the supermarkets are decent employers and pretty fair. But it is taking the piss, and off loading costs onto the tax payer.

There's also an idea that benefits hand out piles of cash with no questions asked. They really don't.

I spent the time up until I was made redundant helping to close down the charity I loved working for, applying and getting nowhere with finding a new job and panicking about claiming JSA - I'd have only got £500 a month and if I was so worried about if I would be able to meet the job search obligations around also meeting DS needs in the face of major upheaval in our lives. It was such a relief to get the email offering a part time temporary job with the possibility of being made permanent with people I knew and who had some understanding of the family situation.

It’s not just Leon, the hospitality sector has been telling Labour since the first budget, they won’t hear it though.

Quite, it's rarely as easy or straightforward as people like to think, but they won't be told...

I'm really pleased you found something and hope things continue to get a bit easier for you.

Yep.

I had a work coach suggest just getting a cleaning job whilst my son was in hospital and also the reason why I had lost my previous job and had to claim UC in the first place.

I had to beg for phone call appointments...again because my child was in hospital.

They certainly weren't just handing out money and it took a letter from the hospital my son was at for them to stop expecting me at weekly appointments about me finding a job.

The unexpected benefits of an aging population- more and more is siphoned off for pensions and they need to use the NHS to help them stay alive…which then gives time for more illnesses and more call on the nhs…

Society wasn’t designed for this and something has to change. Also offshore accounts/buying new cars/employing wife/child etc etc. The money is there, it’s just either being hidden or over-spent on non-contributors.

It’s a circular argument though isnt it. NMW goes up, everyone cries “businesses can’t survive this”, businesses pay low wages & people are forced to claim welfare top ups and everyone cries “taxpayers can’t afford this”. Theres an attempt to means test WFA and everyone cries “you can’t take from
pensioners” and then the news that welfare outstrips income tax for the first time and everyone cries “we can’t sustain this”.

But literally the only answer people want to hear is - all welfare claimants (except pensioners) are lazy and don’t want to help themselves so we’ll cut welfare entirely…

You only get paid low wages if you're low skilled and do something that anyone can do. Why should people get paid MORE than they produce?

Heh, bet you're the first to whinge if your bin isn't emptied.

You would whinge if you couldn't go to a supermarket because the cleaners hadn't been in for a bit or couldn't be delivered to your house because there wasn't anyone.

There are a lot of wheels in motion in order for you to live the life you lead dude.

But those jobs need doing, someone has to do them and those people also need to live.

I've met plenty of intelligent, highly qualified people doing minimum wage jobs because that's all they could get at that moment in time, or many other reasons.

Also some work often considered low skilled isn't really - I couldn't be a really good cleaner or a good care worker. I'm cack-handed when cleaning (I have broken so many things I'm fond of when cleaning!) and don't have the people skills or physical ability to be a good carer, yet certainly the care work is something I often see brought up on MN as a job should do if they need work regardless of suitability.

They may be considered low skilled but they are often jobs essential to keep society running.

If no one did them, society would fall apart.

The reason why you get a low wage is irrelevant (although i disagree entirely with your statement), the facts remain that 1. Someone needs to do those jobs and 2. Those people still need to be able to afford to live.