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/

Well I did some research. Might as well use the internet.

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/work-foundation/WF_UKInsecureWorkIndex2024.pdf

This survey tells me 7.1% of them are on top ups..meaning 92% plus of them manage.

With the wealthiest and high tax payers leaving the country (and the benefit bill continuing to increase) this will only get worse.

You have to despair when that Green candidate in Scotland said we have to stop billionaires coming to the country. And how to fund Greens’ policies? Well, tax billionaires!

I think we'd all agree she's not the sharpest tool in the box. But that any party could select her as a candidate beggars belief...

I don’t think I’m missing the point.

A company like Tesco making £1.69 billion profit isn’t the same as lots of small shops making smaller individual profits.

That £1.69 billion is pooled. It gives them scale and flexibility. They can absorb losses in some stores, invest in others and still have a huge overall pot to draw from - including for wages.

100 independent shops making £100k each don’t have that. Each one only has its own £100k to work with. They can’t support each other, can’t spread risk and can’t collectively decide to raise pay across the board.

So no it’s not “exactly the same.” Scale changes what’s actually possible.

That doesn't disprove what I've said though does it? If 0.07% of them were on top ups...then it would remain true that some are?

If their profit margins after tax are around about 2%, how are they magically going to increase wages for everyone across the board?

It means the vast majority manage

You shouldn't have to work multiple jobs to just be able to afford to eat without relying on benefits.

I was replying to someone who thought that a huge firm like Tesco making billions was obscene. I'm merely pointing out that it's no different to lots of small firms making the same total profits. Of course there are lots of differences in other ways, but the topic I was replying to was level of profit.

Exactly. A while ago I did an analysis of the Tesco annual accounts. Even if the shareholders got no dividend and the directors took no bonuses, the equivalent amount shared out among the staff was a trivial amount of something like a couple of pounds per week! A "big" number divided by a "big" number of staff equals a small number!

Exactly. I’d have to work around 70 hours a week to be entirely self sufficient (with no extras, just my basic living costs paid) if I was on NMW. That’s not reasonable by anyone’s standards. Of course you’ll have the “we worked 100 hours a day in my day” brigade along to tell me that my generation are just lazy but that doesn’t wash.

70 hours of your time just to have the very basics. Time you will never get back. People who don't have to work that much to live have the privilege of time.
40 hours should be enough to live on when on NMW. I know it isn't, but that is not the fault of the people working those hours.

If you work 70 hours, get 8 hours of good sleep a night there's still 42 hours a week for everything else.

Also a good incentive to you know better yourself and get a job where you command a higher wage.

No there is not. Those 42 hours could be commuting, chores, caring (for kids or a relative).
Who actually breaks their life down into hours in such a way?
If you earn a lot, you can work less. You have the privilege of time. I can guarantee you will not be on your death bed and wishing you worked more hours.

and if everyone 'betters' themselves, who will be left doing the minimum wage jobs? Someone has to do them.

No one should have to work 70 hours a week just to feed themselves.

70 hours a week is not sustainable.
If you need to work that much to live, you wont be in a cushy desk job. You will be in a factory or similar. Your physical health will be wrecked long before you get to retire.

Yes if you can teleport from one place to another, or work from home in both jobs. Happy to have no life outside of two (virtually) full time jobs and if you have children find someone to care for them all weekend and at night while you crack through the extra hours. If only more people were willing to do all this eh. It’s just pure idleness.

Another fantastic point about just being paid more too, I have no clue why people are dallying about in low paid care work for example, why don’t they just become investment bakers or CEOs of water companies for example!

Exactly.

My son's TA support earn minimum wage. I'd much prefer them get some help from benefits due to their low wages rather than work 1-2 other jobs and be exhausted whilst trying to do the very physical job of caring for a disabled child at school.

Yes but is it a surprise? Just look at posts here - the response to virtually anything is ‘claim benefits! Claim benefits!’ ‘Can you see what benefits you are entitled to?’ ‘Apply for PIP/DLA’ it’s relentless

A woman local to me ended up in the newspaper boasting about how she gets 50k in benefits a year. She has 4 kids, all ‘neurodiverse’ to varying degrees, the moment the youngest turns 2 or 3 she pops out another. All of them end up ‘on the spectrum’ and in receipt of DLA with her as their ‘carer’. She’ll have more no doubt.

Absolute piss take. We need the cap to apply to all benefits households, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions. Nobody should take home more in benefits than they would get if they worked on the minimum wage

Investment bakers are rolling in dough.

Typo apart, completely agree

I am sure you would like them to have time away from work to do more than sleep and do chores too.

It seems like a healthy work/life balance only applies if you are a high earner.

Why would you want someone who is severely disabled to live on NMW & have to scrape by. Or their carer. It’s a grim attitude.

if all the family carers gave up their roles and went into the workplace the state would be spending an awful lot more on formal care, if it could source that many carers that is.

Autism is often genetic, she may also be autistic herself. It isn't unusual for a family to have more than 1 autistic child.

Yes and if all parents relinquished their kids and refused to parent they would have to go into care and cost a fortune, wouldn’t they? But it’s a totally erroneous assertion - if you choose to have a baby you aren’t saving the state money by looking after it. It was your choice.

50k to ANYONE who doesn’t work is absolutely absurd and a slap in the face, sorry but it is.