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? Doesn’t excuse her responsibility

So they stay home and look after the children, who then become adults and still need 24/7 care…and all the while they can’t work. So they either claim benefits, or they leave the child in state care at an eye watering expense and earn their own money.

Whats your choice?

She's a carer to multiple disabled children. I'm not sure what you think she should be doing?

She should have been sterilised she means

For them to stop having children when they can’t provide for the ones they already have and are costing us a fortune? It’s for them to make the change. I’m not the one producing the kids, they are.

Caring for them, not having any more, not getting 50k in benefits.

If they have one severely disabled child? I’m not talking about multiple. Just one is enough to prevent you from being able to work

In her shoes I would certainly choose sterilisation. There’s not a single argument against it at this point,

Swap with them then. Have the "free" £50k, but you have to have the disabled kids too.

She has 4. 2 are severely autistic (as in, very delayed development), 1 is ‘moderately’ autistic, the fourth yet to be seen as a baby but v likely

I don't want to force anyone into harsh conditions of work or life. My argument would be that the conditions for receiving benefits should be tightened.

I’m not talking about your imaginary mate.

I’m talking about someone who has one very disabled child. Such a life limiting illness that they can’t be left alone. Now or as an adult.

who cares for them? The parent - who then needs to rely on benefits, or the state at a much much higher cost.

Sorry but this always gets trotted out and it’s just lacking in any kind of reason or logic. Ok then why not give them 50 million a year? Because I wouldn’t choose to have disabled children for that either?

It isn't up to her what she gets in benefits. The reason why it is so much is probably due to high rent costs and the DLA which she gets for her disabled children.

Happy to send you the news link via message if you want?

No one chooses to have disabled children.

I’d rather you just answered the question I’ve asked three times.

if I want to see a sensationalist article about someone claiming high levels of benefits - I know how to find the daily mail

Quote from the article:

…she receives £3,000 in Universal Credit each month. On top of this, she also receives £880 in Disability Living Allowance (DLA), £240 in Child Benefit (CB) and £83.30 in Carer’s Allowance.

Lovely.

any answer to the question of whether you’d rather someone claimed benefits or forced the state to provide care for the children

The Sun 😆😆

I would rather they didn’t keep on having children when they can’t provide for the ones they already have and there’s a high likelihood they too will be disabled and need lifelong care and benefits.

Is it factually incorrect? May want to contact them if so.

You can not stop them though. Those disabled children still need looking after.

And she can look after them, for half the money she gets now. Maybe it’ll out her off having another.

I know you’re struggling a bit. I’ll say it again.

in the scenario I am posing

ONE SEVERELY DISABLED CHILD

should the parent a) claim benefits or b) work but force the state to pay for full time care for said child at a much much higher cost than to pay the parent to stay home with them?