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/

You want to teach the parent a lesson, but the one who will suffer will be the child.
The Sun used to have Page 3 girls. I would not rely on them as a proper source of information.

Giving her half the money she gets now won't make her children who are already here any less disabled or expensive to care for.

No but it may make her rethink having another.

The kids won’t suffer any more than anyone else whose parents earn the minimum wage.

Of course it won’t and if she can’t afford to care for them, we’re back to forking out obscene amounts for state care.

Source for this claim?

Claim benefits but a maximum of 24k a year. Absolute maximum, not a penny more.

That is less than the NMW. People on NMW get UC top ups.

So how will this make sense?

Where your source that children whose parents are on the minimum wage are less neglected than children whose parents claim 50k in benefits?

It seems a perfectly reasonable amount. Generous even compared to 90% of the world. We can’t afford this madness any longer.

The people on the higher rates of benefits have disabled children.

You are comparing two different scenarios.

The whole point is you think less than 50k will ‘put her children in poverty’ whereas other WORKING families earn far less than this and are simply forced to cope, and nobody is piping up worried about their children.

The benefit cap MUST be reinstated uniformly. This cannot continue. It’s insanity, we now have 2 children in every primary class claiming DLA, and usually the parent gets carers in addition to this. It’s absolutely nuts.

All it would do is negatively impact disabled children. It seems incredibly bitter to want that simply to try and teach someone a lesson.

Also, the article mentions the fact that her partner works and she has 3 children, 2 who are disabled, one of whom is severely disabled. It's a recent article so funny that they've left out a 4th child, it's also convenient that you've left out the fact she has a partner who works.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The fact he works makes it even worse in way. With his salary on top why on earth is 50k in benefits needed?! What on earth do they get a year??

Breeding. Such a lovely turn of phrase.

Do they actually have a 4th child or did you add that in for fun?

But we can’t just keep handing out incredibly generous benefits to families who seem to produce disabled child after disabled child.

It used to be very rare to have 1 disabled child let alone 2. The only family I knew with 2 disabled children growing up had twins with cystic fibrosis. Now it’s very common for people to have 2, 3, 4 ‘disabled’ children and be claiming DLA for all of them, plus carers, plus uncapped UC… it’s monstrously expensive and destroying our economy.

Yes I’m well aware ‘billionaires’ but there are very few billionaires and hundreds of thousands of families just like this one.

Read it in The Sun. Must be true.

I recall seeing about a new baby - as I said no idea if they will be disabled but the older siblings are

If you don't give them money, then who suffers? THE KIDS DO.

What's the alternative? You can only have 2 disabled children, if you have a 3rd or if your 3rd happens to suddenly become disabled. Tough.

Is that really what you think the focus should be on? Also, I'm not sure why 'disabled' is necessary.

You'd think the article would've mentioned a new baby.