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/

@ForWittyTealOP

Germany and the Nordics are culturally different with high expectations of citizens compared to the U.K.. Spending more money on things is not the only reason why these societies get better results. You can tip a lot of money into a system and get poor results, as we have with the NHS in recent years. I think that the reality is that it’s not just investment.

There are people who could work but refuse to because of "effort" so choose to be on benefits because it's too mentally taxing for them to work

Doctors are pretending people are sick becuase….what? What’s the pay off for them?

Hundreds of GPs tell BBC they have never refused a fit note for mental health concerns - BBC News

Pay off for them is easier life. It doesn't cost them anything to sign someone off. It's going to be more challenging if they don't.

I assume doctors are quick to sign someone off in case something happens if someone is forced to look for work and it comes back on them? Apparently there are scripts/guidance online on what to say to the doctor and which keywords to use.

You wouldn't lose CB at £50k. You'd lose some via tax at £60k and all at £80k.

You may well also be eligible for childcare help - either through UC (even at a salary of £50k) - or via tax free childcare.

I'm guessing you have fairly high rent to be getting as much UC as you do (based on you saying you'd only be £150 better off on a £50k salary - sounds like you get a similar amount of UC that I used to with a take home of £1200 and I have 3 children & an LHA of £800).

Butt tbh even if you were no 'better off' - the aim should always be to earn your own money where you can - it benefits you in the long term (more pension contributions, less of a cliff edge when you eventually lose access to UC as the children grow up).

You're proving my point really. I get that it's enjoyable moaning about scroungers and how hard you work to sub other people but I'd be willing to bet you've been doing that a while and where's it got you? Better to try and think about how stuff works and reasonable solutions, whatever viewpoint you're coming from. But harder work, I concede that.

Germany and the Nordic nations don't have comparable welfare regimes.

Rage bait I guess. I try not to let it bother me. I'm not defective and nor are my disabled friends and family so what does it matter what bots and ignorant people on here say?

Yes, you're right. It is best ignored. But not always easy to do so!

Exactly.

If you read the article:

"They also highlighted instances of patients becoming aggressive if they were not signed off work. One GP revealed how a patient had refused to leave the practice without a fit note".

It's funny that you can't get MRI referral but fit note is so easy. If there was a requirement for objective tests to prove disabilities, e.g. bloods/CT/MRI etc, the situation would change pretty quickly.

I know! I don't think the majority of people are so unkind though. It's the curse of the internet.

I don’t think the BBC article supports the conclusion you’re drawing from it.

It reports that most GPs who responded said they had never refused a mental health fit note request, but it also makes clear why that might be and it’s not just “because it’s easier”.

The article highlights that GPs are often working in a difficult role where they have to act as both clinician and gatekeeper, which many of them describe as hard to balance. It also points to practical pressures like limited time, lack of occupational health training and the complexity of judging mental health, which doesn’t have objective tests in the same way physical conditions do.

Importantly, fit notes are also usually short term and regularly reviewed, not permanent decisions. So it’s not a case of doctors just signing someone off once and being done with it, it’s an ongoing reassessment process.

So the article is really about a system under strain and GPs managing complex clinical decisions in a pressured environment, not evidence that doctors are taking the “easy option” or that patients are broadly being signed off unfairly.

Of course there will always be some people who try to game any system, but the point is that the incentives matter. With the changes to LCW and LCWRA, the financial gain for being assessed as unable to work is being reduced for new claimants. That naturally weakens the incentive for people who could work to try to obtain that status purely for financial reasons.

You also need to factor in the costs of commuting to work and associated costs such as work wear and lunches.

The reality is taxation discourages behaviour and benefits/ subsidies encourage behaviour. So when you increase taxation and increase benefits, don't be surprised when people opt to go on benefits rather than work. It's financially logical.

@MyLuckyHelper
did you run it through AI?

Let's agree to disagree. Multiple un-fit notes pave the way to LCW and LCWRA.

Reduced payments to new claimants - Labour will do U-turn on this when time comes and they still increased UC payments. So win-win for claimants

No, I didn't - I can manage to read a fairly short BBC article and process it myself, as much as it may shock you. There's no mention of a U Turn, why would there be? It's not going to be publicly unpopular which is usually the cause of a u turn.

Your article doesn't infer that people are getting multiple notes at all and as I already said, with the reduction in LCW/LCWRA - what would be the point? Back to the doctors every 2 weeks for £200/month? And again as I already said - of course there will be outliers that think that's a pay off, most won't.

You aren't going to eradicate disabled people (as much as some on this thread would love to) and they do need to be supported financially (as much as some would love them not to be).

The time has come. These cuts were introduced this month. No U turns in sight.

I find your understanding rather limited and your capacity for making assumptions which fit your retrenchment agenda conversely large. I hesitate to write off anyone's point of view but on the other hand, opinions should be based on thought and consideration, not just what you'd like to see happen to people you don't think well of.

Wow that's appalling.

I realised that they are very judgemental and hence responded to their comment. Sad that people like that feel comfortable make those type of statements, how vile.

I realise that you are retired and from a different generation but the way you talk about children shows you up in a poor light. Are your purposely goading or were you never taught to be nice and not judegmental particulary when talking about children.

What is so not nice and judgmental in saying that children who are not disabled are expected to be toilet trained before they start school?
And what it has to do with age or retirement?

I'm from younger generation than this poster (I think) but fully support her view.

What you are saying about her sounds very ageist though.

perhaps its the use of normal in inverted commas. Perhaps its the use of intellectually feeble.

For millennia, mothers (mostly) have tried to toilet train their children as young as possible because of the labour involved in soaking and boiling cloth nappies. For my mum in the 1950s, this was before she had a washing machine and when we lived in a caravan in a farm yard. With a husband who was at sea in the Navy, and often away for months at a time, laundering nappies was an unending chore, especially in winter. (I remember the twin tub arriving in 1964.) The arrival of easy disposables was an immense boon but it has meant that most people don't feel that potty-training is as urgent as their mothers and grandmothers would have regarded it. Some kids resist so persistence has always been required.

I am not talking about children with lifelong or progressive disability; for those parents, I have every sympathy. I think they should get all the help, financial and practical, that society can afford.

But the title of this thread is "AIBU to be nervous about what Reeves is doing to the economy?" and judging by the voting about 75% feel that the OP was not being unreasonable.

Apart from the fact you're happy to describe disabled children as "intellectually feeble" and "defective" of course.

We don't want your sympathy. We want you to stop dehumanising us and our children and question your assumptions on your own superiority.

"intellectually feeble" seems to be correct term here

This poster used it in context of parents who don't toilet train their kids.

Some people would be advised to give up AI for some time and practice own comprehension a bit

So you're only concerned about your "gotcha" moment and not the description of disabled children as defective or anybody as intellectually feeble - a loaded and derogatory term that most people have rightly left in the past?

Understood.

My criticism was aimed at the parents, not their children. Put it down to my irritation at the constant hijacking of threads that are primarily about the management of the economy by the same handful of posters fixated on benefits and disability.

Lifting the two-child cap is capitulating to economic illiterates.