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/

Like if you're already on benefits how on earth is a 3rd child going to help?

Keeping the two child cap was a huge driver of child poverty. That's evidenced. How are you backing up your claims?

The two-child cap was introduced after several years' consultation and notice that it was coming. It only applied to children born after the deadline and multiple births were excluded. The definition of poverty used most now is a relative version; the Rowntree version, which regards deprivation/poverty as less than two-thirds of median / average household income.

Increased poverty has more to do with the lack of productivity in the economy since 2008.

I haven't seen description of disabled children as defective so can't debate on this one.

Describing a person as intellectually feeble? why do you find this offensive and what term would be better? Stupid? or do you fundamentally disagree that some people are stupid? and lazy?

Even if you define poverty relatively at 2/3 of median income (which is around £24.5k), that still leaves families in a position where essentials like housing, childcare, food & transport aren’t secure.

that probably is in large part caused by stagnating productivity (as I said earlier) but it doesn’t change the need to address it and help the people it affects in the short term.

What’s your obsession with AI? Are you unable to formulate a coherent argument without it?

she wasn’t using it in the context of parents who don’t train their children - she was using it in the context of those children.

So no evidence base. Fine. Prejudice is not a solid basis for policy making.

Have a bit of a think about who used to be called things like intellectually feeble, why, and what happened to those people. Use AI if you like. Then come back and defend it as an acceptable current descriptor. I dare you.

It isn’t prejudice it’s basic economics. We cannot afford our benefit system. It’s destroying the country frankly.

Then why is your first port of call not addressing state pension, by far the biggest drain on welfare, or increasing tax revenue by introducing wealth taxes? It’s always the disabled, or single parents. Or in this case both.

Because the state pension is very low, far lower than most households in receipt of out of work or disability benefits, and 85 year olds cannot add to that by working or getting a better paid job. They can’t help being old. The feckless CAN help having more and more kids they can’t afford while ‘being too anxious to work’.

Stupid will have to do then!

Out of interest, what is the currently acceptable term for people of below average intelligence?

As @Chocaholick notes, it is all about economics. The benefit system is unsustainable, so reining in the cost is important. As a pensioner, I accept that the triple lock will have to go; Sir Steve Webb who introduced said so on the radio last Thursday.

You have zero evidence for this. Continually repeating that it is economics does not change that fact. At this point you need to put up or shut up because the world does not operate on the basis that you think something is true, therefore that's the end of the story.

The irony of you asking others to provide a definition of someone who is of below average intelligence is not lost.

Anyone want to look at proportion of UK GDP spent on benefits over the last three decades and come back to argue that it's raging out of control?

More benefits.

Steve Webb didn't quite say the triple lock would have to go. He said it would have to go when the pension reaches a decent level. So that will be the 12th of never and if it does happen, the loss of the triple lock won't make a significant difference to pension spending anyway.

Cute that people still think the coalition government brought in the triple lock for fairness to pensioners in a parliamentary term when the Tories couldn't get a working majority.

The op sets it out with the income tax v benefits bill figures.

What does that show us? Have you looked at GDP? Cost of austerity measures? Just jumped on a scary looking headline and extrapolated wildly? What?

The amount of UC you get for not being able to work is less than the state pension, and has now been slashed for new claimants.

Basic state pension £184.90 weekly for a single person.

Basic UC £106.22 weekly for a single person over 25.

That maths is not hard to do.

It’s not a great indicator, that income tax is lower than benefits for the first time. Can you spin it positively?

I'm not asking whether it's negative or positive. I'm asking what it means in practice. How significant is it? What are the implications?

Income tax receipts were less than the benefit bill this year. The next largest income generator for the Government is NI, then VAT. There's a link earlier in this thread that sets out the figures in full.
If you think that in practice the country can pay out more in benefits than it takes from tax payers in general taxation, then you are delulu. You are ignoring the cost of servicing the debt (that means paying the interest) the national debt. I may not be very clever, but my maths isn't that dreadful. I can calculate compound interest approximately in my head.

What does delulu mean and who is that odd diatribe aimed at?