To think there will be many more disabled adults in 20 years?

[Walkyrie]

I’m disabled myself, just to put that out there.

It just seems like the number of people with a disability, usually a psychiatric one, is going through the roof.

40% of disability benefit claimants are claiming for mental health related reasons. The number of anxious children and teens on here, and that I know in my own life and family, is really really high. So many schools refusers and kids in need of extra support, special school placements and so on. It seems there are a lot of unemployed young adults living at home who simply don’t have the mental acuity to get a job, live independently, have a life of their own.

3 children in my family are currently school refusing, one we only found out about today but it was not a surprise as she’s always been very anxious and has selective mutism.

My AIBU is, should we be doing something to prepare for what may be a very high number of adults not working in years to come? How will we sustain them all?

Yes. Effectively saying “push through it” dismisses it as being “feeling a bit sad” or “getting a bit anxious in new situations” or whatever i.e. NOT being a medical condition, as these are things EVERYONE experiences. This is completely different to someone with a clinical condition that meets that level of diagnostic threshold which is debilitating to the extent that it meets the medical criteria to constitute a disability. The same applies to autism, autistic burnout, etc. And there is no more chance of “pushing through” that than there is of just ignoring cancer or any other severe physical health condition and that making it go away/ not affect you so severely that you can’t perform normal daily activities.

So much of this thread exhibits economic, scientific, and medical ignorance to quite a shocking degree.

A little bit of it is, though, if we're being perfectly honest. Out of the millions of genuine claimants, there's obviously a percentage that are at it for all they can get out of it. We all know them. Every family, street, village, town, and city has them. If you don’t think that then you're just being naive.

“The problem isn’t pensions, it’s fewer people working”

That is incorrect, as I’ve pointed out with facts and data in multiple posts on this thread. I even provided a chart showing that employment rates for those aged 16- retirement this decade are higher than they have ever been since the 1970s. It is a myth that fewer working-aged adults are working now than previously. If you did want to analyse the more detailed data you’d also find that they are working more hours on average. And getting paid less in real-terms, despite working harder and more of them working than ever before.

All of the economic data is published and publicly available, should you wish to inform yourself rather than parroting nonsense you heard on G-Beebies.

Yes, my comments on the thread are “simplified” because it’s apparent that many people posting don’t even have a GCSE-level basic understanding of economics so I’ve of course had to try to keep it fairly simple. And of course, per my earlier comments, the systems in no country are perfect. What is undeniable, however, is that the UK’s specific economic woes are far worse than they needed to be and not caused entirely by recent geopolitical issues given that our GDP per capita and living standards are continually falling proportionately to what used to be our comparator countries.

As economists we spend a lot of time looking at the international comparison data, the systems in different countries and their real-world effects, and it is very clear which problems are causing these UK-specific issues (that are within the power of our Government to address) and what the solutions are, some of which I’ve outlined here for anybody who actually wanted to engage with the thread topic in a genuine, rational and factual manner rather than utilise the thread to spout off about their personal prejudices and highlight to everyone reading their lack of economic understanding or grasp of basic maths.

As usual, statement of facts and numbers has been ignored by the majority of posters, engaged with by a very small proportion, and caused outrage amongst those who appear to live in an alternative reality of their own creation where facts and data don’t exist and are therefore furious whenever anybody dares to mention them.

It is sad because there are solutions to these issues. No system is perfect as I said yesterday but there are systems which have been proven to work far more effectively than ours providing better social and financial outcomes, value for money, etc that we can emulate if we wish and would be equally functional in the UK as in the similar countries that have created/ adopted them already. If the UK takes the appropriate actions to reform healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure, international trade and its tax system then living standards will start to rise again. If it doesn’t then they won’t. If the electorate is so idiotic that it continually allows its politicians to implement policies that accelerate the decline then obviously that is what will continue to happen. And if it votes in Reform then this will happen on fast forward.

It matches the intellectual snobbery of those offering to build houses on sand and wondering why nobody in their right mind is buying.

Human nature being what it is, there will always be grifters. Of course I don't think there aren't. 🙄 But it's a problem when people start to tar those of us with genuine disabilities with the same brush, don't you think?

If I got £10 for every time the article about the lady who claimed PIP and was seen zip lining in Mexico was posted on here, I would have enough to not claim UC anymore.
And then people think anyone on benefits for MH is the same, and look at everyone on them with the same suspicion.

This is a massive exaggeration - of course not every family or street has them. On many streets and in many families nobody is even on benefits if you take state pensions out of the equation. And this just illustrates how determined some people are to push a false and damaging narrative.

I was watching another thread yesterday extolling the virtues of pushing through anxiety triggers - exposure therapy if you will - and getting a warm glow of pride and achievement. Now I'm not knocking the idea for some things. I powered through my flying phobia on a bottle of red wine and practicalky kissed the run way and the cabin crew some 15 years ago. I never enjoyed flying, but I did it.

Now I'm gripped by OCD based anxiety triggered by multiple traumatic bereavements in a relatively short space of time - 6 years - DM and DH within 18 months, then last year my DF, DMIL and an Uncle between April and July . I can just about mentally cope with the concept of losing the elderly and terminally ill, however, if anything happened to my offspring, my cats, or my dwelling place, it would be a different kettle of fish that I might not come back from.

And this is the problem - every person's situation and experience is unique - quoting resilience and powering through when despite all the theoretical will in the world, our brains are working against us and things are complex, doesn't take into account the time it takes to yet again try and rewire. And that professional support to do it is hard to come by if you're not flush with cash.

I really don't want to have to unplug everything apart from the fridge and smart meter, and check my doors are locked umpteen times every time I leave the house, but if I don't, I spend however long I'm out disengaged and fretting and trying to hide it because I know how irrational it is. I am working on it though.

I have no idea who in my street is on benefits or not.
It is a MN thing where they overhear people bragging about it all the time.
I am on benefits and most of the people I know are too. We never talk about benefits as we have more interesting things to talk about.

I don't know any. My family don't have them either. My mum is a pensioner and my brother works full time. I'm sure every town has them. Not every family or every street. But - if you think disability benefits are easy to get - try and apply for them. Adp is a better process because the Scottish govt have made the decision to treat people fairly - but lwcra can be completely horrible and there is no low bar for claiming either. Gone are the days people rocked up with a fit note. And do you know what. Why should genuine people always be reminded that some people are not genuine. That has nothing to do with me. It's the fault of the assessors giving them the benefits

Or being told that the genuine will get more money if the fraudsters were stopped. That is not how the system works.

I don't either. There's one family across the road from me that I assume are on benefits - they are in private rented accommodation, but that's it. The only other reason I know some neighbours were on benefits is that I used to live in a housing scheme where around 80 per cent of people lived in poverty (according to figures) - some people worked but a lot didn't

I know one girl two doors down is on benefits because she told me

At the moment I get around 1k a month in disability benefits but that will be reviewed soon and I expect it to drop to 280 pounds a month or zero. When people talk about people getting all they can get. There were very specific reasons why I got those benefits. I didn't just wake up one morning and go - do you know what. I'm going to fiddle the system today. And it took five years of trying before I got them - if people think it's easy

Most people who commit Pip fraud do so because they don't tell the dwp that they have recovered. It's not that they should not have got them in the first place

These graphs may be of interest. Participation in society and employment of those with autism, and of those with severe mental health conditions, has hugely increased over the decades, not decreased as G-Beebies and other tabloids will attempt to tell you.

More support IMPROVES people’s life changes, economic participation and enables more of them to become productive members of society paying tax. This enables us to support those who cannot work at all because their disabilities are so severe. This is why PIP exists: to enable people to participate in society to the greatest extent possible. Cut support and you will see MORE people unable to work and therefore have lower tax revenue and a higher welfare bill. Again, the data does not lie.

This is also why the Government’s latest project to try to cut support to disabled children in schools is absurd. Aside from the moral issue, it will cost many magnitudes more money than it saves in future lost tax revenue; higher housing, welfare and justice costs, as well as making mainstream school even more disrupted for non-disabled children for whom it would be appropriate if those who require different educational provision were not being forced to be in their classrooms instead.

Obviously the figures are impacted by other variable economic factors not captured in these simplified graphs, but the fact is that the proportion of those with autism, or with severe mental health conditions, who are in employment has continued to rise throughout the last few decades and continues to do so now. A higher proportion are in employment than ever before.

The false narrative being fed to the public by Farage and his ilk, and more recently by Badenoch and Bridget Phillipson, is not supported by the data at all: it is an outright lie.

As well as this economic data, there are also robust scientific studies showing that the prevalence of mental health conditions in younger generations is declining because of better parenting and support. Diagnosis rates have increased because previously many of these issues used to be ignored, which made them get more severe. But the actual outcomes are better now that more people are diagnosed and there is more understanding and support and as a result fewer people have difficulties so severe that they cannot work at all (which would have been the case regardless of the issue not being diagnosed, hence the rising employment rates since these issues weren’t hidden away and are now taken seriously). The increase in diagnosis is therefore demonstrably a positive thing, not just for the individuals involved but for society and tax revenue and to decrease the burden on state services over the long term.

Clearly services are still completely inadequate and need vastly improving (see my earlier posts about redirecting public spending to services that will improve productivity and growth and therefore reduce the tax burden and result in rising living standards) but the data shows quite clearly that improved diagnosis and recognition raises employment levels.

It’s absolutely insane that anybody is still parroting this “we can’t afford to support people with autism/ neurodiversity/ mental health issues” when the data shows the complete opposite: we can’t afford not to do this. Aside from the morality, every pound spent on this has many times the benefit to the economy.

Economic theory is not binary.

Starting with pensions is flawed IMO. People have contributed over decades under a clear promise: pay in for long enough and you receive a state pension. By the time individuals reach retirement, their ability to adapt to rule changes is limited. Retrospective shifts undermine trust, penalise prudence, and weaken the very incentives the system relies on.

Claims that a large share of pensioners are “millionaires” are also misleading. Those figures usually refer to household wealth, not individual, and are largely tied up in property and pension valuations, not accessible income. For many, this represents stability, a supportive community, continuity in health care provision as well as a home and/or predictable income. Not unlimited spending power.

Wealth within households is also uneven. Often one partner holds the pension assets while the other, frequently women who have taken time out of work or entered later‑life relationships, has little independent provision. That does not mean both individuals are financially secure.

The system already draws heavily on private assets. A significant proportion of social care, roughly a quarter to a third, depending on estimates, is generated by self funded through house sales and private pensions. c£10bn+, allegedly, in costs the state does not have to cover. We ae just simply shifting that liability back onto public finances over time.

The international comparison are built on sand. France and Australia face similar demographic pressures and rising costs. Our French neighbours raised the retirement age in 2023 - it triggering significant public unrest/ riots. Australia has even more of a buffer but still faces the same pressure. Neither one has discovered a solution, they are just slowly pulling up on our rear.

We are not growing the overall economic pot; just redistributing a constrained one with significant leakage. The really wealthy have much of their wealth locked in assets and structures that do not translate cleanly into taxable domestic revenue. If returns flow out of the UK economy not around it, what good is that for us? Homes and pensions have wide ripple effects across saving behaviour, care provision, and household stability. Weakening the link between deferred satisfaction and security in later life does not solve the problem, it creates new ones to kick down the line for the younger generations to catch.

There is no magic pension lever that fixes this. Nor any one country that has solved it all. The deeper issues lie in the capability of leadership, innovation, productivity, wage growth, and how money circulates within the economy or flows out of it.

The irony of your academic smugness and pride in being the data laden one source of truth when there are very few topics all economists fully agree on.

How many economists/ people who working in economics does it take to change a light bulb? Ten - and you’ll get ten different answers, all backed by data.

Just saw this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/05/05/one-million-children-claiming-disability-benefits-next-year/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_photo_claiming-disability-benefits-next-year/

To me, this says children/young people need more support.
But that just is not happening.

But WHY do children/young people need more support? Why?

Because if they do not get support when younger, they grow into adults that struggle and maybe can not work.

Ask any parent waiting for help from CAMHS.

Parents of boys with a behavioural disorder are almost twice as likely to claim disability benefits than those of girls. However, the increase in claims has been much faster among girls, particularly teenagers and children aged four to five, with claims rising sixfold since the pandemic.

This is an interesting paragraph for me. If the increase in diagnoses was due to scrounging there wouldn't be a difference in claim rates between the sexes. Why would parents of boys have twice the propensity to scrounge as the parents of girls? To me it seems more likely that boys present as more extreme cases with more consequences for others and so the same conditions are experienced by their families more as disabilities. Which isn't to say that the girls aren't as badly affected, but families are claiming out of need.

What do people on this thread make of the idea of a wealth tax? I've just watched Gary's Economics voting video and he thinks we should all vote Green as they're the only party with a strong policy on this. I do think we need more money - and that we shouldn't be denying money to disabled people. I don't know if a wealth tax would work but a large part of me feels that if we can work out how to get to the moon we can work out how to tax the superrich, even if it's complicated. And yes, I know countries that have tried wealth taxes haven't had great success but there have been so few of them it's not much to go on.

Where is the wealth bracket, what sum would trigger it? What level of worth would the tax start? Because according to MN anyone not on breadline is wealrhy, at the same time only those over 10mil worth are wealthy. Muddy, eh.

Gary is talking about taxing the genuinely super rich, not ordinary earners or much of the middle class. Yet Labour ministers are talking about “average incomes” as c £39k and defining “working people” as basically anyone with a pay slip". £39k doesn't go fair in many parts of the country, let alone London. Study hard, go to university (as they encouraged people to do) build a career, take on more responsibility, and you become the easy "broad shouldered" target. Then politicians wonder why so many productive people no longer feel motivated to go the extra mile.

Most people accept the need for taxation and public services. The frustration is that governments repeatedly ask for more while making too little effort to spend existing resources efficiently or address deeper structural problems. Too often the cycle becomes raise taxes, spend inefficiently, run out of money, then come back for more, all while framing it as "fairness" rather than serious long term economic reform...