To wonder on the future of generous welfare in the UK

[happybug1234]

It seems increasingly obvious that many middle-income families are becoming frustrated at how squeezed they are financially, while at the same time seeing people on universal credit receive a growing range of subsidies and support — £1 attraction tickets on days out, a 6% rise in benefits this financial year, childcare costs reclaimable through Universal Credit, housing benefit, and so on. I see thread after thread on this on this site and also increasing momentum in the media on this issue (income cliff edges etc)

In my own extended family, 1 unemployed parent with the other on min wage, in social housing appear to have more holidays and more disposable income than we do, despite us both working full time with a household income of around £95k. Once childcare, mortgage, insurances, commuting and tax are taken into account, we 100% have a lower level of disposable income than they do as they do not have any of these work related costs and their rent is paid. They have recently gone on a 2 week holiday whilst the most we can ever afford is 1 week.

Quite a few teachers in my friendship circle are declining promotion opportunities or TLR because the extra pay often doesn’t feel worth the additional stress once tax, pension contributions and childcare costs are factored in. Instead, some are putting more effort into private tutoring, which is tax free cash in hand.

What is stopping the government from addressing this as people seek to be responding accordingly in their behaviour!

But you haven’t contributed anything meaningful. That doesn’t make me the “thread police” for highlighting that 👍

If it makes you feel better, my lifestyle on UC is shit.

Well, I’m obviously not aiming my comment at you.

Most don't though. So if we were to envisage an average UC claimant then they wouldn't be working.

Considering how many things are lumped together to make up UC, I'm not entirely sure there's such a thing as an average UC claimant as circumstances can differ so much despite claiming the same benefit.

This is a well known tactic on threads like this. Someone will suggest that lots of benefits claimants have a relatively good lifestyle. Not perfect, but better than their working counterparts. You then get people suggesting:

1/ their particular circumstances are crap. I'm sure they are but lots of non benefit claimants have to work and have a crap lifestyle.

2/ they only get benefits because they're disabled and you can't criticise them unless you would swap places with them. Complete red herring as it's impossible and irrelevant. Most people wouldn't choose to be disabled but it doesn't mean that we offer everyone who is disabled limitless benefits.

Exactly.
It is why it is infuriating when people post on here saying UC claimants are "entitled, lazy, workshy" etc etc.
UC includes sick/disabled, and people caring for disabled family.
It also includes people actively looking for work... for the "generous" sum of less than £100pw to live on.

how many of you all would prefer pre welfare state and yet still be taxed the same ? and pay for the nhs etc

Well there is no average of anything then by your definition. Everyone is living unique and individual lives with often very specific circumstances. We can't target the 'rich' or higher earners with specific policies as they might not be as rich or wealthy as you imagine.

The point is if you target a benefit or concession to those that claim Universal Credit then most people that are eligible will not be working. This is fact! What kind of messaging is this sending to those who could claim but do all that they can to work and contribute what they can? What's the bloody point? You end up barely better off financially and miss out on all the side benefits that claiming UC provides.

This is too simplistic. Out of all the UC claimants who aren’t working, about 50% of them are not able to due to significant health issues or caring responsibilities. The “average claimant” isn’t just “someone who isn’t working”.

There’s always people saying train up, go to uni etc
like I haven’t been to uni just because I’m in a low paid job! I already have a degree
people seem to think low pay equals no qualifications

The point is on threads like this, the assumption is that all people on UC are the same. If they don't work, they are clearly lazy and the many other things said on this thread which lumps those on UC together.

No it's not. Those people aren't working. This is fact.

Whether we should have 50% of UC claimants as carers or too sick to work is a whole other kettle of fish that we won't open on this thread. Needless to say that there is a large school of thought that many more people are capable of work than those stats suggest

I hope your circumstances improve (highly unlikely) but I just feel so sad that many people just exist with little possibilities to improve their life and its rather short and unfulfiling for those with chronic illnesses.
Honestly, I'm not normally this much of a downer but it's one of those days and threads like these are a depressing read.

I do understand some anger i.e. I read online/newspaper; two disabled parents with X amount of disabled children, who then get carers for each other or their children and its a hell alot of money but I think thats a very tiny minority or those that exaggerate their illness but I feel we should be looking at welfare bill in different way (Why are companies not paying a living wage, rent being so high, not paying for more then two children, should everyone be getting a state pension, state pension age, etc).

I can see the welfare system isn't sustainable but I dont know the answer but I know im not feeling very flush- compared to when I was working.

Life was much better when I could work. I miss the life I used to have.

Feel like im derailing the thread a little but 100%. The social side of work, having a purpose, opportunity, credit cards, self worth, the list is endless.

I really wish you and your son all the best.

Better if in what way? You still need somewhwre to live and if you get sick they will take your house

Also it’s not a secure asset is it? If I lose my job and default on the mortgage, I’ll lose my home and my credit score will be demolished.

People in social housing have had more disposable income than those with a mortgage since at least the 1980's- my next door neighbour sent her son to private school, we both have partners and lowish paying jobs- how could they afford it and we couldn't - we had a morgage and they are council tenants.
There is nothing new about this.

Thank you, what I don’t think people realise too is how frustrating it is even for people on benefits as I remember going to uni as a single parent and working for years to achieve professional qualifications and knowing during all the sacrifices along the way that once had higher paying job I wouldn’t be any better off anyway due to how the tax and benefits system worked

There is so much anger on this thread and it mirrors how people are feeling in real life unfortunalty. If someone is able to claim legally then they are doing nothing wrong. However we have to face facts that we cannot afford a spiralling welfare bill which is up by 57 billion in 2 years and projected to continue to rise. For the first time in recent history, the government is projected to spend more on the total welfare bill than it collects in income tax. Why would a government lift the 2 children cap? Its shocking really. Where or how do we plug the gap? Health services and education to name a few are suffering as a consequence.

And this is why I won’t be voting for Labour in the next GE.

I would like you to take a glimpse at my world born with a disability. I can’t work and have carers in 6 hours a day. I would do anything to be in your position imagine being born with out a disability how lucky are you. And we aren’t rolling in it. Just wish this benefits bashing would stop don’t you think I feel crap enough as it is with out this constant benefit bashing. If you are that upset stop working claim benefits and see what life is really like.

Official stats report that, as of the end of 2025, nearly 40% of UC claimants worked. You're correct that 40% is not the majority; but it is a significant minority.

If you look at the remaining group, 49% are not required to work due to health conditions or caring responsibilities. We should be examining how we can help that 49%, not penalise them further. If the State were to actually take on caring responsibilities, it would cost significantly more than the pittance a carer is eligible to claim, but would probably improve the mental and physical health of carers, as well as their financial present and future. I'd be delighted if the State provided adequate, safe support that allowed carers to work. What about you?

What about those who can't work due to ill health? 1 in 4 people in the UK is disabled. I haven't seen a breakdown of conditions (if one even exists) but it may very well be possible for some people to work, with greater support and a society designed for the most vulnerable first.

Whilst a very small percentage (2.2%) of claimants may under-report income or commit fraud in some other way, the others are a product of society. If we don't support women, value and fund childcare, education and healthcare, then what else can we expect to see but an increase in those in need?

THIS is what we should be debating and working towards - what do we actually want for society in the next 50 - 100 years? Some people would clearly prefer to continue down the individualist route - which, unless you are born into (and retain) extreme wealth, is ultimately always doomed to fail. I'd rather we had politicians and a society that felt it was important to support those in need and understood that you can't grow a nation without a strong, educated workforce, which means support for women, education, training, apprenticeship and healthcare.

As for the ticket prices decided by private organisations, I don't see these as moral or ethical issue. Businesses decide what is viable for them to continue running. If part of their costs if covered by grants (which is the case for many charities), then they are required to meet certain targets/charitable aims, which often include ensuring as many people as possible can visit. If you want to highlight a moral element or a message, it is that a broad education should not be the privilege of the wealthy. (To add some more context, if we look at just one popular attraction in London which had nearly 3 million visitors last year, only 100,000 used the UC scheme for reduced price entry. That's approx. 1% of all UC users. Some attractions will clearly be more popular than others, but I imagine the usage figures will be roughly similar. So it's hardly a scheme being exploited by those lapping up a life of UC luxury.)

I very much doubt anyone begrudges a penny you receive or the tax they pay to enable anything that may make your life a little more comfortable. A large part of the welfare bill however goes on basically creating a communist state (certainly for many people with children) and that’s what people are resentful of, not so much when they were not struggling to give their own children basic opportunities but being taxed as if you don’t have children in an increasingly high tax, high cost society undoubtedly breeds resentment