To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

My parents emigrated in their mid thirties and have never lived in the UK since. They are both late sixties now, and somehow are both still eligible for a UK pension, and are claiming it now, in addition to a pension in the country they moved to.

They don't need this money but are perfectly happy and smug about claiming it. This sort of crap needs to stop - the country can't afford it.

As a SENd parent, I am completely uninterested in how much faith the public has in my child’s entitlement to DLA, or whether they think people are “taking the mickey.”

I’m a busy woman, most of us are, and I have absolutely no interest in proving his entitlement to anything, beyond what we already have to do and the various hoops we have to jump through.

If all we would achieve at the end of it is strangers being happier he’s in receipt of disability benefit - consider me not interested.

No, you are wrong.

what is needed is for tech giants plus Starbucks and others (vision express, spec savers) who indulge in offshoring of profits to be dealt with.

are you one of farages or kemis stooges?

Exactly how I feel too.

That has me wondering about my ex. He left for Nordic realms at 40. Will he be able to claim a UK state pension?

It sounds like you think people just go to their GP once, then get PIP.

I don't.
Not scoring 4 points in any one area of Daily Living meant you would not get that element at all. And the plan is for anyone not claiming Daily Living to be considered fit for work, even if they are on the maximum Mobility element, and score 2s across everything else... and those people could be severely disabled.

It sounds like you don't let the facts get in the way of a good delusion. I guess that's tribalism for you.

They probably paid national insurance contributions for about 20 years though so would be eligible for some (but not a full) uk pension

I don't get my facts from the Daily Mail.

The ones that OP's fortunate enough not to have to claim.

Why not look at the cost to taxpayers of public sector pensions - around £57 billion per annum? There seem to be various estimates of the liabilities now - but £2.6 trillion is one figure I’ve come across several times. About 100% of GDP. It’s the government’s second biggest liability after gilts!

Taxpayers are funding on average 25 - 30% of the employer’s contribution cost in the public sector, when employers make a 6% contribution on average in the private sector.

Why should taxpayers fund pensions for other people, when they themselves don’t get the same?

I’m guessing some in the public sector employees are on NMW like TAs or hospital porters, health care assistants, etc; but a fair few like doctors, nurses, social workers, managers, etc will be earning far more.

Why pick on disabled people, who are likely to have less income than the posters on here baying for benefit cuts; when public sector pensions could be cut to the private sector level?

As for this “the country can’t afford it” - who says? Welfare spending has been between 11 - 13% of GDP in the UK in recent times. DWP spending is 10.6% of GDP at the moment. Less than other countries in Europe, and certainly not out of control!

@XenoBitch if you only get 2/ 3 across the board your not severely disabled… and pip is an in work benefit anyway

Read:

https://share.google/QtwBITIBTvGtbmcyn

Sorry, they estimate welfare spending to be 10.8% of GDP!

I said upthread how PIP should not be a measure of how disabled someone is anyway.... and treated like Top Trumps where people call out the various points and money amounts. Many disabled people do not claim at all for various reasons. I did not for years. I was even told on here that I could not be disabled if I was not on PIP.

Yes, it is in work, but there were (maybe still are) plans to abolish the WCA (and LCW/LCWRA) and link PIP to the ability to work.

Look at the profits of the energy companies since privatisation:

https://share.google/8nqkmf2fh47y0TZLx

It’s estimated that in 2024, they made £30 billion in profit - that’s an average of £500 per household pa.

If those companies were still nationalised, your energy bills could be that much lower or those profits could be used to reduce taxes?

Why bleat on how the disabled have to take cuts in income, when you are all paying over the odds for your energy to line shareholders profits?

No, I’m not in favour of taking money from needy people to undertake fighting.

I am crying tears from Thames Water.

You are wrong I have not "picked on disabled people", but that's not what I've done. I've questioned the reliability of a specific claim. Challenging a statistic is not the same as criticising the people statistic relates to. Across this thread I have been pretty clear on where I stand.

These debates often descend into tribalism and ideology, with people defending spending they support and attacking spending they oppose. That makes it harder to have an honest conversation about the broader fiscal challenges facing the country and the difficult choices that come with them.

No area of public spending should be beyond scrutiny. The question, "Is this the best use of limited resources?" should be the acid test for welfare spending, just as it should be for defence, healthcare, public sector pensions, debt interest and every other area of government spending.

And questioning how money is spent is not an attack on the people who receive it. It is a legitimate part of deciding how finite public resources should be allocated, particularly when economic growth is so low and there are many competing needs.

It's never simply a question of whether something represents 1% or 10% of spending. Accountants talk about materiality, but what may be immaterial in a set of accounts can still be highly material in the real world. Millions of pounds can fund social housing, improve public services, reduce borrowing or support infrastructure investment. Dismissing an amount as "only 1%" does not make it insignificant.

The trade-offs we face are difficult because successive governments have failed to deliver meaningful, sustainable economic growth. That is what people should be focused on, not arguing about whether disabled people are more deserving than pensioners, or vice versa. Those debates may generate plenty of emotion, but they do little to address the underlying problem. Without stronger growth, everybody ultimately loses.

@XenoBitch Do better.

This should be paid for with higher taxes. The average brit goes on 4 holidays a year according to ABTA, 2 of them international, with many people going on 5, 6, 7 or even 8 holidays a year. Money should not be taken from people who have no means of working and desperately need this support when the average person has so much extra money.

I say go with your first idea. Pensioners are bankrupting the NHS too. We bandied ‘aging population’ around with no real clue of how crippling it would be.

I doubt you are, but there was a poster on a similar thread that said anyone of pension age should not be offered any sort of life saving/prolonging treatment.
DM is a pensioner, still works full time, and is in good health. She is healthier and fitter than me! But if she found she had cancer, she should just offered palliate care and left to die.

@Lastofthesummerwines you could start a business and pay people higher wages?

I have several hidden disabilities. I've never found a WFH job that I can do because they've all required either that I'm available for a certain number of hours each week or that I'm available at certain hours. I can't do either. I never know when I'll be able to use a computer or phone.

I often spend most of the day on a computer because I have balance problems and I often fall when I walk. But I can't always read and I can't always type. When I can read, I read slowly because I have a few vision problems. I type slowly because I have coordination problems (due to having had a spinal cord tumour and several head injuries) and Tourette's, which is hidden unless I'm actively ticcing. (It is generally well controlled but can unexpectedly make it impossible to complete tasks.) I may not be able to concentrate due to pain, tiredness (from several disabilities), or ADHD. My CPTSD can also make it very hard to concentrate on tasks and interrupts my sleep, which affects me the next day. When I'm tired, my vision is often blurrier and my coordination, memory, concentration, and cognitive function are worse.

If I could find a WFH job that let me work completely flexible hours, I'd jump at it. But that's like gold dust, and I'd be at the back of the queue.

Everyone with hidden disabilities is different. Each person has their own limitations, even if you can't see them and might not notice unless you know them well.

Stop giving money to illegals,
Stop paying humongous hotel bills
Stop paying for their 3 meals a day
Stop spending millions on translators
Stop sending billions to other countries