Social security spending out of control?

[Wizeman]

The UK spends about £334 billion on social security. Around £177 billion of that goes on pensions, which as a young person I’d definitely want when I’m older — especially if I’ve worked all my life and paid into the system. What I don’t understand is why some younger people are against older people getting a pension, because one day they’ll want one too.

About £145 billion goes towards working-age benefits, which is a massive amount of money. Around £76 billion of that is for disabled people, which I think is fair and necessary. But you hear so many stories about people taking advantage of the system, and a lot of those stories turn out to be true.

They say about 1 in 3 people in Britain are on some kind of benefit. I’ve personally been in hospital with serious injuries and had operations that put me out of work for months, and it never crossed my mind to claim benefits. I’ve also been out of work for about a year before while working towards getting a new job, and I just lived off my savings.

That said, I’ll be honest — I’ve always had support from my parents, like being able to stay at their house. I know not everyone has that kind of support.

But it does feel like fewer people want to work and some would rather claim benefits.
I also don’t think removing the two-child benefit cap will really solve the problem.
In Poland, for example, people get tax breaks for having kids, which encourages people to work.

Either way, £334 billion just sounds like an insane amount of money to me.

I think landlords?

1. *Why are you so certain younger generations will not get a pension?

They won’t get the pension in the same way as today’s pensioners. The age has increased already despite no increase in healthy life expectancy.
Why do you think there won’t be further reform @Katypp? very few countries have the same system as us.

You presumably are paying NI so would you be OK with no pension at the end of your working life (I am well aware there is no 'pot' earmaked for me and today's pensions are being paid by today's workers, so no one needs to explain that to me thanks)

Realistically how can I stop the government increasing the age or making it means tested regardless of how unhappy I am about it?

What you've posted is different to what you've claimed - a significant proportion of tax evaders are cash in hand workers but I appreciate you taking the time to post that information - thank you.

No 3 being the case, and notwithstanding the ratios of workers to pensioners increasing, why are some MNetters so against the principle of this to the point of shocking agism? What would their solution be?

But what is the solution with the demographics?

Acknowledging the demographic shift isn’t ageism.

I didn't mention tax evaders? I referred to (as of now) legal benefit claimants.

R Reeves is wittering about Help for families as fuel prices rise - I mean we are up to the neck in debt and barely covering the interest payments yet more tax payers’ and borrowed money is going to go to ‘hard working families’ but of course they won’t be allowed to ignore shivering pensioners or the poor on benefits - this ‘generosity’ running us further into debt as a country has to stop.

Apologies - wrong poster.

No it's not. But endless threads about 'greedy boomers' going on 100 holidays a year and refusing to bail out their adult children who can't afford a holiday is shocking agism and it is the way threads like this one always end up.

There are just as many comments about lazy entitled snowflakes or whatever young people are called now on the forum. But why get angry about comments that aren’t even on this thread?

@Katypp so what is the solution with the changing demographics?

I thought she was particularly talking about households with bulk LPG tanks.

They are not protected by the Ofgem price caps and are already getting hammered. Some mumsnetters have posted about this.

It seems fair that there should be a price cap for those households too?

@Wizeman

55% of that IS pensions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance

My solution would be EVERYONE pays tax and NI regardless of how the money ends up in their bank account. A tax free allowance as there is now, then parity across the board.
Wages, pensions, UC, pip, child maintenence, the lot.
There is no reason why workers should be taxed and those on UC with maintenence are not. Once you hit the tax-free limit, you are taxed at source.
UC and pension credit are gateways to so many things, yet incomes can vary wildly.
My husband is in a low-paid job now (redundant at 63), yet he pays tax on the small amout he makes above the allowance. His income is about £1500 a month, well within the boundaries of UC payments, yet no tax is due on them. Why is that?
Why can one parent claim full UC as a single parent then get money on top in maintenence which is disregarded and no tax to pay?
Benefits should have the same rules as pensions - any more income than the rax-free allowance and tax is payable.

Surely if you are severely disabled, you are getting looked after by family or nursing home so dont need benefits.

if people are getting UC for housing costs and childcare costs end up paying more tax they will likely need more benefit money so Im
not sure how that works

So you would make capital gains etc in line with income tax?

Tax DLA & AA?

what about IHT?

Of course you would need benefits, how else can families provide care?

Severely disabled people need to be fed, clothed, kept warm, have small luxuries. They may want to have a social life. Go on holiday.

We need to be a bit more hard-headed about this as a nation. Simply handing out cash to the elderly is economically deeply unproductive, whereas mitigating the circumstances of children in poverty might actually save some money in the long term. The balance needs to shift decisively.

Whole country needs fixing, how can so much go wrong in just 20 years 🤔

Want is very different from need. Surely benefits are for needs not wants.

Or the whole system needs a change. Instead of giving people money for shooting out babies why dont we give families tax cuts. This would make people want to work, make those who cant yet afford kids hold off until they can. Work's well in Poland. Make it so people get the maximum amount of tax cuts when they have 2 kids, this would solve the aging population problem and would make people try and work for better jobs.

It’s unpalatable but we can’t improve productivity unless we invest in the youth.

@Wizeman it won’t solve the demographics, no country has reversed birth rates once below replacement rate. Much of the west has the same problem.

it started before that but we never recovered from the 08 crash and governments and business stopped investing in infrastructure, employees etc the can was kicked down the road but we are running out if road.