Government accused of prioritising pensioners over children
A gulf between government spending on pensioners and children has widened by 170pc in the past two decades, new research suggests.
Last year, public spending per pensioner was £12,600 higher than it was per child, according to a report by think tank the Intergenerational Foundation.
It reveals spending on pensioners has increased by more than half in the past two decades, while the amount of taxpayer cash devoted to children has lagged.
Between 2004 and 2024, spending on retirees went up by 55pc in real terms, while children saw an increase of just 20pc during the same period, the report said.
Analysis showed taxpayers spent £31,000 per pensioner last year compared with £18,000 per child, while working-age adults cost £14,000.
It comes after Rachel Reeves reversed her decision to strip most pensioners of the £200 winter fuel payment following a months-long public outcry.
Liz Emerson, chief executive of the International Foundation, said government policy is overly favourable to pensioners because they are a key voting constituency.
She said: 'Welcome, though rapid, ageing has expanded the welfare state for the old while support has been largely withdrawn from the young. Add the power of the grey vote, and it is all too tempting for governments to respond to older generations' wants, irrespective of their actual need.'
She added this increasingly contrasted with societal difficulties faced by younger people.
'Younger generations face a polycrisis of low government investment, high housing costs, low welfare support, and high taxation.
'The fact that birth rates are falling may well indicate that younger generations do not believe they can provide the economic stability needed to bring up a family.'
The research divided government spending on public services like the NHS, state pension, education and social care by the number of children, working-age adults and pensioners in the country.
Britain's birthrate recently fell to a record low. The official fertility rate for England and Wales is 1.44 births per woman, significantly less than the 2.1 required to maintain population size.
Figures published at the end of last year showed that the number of children born to British mothers had fallen by a quarter in 15 years. It suggests many more women are putting off having children, amid rising cost of living.
The increase in state spending on pensioners has been partly driven by the pensions triple lock, which links state pension payments to inflation, wage growth or 2.5pc depending on whatever is highest.
Between 2011 and 2025, the state pension for those who reached retirement age before 2016 rose from £102.15 to £169.50 per week, a 66pc increase. Those who hit retirement age after 2016 saw weekly payments go up from £155.65 to £221.20.
The report concluded that the triple lock was not 'intergenerationally fair' amid a growing ageing population, referencing Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projections that government spending on the state pension will increase from around 4.9pc of GDP last year to 7.9pc by 2074.
It added that pension poverty had declined significantly in recent decades, from 28pc in 1995 to 16pc in 2023. Meanwhile, child poverty has remained consistently high with only a marginal decrease from 32pc to 30pc during the same period.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK economy shrunk by worse-than-expected 0.3% in April, ONS reveals, in bitter blow to Rachel Reeves
The UK economy shrank by 0.3% in April, it was revealed on Thursday, in a blow to Chancellor Rachel Reeves as her spending review comes under growing scrutiny. The latest GDP figures revealed by the Office for National Statistics is worse than the 0.1% fall expected by economists. Responding to the news, Ms Reeves acknowledged they were 'clearly disappointing' but insisted her spending review, delivered to MPs on Wednesday, would help deliver growth. The Chancellor said: 'Our number one mission is delivering growth to put more money in people's pockets through our Plan for Change, and while these numbers are clearly disappointing, I'm determined to deliver on that mission. 'In yesterday's spending review we set out how we'll deliver jobs and growth - whether that's improving city region transport, a record investment in affordable homes or funding Sizewell C nuclear power station. We're investing in Britain's renewal to make working people better off.' Speaking on Sky News, the Chancellor admitted April was a 'challenging month' but said the data was 'perhaps not entirely unexpected' given uncertainty around tariffs. Breaking news. This article is being updated.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Spending Review treats London as a one-way cash cow — again
The Chancellor took us on a breezy whistle-stop tour of the entire United Kingdom in her spending review statement to Parliament. Few corners of the realm were ignored as Rachel Reeves name-checked the towns and cities that will benefit from her defence, health and infrastructure spending largesse over the coming years. Lincoln, Portsmouth, Rosyth, Glasgow, Stevenage, Barrow, Derby, Blackpool and Sheffield all got a shout out as she ran MPs through some of the greatest hits of her £1.4 trillion annual sending plans. But, as has become the pattern over recent chancellor statements, there was scant mention of London, the metropolis of nine million people and economic superpower that generates much of the tax revenues she will be busily handing out over the next four years of the Parliament. The oversight did not come as a great surprise. London Labour council leaders who visited Downing Street for briefings in the run up to the spending review came away stony-faced after being told by unsmiling Treasury ministers that they were having to make 'difficult decisions' in a very tough economic environment. But without the capital firing on all cylinders, there is no hope of the UK achieving the growth that Keir Starmer and Reeves promised the nation. London is the golden goose. The oversight did not come as a great surprise Latest ONS figures showed the public sector raised £216.4bn of revenue from London taxpayers in 2023, while public spending only totalled £172.8bn in the capital. That £43.6bn annual fiscal surplus — it will be bigger this year — helps funds the spending programmes that the Chancellor outlined in her speech. By contrast, Scottish taxpayers raised just £86.8bn but £105.4bn of public money was spent north of the border, a fiscal deficit of £18.6bn. It was the same story in the north-west where tax revenues were £95.2bn, while spending totalled £130.1bn, a deficit of £34.9bn. There is nothing wrong with that. It is only right and fair that regeneration resources should be focused on those regions that have been allowed to decline so drastically since the great de-industrialisation of the Thatcher years. But London has its own acute deprivation problems too and without investment in its own housing, policing and transport infrastructure, the city will lose its status as Europe's pre-eminent metropolis, attracting the talent and capital that the UK economy depends on. Sadiq Khan promised that the election of a Labour government would lead to a new era of peaceful coexistence between City Hall and Downing Street after the scratchy years dealing with an unsympathetic Tory chancellor. But there is no disguising the disappointment from the Mayor. A glass half full view is that it could have been worse; the £2.2bn long-term funding settlement for Transport for London was better than feared. But as the Mayor laid bare in his reaction statement, 'this spending review could result in insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers.' He added: 'It's also disappointing that there is no commitment today from the Treasury to invest in the new infrastructure London needs. Projects such as extending the Docklands Light Railway not only deliver economic growth across the country, but also tens of thousands of new affordable homes and jobs for Londoners. Unless the Government invests in infrastructure like this in our capital, we will not be able to build the numbers of new affordable homes Londoners need.' Those are scarcely the words of the grateful recipient of bounty from his friends at the Treasury. The spending review also detailed how the machinery of government will continue to be ripped out of London and transferred to the provinces in a huge decentralisation programme. Over the next five years ministers plan to relocate 12,000 civil service roles out of the capital and 'have 50 per cent of UK-based senior civil servants in regional offices across the UK.' Sir Humphrey may have to get used to living in Harrogate rather than Hampstead. Over the same period 11 central London offices will be closed, including 102 Petty France and 39 Victoria Street. Perhaps more significant are plans to overhaul the long-standing cost-benefit rules for investment decisions that apparently have favoured London and the south-east over the rest of the country. That sends a very clear message that public investment allocations are now likely to prioritise 'levelling up' in the regions rather than maximising returns in London — at least for the next four years. So forget Crossrail 2, and do not hold out too much hope for Hammersmith Bridge ever being fixed. The anti-London tone of today's statement may make good politics. The MP for Leeds West and Pudsey will be only too aware of the existential threat posed to Labour from the Reform party forces gathering in the Red Wall towns and cities of the Midlands and the North. She needs to give those voters reasons to back Labour again in 2029 or 2030. The country can only thrive if London keeps pumping out the tax revenues While Reform is growing in strength in the capital the Government still believes it can rely on London to deliver MPs to the Labour benches at the next general election. But does it make good economics? The country can only thrive — that spending only be made, that investment only committed — if London keeps pumping out the tax revenues that pays for it. But there are worrying signs that London is feeling pressures of its own, from the flight of young families that are emptying its schools to the exodus of tech companies from the City's stock market. The alarming reality is that the Chancellor's trip round the country handing out money also certainly means she will have to ask for more tax increases in the autumn Budget. Whether that comes in the form of a further extension of income tax thresholds, which inevitably has a bigger impact in higher earning areas such as the capital, or restoring the pension lifetime allowance, as suggested by Angela Rayner, London and Londoners will bear the brunt. London has been treated as cash cow by successive chancellors ever since the financial crash. Sooner or later there will have to be some give as well as take. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Britain morphing into ‘National Health State', says think tank
Britain is turning into a 'National Health State', a think tank has said after the Chancellor gave the NHS a major funding boost in her spending review. The health service was the big winner of Wednesday's spending review, receiving an extra £29 billion per year for day-to-day spending and more cash for capital investment. Overnight, the Resolution Foundation said Rachel Reeves's announcements had followed a recent trend that saw increases for the NHS come at the expense of other public services. Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said: 'Health accounted for 90% of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.' Defence was another of Wednesday's winners, Ms Curtice said, receiving a significant increase in capital spending while other departments saw an overall £3.6 billion real-terms cut in investment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) made similar arguments about 'substantial' investment in the NHS and defence coming at the expense of other departments, although the think tank's director Paul Johnson warned the money may not be enough. He said: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up. 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' Ms Curtice added that low and middle-income families had also done well out of the spending review 'after two rounds of painful tax rises and welfare cuts', with the poorest fifth of families benefiting from an average of £1,700 in extra spending on schools, hospitals and the police. She warned that, without economic growth, another round of tax rises was likely to come in the autumn as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. She said: 'The extra money in this spending review has already been accounted for in the last forecast. 'But a weaker economic outlook and the unfunded changes to winter fuel payments mean the Chancellor will likely need to look again at tax rises in the autumn.' Speaking after delivering her spending review, Ms Reeves insisted she would not have to raise taxes to cover her spending review. She told GB News: 'Every penny of this is funded through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.' Sign in to access your portfolio
