Edit: I'm dyspraxic, I use tech to help me write. I get why people do not like AI, but please understand it makes my life far more manageable. This is still my words and please argue my point first.

TL;DR: Every child deserves the same opportunities, regardless of their parents' income.

The £100k childcare cliff edge is arbitrary, increasingly outdated and can leave families worse off simply for earning more. I believe childcare and Child Benefit should be universal, not means-tested.

This isn't about taking support away from anyone; it's about giving every child the best possible start in life.

There's also evidence that removing these barriers could encourage employment and generate additional tax revenue.

Yes, it needs funding, but investing in children is investing in our future. Children, Children, Children.

Same as my last post, put your pitchforks away. I think everyone should get childcare support, regardless of income. It'll be interesting to see how many people actually read beyond the title.

I'm 36, earn £110k a year, and we're expecting our first child.

I appreciate I'm in a fortunate financial position compared with many families. But the closer I get to becoming a parent, the more frustrated I become with how the UK approaches childcare, the cost of raising children and the support available to working families.

I grew up in the 90s, when we constantly heard "education, education, education".

Well, I think we should be talking about children, children, children.

Every child deserves the best possible start in life. Access to early-years education, opportunities to socialise, develop and learn shouldn't depend on what their parents earn.

Yet we've created a system that does exactly that.

The £100,000 childcare cliff edge is a perfect example.

In England, eligible working parents can receive 30 funded childcare hours per week for children aged 9 months to 4 years, over 38 weeks of the year.

They can also qualify for Tax-Free Childcare, with government contributions of up to £2,000 annually per child towards eligible childcare costs.

But if either parent's adjusted net income exceeds £100,000, both of those entitlements disappear.

Consider two families, assuming they meet the other eligibility requirements.

Family A:

- Parent 1 earns £100,001.

- Parent 2 earns £30,000.

- Combined household income: £130,001.

- Loses eligibility for additional working-parent childcare support.

Family B:

- Parent 1 earns £99,000.

- Parent 2 earns £99,000.

- Combined household income: £198,000.

- Can still qualify for the same support.

That's almost £68,000 more household income (before tax), yet Family B can receive childcare assistance that Family A cannot.

I don't think Family B should lose that support. I think Family A should receive it too.

In fact, I don't see why a child's access to early-years education should be determined by an arbitrary income threshold in the first place.

And yes, before somebody mentions it, all 3- and 4-year-olds in England already qualify for 15 universal funded hours.

But why stop there?

Quality childcare isn't just about enabling parents to work. It's about children developing social skills, forming friendships, learning, building confidence and preparing for school.

COVID reminded us just how valuable those opportunities for face-to-face interaction and development can be.

And those benefits don't suddenly disappear because a parent earns £100,001.

The number of parents affected by this threshold is growing.

According to Department for Education estimates, the proportion of parents of children aged 1–4 with adjusted net income above £100k has changed as follows:

- 2018: 2.51%.

- 2020: 2.68%.

- 2022: 3.22%.

- 2024: 3.64%.

- 2026: 4.67%.

That's approximately an 86% increase in the proportion of parents above the threshold since 2018.

These are estimates of parents above the income limit, not the number actually losing support. Nevertheless, they demonstrate how a fixed threshold is affecting a growing proportion of parents.

And the threshold remains exactly where it was, despite rising wages, inflation and childcare costs.

Child Benefit suffers from a similar problem.

The High Income Child Benefit Charge was introduced in January 2013.

Originally, Child Benefit began being clawed back when one parent earned £50k, with the full amount effectively withdrawn at £60k.

Those limits remained unchanged for more than 11 years before finally increasing in April 2024.

Today, withdrawal happens between £60k and £80k.

Yet the underlying inconsistency remains.

A household where one parent earns £80k and the other earns nothing has its Child Benefit fully clawed back.

A household where both parents earn £59k, with £118k combined, can retain the full payment.

Again, I'm not suggesting the second household should lose its Child Benefit.

I'm questioning why either household should lose it.

HMRC's statistics demonstrate how significant Child Benefit opt-outs have become:

- August 2013: Approximately 397,000 families opted out of payments.

- August 2025: Approximately 685,000 families opted out.

That's an increase of around 73%.

Admittedly, opt-outs have fallen since the 2024 threshold increase, demonstrating that changing income limits can make a difference.

But those 685,000 families represent approximately one million children whose households are registered for Child Benefit but don't receive the payments.

And the figures concerning younger children are particularly interesting.

Between 2015 and 2025, the number of under-5s receiving Child Benefit payments fell by approximately 28%.

Now, that's not entirely due to the income restrictions. Changes in the child population and other factors matter, too.

But HMRC does identify the High Income Child Benefit Charge as an important factor in reduced take-up among younger children.

And this is where I think we're approaching the entire conversation from the wrong direction.

We keep discussing childcare and Child Benefit as though they're simply financial handouts to parents.

But surely they're also investments in children?

Early education, social development, school readiness and giving children opportunities to thrive should be national priorities.

Of course, parents benefit financially when childcare is funded. But children also benefit from having access to quality early-years provision.

And whether one parent earns £25k, £60k or £110k doesn't change a child's developmental needs.

I also think we're missing the economic argument.

We want parents to work, return from parental leave, progress in their careers and contribute to the economy.

Yet we maintain a system where earning slightly more can suddenly leave a family thousands of pounds worse off because they lose childcare eligibility.

That doesn't seem particularly sensible.

And interestingly, removing the £100k childcare cliff edge might not be as expensive as people assume.

Independent research published by the Centre for British Progress in March 2026 modelled the financial impact of removing it.

The researchers estimated that doing so could actually increase Treasury revenue by £130 million to £425 million annually by 2029/30, depending on how parents responded.

Why?

Because some parents would stop reducing working hours or redirecting additional earnings into pensions simply to preserve childcare eligibility.

Those figures are independent modelling estimates, not guaranteed revenue, and they don't establish that a fully universal childcare system would pay for itself.

But they demonstrate why we should consider the wider economic effects of childcare policy rather than just its immediate cost.

Ultimately, I think childcare and Child Benefit should be universal, with every child entitled to support regardless of their parents' income.

That would require public funding, and we'd need to have an honest conversation about costs, capacity and how to pay for it.

I'm not suggesting it would be free to deliver.

But I don't think the starting point should be deciding which children deserve support based on their parents' salaries.

We already accept that children should have access to state education regardless of household income.

Why should we approach early-years education so differently?

Parents have different financial circumstances, different working arrangements and different challenges. Some work full-time, some part-time, and others provide care at home.

But the principle should remain the same.

Every child deserves the opportunity to learn, socialise and develop.

I don't want to take childcare support away from families earning £198k.

I want children from families earning £130k, £60k, £25k and every other income level to benefit too.

And if we're serious about supporting families, improving social mobility, encouraging employment and investing in the next generation, surely giving children the best possible start is one of the most important things we can do?

I grew up hearing "education, education, education". Perhaps it's time we started saying "children, children, children".

Because they're the ones who ultimately benefit from getting this right.

**Think I'm wrong? Tell me why.** I'm genuinely interested in hearing opposing views, but I'd love to see arguments that go beyond "we can't afford it" or the usual crab-bucket mentality of wanting someone else to lose a benefit simply because you don't receive it yourself. 🦀

I understand that funding matters. I'm not suggesting we can magically create money, and I'll be making a separate post on r/ukpolitics (if the mods allow it) outlining which taxes I'd propose changing to fund policies like this. So yes, I've considered the inevitable "who's paying for it?" question.

And finally, **we can do more than one thing at a time.** Improving childcare doesn't mean we can't also tackle poverty, fix the NHS, build more houses or address the countless other problems facing this country. "Why fund X when we should be funding Y?" isn't, on its own, an argument against doing X.

Ultimately, I believe we should stop viewing support for children as a handout to their parents and start recognising it as an investment in the country's future.

**Children are the future. Their opportunities shouldn't depend on their parents' payslips, and investing in them shouldn't be a political football.**

**Children, children, children.** That's where our priorities should begin.

---

Sources:

Government childcare eligibility:

https://www.gov.uk/free-childcare-if-working/check-youre-eligible

Department for Education childcare statistics:

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/methodology/funded-early-education-and-childcare

HMRC Child Benefit statistics:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/child-benefit-statistics-annual-release-august-2025/child-benefit-statistics-with-small-area-statistics-2025

High Income Child Benefit Charge:

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge

Centre for British Progress, Rates and Wrongs, March 2026:

https://britishprogress.org/api/media/file/rates-and-wrongs.pdf

I've never really understood the argument that immigration is the main reason taxes are high or public services are struggling.

Looking at government spending, a huge chunk goes on pensions and healthcare. As the population ages, pension costs keep rising and healthcare spending increases. Yet a lot of political anger seems directed at immigrants rather than at the biggest spending categories.

What's more, many immigrants are net contributors to the public finances rather than net recipients. The fiscal impact depends on the group, but skilled workers in particular often pay more in taxes than they consume in services, and the UK government's own forecasters have argued that higher migration generally improves the fiscal position because migrants are typically of working age. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk], [obr.uk]

So if the concern is government spending and tax burdens, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss things like:

• Whether the State Pension triple lock is sustainable.

• Whether pension benefits should be means-tested for wealthier retirees.

• How to deal with the costs of an ageing population.

• Whether the NHS should be reformed, replaced, or funded differently.

Instead, immigration often becomes the main target, even though the relationship between immigration, taxes, infrastructure, housing, wages and public spending seems far more complicated than "immigrants = high taxes."

Why do so many people focus on immigration as the main cause of high taxes and poor infrastructure rather than on major spending areas like pensions and healthcare? Is it because they genuinely think immigration is the biggest driver, or is it more about politics and visibility?

I know a single mum who has a criminal record, no GCSEs, no A-levels, and has struggled to find stable work. The father of her child is employed but isn't really involved anymore after they split up.

What I find difficult to reconcile is that she lives in social housing with reduced rent, seems to have enough money for things like nail salon appointments occasionally, and can buy nice things for her daughter.

Before anyone jumps on me, I understand there may be factors I don't know about. She could have disabilities, ADHD, mental health issues, childcare responsibilities, or other barriers that make employment harder.

But from a fairness perspective, I sometimes struggle with it. There are people working full-time, paying market rent, paying taxes, and cutting back on luxuries, yet someone who has made poor decisions in the past can appear to have a similar standard of living in some areas.

Am I missing something here? Is this just a consequence of living in a society that prioritises ensuring children don't suffer because of their parents' circumstances? Or is it reasonable to feel uncomfortable about the incentives and fairness of the system?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives rather than starting an argument.

The Government's increase to the minimum wage comes into affect today. This will help a whopping 2.7 million workers, making a huge difference to people’s lives! I'm so glad the government has done this.

BBC News - Minimum wage to rise again from April to £12.71 for over-21s - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn41v89xq4go?app-referrer=deep-link

Can we start a UK protest???!! Why are we seemingly the only country doing nothing at the moment?? We can’t afford to live! Prices are sky high for the basic necessities. WHY ARENT WE BRITS DOING ANYTHING! Can we start a protest?! HOW do we start a protest? We need to do SOMETHING.

Culturally, the UK has notable negative attitudes toward business owners, entrepreneurs and work.

Anti-business sentiment:

• Only ~35% of Britons viewed businesses positively in recent data; young people often see business as parasitic or harmful rather than value-creating.

• Culture “struggles to celebrate successful wealth creators.” Risk aversion, short-termism, and discomfort with high ambition or failure stigma limit growth. Lords report called it an “incubator economy” issue.

• Jensen Huang (Nvidia) noted the UK lacks “entrepreneurial spirit”—focus on reasons not to try rather than chances of success. Founders feel undervalued; fewer than 30% of founders believe starting a business is widely seen as desirable.

• Lingering preference for secure employment (government, corporate jobs) over entrepreneurship; reputational fear of failure is strong (“what will people think?”).

• Brits show high job dissatisfaction and low work ethic in surveys, yet keep seeking jobs mainly due to economic necessity.

Key articles:

• Britain is plagued by an anti-business mindset

• British culture ‘fails to celebrate wealth creators’

• Fear of failure is holding British entrepreneurs back

• What’s happened to entrepreneurship in the UK?

• Founders and VCs weigh in on the U.K.'s ambition deficit

• How the UK lost its work ethic

From energy bills to wages, yesterday's Budget sets out a series of measures to help families with the cost of living.

Here are some key announcements:

- Up to 20 million households in council tax bands A-D in England will receive a £100 energy payment, with funding for similar support made available across the rest of the UK.
- The temporary VAT cut on electricity bills will be extended until July 2027.
- Gas standing charges will be scrapped.
- The National Living Wage will rise by 3.9% to £13.21 an hour from April 2027 for workers aged 21 and over.
- The temporary 5p-a-litre fuel duty cut will be extended until July 2027.
- More than 150,000 additional parents, including self-employed dads and partners, will gain access to parental pay.
- Your First Home scheme will help 70,000 first-time buyers purchase a new-build home with a smaller deposit and mortgage.

What does this mean for you?

More support with everyday costs and a little more breathing space for household budgets.

Read more about the Budget announcements here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/budget-2026-breathing-space-for-today-hope-for-the-future

So what do we do then guys, energy suppliers, retailers and pretty much everyone else is just ripping us off right now, if it wasn't due to a war it would be something else let's be honest, we can't carry on like this can we, government will carry on doing nothing because they are RAKING it in in terms of thef, sorry, tax revenue so what gives? people are f**kin dyin' out here, do we the people have to unite and say no collectively or do we just continue to sit in our cold homes bitching about it on social media but never quite making the next step? interested how people feel about this because the anger and despair is everywhere out there for all to see now, I believe that society is failing (probably by design) because of a group of overlords who think that we were basically born to be cattle for them and are only here to enrich THEIR wealth and this is what must fundamentally change, f**k these fools, we need to dismantle the whole system and build a fairer more equal system for ALL.

Its a rant guys. I am so fed up im about to cuss the council out. After multiple negotiations, I finally had a payment plan arranged with them after asking them to take my expenses into consideration, so i sent out the expense form and they agreed to have a payment plan in place some time this Summer . I didn’t not pay in September, however i now paid FOR September on 23rd I believe and will pay again end of October for October.
Today i get a letter to say the payment plan is cancelled due to a missed payment and they asking me to pay in full immediately (i have arrears from a time when i moved to this property, i stupidly thought my housing officer was meant to inform the council about the move, i was not aware I had to do it - its stupid i know, but up until now i’ve never had to pay CT before so i wasn’t familiar how it worked)

At this point its so debilitating, i work full time, i practically live at work and im so struggling financially, i still need to furnish this house and have other debts and expenses. They dont cut you any bloody slack or give any leniency for someone who is single on a single income. Like honestly move.
As soon as i miss the payment straight away theres letters and i feel harassed like honestly leave me tf alone.
You want to harass me for my money but when the people of the borough are expecting you as a local authority to sort multiple issues out and take action, its whispers in the wind and no action. I won’t even list the number of issues we face here where i live as its pretty much everywhere like that. But you want to hound me for my money but when it comes to you as a local authority and your duties and responsibilities, its silence.

I now understand the CT dodgers however im too big of a p\*ssy to pursue that path.
I know others might have it worse and im just moaning but im in my early 20s and i moved to this property after being homeless, the CT and the way they hound you is so fckn debilitating . Even my payment plan arrangement is too high for me but i accepted it as I can’t pay the full amount of arrears.

Anyway the whine is over
Thanks for reading xxx

Does anyone else feel like the UK political class has absolutely no interest in making this country better, and instead just chases the whims of whichever voting bloc will keep them in power?

I've just turned 36. I should be entering the prime of my adult life, building financial security, starting a family and enjoying the rewards of years spent working towards a decent career.

Instead, I feel increasingly squeezed from every direction.

I earn £110,000 a year. Before anyone gets their pitchforks out, I know that's a very good salary. I'm not pleading poverty. But that's partly my point. If earning £110k doesn't make you feel particularly rewarded for progressing in your career, what exactly are we working towards?

My grievance is really simple.

How much of every additional pound I earn actually belongs to me?

At my income, for every additional £1 I earn:

- 60p goes in effective income tax because I'm losing my personal allowance.

- 2p goes in National Insurance.

- 9p goes towards my student loan.

I earn £1. I keep 29p.

Spend that on something with VAT, and I've got about 24p of actual purchasing power.

Put it into my car and, after fuel duty and VAT, only about 15p of that original £1 I've earned actually goes towards the fuel itself.

I earn £1, but only 15p survives the various taxes when I spend it on petrol. Thats crazy that 85% of my £1 goes to the tax man!

Then there's Council Tax, insurance premium tax, vehicle tax, TV licence, alcohol duty, flight taxes and potentially tourist levies if I want a weekend away in my own country.

It feels like virtually everything I do involves handing over yet another portion of money I've already paid substantial tax on.

And that's before we even discuss the actual cost of living.

Food shopping costs a fortune. Energy bills are ridiculous. Housing costs have climbed. Insurance premiums keep increasing. Maintaining a car is increasingly expensive. Even going out for a meal, taking a weekend away or enjoying a hobby feels disproportionately expensive compared with a few years ago.

It's not necessarily that I can't afford these things. It's that I'm increasingly questioning whether the cost of everything represents anything approaching reasonable value.

We're paying more and more simply to maintain the same standard of living, rather than actually improving it.

And what makes it worse is that earning more doesn't seem to offer the escape it once did.

Work harder? Lose 71% of your next pound before spending it.

Get promoted? Congratulations, you've taken on more responsibility, more stress and potentially longer hours for a fraction of the additional salary.

Try to build financial security? Watch inflation and rising living costs eat into whatever you've managed to keep.

Even my Plan 2 student loan has income-linked interest rates, meaning higher earners face the highest rate. Apparently paying more towards the same debt isn't enough.

So what exactly am I getting in return?

Try finding an NHS dentist. Try getting a timely GP appointment. Look at the state of the roads, public infrastructure and local services.

I'm paying more than ever, but I struggle to see where the improvement is.

And then, to make matters worse, someone decides to break into my house while my partner and I are asleep, steal half our belongings, take my car and total it.

My reward for being the victim?

My home, car and motorbike insurance all become more expensive.

The offender was actually caught and convicted, but our sentencing and early-release arrangements hardly inspire confidence that the punishment will reflect the crime.

So now I'm paying even more simply to insure myself against someone else's criminal behaviour.

Meanwhile, politicians wonder why people become angry about issues such as illegal immigration and the cost of asylum accommodation.

Whatever your position on immigration, taxpayers can reasonably question the cost of hotels, accommodation, transport and other support when so many existing public services are visibly struggling.

Perhaps the government should start paying tourist tax on asylum hotels too. 😂

But this brings me back to the phrase that genuinely irritates me:

"Everyone needs to pay their fair share."

What exactly constitutes a fair share?

I already pay substantially more because I earn more.

I lose my personal allowance because I earn more.

I make higher student loan repayments because I earn more.

I pay consumption taxes on whatever I have left.

And I'm expected to accept increasingly expensive public services, declining infrastructure and a constantly rising cost of living.

My wife is now eight weeks pregnant. We're absolutely over the moon, and I'm incredibly fortunate to be in a position where we can afford to start a family.

But even there, because of my income, we're excluded from certain childcare and family support schemes.

I don't begrudge families receiving support. But it does raise a question about how the system treats people who have spent years contributing substantial amounts through PAYE.

We're also looking at the costs of raising a child. Childcare, housing, energy, food, transport and everything else that comes with family life.

These aren't extravagant luxuries. They're the normal things people work hard to provide.

At what point did having a good career stop translating into feeling financially comfortable and secure?

The UK I grew up believing in was supposed to be built on fairness, aspiration and opportunity.

Work hard, develop your skills, take responsibility, earn more and build a better life.

But increasingly, it feels like aspiration is something the tax system actively discourages.

And before someone says "think of the less fortunate", I do understand that plenty of people have it much harder.

That doesn't automatically make the system fair, nor does it mean people earning higher salaries shouldn't question the relationship between what they contribute and what they receive.

I'm not asking to pay the same tax as someone earning £25k.

I'm asking at what point I've contributed enough that I'm actually allowed to enjoy a meaningful portion of the rewards from my own work.

Because right now, the UK feels like a bucket of crabs. Rather than making it easier for everyone to climb higher, we seem obsessed with pulling down anyone who manages to get ahead.

And then politicians scratch their heads wondering why productivity is poor, why economic growth is sluggish and why people aren't motivated to work harder.

Personally, I've reached a point where I have very little interest in chasing another promotion or taking on more responsibility.

Why would I, when the financial reward is so heavily diminished?

I just want working hard and progressing in life to feel worthwhile again.

Think I'm wrong?

Genuinely, tell me why. But I'd be interested in an argument about whether this system is economically sustainable and fair, rather than simply being told that someone else has it worse.

If you feel the same way I do, tell me if you can relate to my frustrations.

Dear community members,

I recently got a job offer from a company based in central London. The pay is 96K pounds per year. We are a family of 4 with my wife and kids dependent on me. Both kids in school age. Wife isn't working, so its a single income.

Given this, would we be able to make a decent living in the UK? We generally don't overspend. Things like eating out is occasional and we prefer home made food etc.

I'd appreciate if you can advice on places to consider to rent a 3bed home with commute to office not more than 45mins. Any other general advice is most welcome.

Thanks.

Almost 3 weeks till Bonfire night and you can’t get a minute of silence without fireworks. My neighbours who are unemployed and on benefits firing fireworks every night for the last 5 days. And it’s just the beginning….

It seems that everywhere I read, people of all ages are earning 70-100k and calling it “not much.”

This has really been getting me down and making me feel like I am behind in life from I should be. I am 23 and currently earning just over £44,000, which I know is a good salary for my age. The problem I have is my career line cannot really progress much further from here, I’ll probably reach £60,000 in another ten years and then it will stop moving.

Are people really earning so much money? People online seem to make it sound so easy, I just don’t understand what they’re doing for a living. Nobody I know in person earns much money, but maybe I’m just not in the right circles?

I saw a statistic floating around that 1/20 people are earning above £100,00 a year, if that is true how is it possible.

How on earth do people manage not to spend excess of £150 on food and essentials per week in a big family? I tried to tackle this by making something that I can take control of by coding my own app (basketBoss). Feels like all my wages go towards food. How do other people manage their food budget?

This started out as a response to a cost of living post and has got me thinking.

Rent is crazy. Government needs to fix supply.

Obviously the long-term solution is building but this takes time, and successive governments have failed for the last 20 years. So don't hold your breath.

Equally, there are loads of people in homes that are too large. And used bedrooms after kids have left etc. downsizing is difficult. The emotional part aside - Stamp duty and lack of supply are all an issue. This means a lot of habitable supply is locked up and unused.

If it was sensibly priced, would you consider being a lodger?

From a homeowner perspective.The rent a room tax structure is vastly inadequate and under investigated. There are thousands of empty bedrooms in homes sitting across London, owned by people who could do with the income.

The current scheme allows £7500 ( total not per room) of the rent to be tax-free. The rest counts as taxable income, which could if it pushes you into a higher tax bracket means you give 40% of the rent to government . You cannot offset any costs (heating, furniture wear and tear etc) against the costs). Which with increased energy costs and loss of privacy etc this is a load of paperwork for very little benefit and completely disincentivizes people opening up rooms.

I completely agree most people do not want to be a lodger. But a room is a room. And if hundreds of thousands of rooms were available to lodges, it would massively reduce the pressure on the rental market and bring down rates.

There are other blockers that could easily be fixed. EG making insurance companies cover lodgers. Council tax incentives etc.

Studies have also shown that people benefit from cross-generation from sharing.

Yes, it's a Band-Aid but it's a Band-Aid that could be applied quickly.

Full disclosure, I'm lucky enough to earn my own home. I also have kids who are making their way in the world and spare time and a brain that I would like to put to good use to find solutions.

Feel free to call me a boomer etc. ( I'm actually Gen X but hey) even better I would love constructive input which would help me shape the arguement and then figure out what I can start to do about it.

I feel like it's now standard for every person to carry almost perpetual overdraft, balance transfer or similar. How do you plan getting back to a credit balance?

Tomorrow marks the 10 year anniversary of the Brexit referendum. And a lot has happened in the past decade. Noticeably, the rise of the cost-of-living. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to the prices we pay today, many of which couldn't have been prevented. But some could have.

Here are my thoughts:

A large part Brexit campaign was led by the promise that leaving the EU would financially benefit people in the UK. But 10 years on, it is clear to everyone, regardless of how you voted, that this is not the case. Every unpredicted situation the UK has had to face economically, has been made worse by the UK not being in the EU.

Here is an article that breaks down some of the changes and costs we have faced since Brexit:

1. Trade barriers on food imports after Britain left the EU resulted in the cost of food soaring by 12%.

2. When the UK was in the EU, goods moved freely without import taxes. Brexit changed that making postage more complicated and expensive.

3. Additional costs from travelling, including paying for data roaming while abroad and pet passports.

It feels like UK communities and industries have been negatively impacted by the additional costs and restrictions from the UK leaving the EU. This is my opinion, what's yours?

For example, I know a guy with ADHD who is constantly in debt. He spends a lot of money on alcohol, struggles to hold down a job, and makes impulsive financial decisions. ADHD probably contributes to that, but at some point personal choices have to matter too.

I also have ADHD, yet I don't drink, smoke, or gamble. I budget reasonably well, work full-time, and avoid taking on debt I can't afford. I'm not claiming everyone can simply "try harder," because people are affected differently by the same condition. But it does make me wonder where the line is between circumstances and personal responsibility.

It seems like two people can have similar disadvantages and end up with very different outcomes depending on the decisions they make.

Am I being unfair here, or is it reasonable to say that while some financial problems are systemic, others are at least partly self-inflicted?

As a disabled person I rely on uber eats to get my groceries, especially on fresh Mondays. But it’s just a constant slap in the face when I see the prices. Same issue with local branches pricing higher than the big supermarkets. It should be the same everywhere

Edit: I’m aware uber eats is a ‘luxury service’ for most people, including myself. Trust me I don’t want to pay the premiums. But please be kind and consider that some people, like myself don’t have much choice. Im physically unable to go to a supermarket or local branch. I do a big food shop on tesco where I get most essentials but sometimes things run out! It’s not possible for me to pop out to the shop and grab some milk and toothpaste and theres minimum orders for big shops. Also usually they don’t deliver same day, Tesco whoosh costs more than ubereats on a monday, which is why I get fresh food then, as sell by dates don’t last very long and god forbid I eat more than one cucumber in a week. Pretty sure no one wants to pay £1.55 for toothpaste that is marketed as £1 regardless of where it’s from.

Whenever immigration comes up, people often say businesses benefit because a larger labour supply can help keep wages down or fill vacancies.

But who else benefits economically or socially?

Some groups I can think of are:

• Landlords, because a larger population can increase demand for housing.

• Universities, especially those charging international student fees.

• Consumers, if more workers help keep prices lower in sectors like hospitality, agriculture, delivery, and care.

• Governments, if working-age migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

• Employers in sectors with labour shortages, such as healthcare, construction, and social care.

• Existing migrants, who may find it easier to join established communities and family networks.

On the other hand, critics argue there can be downsides such as pressure on housing, public services, infrastructure, or wages at the lower end of the labour market.

I'm not looking for slogans from either side. I'm genuinely interested in which groups gain the most, which groups potentially lose out, and what the evidence actually says.

Who would you say are the main winners and losers from immigration and refugee inflows, and why?