The @TheIFS approached us late last night about our new benefits bill tool. They took exception to us saying benefits had increased. Our Benefits Bill majors on current spending, not the change (because the UC migration complicates it; see our FAQs on our site), but the fact is that spending has massively increased. We don’t hide that - we just include the % change. Their first point was that we should have excluded Universal Credit, because of the migration. Given UC is the biggest benefit for working people, that's deluded. As the IFS have already admitted, UC migration issues don't impact our numbers for current UC spending - in fact, they even admitted our overall local spending totals are accurate and that disability benefit spending has surged. So you can rest assured these local totals are as shocking as they are correct. Next, they complained that we should have used real-terms numbers to compare changes with the increase in the median wage...which is a nominal number. This is obviously silly, not least as nominal figures are a legitimate and transparent way of presenting underlying cash expenditure. Furthermore, the Benefits Bill is not intended (nor does it claim) to measure changes in the real purchasing power of that spending. It tells you the amount the DWP is spending, from their own data. They also questioned why we selected the benefits we did. This is simple: we focus on the six major DWP-tracked benefit streams consistently available at local authority level (UC, PIP, Housing Benefit, DLA, Attendance Allowance, and Carer's Allowance) to give taxpayers the clearest possible picture of what is spent in their area. Furthermore, the IFS told us we should have included legacy benefits like Jobseekers Allowance and income support. These would make very little difference - the change in Jobseekers Allowance is only £50m across England and Wales And they mention tax credits (because they've moved over to UC). Those aren't in the DWP Stat-Xplore database and - surprise, surprise - the numbers are for the whole tax year, not the point-in-time data we have for UC. IFS sent us a worked example for Birmingham - and the figures are wrong, because they seem to use the 2023-24 tax year vs the 2 year period for UC. When numbers are changing rapidly due to the final stages of migration, you can't just put together mismatched timeframes. So we stuck with the Stat-Xplore data. Crucially, even if you accept the IFS's own recalculated figures for Birmingham including tax credits, local spending STILL grew by 15.1% in cash terms over just two years. In what world is a 15% cash surge over 24 months something to celebrate? The fact of the matter is this: other benefits have migrated onto UC, so the UC increases will be inflated. But when trying to say anything about benefits in Britain, that caveat comes with the territory, which is why we included it transparently in our FAQs and didn’t focus on the % change. All the spending totals you get when you punch in your postcode are (sadly) both correct and shocking. Like many in the Westminster establishment, the IFS can't see the wood for the trees. Benefits spending has gone up, is too high and needs to come down. Not just for the sake of taxpayers and the public finances, but for those who need targeted support to get back into work. Saying this upsets a lot of people, but taxpayers need someone to fight this fight, so TPA will, and we won’t apologise for doing so. This tool is designed to take DWP data no one sees and put it in a handy tool anyone can use. That’s why it matters for the public debate. Check out our latest benefits bill tool by clicking the link below benefitsdata.uk/