AIBU that working people should be rewarded in the Budget?

An opt-in wouldn't solve anything in abusive marriages.

You could do something by each stating your partner on your own private income tax return, but an astute abuser would soon spot that they were in a higher "household" tax band than expected, and therefore their partner must have an undisclosed-to-them source of income.

And falling. Just as Conservative support is falling across all age groups. The old adage that you lean further right as you get older is no longer true.

Pensioners are already overwhelmingly Conservatives. Not overwhelmingly. More over-65's intend to vote for another party than intend to vote Conservative. Even if you add in the reform voters, it's still only 56%

Instead of child benefit/tax credits, how about doing what the French do and assess tax thresholds by the household rather than on an individual basis.
Back in the 50s this would have been easy to do, because a married couple were taxed as an entity. But there was a long and ultimately successful fight for individual assessment because it meant that vulnerable women did not have to disclose their income to their husband (tax assessment as a couple meant that women were not able to accumulate a "running away fund" for example). (Youcouldapply for individual assessment but only at the expense of forgoing the relatively generous marriage allowance). Are we yet ready to insist that both partners in a couple should reveal their incomes to each other? In a healthy marriage, one would hope both parents would be open, but what about in cases of financial abuse?

Make it an opt-in system then. Your children or spouse become a tax relief you apply for in the same way that you can apply for a tax relief if you wear a uniform.

Instead of child benefit/tax credits, how about doing what the French do and assess tax thresholds by the household rather than on an individual basis. Back in the 50s this would have been easy to do, because a married couple were taxed as an entity. But there was a long and ultimately successful fight for individual assessment because it meant that vulnerable women did not have to disclose their income to their husband (tax assessment as a couple meant that women were not able to accumulate a "running away fund" for example). (You could apply for individual assessment but only at the expense of forgoing the relatively generous marriage allowance). Are we yet ready to insist that both partners in a couple should reveal their incomes to each other? In a healthy marriage, one would hope both parents would be open, but what about in cases of financial abuse?

I'd be apprehensive about adjusting the personal allowance downwards. Minimum wage may be OK for young people house sharing and being backed up by parents, but for an older person still on minimum wage, house sharing is more difficult, and they no longer have back-up support. I don't see they have much room to pay more tax.

Ultimately the only solution is to reduce the inequality, and that's not going to happen.

I was amazed to read that Birmingham's still was weekly (until now)

Just simplify the lot. Find another way to determine eligibility for the state pension and other contributory benefits (if we're keeping them at all).

Instead of child benefit/tax credits, how about doing what the French do and assess tax thresholds by the household rather than on an individual basis. So (based on existing thresholds)for a 1 adult, 1 child household the basic rate would kick in at £18,855 instead of £12,570; the higher rate at £75,405 instead of £50,270; and the additional rate at £187,710 instead of £125,140.

This would reflect the additional costs that parents have when bringing up dependants - dependants who society will in turn depend upon to avoid an aging population. Obviously the thresholds would have to be adjusted down a bit to avoid a net loss in revenue (say have the Personal Allowance down to £10k so for an adult with one child it would be £15k).

I may suggest that the change will benefit the people the Conservatives want to attract re voters. Pensioners are already overwhelmingly Conservatives.

Working middle class, increasingly not. They will benefit from this and feel the benefits.

A good deal for higher rate tax payers!

I've not finished rtfs so apologise if someone else has said this, but I'm very wary of NI cuts.
After 30 years of working I have pretty much paid my "full stamp " of NI- it's easy to check this at HMRC. However I can't lift my state pension for another ten years. (I realise this is not a pension pot but does rely on current workers paying pensions for current pensioners. )
I can see NI being phased out - and then what happens to the state pension? Does it become means tested?
If I'd not paid NI ( impossible) and had used the money to buy a private pension or savings plan this would be seen as an absolute scandal, but people are quite happy to have the government change the goalposts with absolutely no consultation.
I really think this should be resisted.

Maurice Fitzpatrick, Accountancy Age 04 Jul 2003
The tax burden is best expressed by the tax/GDP ratio, that is, the proportion of GDP taken in tax.
An analysis of Treasury figures shows the tax/GDP ratio averaged 35.5% during the 1974/79 Labour government (peaking at 36.8%) and averaged 37.1% under Lady Thatcher (peaking at 38.9%).
Between 1978/79 (the last year of the 1974/79 Labour government) and 1990/91 (the last year of Lady Thatcher's government), the tax/GDP ratio jumped from 33.3% to 36.3%, a rise broadly equivalent to 10p on the basic rate of income tax.
The tax burden thus rose decisively under Lady Thatcher (both on average and in absolute terms), compared with the previous Labour government.

The top rate of income tax was 83% during nine years of the Thatcher government. 🤷‍♀️

In real life why would anyone voluntarily pay more tax to a government intent on decimating public services? I’ll willingly pay more tax to be spent sensibly. The current government just pisses it up the wall, I’m not paying more for nonsense like Rwanda.

Even the USA has more generous (short term) unemployment benefits in some states.

Absolutely agree with this.

Benefits are of zero use to childless (mortgaged) homeowners who were doing ok but then lose their job.

It's criminal really, given that a single person with a mortgage is likely a net contributor until they fall on hard times, and then they're pretty much abandoned as soon as they're not able to be milked by the PAYE system.

We should have something more like Sweden, et al, where unemployment benefit can be up to £6,000 per month, depending on your pre-unemployment salary.

Why are you presuming they rent?

There is no help for those with mortgages. Try paying all your bills on £350 a month.

What about things they don't pay for, such as rent, childcare, prescriptions, and discounted things like council tax, etc?? The "cost" in benefits is far more than the actual amount of UC paid.

The curse of England is its nostalgia. If it learned from it's history that would be different.

Look at the total lack of vision in our economic policy. Since Brexit we have made no progress. People are much poorer.

Learn from history. I think not. 50 years and it is all the same dreary prism of Labour take my stuff and the Tory failure to invest in infrastructure. We are totally infantile.

I am voting for someone, anyone with the vision thing that does not involve referencing a time when the majority of working people were not in work.

£1k a month?

UC for a single person is a third of that.

Realistically, little will come out of tax rises either! That is until we sort out inefficiency and waste, corruption, etc.

It's important to learn from history. Cycles repeat themselves over time. A few decades is far too short of a period to compare. Just look at the rise and fall of all the empires over the centuries - all have common themes and causes despite being hundreds of years apart! Same with tax, taxes that are "perceived" to be unfair are generally avoided/evaded, often to the detriment of wider society - look at the old "window tax" - easily reduced by people bricking up a few windows!! Doh!! Anyone involved in tax/benefits legislation should be forced to study human behaviour history!!

I want parity. I.e. people with the same incomes should pay the same taxes, regardless of age, source of income, etc. At the moment, workers pay more than any other group and that's not only unfair, it's helping to contribute to staff shortages and stifling the economy generally.

1974! 50 years ago. What is the matter with people. Is it something to do with getting old?

The UK is very different. We can't be gripped by political nostalgia. What does the future of the country look like?