AIBU that working people should be rewarded in the Budget?

And to add, where do you get the idea that most small businesses emply people at below the NLW?

The workers they employ are also on PAYE, so I am not sure what you are getting at there.
So what's your big plan? Compulsory increasing of wages? Even if it forces the closure of businesses and the loss of jobs? It really isn;t that simple.,

Of course it is the problem. We cannot have the solutions of forty years ago or even the same assumptions. You can just hear the angst as public services cannot accommodate old age in a dignified way. It can't happen. There is not the money unless a lot more tax is paid, and a lot of it is in property and assets held by older people. That has to be looked at. The income tax system is not fit for purpose. Both Labour and Conservative know the problem with the higher rate taxpayer. Labour have conspicuously said nothing on that. These are people the UK needs. That they are reducing their hours, deferring into pensions makes perfect sense. They are choosing to be less productive in the same way as other groups lower down the income chain. It is the same behaviour.

An aging population is a huge problem and one that you don't hear politicians mention that much.
It all adds to the problems and I'm aware in twenty years time I'll be another one adding when more to the tax burden
(Personally I hope I wont be!)

As I said, those that don't want IHT abolished or as per my suggestion, capped at 3/5millions, often do not have a penny to their name or often worth less than 500k.

where do you get these facts from @DistingusedSocialCommentator ? We're discussing this atm with FIL, who's house is now worth over £850k, after only paying £380k for it many years ago. We all know there will be IHT to pay, and although not overly happy with the current threshold (he believes an slight increase to £500k would be better due to the way the housing market is currently) he wholly accepts that he should pay tax on this unearned, untaxed income his family will have.

Not sure I agree with the terminology, "Working people should be rewarded..."
They get their pay, and some of it is taxed. Lowering tax they pay is not a "Reward".

However, yes I think income tax should be lowered by both by the threshold being increased by inflation over the years it has been static, and the basic rate reduced. However the rate for the higher paid should be increased.

Most small businesses employ people at below a living wage in the knowledge that those on PAYE will subsidise the wages.

I don't want to see any tax cuts. I don't understand how they could be justified whilst simultaneously claiming public services are underfunded and underresoured. Maybe when all schools can afford to buy the materials they need and hospitals are safely and sufficiently staffed we can revisit things.

I definitely don't want to see any time spent on IHT because it's a complete non issue for the overwhelming majority and whether people agree or not, it IS wealth acquisition at that level so should be taxed.

Most small businesses ( which employ 61% of privately-employed) workers) are on their knees with spiralling rent, energy etc costs. Adding to the tax burden might well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Then they would employ no one.
Employers are an easy target with their imaginary magic money trees, but cause and effect comes into play here.

Definitely not.

@the80sweregreat thanks for clarifying, and apologies for not following the meaning of your first message.

I'm sorry that you feel there is elder bashing when taxes are discussed. I think it's a really hard subject to debate properly as when discussing age groups there are so many generalisations and averages, which naturally don't apply to everyone in that age group, but it can feel very personal when that's not always the intention.

Personally I do think we need to tackle the tricky fact that life expectancy increases mean that post-working-age population is ever increasing and this also increases spending on taxes and health care for this age group. I'm not sure what the answer is, but sadly I'm not sure the current government (or the next!) will do enough to come up with a good plan and (most crucially) help people to understand why change is necessary.

No, you're not.

Nonsense.

That is how i read it too

I certainly don't envy younger people as house prices are ridiculously high and so are childcare costs.
I haven't all the answers and I've struggled with both ( in the past) but it is much harder these days and I do feel sorry for them to be honest
Many are not bothering to have children and I don't blame them
My point below was badly worded ( sorry ) but there is also an elder bashing element to anything to do with tax and I was making the point that we do pay in and and follow the rules to pay whatever the government tells us to
Some can hide it away , but I certainly haven't

There is no “nature” to taxes. It is all political decisions by political leaders who just happen, coincidentally, to legislate a tax structure that benefits them/their class the most. How else do these individuals have the lowest tax burden of all? Rishi Sunak pays a lower effective tax rate than a secretary on less than £30k a year.

Businesses have hoarded the profits from increased productivity for the last 55years. It is well researched that instead of sharing profits by increasing wages, U.K. businesses have chosen to funnel that profit to shareholders (the wealthy) and instead create a system where the government tops up their artificially suppressed low wages.

The U.K. is all about being attractive to businesses by having low wages, low corporate taxes and low regulation.

Tax burden by its very nature can only ever possibly fall on individuals. Even if the economic incidence of a tax is placed on a corporation then the actual burden will fall on one or a combination of its staff, its customers or its owners.

If you increase employer NI contributions then you've increased the cost of employing staff. It's then up to the corporation how to deal with that. Its choices will be to pay staff less / employ fewer staff, increase its prices or have smaller profits / dividends. Realistically most won't choose the third unless they absolutely have to.

When the problem is business owners then it's better to tackle them more directly so they can't shift the burden away from themselves.

@IWouldRatherBeOnHoliday

I don't think some older people quite appreciate what the combination of childcare and mortgage looks like for people at the moment (as most won't have either to pay!).

An average mortgage plus and average childcare place could easily swallow up 100% of two average full time salaries.

Not luxury holidays, not electronics, not cars on finance - a mortgage on a modest house and a single child.

I'd happily pay more tax to help get the country back on its feet.
I can't be the only one?

I did read your post.

Your comment "I'm not sure how much more some mumsnetters expect people to pay in" suggested that you thought you'd already paid in enough. If that wasn't how you meant it, then I apologise for misunderstanding an ambiguous statement.

Either way, I stand by my point that older people should be more understanding that those of working age feel aggrieved to be taxed more heavily and entitled to less benefits, made worse by the prospects that as we age we will be entitled to less (worsening public services and likelihood of further increases in state pension age). As PPs have mentioned, housing and child-rearing costs are a high burden for those in their 20s/30s/40s and these burdens typically do decrease with age, so it's no wonder those of working age are feeling more and more squeezed.

People who would benefit from scrapping inheritance tax:

Sunak (saving £200m+?)
Hunt (£3m+?)
Rees-Mogg (£10m+?)
etc.

People who lose out from scrapping inheritance tax:

96% of the population

(due to reduced tax take affecting public sector funding).

absolutely this ^^

I have tried quoting these figures before only to be shouted down how boomers are mega-rich and contribute nothing.

I worked for 40 years paying tax and NI while putting away something for my retirement - no automatic pensions then. My income PA is now £17,000 gross on which I pay tax. This is all my income and I only have 1 personal allowance to help.

I paid tax and NI during my working life to pay for your (later generations) benefits, education and health and those of your children - as well as the pensions of those who went before me. This 'net' contributor rhetoric division makes me really cross.

At times in our lives we are a 'net' contributor and then when we need it we will all become a beneficiary - that is the way a society works.

Incidentally although the top 10 % are net contributors - it is really the top 1% thst pay the most in. Not all the 10% are equal.

I'm not saying older people shouldn't pay tax!
I'm just saying that bashing people who are older is rampant and a bit unfair when we pay in too, which is how it should be
Read my post before flaming

You say older people pay in via VAT and car tax, does that mean you think pensioners shouldn't have to pay income tax too I.e. you think your husband should be exempt from tax on his second job?

I just really don't understand where this attitude that you shouldn't have to pay as much tax as you get older comes from. I don't think older people should pay more income tax than anyone else, but personally I don't think it's fair they pay less (through no NICs) nor that they get non-means-tested benefits. Its not like the taxes you pay earlier in life are saved up to cover state pension, health and care needs in later life...