To want a budget which puts young people and families first

In terms of building wealth 10k at 20 is better than 100k at 50

@midgetastic most people don’t inherit enough to buy a property outright though which is the point.

People see what older people have now and can't believe that they haven't lived like that all their lives

Completely agree with this, I don’t understand where this idea has come from that all previous generations moved from their parents house straight into a mortgaged house! Everyone I knew was renting in their 20s, often in shared houses, now young people act like this makes them so hard done by!

If you inherit enough to buy a property, give you freedom to retire early or change career, set your children up for life - I think inheritance whilst you still have years of healthy life left is life changing - I know sone youngsters think life stops at 40 but you will be surprised

Yes!

The average age to inherit is 47, which isn’t really going to turn your life around if you’re not on the property ladder.

No. Targeting wealth if that's the way forward, means targeting the wealthy, regardless of their age

older people hold more of the wealth largely due to property. That doesn’t mean that every single young person is poor or some old people aren’t in poverty….

No. Targeting wealth if that's the way forward, means targeting the wealthy, regardless of their age. This may mean disproportionately targetting older people if thats where the wealth lies, but it certainly doesn't mean sweeping generalised age based policy that ignores the fact that millions of older people live in poverty at a time of life when they are no longer able to improve their circumstances; while at the other end of things we have privileged young people who are not only set to inherit the wealth of past generations, but also have their working lives ahead of them to secure themselves. Generational inequality exists only where you compare the generations of different demographics. The children of the wealthy will be wealthy themselves. The children of the poor with a bit of luck may find themselves less poor than their parents, but that's no means guaranteed.

How would this work? My kids child benefit has covered everything from , food, clothes,school trips, clothing for cubs/brownies, in school instrument lessons, basically covering whatever the child needs at that time. Now they are teens it covers books for GCSE, books for a levels, paying for a provisional driving licence and in the future in will to pay for driving lessons. Vouchers or whatever you decide will not cover all these things. Things that children off differing age groups need

Applying NIC to ALL income would make a massive difference. As it is, it's just a tax on wages. It makes no sense that NIC is applied to only wages, when it's not applied to other forms of income, particularly investment derived income, and income from property renting, capital gains, etc.

We used to have different rates of income tax depending on different types of income, i.e. how we ended up with higher rates of tax on "unearned" income as it was called, such as royalties, etc.

I'd hope that Reeves will be tackling this gross inequality. Perhaps start by applying NIC on ALL incomes at the 2% NIC rate currently levied on wages over the higher rate band, so it's not too much of a shock in one go, and then maybe increasing it by a percent or two each year going forward. Would bring in massive amount of tax revenue and wouldn't hit the "worker".

1. My young person doesn't pay for anything (child)

1. I pay for her foreign holidays

4.she doesn't drink coffee but if she did I'd be paying

1. She can kick me out if she wants but she'll then need to start paying for everything and making all her own meals.

It's funny because I have a child under 18 I can buy a house stamp duty free according to the op but another will have me chucked out because I'm over 50

I would like to see a budget that prioritised support for those that needed it most. Its extremely blinkered and (likely self serving) of you to decide the criteria should be based on age and family circumstances, and not on means and needs and to have decided that inequality is based on age rather than wealth.

There is intergenerational inequality & it’s harder for young people to build wealth. Targeting wealth means targeting older people…

Part of the problem is that NMW jobs often come with zero hour contracts used to abuse staff but hailed (by the employer) as the best flexi option available.

Are you going to come back and defend your opinions @HFJ ?

I would like to see a budget that prioritised support for those that needed it most. Its extremely blinkered and (likely self serving) of you to decide the criteria should be based on age and family circumstances, and not on means and needs and to have decided that inequality is based on age rather than wealth. If we adopted your first idea for example, you could have a young man in his 20s taking home considerably more money for doing the same job as a women in her 40s, say, because by your rationale, his age alone means he needs more money. Even if he has no responsibility and is supported by a wealthy family, while his colleague may have children to support. If your idea is to bring greater financial benefit to families, then you must surely see how flawed that is for starters.
I completely agree that we need to address child poverty as urgent and that this will benefit society as a whole. But I don't think we need to be dreaming up flawed schemes on the back of a fag packet. The child poverty action group has some excellent well researched aims already that they lobby for with government and I shall continue to support those.

Is there a shortage of minimum wage jobs? I thought lots of companies were struggling to recruit? It does mean my appraisal was pointless again this year and I will be earning the same as the person who started last month even though I've been there for years.

Also fewer hours available for employees.

Not sure about that. If it pays an electric bill or food shopping for the family isn't it not benefiting the children?

It would have to be done over a period of time, but we should recognise that employEES NI is just another word for tax, so it should gradually be incorporated into income tax. This would also mean that pensions and income were taxed at the same rate.

Would also stop the “I paid into my pension” nonsense.

THIS 100000%

I am in the middle, and qualify for absolutely nothing. Yet the constant increase in the cost of living is making me POOR. Like what’s the point?!

Ooh, prices will increase for all of us and there will be fewer jobs available.
Ooh, more people will be on NMW than ever before, making many qualifications even more useless.

This is only to be celebrated if other changes are made in line with this. I doubt they will be.

Ooh looks like national minimum wage is going up 70p an hour.

And another thing (!), at present you can take 25% of your "pension pot" as a tax free lump sum, it could change by one or two percentage points without causing a massive sudden change in pensioners' behaviour.

I would like to see any benefit aimed at children, eg child benefit, paid in a non-cash way to try and ensure that the money goes where it's supposed to go.