Which taxes should Burnham put up?

Good point about social/council housing. It’s not included as a direct/indirect benefit - perhaps because it is a local benefit not a national one - it certainly would help make things more affordable.

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincomefinancialyearending2014/financialyearending2024/etbreferencetablesfye202324final.xlsx

I am more than aware people in council housing aren't and never have been paid housing benefit but I was replying to the PP who asked why we now have so many more people taking more than what they put in compared to the 1970s (more "net takers" in their words). Council housing was state subsidised housing, at one point any way, meaning technically, those making use of it would be considered net takers to some. I don't think it's a bad thing that people get the help they need at all - I'm just pointing out that there were a great many people who had a leg up from the state back in the 70s, but because we count things in different ways you have to consider these differences to make a meaningful comparison. And yes, of course the money could have been invested in other things - I think investing in council housing was a solid strategy that had benefits for the entire population, probably more so than these other things although I haven't looked at any sort of cost benefit analysis so it's just going on instinct. Open to considering I might be wrong but that's probably going way off topic.

Chart of the day!

I agree with all that. The proposed changes to private pensions is straight out of their "politics of hate, spite and envy" handbook! And yes to the transitioning away of the state pension - I'd suggest means testing it at a very high level, say £100k of income, and then let inflation (fiscal drag) over 2-3 decades drag more people into losing eligibility for it. Virtually no impact on the vast majority of today's pensioners, nor current workers - it would really only start to impact "average" workers who havn't even joined the workforce yet, so they'd have lots of time to plan for not getting the state pension. Anyone on £100k of income (today) doesn't need the state pension and the tiny number it affects today won't make sad face headlines as they'd get no sympathy from the vast majority who have incomes far less. It's probably the least "painful" and least harmful in terms of bad publicity to deal with the state pension problem - it barely affects anyone today but gives the markets a clear path as to how the country is dealing with the demographic timebomb.

We probably need to transition away from the state pension, and just keep ‘pension credits’ for those destitute and feckless as a basic pension income. I believe Australia made such a transition. This would result in individuals actually building up their own pension pot, with some tax incentives. The transition would be complex and lengthy. But ultimately could result in greater fairness, and self reliance. Unfortunately Reeves is planning to smash the salary sacrifice tax incentive in 2029. This will reduce self reliance and independence. But that is what Labour is all about. State control, little choice, big government.

You are comparing apples and oranges there. Being in council housing does not mean, and never has meant, you were paid housing benefit or any other benefit.. A lot of people were moved into council housing following the Second World War due to bombing.

Also saying the cost is paid of does not mean that the cost has no ongoing impact today. Without paying for council housing the money could have been invested in other ways like infrastructure or lower national debt.

I would be ok with cutting pension welfare for the wealthiest pensioners but it would have to be done in a way that was fair.

And yes, I agree, low and middle earners are taxed a relatively low amount compared to other countries. We do have higher costs in many ways though. Small tax increases should be considered in my opinion.

And to answer your question about sustainability - there's no reason to conclude that it isn't sustainable if income inequality keeps rising and a section of the population at the top continues to massively out-earn the average person. It's not impossible that we end up in a situation where a smaller number of people earning vastly more than everyone else are able to pay enough in taxes to subsidise a larger number of people while still being able to live in luxury themselves. However, the government is aggressively cutting costs wherever it can, sometimes with loud fanfare and sometimes while pretending it isn't doing so. Pension age keeps going up for example to keep pension spending sustainable and disability benefits are becoming harder to claim in some places at least even if the criteria haven't officially changed. The percentage of people successfully claiming ADP - equivalent to PIP in Scotland for example, has dropped dramatically suggesting unofficial rule changes that claimants aren't being made aware of or some other slight of hand.

Sorry, and to add, apparently there are a further small percentage of the population still in actual council housing (that the council still own). The cost of these houses have been paid off now from what I understand (they hadn't been in the 70s) so the extent to which people living in them are being subsidised is debatable. They obviously provide accommodation at well below the market rate in some areas at least.

I don't think we do - it's just measured differently. A third of the population lived in council housing in the 70s (even more in Scotland - at it's peak it was 54% of the population!) which was heavily subsidised back then whereas (according to AI anyway - which tells me it had to derive the data from various government datasets - not looked into this yet), only around 13% of households or 5% of the adult population overall are eligible for housing benefit/universal credit housing allowance today. So a far lower percentage. If you take the third of the population in council housing (or 54% in Scotland) in the 70s then add in everyone else on every other benefit I think you'd find numbers that are at least as high as they are today, if not higher.

For too long, we in Westminster have been lying to you. We say we're here to serve you, when in fact, we're serving ourselves. And why? We are driven by our own desire to get reelected. Our need to stay in power eclipses our duty to govern. That ends tonight. Tonight, I give you the truth. And the truth is this:

The UK has failed you. Work hard? Play by the rules? You aren't guaranteed success. Your children will not have a better life than you did. millions of you can't even get a job, even though you desperately want one. We've been crippled by Welfare, Pensions, the NHS, by entitlements. And that is the root of the problem: entitlements.

Let me be clear. You are entitled to nothing — You Are Entitled to Nothing.The UK was built on the spirit of industry. You build your future, it isn't handed to you. And the problem with Westminster is that we haven't given you the tools to build it. The only way for us to serve you is to give you the means to serve yourselves. Well, that's exactly what I intend to do. Not handouts, jobs. Real paying jobs.

This is what should happen.

So you are saying that the state pension should be split into two tiers; a higher pension for people who haven’t contributed to their pension, and a lower value pension that reduces in value in real terms for those who have worked, contributed and paid for extra years? (Remembering of course that the first lot will also be entitled to pension credits).

Yes

Yup, I've got several clients who've emigrated over the past couple of years, and yes, they were high earners, typically £250k p.a. That's a lot of tax/nic lost to the UK. That's after several more IT contractor clients left a few years ago due to IR35 and they became "digital nomads" still doing work for UK firms but doing that work from outside the UK jurisdictions, so not paying any UK taxes. And I've only a small client base (less than a 100 clients) so although the numbers are small, it's still a significant percentage of clients. From talking to others, it's a common thing over the past few years.

I know. I support getting rid of it and means testing the winter fuel payment. Something has to give. Many of my contemporaries just under state pension claim age of 67 are the ones with decent private pensions alongside.

I’d like him to massively tax Labour MPs. Something like 80p in the pound once they earn over 34k.

Lovely. This doesn’t entitle you to the triple lock.

I have also bought my top-ups.

The Triple lock can be changed and winter fuel allowance can be means tested without breaking the agreed terms of the state pension, so yes this is an area where cuts should happen.

Remember half of welfare is on triple locked baby boomers many of whom do not need it, or WFA.

I can buy a couple of extra years of NI - loads of my friends who missed out years for various reasons have done so. In doing so I am explicitly being told it will increase my pension entitlement. Is this a contract that the government is entitled to break?

This exactly. And those paying those high tax rates are leaving. We’ve had quite a few friends and family go, and not to the Middle East. To Europe, Canada, USA, Australia, Singapore etc. If we lose a lot more net contributors, we’ll be in trouble

That may well be the case. This statistic refers to those born outside the UK. Of course many will also be net recipients of benefits without living in poverty.

I would much rather cut welfare, than cut education or defence funding. Remember half of welfare is on triple locked baby boomers many of whom do not need it, or WFA.

As for whom have benefited over recent years; it’s low and middle incomes! Wage compression is very real.

Perhaps I am wrong and I don’t know the statistics, but it feels like the migration figures are being manipulated? People with money, net contributors, are leaving and being replaced by people who are not net contributors?

Because rather than all immigrants contributing to the economy, 46% live in poverty which means on benefits.