how will the government raise the money?

[thereiscustardinthejamtart]

I’m curious as to how the government are going to raise the money for the “£22b black hole”.

Presumably they can either cut spending or raise more money (either through taxation or growth).

They have said they aren’t going to raise income tax, VAT or NI.

They don’t seem to be going for a growth plan.

So what are we expecting to be cut, and what are we expecting to be taxed.

I assume they are looking at pensions (get rid of tax free lump sum, reduce or eliminate relief on contributions), inheritance tax, some kind of additional tax on corporations. They are already doing VAT on private education.

Cuts - winter fuel allowance. I assume reduction in university funding, arts funding. What else?

scrap subsidies for agricultural (but not tax relief such as IHT).

By how much would that push up the price of primary foodstuffs?

I’m not sure it would. If you need to buy fertiliser then you pay the market rate that week, the same goes for feed, seed and grain. The prices change weekly based on the global commodities market. This is for bulk feed not small bags from the feed merchant which are always more to cover the price fluctuations

The current subsidy are only available to those who have entitlements. These were claimed/given out to those that applied when the quota system was abolished. These entitlements can be bought and sold.

There are many small farmers who cannot claim the subsidy and therefore have to farm without it.
The retailers don’t sell British farm produce cheaper because of the subsidy, it’s sold at the market value.
It would cause chaos in the industry but why should farmers be so heavily subsidised whilst everyone isn’t. I also think it’s a major barrier to new entrants to the industry as the payment goes with land and it keeps land prices high.

No idea just repeating back what I heard from people in the industry. Since @Nadeed was saying how expensive it is to have them in a special school, but teachers have said it lowers the quality of teaching for all when having them in mainstream schools without adequate support (TAs have been stripped back in recent years).

1.44m are classed as unemployed doesn't mean they're living off benefits as might be implied by your post. Maybe they're claiming JSA but you can only claim that for 6 months max.

I was unemployed for a year after being laid off while pregnant. I didn't claim any benefits apart from JSA, as I had savings so not eligible and I'd worked the tax year I lost my job as a high earner, so didn't even qualify for child benefit.

I know other people who are unemployed who are well off, but lost their job during layoffs so would be in a similar boat. I feel like some posters think all unemployed are benefits claimants but for various reasons might not be.

A couple of areas I think need reviewing: I think there are a lot of overpriced private contracts which were handed out over recent years which need assessing. A few have been mentioned on here already, but things like privatisation of GP practices, children's homes and Academies. It seems like not all work efficiently either so they're wasting tax payers money.

Seems like the benefits themselves are not the issue so much as certain people working the system especially around PIP and DLA.

There has also been a big impact from NHS underfunding. Long waits for operations and assessments have led to people developing chronic issues and being off work waiting and costs associated with supporting them.

I don't like the tone of some people on here seemingly demonising single mums and immigrants as all scrounging.

I'm a single mum and have generally always been in work as a high earner and even when I wasn't, I wasn't eligible for anything. Whatever the new taxes are I'll no doubt be hit and heavier than the average family (since they often assess based on one income and not 2).

Many "immigrants" I know are also in very high paying jobs paying in the 50% bracket of tax. "Banning immigrants" as one PP suggested is extremely ignorant and unhelpful.

SEN overhaul definitely needed. Stop the gravy chain of private SEN schools draining money from councils. Bring SEN into mainstream for a fraction of the cost.

They don’t work and are probably helping to explode the economically inactive numbers of young people. They do not prepare young people for a mainstream life.

Companies + private equity are exploitative and tax payer money is being funnelled out of the country.

MS schools and teachers need to be re trained and perhaps lose the prejudice against SEN in the classroom.

"MS schools and teachers need to be re trained and perhaps lose the prejudice against SEN in the classroom." @Daisychainsss

The teachers I know have SEN kids of their own, they are not prejudiced. They said it's just not possible to manage 30 children, 10 of which may have SEN and some of which have complex behavioural issues which use up pretty much all their attention (one example included a 6 yr old child screaming all day, biting other children and soiling themselves). Before they had more TAs which helped but these have been cut.

They need to resource better in schools if they want to keep SEN kids in mainstream but specialist schools can be better adapted for those with the most complex needs. Maybe non private SEN schools are the answer?

Actually they've been talking about ways to incentivise a higher birth rate as the current birth rate is too low to sustain the tax and jobs needed to support our increasingly elderly population, especially without high rates of immigration, which they also don't want.

Feel like there a lot of people who've lost sight of the bigger picture...

What are some of the suggestions to incentives higher birth rates?

You can't incentivise birth rates through payments or childcare. It makes little difference.
Give council houses to people who have 4 or more children. That would incentivise birth rates. But when people talk about increasing birth rates, they usually mean middle class women giving birth. And in the middle class, its the men being unwilling to commit to starting a family that you need to tackle.

We don't need to live the way we do now.
Don't need to be global players.
Change the course of the economy.

You're right.
They don't want the current benefit claimants and similar having kids they want the tax payers in decent jobs that live within a economically minded culture to have kids.
They want the right sort of people having kids.

@TransformerZ and persuading middle class couples, both in professional jobs, is very hard and largely unsuccessful. Lots of societies have tried.

Millionaires and billionaires are extremely heavily taxed already tho. I don’t know what you mean when you say you think things have been stolen from you. Who stole what?

They are not heavily taxed.

I would be taxing all the things I don’t like too.

And in the middle class, its the men being unwilling to commit to starting a family that you need to tackle.

id say childcare & housing costs also impact the middle classes.

current birth rate is too low to sustain the tax and jobs needed to support our increasingly elderly population, especially without high rates of immigration, which they also don't want.

the future is continuing higher taxes and reduced public services

Level cgt with income tax
ni with no age restriction
higher tax on houses with multiple cars
cut benefits to max of minimum wage
Include pensions in inheritance tax
Replace ct with property tax
Small cost for gp appointment and fine if miss appointment

Corporation tax has already been hiked to 25% - the highest rate for many years and higher than many of our competing countries.

Too right that we want the "right sort of people to have kids". We want the next generation to have a work ethic, be highly educated, motivated, etc. We don't want a load of workshy layabouts, getting pregnant at 14, drugged into oblivion, and only doing the occasional bit of "cash in hand" work that doesn't get declared so doesn't affect their benefits!

People say that. But it does not affect how many children people have. It does affect the age of first pregnancy.

@Nadeed I would have had more dc if I had my home sooner/it was more affordable, I think that’s true for many.

The earlier you start pregnancy the more time you have for many dc. I know lots of women who didn’t feel financially ready till there mid/late 30s so stopped at one.