Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

how will the government raise the money?

307 replies

thereiscustardinthejamtart · 27/08/2024 19:45

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?

OP posts:
user092521 · 27/08/2024 23:05

candlewhickgreen · 27/08/2024 23:04

You don't understand why people with a lot of money should pay more tax? They can afford to pay more tax. People with less money pay less tax.

So you want them to pay tax again on money that has already been taxed via the income tax route?

Grabyourpassportandmyhand · 27/08/2024 23:07

candlewhickgreen · 27/08/2024 22:59

I disagree. They can easily afford to pay more tax.

At what point will the wealthy decide to spend whatever they have so they no longer have to subsidise the less well off though?

What incentive do they have to make money if the Gov are just going to keep taking it from them
Who will replace the company owners and employ people?

Do you think its as easy as everyone will work in the public service instead?

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:07

@candlewhickgreen 2m people who earn 1m plus a year? Or does that include assets. And you think the ones who earn 1m plus will all just stay?

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

7wwkw · 27/08/2024 23:08

candlewhickgreen · 27/08/2024 23:04

You don't understand why people with a lot of money should pay more tax? They can afford to pay more tax. People with less money pay less tax.

Yes, that's right, I don't understand why someone who as earned and saved should pay more tax - on that bank balance.

I do understand that people pay tax on income and the more you earn, the more you pay. x amount per £ and that amount increases over certain thresholds. Fine.

But what I am saying is do you actually think it OK to deplete someone's bank balance just because they saved/earned it? As if you think it's OK, why don't we just take 10% of every single person's bank balance in this whole country as a one off? Instant fix. But no, everyone thinks someone richer than them should pay.

7wwkw · 27/08/2024 23:09

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:07

@candlewhickgreen 2m people who earn 1m plus a year? Or does that include assets. And you think the ones who earn 1m plus will all just stay?

There are not 2 million people earning 1m plus a year.

Scentedjasmin · 27/08/2024 23:10

Well, I think that they should do something radical and cut benefits for all healthy 16-18 year olds. Between 18-22 I would expect all healthy people out of work on benefits to sign up to 20 hours voluntary work in the public sector to help fill the gaps by cuts (i.e. meals on wheels, community care, waste management, parks and gardens, graffiti removal etc). I would give them the choice from a list and they would have to stick it out for 6 months before they could apply for something else. No one young and fit should be getting money for do nothing. They need to be contributing to society and pitching in to help at a time when the country faces massive cuts. So that would be my starting point.
I don't think that it's fair to keep raiding the pension pots, inheritance tax etc of those sensible working amd middle classes who have saved and planned for their futures.

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:10

If you look at other European countries taxes on the higher earners is pretty much in line. Where we differ is the middle earners are taxed less here.

Obviously this relates to PAYE which those earning millions won’t tend to be on.

candlewhickgreen · 27/08/2024 23:10

user092521 · 27/08/2024 23:05

So you want them to pay tax again on money that has already been taxed via the income tax route?

I'm suggesting that we raise the taxes for millionaires/billionaires. Tax people with a lot of money more than people with less. We should also tax big corporations that pay no tax.

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:12

@Scentedjasmin how many healthy 16-18 yr olds are on benefits?

MrsClatterbuck · 27/08/2024 23:12

Thurien · 27/08/2024 20:43

They might abolish the single person tax allowance for all.

Labour? Seriously?

No Government would ever do that - except North Korea.

That would really screw pensioners on basic state pension. Actually every body on low wages would be screwed. But not going to happen.

Thurien · 27/08/2024 23:13

7wwkw · 27/08/2024 23:09

There are not 2 million people earning 1m plus a year.

No. It is actually about 10,000 according to the ONS.

Maths, or interpreting charts, or financial concepts is not the poster's strong point.

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:15

I don't think that it's fair to keep raiding the pension pots, inheritance tax etc of those sensible working amd middle classes who have saved and planned for their futures.

Always the same old narrative. My older colleagues aren’t more prudent than me. The pension scheme changed whilst I was at uni to be less generous & as great as it would have been to buy a house in the 90s with far more relaxed lending criteria & MIRAS alas I was a child.

TheHangingGardensOfBasildon · 27/08/2024 23:16

Thurien · 27/08/2024 22:22

But nobody 'gives you' a quick injection. It should be on our own terms. I have been very clear on mine.

But this thread isn't titled 'what options could be open to people who choose them which would save the country a lot of money'.

I'm very much presuming that none of the suggestions as to how the government might raise a lot of money are expected to be entirely optional. I can't imagine them raising much at all if they go around shaking a bucket and asking if anybody maybe fancies offering to pay more tax.

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:17

@Thurien that makes more sense as I think I read about 160k earn 100k.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 27/08/2024 23:22

They will tax / fine the people who don’t agree with them, followed by confiscating their property and assets; the Chinese call it social credit. It’s not that hard as long as people use the internet, speak to each other in public ( or even in private after a few years).

What do you mean, that seems a bit unfair? What are you, some racist, homophobic, transphobic bigot ? Your food stamps are withdrawn for a week.

Hatfullofwillow · 27/08/2024 23:23

Dorisbonson · 27/08/2024 23:05

Nobel prize winning economists know the difference between funding and finance, which from your previous statement you do not. Attempting to justify your arguments by suggesting that nobel prize winners would back them isn't convincing when you fail to understand basic economics.

How did we fund the extra spending during the covid crisis? By using the Bank of England to finance it and draw directly from the ways and means facility.

blacksax · 27/08/2024 23:24

AllThePotatoesAreSinging · 27/08/2024 21:21

In June this year around 1/4 of people of working age in this country did not have a job. About 11 million people.

The word ‘unemployed’ actually only applies to people who are actively looking for a job - the 1.4 million you mention. If you aren’t looking for a job, you aren’t ‘unemployed’, you are ‘economically inactive’. It’s an important distinction because there are about 9 million people of working age who don’t have jobs and aren’t looking for one. 9 million economically inactive people.

This includes 2.7 million people under 25 (most of these are students - just over 2m). About 2.5 million people between 25 and 49 - 40% sick, 40% have caring responsibilities. The other 400k or so no given reason. This doesn’t include the half million or so in that age group who are ‘unemployed’ and looking for work.

50 and above (but under 64), about 3.5 million people. About 1/3 are retired. Just over 1/3 are sick. About half a million have caring responsibilities.

So yeah. 11 ish million people of working age who don’t work. @CuttySarcasm isn’t wildly inaccurate at all, just important to be clear on what we mean by ‘unemployed’ and ‘not working’.

I work in HR in the public sector.

Edited

The poster didn't make that clear though, did they? As you say, there are millions of people not working.

Great. Let's put them all to work. Doing what? There's nearly a million and a half people who are actually 'unemployed' and can't find jobs. If they can't, how are all the other millions of people not working going to find a job? What do you want to do - round up all the pensioners and set them to work in factories or brussel-picking in the fields?
Confused

Dorisbonson · 27/08/2024 23:25

Narwhalsh · 27/08/2024 22:23

A proper sugar tax!!!! Poor diet is making our nation unwell and putting more strain on NHS/social care and the manufacturers of highly processed, high calorie foods are making massive profit on it. Does not compute. Subsidise fresh produce with the tax

Would be very supportive of sugar taxes.

Livelovebehappy · 27/08/2024 23:28

I honestly don’t think they know yet. Labour tend to spend money, then work out afterwards how they’re going to recoup it. Maybe Reeves is reading this post on MN and getting ideas.

Dorisbonson · 27/08/2024 23:28

Also suspect legalising, regulating and taxing certain drugs would raise a lot more than 22bn.

Marijuana is effectively legal already. The way in which friends and acquaintances of mine buy pills and coke make me think it's effectively legal - they show up disguised as deliveroo riders anywhere in London within 30 minutes!

I hate drugs but may as well as tax them!

circular1985 · 27/08/2024 23:33

Yes, or a dog tax!

We need to buy an annual dog licence in NI. Not sure how much money it generates though 🐶

AllThePotatoesAreSinging · 27/08/2024 23:33

7wwkw · 27/08/2024 23:08

Yes, that's right, I don't understand why someone who as earned and saved should pay more tax - on that bank balance.

I do understand that people pay tax on income and the more you earn, the more you pay. x amount per £ and that amount increases over certain thresholds. Fine.

But what I am saying is do you actually think it OK to deplete someone's bank balance just because they saved/earned it? As if you think it's OK, why don't we just take 10% of every single person's bank balance in this whole country as a one off? Instant fix. But no, everyone thinks someone richer than them should pay.

I seem to remember Cyprus doing this a few years ago.

candlewhickgreen · 27/08/2024 23:35

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:07

@candlewhickgreen 2m people who earn 1m plus a year? Or does that include assets. And you think the ones who earn 1m plus will all just stay?

For the final time because this is getting boring. We should raise taxes on millionaires. People who earn millions and people with millions in the bank. There should be higher tax on very wealthy people. People with more money should be taxed more than people with less money.

According to Forbes there are over 2 million people in the UK who are millionaires. I think those people should be taxed more.

Dorisbonson · 27/08/2024 23:36

Hatfullofwillow · 27/08/2024 23:23

How did we fund the extra spending during the covid crisis? By using the Bank of England to finance it and draw directly from the ways and means facility.

😂 😂 😂

You have just proven my point that you don't understand the difference between funding and finance.

This is basic stuff.

Grabyourpassportandmyhand · 27/08/2024 23:36

Glitterglitch · 27/08/2024 23:10

If you look at other European countries taxes on the higher earners is pretty much in line. Where we differ is the middle earners are taxed less here.

Obviously this relates to PAYE which those earning millions won’t tend to be on.

Exactly this. They will widen the bands so the 'middle' are paying more and the rich are paying more. Anyone on the 40% and 45% tax brackets will find themselves paying increased taxes which will hurt those far more.

What would make sense would be to make the NHS free for those on the 20% bracket only. There is no need for it to be available for everyone. It simply isn't feasible anymore and hasn't been for a long time.