I don't want to pay more fucking tax!

[marthainthemarket]

I am the sole earner in a family of four, earning just under 40k a year and getting probably fuck all or below inflation pay increase next year, if I am lucky enough to keep my job ( public sector and employer needing to make massive budget savings). I barely cope now.

I am so fucking angry that Labour fucked up the disability benefit cuts. Other countries don't have run away disability benefits crises because they have a proper assessment process that means they keep a lid on people getting disability benefits who don't really need them. But instead of dealing with that, they came up with a crap proposed cut that wouldn't have dealt with the actual issues and they couldn't defend.

And having fucked that up they are now raising everyone's tax. I hate them!

They have created this issue. The last budget was a mistake and has hampered growth and debt servicing is incredibly high.

Barclays is forecasting that Reeves will be looking for £41bn in tax rises in the budget, up from their prediction of £26.5bn in September.

This is their problem. Reeves and Starmer are throwing in the political towel so the markets give them a bit more headroom. That was a key point to yesterday as well as prepping everyone for breaking the manifesto and lies.

I don't live in the past, nor have a chip on my shoulder.
The past needs to be understood in order to make good decisions for the present and future.

Would you expect a doctor to diagnose and treat you without looking at your medical records?

That's the thing though - the only way work is enough is if wages keep pace with inflation - which they don't!

Take Labour's tax credits - they led to lower unemployment, fewer children living in poverty and stabilised inflation all while continuing to grow the economy and keeping debt below 40% of GDP.

I still think the upper limit was ridiculously high at £50,000, and they would have had to reduce it, but it was still paying people to be in work.

Those same things could have been achieved by increasing wages BUT business and the markets would have gone off the wall and it would never have been allowed to happen - so the solution was for the government to collect the revenue in and then hand it back out in the form of tax credits.

Universal credit continues to do this, but with the severe reduction in upper earnings limits, the two child benefit cap, massively increases in the cost of living and wage increases which are further below inflation than ever, it is no longer about subsidising wages to encourage people into work and improving the quality of life, it's just about giving people the bare minimum to survive

My husband pays £70k a year in tax and he’s happy to pay more IF services improved and there was a tangible benefit but often tax rises just seem to go nowhere and that leads to frustration.

Labour have not created a further black hole. As they have looked at what the Conservatives have left behind they keep uncovering more issues - the more they look the more they find. Hospitals crumbling, staff shortages in key roles that will take a decade to rectify, schools falling apart, the private owners of vital services (water, transport, electricity) on the point of going bust having sweated all they can out of the assets and now demanding subsidies and price rises.

No one believes that for one second. This is all of Reeves' own making.

How much tax do you pay? We all need to share accountability for contributing financially to this country.

BUT a person receiving UC, PIP, housing benefit. Etc is taking more than a low paid worker not receiving benefits at all?

Apologies for misunderstanding, and indeed I have agreed with some of what you've posted, but other things very much not. What partly led me to misunderstand was this previous comment from you:

If employers can get away with "shit wages" isn't that (usually but not always) a reflection of how the market views what a person should be paid for this job. It would reflect a lack of skills, and the fact there's a large swathe of people that could do it?

which gave me to understand that you are fine with the suppression of public sector wages by the govt because public sector workers supposedly lack skills(!).

My question still stands about what you think society would do if public sector workers started quitting their jobs though.

Maybe she is a high tax payer maybe not. The problem is people TAKING and not contributing. Where is the accountability for people reliant on benefits? That needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and then we can look at other things.

Agreed, but they are all "taking" just different amounts.
So people on an average salary who are saying "I paid tax all my life" should really be saying "I paid tax all my life, but received far more back in services"

I'm not disputing that, although I would point out that you really can't always tell someone's fitness/ability levels from the outside. But where those who genuinely could work and have no intention of doing so are concerned, why should those who are genuinely unable to work and in need have to suffer for the behaviour of those (relatively few) who could and just don't want to?

I’d be happy to pay more tax if I could see the direct result of it - eg NHS improvements.
However, I’m reluctant to pay more tax whilst we’re pissing ££millions a month on housing asylum seekers: either get them working and paying tax themselves (many will have skills the U.K. needs), or get them out of the country.

Ok. Stop benefits first then look at people who havent contributed enough over a lifetime? Fair

You’ve just said further down thread, the conservatives haven’t got a back bone, so basically what good did they do, when in government for 14 years.I stand by my point, it’s all very well to blame this government for everything that’s gone wrong, when the previous one, had 14 years and in that time did so much damage.

They’re not all public sector though - I am in one of these professions, but I’m private. Wage still isn’t great.

Fewer people accept the Labour blame line each week.

But on MN I've learnt the fraud rate is under 1% due to the extensive medical proof needed.

I really wish someone would tackle the huge problem of parents not being responsible for their own DCs.
All fathers and mothers should be held accountable for paying for their child’s upkeep. Fair enough if you then need benefits but I’m sick and tired of parents living apart - allegedly and then the rp claiming benefits as a single patent. Make the nrp pay!
If you are paying 25% of your income to your first partner then 25% of your income to your second partner ( ie mother if your children) then you are not likely to go on and have children with a third woman. Yet I see men gathering children to several women and expecting her to claim benefits as a single parent.
Stop allowing the get out clause of including the new partners DCs to reduce the amount you pay to your existing DCs.
Then include this in the income the rp received to reduce benefits.
Regarding the issue if none payment, make them pay! I don’t have a choice as to whether I want to pay NI and tax each month. Neither should they. Take it from wages/benefits. If it makes them worse off do what? It will reduce the benefits bill and help to stop fecklessness.
Women will also be aware that if they chose to have dcs with these men exactly what the financial consequences are.

"Where is the accountability for people reliant on benefits? That needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and then we can look at other things."

People have been saying this for years though, when (and what) is the actual crunch point?

I'm sure the lady from the link would much rather have her leg back than her BMW.

The money from PIP to pay for a Motability car is the same no matter what car you have. If you decide not to use the Motability scheme, you get the same amount of money in cash.

Everyone must pay an advanced payment for their car which isn't covered by Motability or PIP. You'll see that even in the link it says that the lady paid a higher advanced payment because it's a BMW. She likely went with the car, not because it's considered a luxury car but because she clearly has mobility issues and needs a car where it's possible to fit a wheelchair and be adapted so she is able to drive it (which she also would've paid for, not PIP or Motability, by the way).

So how exactly would not allowing cars like BMW's save money?

I really wish that if someone is going to criticise the Motability scheme, they would at least know how it works before doing so.

I don't know but getting nearer by the day. They have had warning so it shouldn't be a shock but no doubt some will claim naivety. The clock is ticking.

Sure, but be in no doubt, the biggest benefit recipients are pensioners and the biggest benefit of all are public and state pensions which aren't means tested one iota. I'd start there.

Too big a vote to piss off? Reform are talking about cutting minimum wage for young people, is that more politically safe?

Means-testing the state pension would be very expensive. And would have to have a long lead-in time, otherwise it would be electoral suicide.

Eliminate benefits including pension credit, cut public sector pensions. Pay state pension dependent on years contributing and amount contributed.