AIBU to think we need more help with cost of living than a 1% cut to income tax?

[ActualMadness]

lets take a full time minimum wage worker, 9.50x37.5=356.25
357.25x52= 18,525
18,525\12= 1543.75
1543.75\100= £15.43 a month better off.

Most peoples food bill has risen more than this per week and that’s without the extra cost of utilities and petrol. We need some fresh ideas as 1% income tax cut isn’t enough. Other countries have cut fuel duty by over 20% and cap utilities and we are being offered 1% tax cuts.

And as someone who would be personally affected by your proposal, I do not want to be pulled into the benefits system when DP and I have always paid for our own family.

That might be what it says on their payslip, but they would be receiving 7.8K in universal income, so, ignoring any universal credit, they would only be paying 1.2 K net. After Universal Credit, they would be a net recipient of government funds.

@antelopevalley , reference paragraph 3 of Getoff's post, the £16k allowance is unconditional. You can save it, spend it, what ever you want with it.

Sod that, I'm 66 and couldn't afford health insurance out of my pension.

And I have existing conditions which probably wouldn't be covered.

You are assuming people are happy to be in this position.
Why not just continue with a personal tax allowance and a lower tax rate? Why tinker with things to pull people into the benefit system and all its complex rules that disadvantage people? So have savings and you get less UC, it is on a sliding scale, and above £16 k you get none.
Seriously if there was a 50% tax rate for everyone, I would give up work, live on my savings into, they run out, and live in UC.
I do not want to be on benefits. If I am going to be any way I am not going to work. And I certainly would never do any overtime ever.

My travel insurance is extortionate because of health.
I can not think of a quicker way to kill off most of the disabled people in this country.

So this is a universal income? Fine I would take £16k.

Universal credit is a no-go.

Change taxes so £0-10000 you pay 0%, £10-20,000 you pay 10%, £20-30,000 you pay 20% etc. Much simpler and fairer.

I agree. Costs of public transport are higher outside of London, unless maybe you live in another big city. Rents are as high where I live (Sussex) as some London boroughs, too.

I'm liking @Getoff's suggestion. I could actually afford to retire on £16k net, I can't on my £12k pensions.

@Florenz how do you think the current tax system operates?
I find it ridiculous that they are all clambering to cut corporations tax but only 1% of income tax

If I got £16k a year and so did my husband we could probably both manage to not bother working. We’d just read and garden and cook. Lovely for us, since we’re tight anyway - but not so great for the economy.

Universal income is being trialled. People generally do continue to work, but some do make different choices e.g. train for another job, become a self-employed artist, and set up their own business. It gives you space to change your life.
Reading, gardening and cooking are fine for a year. But it is a pretty boring life if you are still reasonably young.
Lottery winners always say they will retire and spend their time on holidays and having fun. They generally do for about one or two years, then they start looking for something to do. Many set up businesses.

I have calculated how much the tax raise will affect me and how better off I will be once they raise the threshold (if they do now that Sunak is gone). My salary is not great, I will be a few pounds better off a week, which I happily let go of to ensure the NHS and other services are not further crippled to make privatisation an option.

Yeah right. Is everyone going to volunteer to pay for policing, roads, streetlights, water mains, libraries etc as well?

Those of you who want tax cuts, I hope you don't need any public services in the future. The government needs tax money to pay for public services.

I agree. We need initiatives to reduce inflation, not the "same old" throwing money at people as beloved by Boris/Rishi which just stokes up inflationary pressure. A cut in VAT, duties and climate levies on fuel would be far more useful as it's more directed at the real problem. It would help keep domestic energy costs under control and would help reduce costs for industry, i.e. fuel costs for manufacture/factories/warehouses etc and fuel costs for delivery of goods, the latter of which happens at every step of the supply chain so has a multiplier effect on final customer prices.

I'd say the opposite. The opportunities for better jobs, extra jobs, etc is greater in London than the regions. Londoners also benefit from heavily subsidised and generally superior public transport so can avoid the costs of using a car.

Spot on about Tax thresholds BUT VAT on energy is 5%, so poor pensioner or carer with a relatively smaller energy bill benefits by a few pounds, Richi Sunak or anyone else with a swimming pool etc benefit by a huge amount.

I'd do what France has done, nationalise energy providers and limit rises to modest amounts.

Either that or enforce caps on increases, companies might well pull out of the UK and then nationalise.

We could also force companies to mirror wholesale oil prices at the pumps, supermarkets are charging more for fuel now than our local independent 'stations - they seem to be using fuel to boost profits as they have found it harder to pass on food rises.

The economy will go into freefall (and inflation go out of control) unless the price of energy is dramatically reduced, both for public and business.

@Badbadbunny How would you make sure cuts in duties/Vat and levies were ALL passed on to the consumer?

Its not as if industry is passing on the recent falls in oil prices is it, yet if the price went up in the morning, this would be reflected in pump prices by the afternoon.

If people can't afford it, they'll stop buying things and profiteering firms will have to reduce prices to sell their goods.

By handing more money to people, it's facilitating businesses to keep prices high as more people can afford to spend.

Because VAT and some fuel duties are percentage based, there's a multiplier effect when the base price increases, which makes the price rises even worse, with more funds going to the Treasury.

I.e. if VAT is 5%, and the gas bill pre inflation was £100, then the VAT was £5 and total cost to householder was £105.

If gas doubles, the price becomes £200, plus £10 VAT, total £210, with the Treasury also benefitting from double the VAT!

At the very least, VAT and other duties should remain the same in monetary pound note terms before and after the increase.

@Badbadbunny But things like energy or fuel are not optional spends and as we have seen with the energy price cap, companies, despite still making v large profits, hiked the standing charge to make even more money.

Energy isn't going to fall whether people stop using it or not.

More generally, companies can still make large profits by selling & producing less but at a higher price, this reduces their overall production and distribution costs too.

We do however, need to stop giving money to people who don't require it.

million odd accommodation in London for the likes of government ministers (i.e. Michael Gove just moved out of his).

I could go on...

Hens teeth in terms of public spending, you could put all ministers in tents on Hampstead Heath and it wouldn't fund a 1% pay rise for AHP's

It should be for everyone, it’s not anyone else’s fault that people in London have higher house prices. Move somewhere cheaper 🤷‍♀️