What Rachel Reeves does next? Surprised no thread on this yet. It's all over Twitter

[Sharingsomewisdom]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13764547/Rachel-Reeves-mulls-tax-hikes-spending-squeeze-raising-rents-social-housing-Chancellor-sees-Government-borrow-3bn-forecast-month.html

Or am I the only one interested what she is eying next? Any comment on the reasonableness or otherwise of Rachel's next focus?

It depends what they are, same for dh.

The problem with this is we are all impacted by not enough Govt spending.

We can see this in our daily lives, personal wealth will not move you up the queue if you re taken to AE.

However, tax rises on basic rate workers is no longer possible, most simply don't have the money, even the NI cut has been swallowed up by freezing tax thresholds.
We cannot borrow much more, so unless Labour start taxing the better off, we are in for 5 years of Austerity, esp as they have canceled or delayed many infrastructure projects.

The idea we can suddenly grow our way out of our financial difficulties is for the birds, unless he does a u-turn and seeks far closer EU integration but even that would take 2 or 3 years of negotiation, even if the EU agreed to enter talks on this, so no short term fix.

She was on Radio 2 arguing with Jeremy Vine pre-election, saying that everything in the Labour manifesto had been costed, and she was promising no tax rises to pay for any of it. Since the election it's all been well, the finances we had access to for 6 months are actually worse than we thought, so tax rises it is.

Did Reeves actually promise no tax rises across the board or did she specify particular taxes which would not be put up?
Taxation per se is not a bad thing or something to be avoided at all costs, unless one is a Trussite, in which case I’d suggest one has bigger things to worry about.

collateral damage for the various parties pet projects.

--
As a citizen, I do feel like a guineapig for all their pet projects tbf. Well said. One minute this reduced; the next moment; oh no, the reduction is reversed. Ad infinitum.

People really need to listen to what is being said. Politics is a lot about using words to fool the public who don't think for themselves.

She didn't say no tax rises. She said they would raise income tax, NI or VAT. There are lots of other taxes they can and will raise.

The problem they have is that people who work hard don't have any more to give. The top ups often give those not working or working only part time as much if not more than those working full time.

If they continue to try and tax grab from then squeezed middle it will (hopefully) comeback and bite them. People with resources have options to change/reduce what they pay and how they work.

They are trying to look as though they are being hard on benefits etc with their claim they won't lift the 2 child cap and the social houses rises but imo this is them saying to those that are paying the majority of the tax 'see we aren't just coming for you'.

Quick analysis- I am no economist.

Social Housing rent increase idea will mainly mean huge welfare bill- however, RR also wants to sort the welfare bill, so will be interested to see how she proposes to grip/contain it. Provided the SH idea does lead to more affordable homes which we apparently lack, then I am all for it. However, it seems to go back to money as I heard an expert saying developers have a lot of these homes on their books already but HA and LA can't afford to buy them off them. Many LA predicted to go under too.

-Thank you to the poster who put it so directly: 'the thinking we can grow our way out of this mess, is for the birds'. You have saved me from looking for these growth ideas which I really wanted to believe they existed.

-Yes, taxing us more would be ok by many pp including me ( I am already being taxed highly!) - as long as people can see the difference in their daily lives: able to get to A&E and not wait in 24 hours' queues etc.

-All in all, it looks like the UK needs to overhaul the whole tax system and welfare bill. That requires competence and looking at teh bigger picture. It also means there will be casualties along the way.

Well, I will go back to my wait and see game and hope for the best for all of us.

Oh, on a personal note, I have already been affected by a change in tax just for political gains, for many years now- it left me feeling being treated unfairly and not trusting any political party (I gave my proxy vote to my DH for that reason). Therefore, I do feel like if everyone (ok, most of the population) gets a small tinkle here and there in taxes or bills, there will be some equality/ equity/fairness and I will start to feel the sense of fairness. The majority need to give something more/back so that it is fair and we can all have the infrastructure that we need without only targeting one group of people as the scapegoat.

Again, I just want to feel and hope this is all being done by someone competent. At the moment, I need more evidence from Labour before I can really believe in their grand project. I also believe none can tell teh shape of this country at the end of the 4 year period.

Good analysis here too! Thank you.

The pledge was no increase in income tax, employee NI or VAT. Any other tax is fair game. High time tax rates in earned and unearned income were aligned.

No you definitely said it on one of the other threads that was grumbling about Starmer that you are in a country that used to be under dictatorial rule and UK is not as bad as where you are. Remember reading it and wondering where that was then.

@iwishihadknownmore

Very long post with no answer to a simple question - are you impacted by tax rises? Yes or no?

And how much more you're willing to pay?

Even that statement is misleading.

Plenty of parents are about to be presented with a huge new VAT bill. The rate may still be 20% so technically not increased however the scope most definitely has meaning her comments are disingenuous at best.

Similar situation with income tax. Rates may not rise however static bandings plus inflation leads to a greater burden in real terms.

Because its stupid & unanswerable question because until the budget, everything is guess work, what taxes are going to be increased? you haven't a clue which ones Reeves might increase, we just know that it wont be NI, Income or VAT.

CGT changes wouldn't affect me and neither would higher rate pension relief.
IHT ? well, i'd be dead, long past caring, i wont be paying it.

For most ordinary people, any tax changes won't affect them, for the very well off, they might.

Sunak froze income tax bands until 2029 not Reeves, VAT on fees was announced before the GE, people knew what they were voting for & what they weren't, they rejected your party of choice, across 100s of constituencies.

There is because you need to compensate for the risk involved. If you make it too punitive nobody will bother to take any risk at all.

It is the same situation with CGT allowance now only being 3k. It deters people from either selling long term held assets until a more favourable government is in charge again or keeping hold of recently acquired ones.

I receive fairly significant stock options in through work. Previously I used to keep a lot of them invested but now I sell them all immediately they arrive as I’ll lose 20% of the benefit of all gains over 3k and 100% of all losses. Change it to match marginal tax rates and I’ll lose 45% of all profits and 100% of all losses. Who in their right mind is going to invest in those terms?

Fewer than 20% of the electorate voted for Labour.

I’d be astounded if their support is much above 15% now after the disastrous last few weeks.

Isn’t it interesting how people perceive things?
I perceive the last few weeks as refreshing and positive, not disastrous.

This question is not stupid and absolutely answerable, it's just you're advocating extra funding for public services so much because you want to benefit from them but expect someone else to pay.

Forget about specifics of which tax, just answer which amount you're ready to pay extra.

Breaking news - those people who you're expecting to pay aren't stupid, they are paying more than enough already and have not much in return apart from hate. Some of them are of course hostages to circumstances, but a lot will adjust their behavior and reduce hours, retire or emigrate. Investments wise many people will try to wait till more supportive government - read @@Charlie2121 example if unclear

This question is not stupid and absolutely answerable, it's just you're advocating extra funding for public services so much because you want to benefit from them but expect someone else to pay.

Yes to this, pp are keen if it's someone else paying

To add - last couple of weeks news were about growing economy and interest cut. The former increases tax base, the latter reduces the amount for servicing government debt. Jointly it does reduce budget deficit so the need for tax rises is reduced. However, Labour will continue with inflation busting rises, so nothing will suffice.
Labour will also try to squeeze this all now in hope that people adjust and forget by next election.

People are allowed to go on holiday 😂

Its a stupid question because its hypothetical, expecting people to answer questions on things that have not yet happened, madness.

As for @Charlie2121 cannot even correctly state the % of the population who voted Labour (it was 34%) or that the 3k limit was under the Tories, first halving it to 6k from 12k, then down to just 3k this year, yet this poster pretends it was Labour!!!

He or she doesn't seem so good with numbers.

Why would people retire, cut hours or emigrate? leaving their friends family and lives behind just because of a small tax rise?

They haven't over the last 14 years and the highest tax burden since WW2.

Your post suggests you don't think you will have to pay more tax anyway, but keen for others to.

It's easy to be pro higher taxes if it's not your tax going up

The cuts in interest rates affect new debt, not older debt, which is the majority, hence it takes time to have positive outcomes.

Come on now, you know that isn’t true. We can discount people entitled to vote who didn’t bother. Of those who did turn out 33.7% voted directly for Labour. That doesn’t take into account a very high level of tactical voting to get rid of as many Tories as possible. If you think the last few weeks is disastrous you’ve been in a coma for the last five years.