To want a budget which puts young people and families first

[HFJ]

In advance of an upcoming budget that will likely hammer working people (again, despite the rhetoric), I’m consoling myself by imagining my own budget. You’ll notice a theme. This is because I believe young people and families are the future, deserve to have hope, aspirations and goals. Please feel free to contribute.

1. The first 5 years of young people’s full time earnings to be tax and NI free. This would enable all to save for a house deposit, rather than only the few who inherit. Imagine the incentive to work hard!
2. No increases to any tax that primarily affects working age people, including fuel tax (because working people need fuel to go to work)
3. No stamp duty for young people and those with children under 18. This enables them a fairer chance of buying property rather than have to compete unfairly with cash buyers
4. Complete removal of the pension tax free cash allowance. This is because 100s of 1000s are poised to take their 25% lump sum and plough this into the property market (tbf I think the gov has got wind of this, hence the landlord tax changes)
5. instead of massive increases to NHS budget (which does not really benefit the young or families), a £10 charge to see the doctor, so people start to take ownership for their health
6. Removal of the free prescription for over 60s. Instead, use this money to bring back the school nurse and perhaps even school dentist visits

Any other ideas?

Well it does actually make sense; two incomes as opposed to one for the mortgage for a start. It is really not necessary to spend a fortune on equipping for and clothing small children with Ebay etc available, and young children don’t add a large amount to the food bill.
However, I think a major part of the problem is the expectation that it’s ok to produce children when you can’t afford to.

I have never voted Tory in my long life. I find your remark insulting.

Triple lock - because we had ( and still have compared to equivalent countries) an awful lot of dreadfully poor pensioners

Free prescriptions- that's the English for you, welsh and Scottish people get them whatever their age

Bus passes- well you want older people out of their cars don't you? And they have slightly more time to make use of the bus (erm is this the right word) service

Excuse me, but that is like saying why should my taxes be used to road maintenance costs when I never live my town?
If no children are born, future pensions won't be paid. Your financial stability in old age depends on a younger generation prepared to cover the costs you’ll create for the system.
As a consequence, families with children need to be prioritised.

What on earth are you talking about? The PP said in his post:
"we struggle more than a couple with children do getting on the property ladder as we only have one wage".
So she did say that young couples have it easier.

This is why people aren't having families which is also of great concern.

We need to stop infighting and think about what is best in the now and for the future.

I think part of the issue is that the older generations have had opportunities now denied to the younger ones, i.e. affordable homes, better adult education, more job opportunities, endowment mortgage windfalls, privatisation and demutualisation windfalls, house price inflation, etc etc.

Today's youngsters work just as hard and have different challenges, it's just different. But they don't have the same opportunities. Job opportunities are poor in lots of regions outside a few big cities. Adult education (for retraining etc) is virtually non existent. Homes are unaffordable. No "windfalls" on the horizon. And every likelihood that state pensions for all will be scrapped by the time they hit retirement age.

That's the difference really. It's not about working hard or "struggling". It's the lack of opportunities which older generations could have benefitted from.

Even worse is that for a significant proportion of the population, particularly those with poor education/qualifications, having a family is seen as THE way to get a home, enough benefits to live a decent-ish sort of life, etc. These are the ones with no hope and who know they're never going to get a good job earning enough to pay for their own home, their own lifestyle, etc., The benefit culture allows them to live a life on benefits, backed by having children, often at a very young age, often with no father(s) on the scene financing them. You can't blame them really when they genuinely don't see any alternative way of getting an equivalent kind of lifestyle other than a life relying on benefits, whether not working at all, or working minimal hours in NMW jobs relying on in-work benefits.

What planet do you live on?! Families with children do not need to be prioritised.
Says a single person who gets no help whatsoever from anyone. It's a joke.

Spoken like a true Tory!

If inheritance were taxed at 99% and people spent all their money before they died… most of the spending would give the government at least 20% in vat..a win!

Increase in house price isn’t taxed, it’s earned through inflation!

Not when inheritance tax is at 40% now.

By forcing people to spend earlier, they lose up to 20% tax take. They also risk those people running out of pension if they live to an old age, and then falling back on the state to keep them, resulting in higher pension credit bills and possibly housing bills as well.

The benefit to the economy of the early spending, could be offset against the increased costs but it wouldn't fill the gap.

What nonsense

So it isn’t a real increase is it. It is just the way that money keeps its value.

Building council housing would also reduce the number of people paying high rents to BTL landlords.

So many people qualify for UC purely because their rent would be unaffordable without that it would eventually lead to a reduction in the benefit bill.

The budget is done, and seems a lot about nothing. 🙄

My DP pays a high rent to his landlord (is almost 50% of his take home pay), but would not be eligible for council housing as he has over £16k in savings... but could never buy either. So he is stuck in a gap that I imagine a lot of other people are.

My DP pays a high rent to his landlord (is almost 50% of his take home pay), but would not be eligible for council housing as he has over £16k in savings... but could never buy either. So he is stuck in a gap that I imagine a lot of other people are.

Eligibility for council housing has nothing to do with savings - the £16k savings threshold is for entitlement to UC, not social housing.

He failed the 'financial test', which includes savings.

@Jellycatspyjamas

This is from our council's documents about housing....

Where the main and/or joint applicant (this also includes partner of the main applicant included on the application) have a combined savings/capital in excess 21 | P a g e of £16,000, they will be ineligible to join the allocation scheme. The applicant/s will be expected to use this money to secure accommodation

@XenoBitch I honestly had no idea that was a "thing", that's a nightmare.

They weren't. Else they'd have used terms like "more likely to vote Remain".

The incentive to build is the profit that you make. We have a number of areas around where I live which have planning permission for houses, but houses are being built and released at a snail's pace in order to maintain high prices.