Tax increases imminent

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

Heavy hints that taxes will rise in the next Budget after the recent climb down (as the ‘taxes won’t rise again’ was based on a 5 billion saving in benefits).

I can’t lie, I’m so pissed off about this. I don’t think anyone wants to see someone who is genuinely unable to work to be further penalised, but we all know there are thousands of people who could work but don’t.

this country is going to absolute shit . We pay more and more for less and less.

True, but taking money off pensioners is astonishingly unpopular, and yet it is over 40% of the welfare bill. No leader has "shown leadership" on this; instead, usually they claim that the triple lock (a.k.a exponential growth in spending on welfare) is safe in their hands.

The reality is that the majority of tax revenue doesn't come from the average joe, but if you read further into the IFS analysis, even the blended rate is lower here than many of the other European countries with the level of services that are constantly pointed as as being our desired state.

The bottom line is that the tax revenue is insufficient for the current level of service, let alone the level we aspire to have. On top of that, what revenue there is has been terribly managed by successive governments. The cost to resolve this, assuming we trust the current administration to manage the finances appropriately, is going to be huge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe#/media/File:Payroll_and_income_tax_by_country.png Very far from correct

utter bullshit

I agree, 37% of PIP claims are paid at the highest level, if we could tackle those at the lower end of need it would help reinforce support for those who need the highest levels of support. I think that’s what the proposed reforms aimed to do albeit in a very rough way, but better thought out and with an eye to what disability benefits are intended to do, it might be worthwhile.

In the UK it doesn’t. In other countries it does. In Switzerland if you can climb into the back of ambulance you will probably find you’re paying the equivalence of around £6000. If you can justify the need most insurance policies won’t pay out.

@VelvetAndPVC my mum was conscious after her stroke & my aunt went into the ambulance conscious but deteriorated and almost died in hospital as she had sepsis. Would insurance policies think the ambulances were unnecessary?

Not really. People miss out by a few pounds at the moment for a lot of this - sadly that is reality. So again, why would it not work? I’m not saying people should pay for ambulances or surgery etc. but GP appointments maybe, maybe some people should be on an insurance style system. I don’t know what the answer is but means testing must play a part I fear. @Rosscameasdoody

Of course taxes will rise. It’s a Labour government, and totally expected.
Apparently a lot of people don’t mind paying more to improve public services.

The tax concessions apply to motability as a charity. Those tax concessions also include exemption from vehicle excise and import duties on those vehicles which all qualifying disabled people buying or leasing a car would be entitled to regardless of whether it’s via motability or not. It’s also a private concern and negotiates the vehicles used on the scheme at discounted prices directly from manufacturers.

The controversy around motability is more about the big banks and private companies which have their noses in the trough of a scheme which came into being over forty years ago and has quietly been providing disabled people with a convenient way of accessing a vehicle which many otherwise couldn’t hope to do. The cars are never owned by the claimant. They are returned at the end of the lease and sold on to recoup costs which are then reinvested in motability. Leasing through motability has always been cheaper than in the wider leasing market - because the cost of the lease has always been tailored to the amount of the higher rate mobility allowance. That’s the whole point.

The main cost to the tax payer is the higher rate mobility allowance which is needed to qualify for the scheme and is only paid to those with the most severe disabilities. That allowance is handed over in return for a three or five year lease which includes maintenance, servicing, breakdown and insurance - all provided at Motability’s own cost. That allowance is paid to those eligible regardless of whether the claimant uses motability or not. In my experience Joe Public doesn’t have a problem with that, except when it’s used for a ‘free car’. And that isn’t rooted in any concern for the tax payer, it’s generally envy that a disabled person can access a car, with absolutely no thought as to whether they would still envy the concession if they had to take on the disability that goes with it.

There has been misuse at the top, but disabled people are not responsible for that. In the main, the scheme is responsible for opening up the lives of disabled people and in many cases allowing them to work, by providing simplified access to the most convenient and common sense solution to mobility difficulties. And not just a car. It also gives access to powered wheelchairs and other equipment which disabled people would otherwise have difficulty accessing.

@Lauren1983 We can and should charge for children to access the NHS.

The feckless parents you describe are already unlikely to take their child to the Drs, and they are not losing their drink and fags because the money will be taken directly from next month's child benefit.

All across the world parents pa towards their children's health care - usually it is subsidised as I have suggested.

They see it as a necessary expensive like food or water for their children.

There are parents who don't feed their children too despite being giving several different benefits to allow them to do so (and the children are fed at school)

I don't think we should be creating policy for the worst of our society, I think we consider what a normal average parent would do.

If people didn’t mind they would have run on it at the GE.

I couldn't disagree more

I don't think either of you have thought that through at all. A few more years of treatment could mean a lone parent suffering from secondary breast cancer gets to raise her children and saves them having to go into the care system thereby costing the tax payer far more in the long run.

So you think that those who work for 50 years, save and pay NI for all that time should give up their state pensions for those who couldn’t be bothered? Great idea. Then there will be no incentive to keep working. Then the country will collapse. Very quickly

what's better, moving the age out further or means testing?

If only they use the taxes here to better the country roads and nhs.

The amount the UK gov spends each year is equivalent to approx. £17,000 per person.

So, a family of four would need an annual household income of around £160k to be net contributors…

We’re screwed.

I’m totally pissed off. I get the state pension and a small NHS pension. My net NHS pension has been halved due to the most recent tax increases and I’ll now lose even more.

This in spades. Already happening in Scotland where we are taxed at a lower threshold and pay more, where put-upon workers are reducing hours and foregoing career progression to avoid paying through the nose in tax, for not very much.

Yes - you've finally got it. More people need to work!!

There aren't enough workers!

We absolutely should not.

All that will happen is they won't go/won't pay and the children will suffer.

I want no part of a society where children can only access healthcare based on their parents willingness or ability to pay.

I am no economist, but I think UK governments should focus on getting salaries increases.

American salaries are high. I now live in Switzerland where for the same job salaries are high. In my own country, India, salaries have skyrocketed in the last one decade.

38k is a decent salary compared to national average but objectively it is pretty low in 2025. Fuel/ oil is used in every business, transportation, in homes. It imported and charged in USD. A lot of products are made abroad. Only so much you can control the cost of living in today’s global world, and value of pound has declined over the years.

If hospitals didn't have to supply free food for people they could provide nicer food and charge market prices. People could could always order in food from outside if they preferred.

There aren't enough jobs.

The amount the UK gov spends each year is equivalent to approx. £17,000 per person.

So, a family of four would need an annual household income of around £160k to be net contributors…

We’re screwed

The average is skewed because of the costs of older people and babies.

But this shows how redundant the conversation around net contributors is. When has the average UK family had an income equivalent to 160k?

There has always been a high percentage of those who take more than they pay but we had the demographics to support it. Now we don't.

If the feckless you’ve just described won’t access free healthcare for their children, what on earth makes you think they would do so if they had to pay for it ? That makes no sense at all.

Except Labour said they wouldn’t raise them.