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.

So which disabled people do you think are capable of work ? What kind of work do you think they could do ? And, more importantly, what do you think can be done to encourage more employers to take them on.

Because at the moment precisely nothing is being done. In fact it’s worse than nothing. Several times during my career I saw disabled people offered and taking up work, only to lose it because the DWP made such a dogs’ dinner of making available the funding necessary for adjustments to be made for them to be able to do the job. The government wants to wield the stick of benefit sanctions and time limiting certain benefits, which is all well and good if you have employers willing to offer jobs to disabled people. But that’s far from the case and government doesn’t seem to have a clue what to do about it.

That won’t work because not everyone is eligible to pay tax. Contribution based benefits are taxable and usually don’t take into account household income so unless the claimant has another form of income those benefits alone wouldn’t meet the tax thresholds.

Stop worrying about the triple lock and disabled, and stop labelling people as "net contributors" and "takers/shirkers." It is all deliberate shit-stirring to distract people from the complete hash of public services that all parties have made over the last 40 years - and in particular the last Conservative government - because nobody will have the grown-up conversation about how vital public services need to be financed and managed. It is simply not possible to have good public services without the taxpayers - individuals, companies, employers - paying for them.

Other countries manage to do it. I've lived in Scandinavia, Germany and Austria and of course there are people whinging about "high taxes" - but they know that they are getting relatively good public services for their taxes. They are aghast when they hear about the waiting times for treatment in the UK or when they read about people waiting for hours in A&E, or who died waiting for an ambulance that never came. Rural areas have generally good public transport and in the cities, public transport infrastructure is generally excellent. Education is free or very low cost, from Kindergarten right up to University or technical college.

The American idea of low taxes creating wealth, the Laffer Curve and trickle-down economics, has been shown to be utterly false. It merely results in the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer. And before anyone thinks that Farage and Reform are the answer, who want to introduce healthcare payments and American-style public services (i.e. little or no public services) in order to keep funding tax cuts to the wealthy, think about what that might cost. People are being bankrupted or they are suffering permanent health damage because they cannot afford the insulin or other vital drugs and treatments - things that in the UK and Europe are taken for granted. If the UK ever goes in this direction - and the American private healthcare providers are rubbing their hands in anticipation of taking a huge chunk of the billions that currently go to the NHS - then the country will be well and truly fucked. Upthread, someone quoted a family member paying $30,000 to give birth in the US - could you afford that, or afford thousands for treatment for a simple broken leg or arm, or for more serious issues like cancer? The claim that the UK cannot afford to spend more is false. Firstly, done correctly, funding of public services is an investment, not a cost. Secondly, the “hidden cost” to the economy of employee sickness reached £103bn in 2023 (Institute for Public Policy Research) so it is not a question of not being able to afford this healthcare investment, but rather, the country cannot afford not to invest.

Means testing the state pension so that not everyone gets it is just the same as taxing middle earners to pay the welfare bill. The people getting the state pension in the future will end up mainly being the ones getting benefits now.

I never understand why the feckless who have not done a day’s work in their life suddenly become “poor souls” when they become pensioners.

If it was to be means tested, they’d need to introduce it for future generations so that people could factor that into their pension planning. Taking it away from folk who have paid NI their whole working lives would be immoral and political suicide.

But would you rather pay more to tax and move to a system of healthcare that has been proven to work, or pay more tax and stick with a system of healthcare that has been proven not to work…?

A fundamental problem of the British public and politicians is the pig headed belief that British means best. It hasn’t, for generations. Why not look at best practice, spend the extra money and get a system that actually works? And that’s doesn’t just apply to healthcare!

I don’t think means tested but do away with the triple lock.

The fundamental problem with the British public is that they won’t pay out more for better services but insist on blaming whichever gov Is in for the problems - then when said gov attempts to raise desperately needed money they vote them out cos they don’t want to pay - basically we are too selfish plus v lazy

But that wasn’t in their manifesto.

Exactly. No point in coming up with those lists now, the electorate voted on no tax rises etc

Yes. I think i read somewhere that for every £1 the government invest in childcare they would get £2 back.

I was stuck in a low paid part-time job because I couldn't afford childcare. I wasn't paying much tax and my spending power was low.

I have subsequently got a FT job and contributing more tax and could spend more. However I now have DC2 to put through nursery and its almost £1000 a month for 3 days a week (in Scotland so finding isn't till 3years).

When funding kicks in it will be a god send as we will be on the bones of our arse till then.

I also think early years help develop our future generations and surely that's a good thing.

Or pension credit (playing devil's advocate here but....)

people who've paid into the pension should get it but if everyone wants benefits cutting why are we ignoring the pensioners who didn't save toward a retirement? 🤔

(They also need to perhaps look at the amount of pensioners claiming AA as well......seems extremely easy to claim with very little check compared to PIP....was kind of riled up by someone I know who referred it as "extra spending money" when they have less care needs than I do..)

Because of the sepsis she would probably be covered, yes. But not necessarily for the stroke. It would depend on the severity.

I’ll give some exact examples - my neighbour’s ex husband had an epileptic fit and his insurance didn’t cover his ambulance because the Dr wasn’t needed when he arrived and the fit was preventable because he hadn’t taken his prescribed medication.

DH came off his bike and had bad road rash (open wound the length of his leg) and a suspected broken ankle. The police offered to drive him to hospital because he was out on his bike alone in the wilderness and unable to cycle to the hospital because his bike was broken. They debated whether his injuries would require an ambulance and decided probably not. DH called me and I collected him and his bike and drove him to hospital to save the police the bother. The xray said no broken ankle so it was the right call otherwise we would have possibly had to pay approx £6,000.

The point being in the UK ambulances are completely free and in some circumstances (as on that tv documentary) they are abused. Think of the £££££ saved if people had to be a little more accountable

@VelvetAndPVC it was a severe stroke & she had another one in the ambulance.

My point was going into an ambulance when conscious doesn't mean you don't need an ambulance. But yes strokes & sepsis are very different to a broken ankle. I wouldn't call an ambulance for a suspected broken ankle....

Exactly. No point in coming up with those lists now, the electorate voted on no tax rises etc

The frozen tax bands the Tories introduced means more tax intake as each year goes by...

At my local authority workplace in order to take your pension/lump sum and pension you have to reduce your hours - it's mandated.

I have wondered myself about this rule as I can't see how it helps anybody. Allow you to reduce your hours is sensible but why make it compulsory?

I received a call today asking me to make a dental appointment with the community dentist for my son. I was puzzled why as he has a local dentist and I'm not aware of any issues with his teeth. The person told me that he had been referred and the penny dropped. "Was the referral over a year ago?" Yes it was April 24.

I told the person yes he had an issue with mouth ulcers. Now (well over a year later) he has after suffering further symptoms been diagnosed with Crohns and is receiving treatment.

I told my son about the call and said "Imagine if you still had those ulcers and were still struggling to eat all this time later" - he replied "I'd probably be dead" only half joking.

Your first point reminds me.

I think if a single parent wants to claim benefits the non resident parent (if there is one of course) should have to pay the prescribed maintenance amount into a government account. Thus repaying the public pot for a portion of the support the family has been given.

At the moment single parents can claim state support and maintenance from the non resident parent "doesn't count". Why does the public fully pay for the family if the non resident parent can afford to contribute or is contributing?

If a single parent doesn't need to claim benefits then they can make whatever private arrangements they choose.

I wouldn't allow the get out of 50:50 child care so no one has to pay either. If the parents can't decide who is the resident parent a brief court hearing should.

Yeah the people that are starving in hospital because they are unable to pick up their food and feed themselves/can't eat solid food can starve because it's never given to them in the first place. Charge for drinks as well and those beds will be freed up even quicker.

Sarcasm for those not sure.

I still live in New Zealand, and while the fees we pay have increased over the years yes it still seems to work quite well - and the streets are not littered with the dead and dying. So much drama about any suggestion of a similar scheme in the UK.

Paying a fee to see the doctor had to be abandoned in Germany. Firstly, doctors couldn’t refuse to see patients who didn’t have money and were then spending valuable time dealing with the admin but more importantly, it put people off going to the doctors when they only had first symptoms that could have been treated early on but developed into much more serious conditions requiring more intensive and longer treatment later on.

I’m classed now as having a disability under equalities act as I suffer cluster headache. I dont claim PIP nor would I qualify to.

My ds who works does claim though as has a physical disability. He works in a job where potentially when he snake to work FT and has the CV he’ll earn 3-4 times what I do.
doesn’t make his disability cheaper though - those costs still exist.

But here in the uk you can barely get a gp appointment without waiting weeks and then they make mistakes and don’t diagnose correctly anyway, so it’s not as if we have a working system of early diagnosis anyway!

It depends where you live. Same day appointments are common at my surgery.

I think the problem is that Labour need to first identify exactly what they stand for, and give a clear purpose and outcome to any cutting or taxation.

Taxation without purpose or any discernible benefit has terrible optics to whomever is being taxed.

If I were Labour leader, I’d be focusing on (1) very, very clear communication about the overall strategy FIRST, then
(2) be very upfront that not everything can be afforded, and only THEN
(3) set out the cuts or taxes.

For example, if Labour clearly articulated that their core aims are around social justice, reducing child poverty, or building a resilient NHS, then they can frame every fiscal decision through that lens — even tough ones.

They also need to avoid being simplistic about the effects of taxation or cuts. For example, without careful implementation, the proposed non-dom reforms risk driving away high earners and investors — which could actually reduce tax receipts in the long run.

The same goes for windfall taxes or corporate levies: if they are perceived as unpredictable or punitive, they may scare off the very businesses Labour needs to fund its agenda.

That’s why the focus should be on a small number of strategic, clearly explained priorities, each backed by honest communication about trade-offs. In other words:

• strategise,
• think through,
• communicate, communicate, communicate!

The public can handle difficult truths if they feel there’s a coherent plan and shared purpose behind them— but what won’t work is improvisation disguised as fairness.

Things have to be done slowish otherwise everyone gets jittery
keep the tax band freezes
introduce NI for pensioners who qualify
turn the triple lock into a double lock
lower IHT bands
raise pension age