To wonder how the UK will look in 3 years time?

[Labradorlover987]

I was inspired to write this after reading the UC post that was just reported - the govt’s welfare bill has passed but was watered down so unlikely to make any real savings.

I earn 40k, have a school age child and just feel like I am living hand to mouth 😩 I 100% think there should be a welfare systems that supports people on low incomes but I wonder how the current system will be sustained in the long run?

Just wondered what other people thought.

I actually wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes if we could be guaranteed more in services etc - for example my council tax just went up and the services seem even worse this year than usual.

Nothing will change until the IMF arrive. Big business in the UK likes nothing more than a visit from an overpriced management consultant, to spell out the bleeding obvious, the government needs to hide being the IMF.

For decades government have been told what to do by the EU and our current MPs were never expecting to have to think for themselves. No MP wants to be seen as nasty as this will impede the jobs they can get on the after dinner speaker circuit. They will carry on bankrupting the country until they are refused credit and the IMF are called in as lender of last resort.

Just as prior to 2016 everything could be blamed on the ‘EU made me do it’, change will only happen when the IMF makes them.

The question is when will the UK hit rock bottom? How long until enough people leave the UK and the tax take is less than we need to carry on being granted loans - will this be longer or shorter than 3 years?

Doesn’t it? £32k a year for education before any contribution to any of the other services used sees a penny.

I thought the net takers or contributions was about the individual? So are educational costs always on the parents?

I'm open to the idea of UBI. How would you fund it?

Of course they are. They chose to have the children who contribute nothing.

Savings made from reduced welfare spending to start with, subsistence benefits like state pensions, tax credits, etc. Obviously funding via tax increases would be counterintuitive to my argument.

I'm not an economist and I haven't done the math though so please no policy changes on my account. I am shocked that nobody has even tried to look into though, but then we are a welfare state, so...

Of course it is not going to be fixed in one year when it took years to reach issues where they are. Tell us a politician or a party who is going to fix it, Maybe we can all vote for them in next elections.

Of course they are. They chose to have the children who contribute nothing.

So many pensioners will definitely be net takers as birth rates were higher in the past. Cool.

This. The public is expecting far too much, far too soon.

The public don’t want to see it get worse. Ie lower jobs, higher taxes and other policies that are failing.

If it was getting a bit better even slowly Labour would have more support.

You doubt? based on what? your household paying much less tax?

32k pa tax is paid on £100k income. 16% of Londoners were earning this in 2020

No, but those inevitable consequences of years of poor governance were never going to magically cease the moment a new government was elected. The NHS waiting list is going down, more medical appointments have been created and the government have reintroduced effectively SureStart under its new name. A good beginning.

Of course there’s an endless list, but to begin to turn around a titanic of an economy was always going to take at least a full term. Really, if people are disappointed, that’s partly down to them for not understanding that obvious fact.

https://uk.talent.com/tax-calculator

Both DH and I pay really high marginal tax rates. I wish it were only 32k a year each! It is more than that for each of us. And 2 kids are not at school anymore. 1 is at uni abroad, costs the taxpayer nothing. In fact, he landed a tech job already and is being paid obscene amounts, as far as I am concerned for the fact he is still at uni. He is extremely good at Maths.

In theory, everyone has to pay over 17k per person in tax in their household to be a net contributor, on average.

So how many people and how many households are contributing this 17k per person in tax?!

Of course there’s an endless list, but to begin to turn around a titanic of an economy was always going to take at least a full term. Really, if people are disappointed, that’s partly down to them for not understanding that obvious fact.

Unfortunately a lot of the electorate are stupid.

Are they turning it? Economic indicators are going on the wrong direction.

I think a few still think they’re doing well, 13% but mostly people disagree.

I don’t think it’s a revelation to anyone - or at least it shouldn’t be - that ratios of contribution vary throughout a life time. If you’re childfree, working and healthy, you take less, this changes with circumstances. Most pensioners will take more than they contribute unless they have very high private pensions so the tax they pay exceeds the cost of their state pension and healthcare.

Most pensioners will take more than they contribute unless they have very high private pensions so the tax they pay exceeds the cost of their state pension and healthcare.

And yet the narrative is often "I have paid in all my life for X". The fact so many haven't is a big part of the economic burden that many refuse to acknowledge.

As I said, the economic consequences of the dire management by previous governments are still, obviously, playing out.
By the end of this term, yes, I believe it will be turning. At least another full term thereafter will be needed to cement the positive outcomes of better governance.

Really, isn’t that just gobsmackingly obvious to anyone with even a vague interest?

Mostly people voted for Brexit. That went well ….

No I think Labour need to have more accountability than this. It won’t land with the majority. Maybe those who always vote Labour, but that is probably not high enough for them.

How cool:

Politics latest: Reeves considering tightening inheritance tax, reports suggest | Politics News | Sky News

The proposals being considered include imposing a cap on lifetime gifts.

Whoever will be in power in 2029, and that's not Labour for sure, will reverse it. But the damages will be done by then - higher earners/wealthier people who can't leave will stop working as soon as they have enough for the rest of their lifetime and spend it on travel. Wow!

I agree. It’s why the entire “net contributor” argument is so pointless and illogical. I was a higher rate tax payer for over 20 years during which I had no health issues at all, essentially I took virtually nothing. Now I’m a pensioner and the state pension means I take more than I pay in. Circumstances change everything.

Funny how @blossomtoes thinks I have to forward pay my kids’ education which I obviously do actually in fact do and comfortably so, but all the pensioners are not expected to pay their way which is the 17k in tax per person in each household in today’s money.
If everyone paid their way, the problem would be sorted instantly.

They don’t pay income tax yet no, but if you add up all the VAT they are solely responsible for, the jobs they support, swimming teachers, football sellers, ice cream venders, school uniform embroiderers, LEGO shops, the list is truly endless, I reckon 80% of the VAT and fuel tax we pay is our children.

I don’t think the tax gap, what they cost the country v how much the chancellor gets because of them, is as big as you think.

No, it's not.

It's gobsmackingly obvious that this term will be the last one for Labour for many decades to come.

It's also gobsmackingly obvious that apart from possibly unionised labour everyone else will be substantially worse of at the end of their term - if not directly because of taxes then because of inflation and unemployment.

It's also gobsmackingly obvious that lasting effect of the damage they are doing to education, aspiration and growth will take decades to undo.