The autumn budget should cut benefits before increasing tax

[Leett]

There is talk of Labour breaking their election pledge and increasing income tax by 2p. I doubt they'd do that because voters will revolt. However they need to do something with the state pension due to increase by 4.7% next year.
I really hope they cut benefits / pensions before the deciding to increase taxes.

Yes! She has to claim it.

Presumably no-one in your social circle relies on these benefits, which are already among the lowest in Europe afaik. And people on benefits spend all their money, as do pensioners, so they are contributing to the flow of cash and the economy thereby, which the very rich do not, since they tend to put their money into trusts etc and maybe buy the odd super yacht, which doesn't do the economy much good at all.
2% increase in tax is very little and we have to run a functioning defence system, police, health service etc out of it, and those are things I do not want to cut.

With the wealth in this country - we are still one of the richest countries in the world - we don’t need pensioners to die or children to starve and it’s ridiculous that that’s being presented as our situation

we do have one of the unhealthiest- mentally and physically - populations in the world and that’s where we need to focus as lifting our health to that of the equivalent countries would do more for the economy than anything else

Agree re incompetent chancellor, but UK state pensions are one of the lowest in Europe, at least in developed countries.

To stimulate growth we need to cut taxes substantially and ensure supply of labour. There is a time lag between cutting said taxes and improved tax revenue (assuming no external adverse factors). To bridge this time gap we either need to borrow more or cut spending. Former is not an option, borrowing costs are already through the roof, and Labour wouldn't cut spending. So what's left?

Agree and I think many forget that many working families certainly couldn’t afford £36 for a ticket plus a day off work.
So why then should working families have to loose out to non working families.

You realise this is a mumsnet chat thread not the bloodly Oxford Union. We can all have an opinion. There is no minimum level of qualification. Plenty of people seem willing to have an opinion on wealth taxes for example without having any wealth themselves.

But, in this situation, they expect you to share a house. Do the sums work if he has a room in a shared house? Very few people can affford to live completely independently. I know I couldn’t have done until my early 30s.

Don't believe many people think poor people should not procreate. Maybe stop at 1 if you have limited funds? Even a low IQ person can understand that.

The outcome has been a spiraling increase of the feral underclass. This contributes to the destruction of society with increased crime, drugs etc .this drags down the living standards of others

What are you on about? We are self sufficient. We never claimed child benefits. We don't claim UC or whatever.

So
much higher taxes on
foods eg sugary and high salt foods
all processed foods
alcohol
tabacco and vape products

??

Exactly
and that’s what being self sufficient means in this context.

Living off one’s own earnings !

Ccsvs initial point was that if a person is on minimum wage and doesn't earn enough to support themselves they should work harder and earn more. I was pointing out to them that it is not only people on minimum wage that do not support themselves, most people, likely including herself are in that position.

PIP isn’t just paid for equipment or therapies. It’s designed to enable people to live more independently. Extra costs are wherever you look when you’re disabled. If you have incontinence you have significantly increased energy bills due to extra laundry, bathing etc. You may have to charge essential equipment or leave things permanently on. If you live alone with significant disability you rely on paying for services for routine things around the house that most people don’t even think about. From gardening services, to handyman, to changing a lightbulb. Some people with significant disability need someone to help and that help, in many cases, isn’t available unless you pay for it.

Many people also use PIP and the associated carers allowance to source independent care instead of relying on the vastly more expensive social care system.

Disability benefits were instrumental in allowing disabled people to move out of the costly institution style establishments of old and to live more independently. They were designed as a cash benefits because disabled people are the ones best placed to decide how their money should be spent to support their needs. Without them, there would be significantly more pressure on other services.

There is no proven tie up between cutting taxes and improving investment in industry to generate profits for tax. What you are talking about is neo-liberal trickle down - but the results of this policy do not result in everyone getting a bit of the trickle, sad to say. We have tried the tax cut route under several Conservative governments and it doesn't work. What does work is incentives to invest such as government-private infrastructure investment, tax breaks for industry moving into areas that need it etc. It would also help if energy costs were cut as these are a disincentive to manufacturing expansion - costs too much, which makes products uncompetitive.
That means investing in nuclear power stations and using fossil fuels rather than windmills and covering agricultural land with solar panels. It also means ditching Net Zero.

I'd be honest I wouldn't mind UC and benefits as a temporary measure in the worst case. Like there will be times people lose all sources of income. But surely it should be temporary as you work towards self sufficiency.

So give them a tax cut if they invest

Possibly yes

but I haven’t analysed how that will be managed by the people at the bottom of the heap who rely on cheap heavily processed food - there may need to be something to manage that

and easier access to weight loss drugs and a long term weight loss support system

I haven’t said I want benefits cut in a single post

So what you are saying is that it is ok to be reliant on the government (what some on this thread call a 'scrounger') and take more than you contribute, if you do so in a socially acceptable way.

I'd like to point out that of the two secondary schools in the town I used to live in, it was the 'posh' one that had the most trouble with drugs and theft, whereas the one on the slightly dodgy estate was much better. No idea what the schools here are like, I don't know anyone who's kids are at school here.

When it comes to threads like these, many people comment on what the various benefit claimants being discussed could or should be doing, with little or no experience of it themselves. The case in point was carers - some of the comments demonstrate clearly that the people commenting have no experience of caring for an elderly or disabled relative and as such have no clue of the difficulties and expense involved. I’m not talking Oxford Union debating, I’m talking common sense and experience. But thanks for the patronising attitude.

@InMyShowgirlEra thats similar to the white paper that was investigated during the Conservatives time and came out last September
I also agree it’s a better format to pinpoint payments

Using public services we pay tax for?

Then Swedish disability payment is indeed great. It is based on past earnings. The more income tax you’ve paid in the past, the more benefit you get. If you’ve never earned you get a basic subsistence amount.

I never mentioned trickle down. I mean cutting taxes on business, investments and productive population.
The simplest example is £100k threshold - I lost count of posts on here and cases in real life about people reducing hours to avoid it. How does it help to grow economy?
Latest Labour budget directly (and very predictably) hit growth and labour market.