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.

Absolutely. If it’s ok to cut income for some people by raising income tax, then why is it not ok to cut income for others by cutting benefits?

Liebour? Are you a child? FFS grow up.

Listening this morning there seems to be the line we can’t be Labour without doing this - spending more. Politically it’ll happen but financially we’re on shaky ground with high borrowing costs already.

I think they should go after housing personally. There is a huge volume of un-tapped equity that is basically un-earned and more importantly untaxed wealth. They need to find a way to feed some of that back into the economy. I should point out I say that as a property owner who has no mortgage. When I look back at how much money I have accumulated from property it's actually the equivalent of half a second wage if you average it out. And it was mostly so far tax free..

Do you know how many people on benefits are already living below the poverty line? Are you aware of the link between poverty and increased need for tax payer funded services, such as health and social care provision, policing, education and the CJS? I assume not if you are advocating for a policy that will incur a greater cost to the public purse while simultaneously reducing its income?

yea, this is today’s offer and it’s a combined pensioner bashing and benefit bashing thread.

But they generally should get a job and not rely the state to feed their offspring. You know like most of us do.

They tried passing a Bill cutting benefits some time ago but the Labour back benchers voted it down.

So that one won't fly.

It would be better to cut benefits to migrants, to stop them wanting to come here.

And from the moment their child turns 12 months they are put under pressure to do so.
You’ve also got to remember the other end of the spectrum. They are reducing the number of jobs available to any others to feed our offspring.

Yes. I am. And I'm worried about it all. I just don't think that there's a way out of it.

Sorry if someone has already posted, but are there any numbers to back up " cut benefits" or "raise taxes" opinions?

Otherwise we are ONLY talking about fairness which might lead to decisions that don't actually solve anything but merely bash people.

How much would be raised by increasing income tax by 2 % points?

How much saved by ending the triple lock (and in what way)?

What would be saved by changed to bus passes, PIP, prescriptions, eye tests etc?

Would ending free eye tests and prescriptions be entirely a saving or might there be costs from late diagnoses and untreated conditions made worse?

How many people "choose" idleness over work?

I I were in the treasury I'd hope there was some serious data available to me to support politicians' instincts

Me, too.

Do you agree with cutting benefits then?

Yeap, it is the weakest government have had in a while, and with May that is saying something. Smashing the gangs turned into one in one out. Change turned into paying out ever increasing amounts. Growth turned into destroying business.

Absolutely hopeless.

Data is just the new name for statistics and there have always been lies damn lies and statistics. You can make them look like anything you want them to look like depending on your political persuasion.

Yes. I agree with it like you agree to chop off a sceptic leg so you don't die.

I think we should make corporations to pay corporation tax before we start cutting things that ordinary people receive. It's a travesty that companies like Amazon, that make huge profits, use our roads and infrastructure, creating wear and tear, while giving little to nothing back to the country in return.

@OneDearWasp How many people "choose" idleness over work?

9.4 million apparently

https://fullfact.org/online/UK-number-unemployed-inactive/

Not enough pressure.

Because pensioners have no way of making up their income. No one will employ them, especially the over 70s because companies can seldom get employee insurance. If they have an income higher than the single person's allowance, they pay tax just the same as the rest of us. So it is to protect those below that income level, which is only two thirds of the minimum wage.

Most other people can take a second job, do overtime, improve their situation by training or earn a promotion. Pensioners don't have those options.

And if you look beyond the headline ;
In April-June 2024, this definition covered around 1.44 million people.

The post appears to be referring instead to the number of people who are considered economically inactive, which was 9.4 million in April toJune 2024.
Someone is considered economically inactive if they’re between the ages of 16 and 64, are not in employment, have not been seeking work within the last four weeks and/or are unable to start work within the next two weeks.
They were classed as such for a variety of reasons. In April to June 2024, more than 2.5 million of these people were students, and over 2.8 million were long-term sick (alongside 230,000 who were temporarily sick). Over 1.7 million economically inactive people were looking after family/home, and just over a million were retired. There were also 27,000 “discouraged workers”, people who are not looking for work because they believe jobs aren’t available

I think they should just reduce all benefits by 30%. Simple as that. Most people would then find that the idea of working isn't as bad as they thought.

We have a NHS paramedic locally who is 72 with No plans to retire so that’s bollocks

Why don't you think you'll get a penny from your state pension?

The chances of younger people getting a state pension is minimal and even if they do, probably not until they’re at least 70. So basically working age people are paying for the triple locked pensions of today with the very high probability of not getting the same when they’re old!