To ask how much you think income tax will rise by?

[Wonderofwimbledon]

We’re absolutely financially at our limit… I’m so incredibly stressed. An income tax rise will break us and we won’t be able to afford it. We won’t have money to eat.

What do you think it’ll be? I just want to curl up and cry- we can’t take anymore increases our bills , mortgage everything has increased we have no spare money at all

I have posted the publlshed data which shows benefits are not increasing several times now - which bit of it are you finding difficult to understand?

Yes - I have the data to support it. I wouldn't make the assertion if I didn't.

Better GDP growth
Better GDP Growth per Capita
Better NDP Growth per Capita

I've excluded the financial crash and the pandemic from the figures below as both were not the fault of either government, and it would be inequitable to include them as a measure of performance. For 1997 Labour government I have only included up the crash. For the 2010 Tory government, I have excluded 2 years for Covid in the average measuring from the highest point in GDP pre-covid and starting again when that point was re-attained in 2022.

Between 1979 Q2 and 1997 Q2:

• GDP average growth - 3% per year,
• GDP per capita average growth - 2.3% per year
• NDP per capita average growth - not available

Between 1997 Q2 and 2008 Q1:

• GDP average growth - 3.2% a year,
• GDP per capita average growth - 2.5% per year
• NDP per capita average growth - 2.96% per year

Between 2010 Q2 and 2015 Q2:

• GDP average growth - 1.8% a year
• GDP per capita average growth - 1.2% per year
• NDP per capita average growth - 1.03%

Between 2015 Q2 and 2024 Q3 (exc 2020 and 2021):

• GDP average growth - 1.9% a year
• GDP per capita average growth - 0.7% per year
• NDP per capita average growth - 0.66% per year

Between 2024 Q3 and 2024 Q3:

• GDP average growth - 1.2%
• GDP per capita average growth - 0.8%
• NDP per capita average growth - 0.83%

Got more people into work and off benefits

First Labour government achieved bigger decrease in unemployment and claimant count, but slightly smaller increase in employment, compared to the last Conservative government. Wage growth was higher under Labour

Current Labour government have reduced the proportion of people not working, increased employment, reduced claimant count and increased wages.

Claimant count (out of work benefits - links to people actively seeking work)
Unemployment rate (actively seeking work in the past four weeks or due to start a new job in the next two weeks)
Economically inactive 18-64 (working age only, includes those not seeking work due to claiming incapacity benefits)
Employment rate - (percentage of working age people employed)
Average weekly earnings (seasonally adjusted, but not real terms)
Average week

May 1979 - 3.8% claimant count, 5.3% unemployment, 24.2% economically inactive - total not working 29.5%, employment rate - 71.8%

May 1997 - 5.3% claimant count, 7.2% unemployment, 23.4% economically inactive - total not working 30.6%, employment rate - 71.0%

Jan 2000 - average weekly wages - £293 - first time available

March 2008 - 2.3% claimant count, 5.2% unemployment, 22.9% economically inactive - total not working - 28.1%, employment rate - 73.0%,

average weekly wages - £402, 4.7% per year increase

May 2010 - 4.5% claimant count, 7.9% unemployment, 23.5% economically inactive - total not working - 30.6%, employment rate - 70.4%

average weekly wages - £412, 1.25% per year increase on 2008, 4.1% increase on 2000

May 2015 - 2.3% claimant count, 5.6% unemployment, 22.2% economically inactive - total not working - 27.8%, employment rate - 73.4%

average weekly wages - £453, 2.0% per year increase

December 2019 - 3.4% claimant count, 3.9% unemployment, 20.6% economically inactive - total out of work - 24.8%, employment rate - 76.4%

average weekly wages - £511, 3.2% per year increase on 2015, 2.7% increase on 2010

July 2024 - 4.6% claimant count, 4.2% unemployment, 21.9% economically inactive - total out of work - 26.1%, employment rate - 74.7%

average weekly wages - £650, 5.4% per year increase on 2019, 4.1% increase on 2010.

September 2025 - 4.4% claimant count, 5% unemployment, 21% economically inactive - total out of work - 25%, employment rate - 75.1%

average weekly wages - £684, 5.2% increase

Better hospital services:

IFS report on waiting lists:

But the available data do suggest some rather nuanced trends for NHS waiting lists and waiting times over the last four decades. Under Conservative governments between 1987 and 1997, the NHS waiting list rose substantially. But at the same time, the median waiting time – arguably more important for patients – fell, as did the number waiting more than a year. Under the Labour governments of 1997 to 2010, the waiting list fell substantially, but waiting times only started to fall from the early 2000s. Nonetheless, median waiting times for inpatient and day-case activity were lower under the New Labour governments than the preceding Conservative governments.

Under the coalition and Conservative governments of the 2010s, the NHS waiting list has risen, as have median waiting times. But waits of more than a year were nowhere near as common as they were in the 1980s and 1990s. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, however, both waiting lists and waiting times have increased dramatically. As for other governments over the last four decades, cutting NHS waiting lists and times will therefore be a key challenge for the next government.

Kingsfund report on NHS improvements under first Labour Government

2010 Mirror Mirror on the Wall - Commonwealth Fund report comparing health services across seven countries based on OECD and the International Health Policy survey shows the UK ranking second over all and ranking 1st in three and second in three out of 11 measures.

2021 Mirror Mirror on the Wall report which shows the UK dropped to 4th place.

There is a lot more available on health - but you get the idea.

Reduced child poverty

IFS report into child poverty:

Over the period 1997–98 to 2022–23, the relative child poverty rate followed a U-shaped pattern, falling from 33% in 1997–98 to 27% in 2010–11, where it stayed until 2014–15. The rate has since risen to 30% in 2022–23. Absolute poverty tends to fall over time as incomes grow, though with weak income growth in recent years, the absolute child poverty rate in 2022–23 was at the same level as in 2016–17.

Reduced crime

ONS Crime Data from the crime survey (reported by the public) - shows that Labour reduced crime off the back of an increasing crime rate. According to the survey, the reduction has continued under the Tories.

Police reported crime statistics however, show that crime is increasing from 4.2 million in 2010-11 to 6.7 million in 2023-24. In 2024-25 it has fallen slightly to 6.6 million.

Increased home ownership

This is quite an old ONS report but shows the increases in home ownership and house building under Labour which then tailed off after 2010.

This graph shows the peak of home ownership in 2007 and the subsequent decline

improved outcomes for early years
Improved education outcomes

These two are a little more difficult because how educational success if measured has changed significantly over time.

However, the big driver is education funding which flatlined during the last Tory Government and is increasing again now under Labour: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics/2024-25

This IFS report shows the reduction in SEMH and subsequent increases, but also shows some improvement in English and Maths under the Conservative government

This Institute for Government report shows how the first Labour government reduced absence rates before they flatlined under the Tories and are now at record highs

Didn't significantly increase debt, as a percentage of GDP to do it.

This is the data which shows Labour kept debt under 40% of GDP but that by 2019 Tories had increased it to over 72% before Covid pushed it up to over 90%

So there you go - that is the data I used to make my assertions - all official sources.

You realise that 2024/25 funding was Tory? Labor did their first budget in Oct 24?

Talking about pp funding - last Tory increase was £300/pupil, Labour £100? this is given decreasing pupil numbers

Yes - 2024-25 funding was originally set by the Tories but that release relates to the final funding figures which included the additional 2024-25 planned funding Labour announced in their first budget (look at the release date)

Additional £1.2billion funding announced for 2024/25 financial year | Schools' Choice - Flexible & Affordable Education Support Services https://share.google/s9zd2jj1EIkr4uBp2

The original planned Tory spend for 2024-25 can be found here: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics/2023-24

It was £58.5 billion and £7,570 per pupil.

This is breakfast clubs funding? or education?

Things aren’t looking great for Labour.

That first budget has caused a greater hole and is looking like a manifesto break.

Labour backbenchers aren’t happy, the markets are hemming Reeves and Starmer in and that clash is becoming problematic for them.

Education core funding. Breakfast clubs is £30 million in 2025-26 for a pilot with 750 schools

This is so desperate, do you really think anyone is falling for this? The amount of things it’s been claimed the education taxes were going to pay for. Where are the 6000 new teachers? Or even 100?

Nope, you posted benefit claimant numbers not increasing and nothing related to how taxes increase GDP. Just lots of waffle and your own special analysis:

If you have the data for the two very very simple questions I asked, just post a link like the below https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-9-january-2025/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-9-january-2025
And highlight the relevant section

• ‘there were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024

Did you read your link?

As people move across from legacy benefits, the composition of people on Universal Credit continues to change. At first, Universal Credit was only available to working age individuals with no children who were seeking employment. Over time, Universal Credit was made available to people in different circumstances, including those migrating over from health-related legacy benefits

Yes, so simple question are benefits increasing?

Number of total claimants or the amount paid out?

We are an aging population, many people going into retirement will be claiming.

As your link helpfully points out, people are moving across from legacy benefits, so obviously number of UC claimants rises.

There has been an increase in unemployment, though numbers in work has also increased.

Benefits get inflation linked increases.

You cherry pick the data you want too, whilst ignoring the overall picture or indeed anything that has gone well.

I agree with you - but probably for different reasons 😀

The spending plans in the budget were great for public services. The issue is with the revenue generating plans which is what they are getting badly wrong, politically and financially.

This is why I don't like Rachel Reeves - she's far too (small c) conservative. When she was under pressure a few months ago after the PIP debacle, Kemi Badenoch defended her and said she hoped she kept her job - any Labour Chancellor that is defended by a Tory leader is not delivering left or centre left aims!

They should have delivered a budget that was more like the 1997 one - one off windfall tax on high profit companies, reduction in income tax, indirect taxes and corporation tax. They could also have reduced the tax free pension element (but not by as much as she is suggesting now)

It gives the exchequer the boost needed to improve services while putting more money in people's pockets.

The welfare reforms were again, the right idea but badly implemented. The reduction in PIP qualification was right, but it should have been alongside moving people with treatable conditions onto incapapcity benefit and the implementation of a 'fast lane' for treatment, delivered by commissioning of the private sector. It clears the backlog, gets people into work while protecting them in the short term, reduces waiting lists and pumps money into the economy.

The Labour back benchers are self sabotaging idiots but this has always been the problem with the left.

Up until relatively recently, certainly until Farage came along, the right perfectly embodied the 'bus' analogy. They may not have agreed with everything their leadership were doing but they would still vote in line because the general aims aligned.

The left on the other hand, MPs and voters alike, are all or nothing a lot of the time. Its why, up until Reform, you only had one right wing party and five left wing parties (Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymri).

Tories vote Tory whereas voters and MPs in the other five not only argue with eachother but also with themselves.

It splits the vote. If you look at voter share in elections since 1979, the Tories have consistently got less than 50% whereas Labour and Lib Dems and other left wing parties consistently get 50% or more. If there had been one single left wing party or if we had proportional representation, the Tories would not have been in power for over 50 years based on those voting patterns.

But sadly when MPs vote down reforms completely instead of pushing for sensible amendments and voters vote single issue (Anti-trans, Iraq war, Brexit, immigration) instead of getting on the bus we all end up poorer.

Yes its true Labour do argue with themselves but its not unique, look at the last 10 years of the Tory Govt?

Parties with unpopular leaders, often seek to change them but for Labour, it doesn't really matter who they have, the media will keep digging until they find something on them and if they can't, make things up.

When Starmer was in opposition, the media were quiet, once he became PM, out came all the stories they had been sitting on for years, they ve also set about Labour women too.
Look at the focus on prisons and accidental releases? been happening for many years, no one cared, no press coverage, ministerial statements, nothing... but now?? same with migrants & hotels....

Its all designed, from the outset, to make sure Labour are in for one term

Wow - you really don't understand data.

Universal credit numbers are increasing as people move from other benefits. Let me simplify it for you:

People in a population of 1000 are claiming benefits. Those benefits have a total cost of £400. The income of the country is £10,000

• 100 are claiming benefit a)
• 60 are claiming b)
• 40 are claiming benefit c)

Total claimants = 200
Claimants as a proportion of population = 20%
Benefit cost = £400
Benefit cost as a percentage of income = 4%

The government decide to get rid of benefits b) and c) and gradually move everyone onto benefit a).

Population increases to 1500 and income increases to £12000.

The next lot of data shows that:

• 200 are claiming benefit a)
• 20 are claiming benefit b)
• 5 are claiming benefit c)

Total claimants = 225
Benefit claimants as a proportion of population = 15%
Benefit cost = £450
Benenfit cost as a percentage of income = 3.75%

The important measures are not the raw numbers. Raw numbers will always increase because the population increases and costs increase due to inflation. You have to use the percentages to compare performance over time.

When people refer to benefit claimants or the benefit bill going up they are talking about the percentages.

In example 2 the raw numbers have increased but the percentages have reduced.

This is very very basic, primary school maths.

You did not ask for evidence Universal Credit had not increased, you asked for evidence that benefit claimant numbers had not increased.

You have posted a link which is the equivalent of benefit a) in the example above which is meaningless without any of the other information.

You are still going on about the tax rise issue for reasons I don't understand because no-one ever said tax rises were not bad for the economy.

At this point I am not sure whether you genuinely don't understand or are being deliberately goady.

True - difference is, the Tories fight among themselves but then vote together when it matters - or at least they did pre-Farage.

UKIP / Brexit Party / Reform shocked them as they'd never experienced voter splits like that before - hence the race to the bottom 🤷‍♀️

Ok, so what metrics are acceptable to show benefits are increasing?

Spending is easy, especially if it’s just borrow more and sod the debt servicing. They’ve reached the max there.

It’s the increasing the intake which is harder. Hence Starmer and Reeves current situation.

Look, yes I’m stupid bla blah blah. I’ve given you 8 opportunities now and I’m not going to keep posting the question, it’s getting very tedious.

The acceptable measures to show benefits prevelance are:

% of people claiming out of work benefits
% of working age people who are economically inactive

They are the only two metrics which show a true comparison and aren't skewed by demographic changes (e.g. aging population)

Financially the only acceptable metrics is:

Out of work benefits cost as a % of GDP

(excludes pensions, widows benefit and industrial injuries benefit, PIP, AA and DLA)

I've answered you with what you have asked for every single time.

I'm sorry that it doesn't give you the answer that you are looking for.

Labour have had every opportunity as they have a massive majority. It’s just plain silly to keep blaming the Tories, Reform or the media for their policy decisions. The fact that even true believers are already preparing the excuses and scapegoats so early into a Government is very telling.

LOL ok

I would agree with you if we were 3 or 4 years in but we are not.

Its not "blaming the tories" its often fact.... look at the poor woman who died in a MH facility under their watch? costing that trust ie the tax payer 550k.... they did nothing since to fix MH, either for adults of children.

So should Labour get the blame, after 16months, when it takes years to train MH workers?

Same with the prison system, why weren't you so keen to hold the Tories to account when so many prisoners released under their watch?
Prisons take years to build, why is it ALL on Labour?

Of course, blame Labour for IHT on farms or WFA or NI on businesses but when i ask "What taxes would you raise or services cut instead" all i get is silly answers, such as "Start with Starmers expenses....." or "Cut welfare"

Cutting Welfare isn't going to raise 10s of billions

Why did Hunt cut NI when Sunak himself pointed out the dire state of the countries finances? an unfunded cut which he knew very well wouldn't be his job to pay for?

Of course the media have an agenda, you really have to blind or wilfully ignorant not to see that.

I was just thinking about the poster who said that people like me - non working people according to RR - should have more ‘fat’ in our personal budgets to absorb increase in taxations.
Just on a personal level , I am earning what I did 10 years ago. Then I employed a cleaner, a dog walker and regularly used local services such as the dry cleaner etc. I had ‘fat’ for non essentials. In the last 20 years my mortgage has increased, I now pay much more employer NI (I am a business owner) , the CoL increase has affected me like everyone else. My pension contributions have been subject to taxation (and to say why outs me more than I am
comfortable with) I no longer employ anyone personally, I don’t get clothes dry cleaned, I don’t go on holiday, there is no more fat. All that is left is my home that if I have to contribute more I will not be able to afford. And I resent that