Thank goodness tax rise scrapped

[Jems557]

So we’re a blended large family, so after maintenance and all the outgoings for our large combined family we don’t have very much left at all, as obviously we need a big house so our mortgage and council tax is a lot, we need a bigger than average (although several year old) car etc. However we don’t claim any benefits, my DH works hard to provide for his and our children but so much is taken in tax anmd maintenance already, there is no tax allowance for raising children. This would of hit us hard

I also think they are just bad at politics, because people really don’t like feeling like someone is squirming their way out of a straight answer.

If they just said “yes, you’re right, we will be putting up income tax and here are our clear reasons why, and here are the reasons we’ve chosen to raise it in this way” then of course not everyone would agree with them, but at least they wouldn’t look like sneaks who think the public are too stupid to notice that lowering the bands is just an alternative way of increasing income tax.
It’s like a shop saying they haven’t increased their prices, but when you look, the packet might still be £1 but now it’s half the size. No one thinks the price hasn’t risen.

ETA - if the post above me is correct that they aren’t changing the bands then I don’t know where they are planning on finding this money.

16K is when they completely stop paying benefits due to savings but UC is gradually reduced when you have savings between £6-16k.

Keep in mind as well that renting might be the same as your mortgage but it doesn't come with the same security since your at the mercy of a landlord. If you have pets, there's also a high chance that you'd have to rehome them. Some landlords also require a guarantor or 6 months rent in advance if you are on UC.

If your youngest is at least 3, they will expect you to work 30 hours per week and will expect you to be looking for a new job with more hours if you are only working 16 hours per week.

As I said earlier a lot of froth with the daily heil trying to whip their higher tax rate pensioner readers into a frenzy

They’ll need to get more taxes from somewhere.

Im pretty sure if you earn a certain amount a month you dont need to do 30hrs?

@Kirbert2 The RRB (lawful from March) will bring greater security for renters because the landlords can’t evict you for no reason or a crap one. And if you can’t pay your rent, you could be entitled to housing benefit, which will cover some or all of your rent. You don’t get that if you can’t pay your mortgage.

@berlinbaby2025 Not all benefit claimants rent. Some will have mortgages and receive no other help than a loan which will need paying back.

If you earn at least £892 you dont have to work 30hrs. Just checked.

You'd think, as the government, they'd actually start doing some governing instead of this constant flip-flopping about and changing their mind the second someone complains

@BlockFyou could sell your home and move into rented but if you then spent all your equity with the express purpose of reducing savings to 16k you may be investigated for deprivation of capital. Even if you got away with intentional benefit fraud you would find that your benefit income would be reduced until your savings fell under 6k.

You may find that the housing element of UC falls below actual rent and you would have to fund the shortfall. DH’s income would be taken into account when considering eligibility.

You have to work a minimum of 18 hours to claim UC. Unless you have very young children or do not meet disability or ill health criteria or are not caring for someone receiving a qualifying level of disability benefits you will be expected to increase hours of work up to 35 hours per week. Or provide equivalent evidence of job seeking as per your UC agreement.

6k savings with no means to replace them would severely impact ability to replace car(s) and afford family holidays.

In the longer term your DC will no longer be part of your claim and your benefit income will reduce so that you just receive standard allowance. On current rates that about £400 a month for a single person over 25 and around £630 for a couple. You will never have been allowed more than £6k savings without losing benefit income and would have no housing asset.

You’ve made a number of wrong assumptions in calculating whether or you would be better off right now but what is clear is that you would be profoundly worse off in the long term. Why would you do this? It’s just hyperbole.

There are people who need the welfare state. They are stuck with it. They are called privileged. Then we have people who don’t need the welfare state but are jealous of the benefits received by those or no or low income, with no assets in the form of savings, pension, equity in property etc.

You can’t have it both ways. You can only claim benefits if you have no assets. You can own the house you live in outright. But housing element of UC won’t pay your mortgage or mortgage equivalent rent.

Asset wealth is the driver of inequality. Especially where benefits have to increase to avoid poverty, especially child poverty, with increasing housing and living costs and decrease in wages. This will impact more people with young people whose wages and student loan debt preclude them from accumulating assets unless the bank of mum and dad (ie hereditary wealth) intervenes in the market.

So, all things considered, people like@BlockFare pissed off and sounding off because the current climate enables this (to it’s shame) but have no intent to reality test whether or not they would be actually better off in the short, medium and long term having no assets and claiming benefits because they know this to be a lie.

Greedy corporates and Banks are another toxic can of worms, but they are by no means the only ones.

It's hugely concerning. They've been briefing on the proposed tax rises for weeks so this U turn highlights just how weakened Starmer's position is. Presumably, he's now accepted a leadership challenge is imminent and both he and Reeves are fighting for survival.

No, people like me are pissed off because even twenty years ago, we’d be comfortable enough to have holidays and buy new clothes instead of second-hand. Yet we face ever increasing taxes whilst benefits only seem to go up. Working hard and long hours for a decent salary should be rewarding. It isn’t anymore.

What’s the point in having assets that’ll be sold for our places in a care home next to someone who’s never worked and is paid for by the state?

The budget has not happened yet
Wait.

The only way UC would pay that much is if you live in London/SE, are disabled and/or have children with disabilities or children in full time childcare.

A friend of mine is on UC. She earns about £1k a month and gets £1.2k in UC for herself and two kids. Her rent is £1000 of her £2,200 total monthly take home income. They live hand to mouth by the time her bills are paid.

It’s extremely disingenuous to suggest that families would routinely receive over 4 grand a month in UC.

The thing is, who thinks anything will actually improve in any way if they put up income tax? The money will just disappear into some government black hole and we'll continue in exactly same mess.

Why are they thinking of abolishing the two child cap when there's no money? They'll up tax and it'll all be spent on propping up people that never work to have countless kids who are also brought up to not work and have countless kids themselves. In my own family I have a relative with 6 kids who has never worked a day in their life. Some of the kids are now adults and not working either.

Paying people to have more kids when there are not the jobs for them and there are so many families who consider living on benefits a normal life is just madness.

Giving extra tax breaks to those with children is simply not a vote winner in this country. The majority of people do not have dependent children. When you are a parent to at-home children it's very easy to think that most households are like yours but this simply isn't the case - the majority of people either don't have children, or their children are grown up.

Twenty years is a very long time economically.

The cost of living has gone up, and with it the affordability to live on NMW is going down.

It is borderline impossible to live on £22k (NMW over 35hrs) in this country. People are topped up because they need to be.

Working for a salary is rewarding. You’re rewarded by your salary. Which certainly in some cases you can increase.

“The point” is the equity you leave behind for your kids, if you don’t end up requiring care. “The point” is the stability of living in an owned property and not being at the mercy of the whims of a landlord. “The point” is being mortgage free when lifetime renters will have to pay forever.

Taxes go up because the economy needs them to. Services and benefits aren’t free.

Privilege is living in a country with a welfare system.

Today, just most of it.

The idea of having an emergency fund to replace a car or have a family holiday sounds like a pipe dream to families like ours in the very squeezed middle who have to put all of our food shopping on a credit card each month. I would say having been on both benefits and now having a DH higher rate payer there are misconceptions on both sides when it comes to squeezed middle income families and those on UC. The problem is the middle earners can encompass people who are very well off and people who are worse off than those on UC, there is a huge overlap because the whole benefits and tax system is a very crude instrument.

It's also sounds like a pipe dream to me and I'm on UC. No emergency funds here either.

I just can’t with this gov. They hate small business. We have had the worst year yet (and after brexit/ covid etc. that’s saying something!). And it’s 50% down to this fearmongering and uncertainty. Who goes on about a budget 6 months in advance!!! And all for nothing. Nope they aren’t doing it anyway. Well most of the damage was already done! May as well now.

They need to get it from somewhere. Reckon they will smash small business further somehow.

Honestly I do despair!

The real problem is that one middle income isn’t enough anymore.

My MIL either didn’t work or worked in lower income employment, while my FIL earned reasonably well.

In most cases that doesn’t work in 2025, you need two incomes of at least a reasonable amount to be what we used to class as “well off.”

If he feels like that, why doesn't your DH look for a lower-paid job, the sort of job where you do your hours and go home?

I understand being pissed off about taxes - I pay a fortune in tax and I've never received a penny from the state. I don't mind paying for the services that are necessary for our society to function, education, healthcare etc. but I am increasingly feeling like cash-cow being milked 10 times a day.

In my circumstances, I wouldn't receive anything from the state even if I had a lower-paid job.

In your circumstances, you made the choice to blend because you wanted the pleasure of living together - which is entirely natural - but it's not really a virtue to boast of, you might as well say that any married couple, even if they didn't bring earlier children into the household, are 'doing the state a favour' by not getting divorced and living separately.