Post your questions for Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
Next week we’ll be back in Westminster to put your questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves MP.
If there’s something you’d like me to ask her - from the big economic picture to how the cost of living is affecting families (or anything else) - then please post your question below.

As ever, one question per user please, and keep it civil. We’ll be tight on time, so short, focused questions will help us get through as many as possible.

We’ll close the thread early on Sunday evening, so please do get your questions in before then. We’ll be back soon with her responses.

Thanks,
Justine

Why is there so little financial support available to unpaid carers when they save the economy such a huge amount whilst sacrificing their health and economic stability?

I’d like to know the answer to that too. Many carers have full time jobs but fit in care for elderly relatives around that. I probably do around 15-20 hours of care for my dad each week and if I didn’t do that, it would fall to the State.

I’m not personally looking for an additional benefit but I think some kind of tax break would be very beneficial.

How do the government expect to pay the rising benefits bill? And why isn’t there a fundamental overhaul to simplify and remove costs?

Chancellor, Given rising youth and graduate unemployment, would it not be sensible to allow people who have worked and paid over 40 years full National Insurance contributions (5 years more than the 35 years required) the opportunity to claim their state pension before age 66/67, perhaps at age 64/65? This could be especially helpful to those with physically demanding work, those who started working straight from school in their teens and have worked continually without a break, who could now have to pay 50 years plus for our state pension, and those with disabilities / health problems. This would recognise and reward their work and important contribution to the economy and I believe would help tackle income / class inequalities; in England, men living in the poorest areas have an average life expectancy of 73.5.

The benefits bill is now bigger than income tax receipts for the first time in history. Should we be worried about this and, if so, what are you going to do to reverse it?

A huge thing that affects our household outgoings is council tax and it has increased substantially this tax year yet again. It has always been and will always be our biggest household bill.

Yet, if people rent a council home with a secure tenancy, they can pay a reduced rent for life regardless of how much their earnings increase because they are never means tested again after initially moving in.

Would it not help local finances if council home tenants are means tested annually to see if they could in fact pay a “market” rate for their rent, and the increase in rental income could then go towards reducing council tax for everyone?

Why are you not properly addressing the issues with student loans?

I would happily pay more tax if it meant young people didn't face so many challenges and health care and education were properly funded. Meanwhile, many older people don't need all the perks they receive (which should be means tested) and the triple lock. When will you be brave and admit that young people have been thrown under the bus to protect elderly voters?

Hello Rachel, I was wondering if you remember where Pudsey is? Your constituents are starting to see you as some kind of mythical creature.

How will increasing the cost of employing people through minimum wage increases ahead of inflation and the burdens of the employment rights act improve productivity, increase jobs and grow the economy?

I have a 1 and 4 year old in nursery.

As I earn over £100k, I lose £25,000 in childcare support for them. I need to earn an extra £55,000 over the £100,000 cut off to cover this loss.

Where I live in London, every other parent I know is either working part time or salary sacrificing tens of thousands of pounds into their pensions each year to try and avoid this. Every NHS consultant I know with a young family works part time to ensure they can claim.

Is the government able to provide any data as to the cost saving made by excluding these parents from using childcare schemes (taking into account the large number of people taking ‘avoidant action’ on income taxed at rates as high as 60%) - and is there any suggestion this situation might be changed?

I am a ‘1%’ female earner and find myself in the position where my family will be financially better off if I work part time. Discussion in every community of high earners / investors I am part of is dominated by this absurd cliff-edge and its impact on young families.

Given the declining birth rate and families putting off having children in order to save, wouldn’t it be worth increasing SMP and MA in line with the state pension rate or furlough rate?

If it has been calculated that state pension is an appropriate amount to live on, why should a young family with the associated expenses of having a new child be expected to live on less

Why is the government not doing more to support struggling Universities?

Why are you destroying the work opportunities for young people by making it too expensive to hire them? Who is going to pay your pension in 30 years time if today’s teenagers/20 somethings can’t get jobs?

Can CMS be more joined up with HMRC and DWP from a data point of view to better serve separated parents where the non-resident parent is self employed or not paid via PAYE.

Can CMS take into account physical assets, inheritance and other windfalls to ensure that children are well taken care of.

Why on earth did you put the minimum wage up so high for young people? My kids will never be able to get that first job, and the work experience they so desperately need because they are now expensive. Who would employ a teenager for that much money? They used to be cheap and it was a great deal for teens and employers.

Why is Child Benefit based on individual income, and not household income?
A household with two earners at £59,000 each (total £118,000) pays no charge, while a single-income household with one earner at £61,000 does.

How do you justify that without devaluing full time parental child rearing?

why bother? It’s not like she’s going to answer any of these questions! She believes she’s above us peasants !!

When are you going to do the country a favour and resign?

Would echo the importance of greater support for unpaid carers.

Would also ask what is being done to combat the rising costs of food in the UK, which affects women and mothers disproportionately.

Thanks.

If she answers, there is no point to it because she then goes and does something that achieves the exact opposite.

Given the increase in Employers NIC has increased unemployment rates, will Rachel be reversing this, so that our young people (including my 18 year old daughter) have a better chance at being able to get a job?

Given the VAT on independent schools has caused over 100 schools to close, impacting children’s education often in key exam years and many with SEND - the number of children who have already left independent education is already significantly over government estimates and the low reported facts of number of people, who will be disproportionately women often with coveted part time/term time roles who have now lost their jobs in independent schools. additionally the strain now being felt in some state schools due to increased role size, at the government’s expense, and with no new teachers despite this being the justification for the policy. Can this ideology based policy now be reversed before it causes further damage to children’s lives in all education settings and bring back down the cost of independent education for parents who are already saving the government money after all and already paying their fare share of tax. Tax should not be punitive and this one is - please will you reverse it?

Why is my income taken into account for my son’s student loan application when he doesn’t live with me?

Why do you continue to allow fiscal drag to feature in my incremental pay increases by not allowing the tax brackets to rise in line with inflation?

What initiatives have you identified to increase revenues from tax-dodging billionaires and multi multi millionaires who pay less tax than someone earning an average wage?