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 are dentists, lawyers, accountants etc etc., whose income is more than £100k (via dividends) getting free childcare?

Dividends count towards your adjusted net income.

I don't think they are, per the tax legislation they shouldn't

Why are dividends not taxed and pay n.i like any other employee directors can take a low wage to not pay any tax or n.i then claim dividends and hardly pay anything.

They are - dividends now subject to NI (or rather tax rate increased 2%).

With dividends you take a risk to invest. If you have the same tax rate as for interest, what's your incentive to take such risk?

If you’re running a business how big of a risk is that? You choose to set up or buy into 1. 2% is nothing compared to 20 or the higher taxes so why do they get away with it. They choose to run the business if they had to pay minimum 20% tax and full n.i they would probably just pay themselves a higher wage but the government are allowing them to pay the bare minimum.

What do you think the dividend tax rates are?

tell me you never run a business and struggling a bit...

Dividends tax rates are not 2%, they were increased by 2%, NI rate effectively.
Current dividend tax rates are

Basic rate - 10.75%
Higher rate - 35.75%
Additional rate - 39.35%

So only marginally better than general income tax rates.

There is no national insurance on a dividend it’s just tax at Half the rate of someone on 12-71 an hour even people who earn 6 figures have to pay higher tax so directors on a dividend should pay the minimum of 20% tax and pay national insurance as this is what gets them the nhs,schools and state pension.

This is no longer the case, there is barely any difference between taking a salary and receiving a dividend for an owner/manager company. What ever way you look these days there is tax

Are you a business owner by any chance? Because I know exactly what goes on in a business and it’s not similar to a tax payer paying 20% tax on 12-71 and paying national insurance and pension. A director pays 10.75 % on 37000 an employee pays 20% on 25k. Then national insurance.

I'm an accountant, I'm running these calculations all the time. You're forgetting that dividends are paid out of post tax profits, so at least 19% corporation tax has been paid before a dividend can be drawn. There are a number of taxes interacting that have to be factored to get the full tax position

Im still entitled to ask Rachel this question even if you don’t agree corp tax comes out of the business it’s not personal to a director.

I would assume someone in her private office read them all and produced answers to them for her. She's definitely not going to risk answering them off the cuff.

Of course you are entitled to ask and i would never dream of saying you shouldn't. The more people who challenge the Government the better. Tax is far too complicated i personally think it needs a complete overhaul so it is much more transparent

The answer about water companies is disingenuous at best. It was reported in The Guardian a few weeks ago that they were trying to negotiate with Ofwat to not pay any fines until 2030.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/02/thames-water-close-to-deal-that-would-spare-it-ofwat-fines-until-2030?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

There was a podcast I listened to recently (i think it was The New Statesman) where they said taking Thames Water into public ownership would be fiscally neutral rather than letting it stagger on under the weight of it's debt.