What other ways could Rachel Reeves have raised more money?

[Katypp]

As a former small business owner (thankfully former!), the additional costs would have crippled our company.
But according to some posters on MN, we should just have sucked them up from our profits and if we could not afford to do so, should not have been running a business in the first place. If only life were as simple as some (who clearly have never run a business) seem to think it is.

Anyway, I wondered if any other posters would like to contribute to a thread of suggestions of alternative ways money could have been raised. Specifics if possible, not general Tax The Rich type posts.

I'll go first ...

1. Restore employees' NI to the level it was before Jeremy Hunt tinkered with it last Budget. We've only had the uplift a few months so the pain would be minimal
2. Get rid of the pension triple lock and put pensioners on a level footing with other benefits increases.

Not just not helped the public purse, it's also helped cause staff shortages where people who'd have otherwise continued working and performing public services have left the workplace, or at least left the public workplace and sometimes moved onto a second lucrative career in the private sector. Ker-Ching twice!

Surely the idea is that they have to do the requisite number of hours at minimum wage rates to cover the benefits they claim, so for lots of them, it will be just part time hours so plenty of time to continue to look for permanent/proper work. I don't think I've seen any suggestion of them having to work full time for their benefits thus not being able to make applications and attend job interviews at all (although I'm sure that a certain amount of time each week could be provided for job applications and time off give for interviews).

The thing is that with DB schemes it is obviously up to the providers to negotiate and set the rules with those signing up to them (and paying for them in the case of those where the contributions are insufficient to fund the withdrawals so there is an expectation that others will fund a large proportion of the retirement income that people in these schemes expect to receive: often people who will receive a far lower retirement income themselves). With unfunded public sector DB schemes it is taxpayers expected to fund this so they legitimately should have a say over the terms/ retirement ages. With unfunded (and by this I mean weren't funded at the time but now have to be funded by the company, to the detriment of shareholders and current employees who won't receive such a pension and have to fund their own while having lower payrises to fund the liabilities for others now retired not having paid sufficient contributions for the pensions they still expect to receive) then the company and existing employees, arguable, should have some input into revising terms to something sensible and affordable and fair on all parties.

With DC schemes it is entirely different. What is saved is all actual money saved that the employee has earned (the contractual employer contributions and contributions from their own salary). This is an actual savings account, in effect, of money that belongs to that specific individual that they have saved over their lifetime. Yes, the tax is deferred, so it'll be taxed when withdrawn instead of when put into the fund (the opposite of ISAs) but it is that individual person's savings. They take all of the investment, interest rate, political, inflation and other risks themselves and this money is all directly earned by that individual, so imposing harsher rules on when they can access it seems completely unreasonable and is really not anybody else's business. This is also why it's unreasonable for Governments to repeatedly target these funds whenever they want money and try to change the rule retrospectively. If we want people to save over decades and tie their money up in inaccessible funds then even 20 years notice of changes isn't sufficient because people will have made detailed, long-term plans relying on some stability. It requires trust that it won't all be confiscated or decimated on a whim whenever the Government needs some money. If we want to solve the problem of too many people depending on the state in old age then rule changes need to stop.

The quid pro quo for the tax relief at contribution and the 25% tax free is the risk of income tax rates changing so you don't know what they'll be at withdrawal, the risks around inflation and interest rates etc that nobody with a DB scheme needs to worry about. The tax is deferred until withdrawal but it will be paid, it's just done the opposite way around to ISAs. Telling people they cannot access their own savings until a much later age after they've invested all of this money sometimes decades in advance is just not on.

Repeatedly, studies on the pensions industry have stated that the most fundamental thing to encourage savings and reduce state dependency in old age is to have a "stable platform" i.e. Government to respect the system sacrosanct so politicians stop trying to raid it every time they're short of money or chop and change the rules. In the long run this is massively counterproductive and costs the state far more.

I posted a detailed list yesterday. Some could have been implemented immediately very easily, some would take longer. Plenty of economic studies repeatedly saying the same and setting out the evidence if you want to look at them.

@MaidOfAle

I'd like to introduce you to a piece of legislation called Data Protection Act 2018 and something called the common law expectation of privacy. These systems not talking to each other is often because key data stores are locked down very tightly to keep the data on them safe. I don't want them all joined up, thanks. My dentist doesn't need to know about my gynecological history.

May I introduce you to password protection and different levels of security. There's no problem at all in technological solutions to "lock down" certain areas of data for specific grades/levels of worker. It's been pretty common place for a few decades. Just needs setting up properly with user data permissions. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that "anyone" with access to "any" NHS data should have access to "all" NHS data. Gynae data would be locked down to Gynae staff (and maybe your GP). Dental data would be locked down to your dental practice staff (and maybe your GP) but anyway dentists are different because they're not usually part of the NHS - they're private businesses providing (sometimes) NHS services so need a different approach, as do opticians, pharmacies audiologists etc.

But generic blood tests whether taken in the GP surgery, hospital or clinic should be available pretty widely across the NHS to your GP surgery and at least your local hospital, same with x-rays, scans, etc!

At the moment, the amount of waste and duplication is criminal where, say, a GP surgery insists on it's own blood test because it can't see the blood test you had done last week in the hospital. Not helped by the hospital consultant telling you to ask your GP for, say, a mineral supplement due to say, iron deficiency, but they don't write to your GP to tell them that, don't share the blood test result, so you have to contact the GP yourself to tell them what the consultant said and their response is always that they need their own blood test before they can issue a prescription for it!

My OH, when first diagnosed with cancer, had a full body x-ray, CT scan, MRI scan, and bone marrow sample in our local hospital, along with a full suite of blood tests. Once diagnosed, he was referred to a specialist hospital in the next city (same NHS trust) and we had a pointless consultation with the specialist because he had no results - just an A4 "referral" letter. He immediately ordered all those tests to be done again because his hospital system didn't "talk" to our nearest hospital so he couldn't get access to the original tests. What was even more stupid was that he said the tests could be done at the same local hospital we had them done first time, but that with the request coming from him and his hospital, they'd send the results to him in a different format that he could access! Doh!!

What used to be called JSA is a benefit to support you whilst you seek work, to fund your job hunting costs and subsistence. It's not meant to be something you get whilst working. If you are working, you should be getting a wage, not a benefit.

This idea would result in companies and charities getting workers that the State pays for. Instead of the jobseeker getting the handout to pay for them filling in applications, the State would be paying the wages that a company should be paying. The company would now be getting a handout, at the cost of the job-seeker-cum-conscripted-part-time-worker's job hunting time.

When I was unemployed, looking for work was a full-time task. It takes me days to write an application because I just can't do that kind of writing. I couldn't have done work that I wasn't even suitable for part-time and still looked for work.

Passwords alone are not enough to protect sensitive data. Yours sincerely, employee whose company waa victim of a corporate data breach using phished login credentials

The problem you are describing would be resolved by the use of standard data exchange formats. Data stores don't need to be connected together for this. There just need to be national standards for the formats of test result files.

FYI "top-up" benefits for people who work are another form of handout to employers, by subsidising inadequate wages.

Lol.

Yeah... because those people don't care about UK living standards. They care about economic stability (in the IMF's case whether they will have to bail out the UK in the event of total economic collapse. No sign yet that it will collapse entirely so obviously better from their perspective to reassure markets and reduce that risk. In the case of HSBC, they want to see no major new taxes on their sector or large corporates or changes in transfer pricing, so are relieved. Plus also possibly lots of opportunities to do transactions deals that will be profitable for them as SMEs are now even less able to grow and are have to be sold so lots of nice transactions for them to work on/ SMEs struggling will have to seek loans at extortionate rates to stay afloat rather than having Government-backed funding to grow organically as I suggested). Their comments are entirely predictable because their interests are not the same as those who actually live in the UK who desperately need UK living standards to rise sustainably without this being purely demand driven therefore raising interest rates and inflation again, which requires productivity increases.

There's always somebody trawling the internet attempting to find one or two conflicting views - usually from people with vested interests - justifying what they want to hear, even when the vast, vast majority producing independent analysis and with no conflicts of interest are saying the opposite. Just like with the Brexit "debate", such as it was, for anybody who had no grasp of reality and actually thought there was any sensible debate on the topic to be had.

As for SM/ CU, you'll see that was #1 in my list...

Go cashless as a society

No thanks. I like the ability to pay for items untraceably. It's no business of the govt's how much chocolate I eat.

There's a legal impediment to that as well: in England and Wales, a creditor must accept cash to repay a debt. This is to stop a creditor from demanding payment in kind. That's why our currency is called "legal tender". Scotland doesn't have this concept, instead requiring that creditors accept any reasonable means of payment.

Could you repost your own list @TheWildRobot - I can't find it- it's not to not pick by the way- I may well agree with lots of it- I'm curious.

Genuinely, which of these things could be done 'immediately very easily'? I've gone through the list again and can't see anything that is the work of months rather than years. You can announce that you're going to try to rejoin the customs union, or review and change tax codes, or introduce ID cards, immediately but there is years of work behind actually doing those things on a national level and so implementing them.

This was @TheWildRobot's list. I agree with some of it, I just think it is unelectable and also would be the work of at least a decade.

Basically, the country is screwed because of democracy.

1. Steps could be taken immediately to start the process

2. Within Government control to do immediately in the budget

3. With proper preparation could have been done immediately in the budget. Other IT software is available...

4. Obviously will take time but first steps and the intention could have been announced

5. as for 4

6. Should have been able to be implemented immediately with prep work before taking power/ in the last 4 months

7. Again, 14 years to review tax law and prepare... should have been able to include in this budget

8. As above, but obviously would take time for effects to be felt: this is one of the longer term projects by definition but needs to be started asap and should have been ready to launch

9. Can only happen as part of "stage 2" once growth is instigated through the other measures

10. Will take time to implement appropriate IT systems but preparatory work could easily be done before taking power, and intention should have been announced (this is a deterrent in itself) plus also some countries (e.g. Estonia!) already have highly integrated systems like this so again, no need to reinvent the wheel. I believe a member of the Labour party went to meet with Ministers there perhaps a year ago or more to discuss how they'd set up their system? So they are presumably aware of this and software etc already exists.

11. Could have been implemented immediately

12. Again, with proper preparation for forming a Government could have been implemented immediately.

I don't think so. The problem is the disproportionate "noise" and attention demanded by the minority. There remains the "silent majority" who would actually agree and vote for some pretty fundamental changes. Yet, we're being held back because the media and politicians take too much notice of the minorities, who often aren't even affected themselves but just jump on the latest bandwagon, like all those on SM who are "offended on behalf of others". I think a brave politician who campaigned for "unpopular" choices but kept their nerve in the face of the usual SM/Media backlash may actually find widespread support for their policies.

@MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned yes to do all of it would take a decade at least.

Some can be done immediately. At least start the process of moving in the right direction!

Starmer said a decade of national renewal". So take some steps to start that process then! They had the goodwill and the chance and they're squandering it and making things worse. Increasing division and doing further economic harm. Madness.

If after 5 years they'd done the things that could be done immediately we'd be starting to see results by the next election and they'd be highly likely to get back in to continue the project, especially given the shambles that purports to be the opposition now.

If they fail, tinker around the edges, increase division and let the economy collapse further than I fear that at the next election we may end up with an even more incompetent and ideological Government. The trend in Europe at the moment is Governments moving sharply to the right, very sharply. The UK is an outlier at the moment. I want centrist, pragmatic, balanced, sensible, evidence-based governance in the interests of all citizens here. If Labour fail we may end up with Reform nutters calling the shots in a coalition. All reasonable people need Labour to succeed, and the Conservatives to then also see the need to move back to the centre from their populist insanity so we don't end up swinging from extreme to extreme with nothing actually getting done. It's incredibly frustrating that Labour are taking none of the steps that will actually achieve that and I fear where it will end over the next election or two if they do not, the public see living standards decline further, and become even more polarised.

Ok, you are absolutely not the rational expert you present yourself as if you think that you can just introduce things like this at speed. Again, parliament does exist and a lot of things on that list need legislation not just a budget. You can't procure and implement IT systems on spec in the way you seem to imagine, and - quite rightly - people expect you to work with experts in the sector before implementing massive sweeping changes, not just decide what you're going to do in opposition and then just 'make it so'. A lot of what you've listed comes with massive bureaucracy that you might not like but would need. Setting up grant schemes without preparation and oversight is asking for significant fraud and indeed usage by organised crime.

I am not against modernisation, change or rationalisation. But you have clearly never worked for even a big company or organisation in any sort of senior role, let alone had any part in national change projects, if you think that it could just all be sorted out in the background like this and then launched with zero warning. None of these things just happen once someone has made the decision (and in many of them reviewed the decision, dealt with legal challenges from those who don't like the decision, etc.). They all take people to do things and people take time. Perhaps in your benign dictatorship in your head it doesn't, but Rachel Reeves does have to operate in the real world. I'm not saying we shouldn't do things because they're hard, and if the best time to start this project was 30 years ago the second-best time is today etc., but imagining it would be done quickly is literally childish.

You are mistaken.

Things can be done at speed.

Furlough and Covid support for businesses were rolled out pretty quickly, weren't they?

I am not going to detail my experience here. I am very aware how slowly bureacratic organisations like to move and the kinds of obstructions and protests of impossibility that are erected. But change management processes exist, and it is perfectly possible for public sector organisations to roll out systems just as quickly as private sector organisations do when necessary. I've worked extensively in both and am also very aware of Parliamentary processes etc. Thank you so much for your patronising and derogatory personal comments though, rather than any response to my suggestions - or, indeed, any of your own - on what the substance of what a sensible programme of change to improve the UK actually looks like. I look forward to receiving your own list of better suggestions.

The thing is that too many "big" changes needed have been kicked into the long grass over the past decades because they're "hard" or will take a long time. And we reaping the damage of such short sighted policies now. Regardless of how long something will take, the nettle needs to be grasped and the process should at least be started. For two or three decades, whether it's the NHS or education or tax or benefits (or anything else really), the government of the day (and civil servants backing them) have been re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic - lots of changes but nothing fundamental and many of the small changes made are reversed a few years later, so basically lots of money and time wasting but not actually changing much at all. As a nation, we're desperately short of an actual National Strategy - all we get are loads of individual changes with no overall cohesion.

We've had various initiatives over the years, such as the Office for Tax Simplification which achieved the square root of bugger all, but wasted lots of money and lots of time, and has now been quietly forgotten. Same with an initiative many years ago to force different government departments to consult with eachother as to ramifications of change in one dept affecting other depts - can't remember what it was called, but again, eventually forgotten. I can reliable predict the latest wheeze of "value for money" minister going the same way - no doubt lots of time and money wasted, nothing achieved, quietly forgotten after a few years.

@TheWildRobot

Furlough and Covid support for businesses were rolled out pretty quickly, weren't they?

Probably not a good example. The support schemes for self employed and freelancers left 3 million excluded meaning loss of businesses, savings, homes and a few suicides. There was massive fraud in terms of furlough and "loans", companies set up purposely to get loans which were immediately drawn out and company closed down meaning never repaid. Some businesses were eligible for grants they didn't need without any requirement to repay. It was all an absolute balls up and fiasco.

But saying that, it was set up quickly. The real problem was that Sunak couldn't admit he ballsed-up some of it up at first, so refused to make changes where glaring errors and anomalies had been made. He had 18 months to make changes, yet stuck rigid to what they'd dreamt up within a few weeks at first. If he'd not been so stubborn, changes could have been made within a few months to solve nearly all the fundamental flaws, to tweak rules to help those excluded and to put in some checks and balances to stop the fraud. But no. It was if if he'd put aside a couple of weeks to design the system and wasn't willing to put any more time aside to correct the problems.

And who said there wizkd be no oversight?

I specifically said the opposite if you read the list.

It isn't "childish" to expect our politicians to get things done and implement systems that we know will work, using software that already exists. Nobody said it is cost-free or doesn't require work but there's been plenty of time to do that work and people who need to and have competent management do actually get large projects done in sensible timeframes. It may seem an insurmountable task to you but many huge multinationals manage to make large changes very quickly, as have many Governments around the world.

This "oh, it's all just too hard!" mentality is equally as depressing as the budget.

Nobody said it was an easy task. That's why we need competent people managing the country who can actually get difficult things done. Not just announce things that sounds nice but implement strategic plans and manage large organisations and get results.

They made a mess of it, as idiots tend to do, but it demonstrates large changes/ systems can be implemented quickly if the will to do so is present. They just totally neglected the governance and oversight aspect, largely because both of them were not appropriate people to hold those roles or office and didn't care about/ have any relevant experience or awareness of such things.