Rachel Reeves can’t win, can she?

[anothervoter]

After days and days of negative press and chatter about income tax going up, complaints on Mumsnet and across the media, today’s reports are that idea might be dropped and now she’s being accused of rattling the markets and making the cost of borrowing increase.

Honestly, genuine question- what can she do?

Although I’d like the country to turn - further - against Reeves and Starmer, I don’t think that should be because of higher taxation in itself.

It should be because this government is a bunch of mendacious, hypocritical incompetents. The tax burden that will kill off any prosperity is just one expression of the useless lying, freebie-grabbing shower that is now in charge.

38% of universal credit claimants are in work. Lifting the two child benefit cap will cost under £3 billion.

So 62% arent in work? That is a shocking figure.

I have 2 children. I couldnt have afforded anymore and yet I fear the removal of the cap will make some think there is no reason not to have more children.

They often seem to be people who have not planned to have another baby. Almost always an accident and sometimes without a supportive Father. It just happened. Of course there are accidents when all precautions have been taken but if this 2 child benefit cap is removed - happy days for some.

So 62% arent in work? That is a shocking figure.

It’s not really, given that universal credit covers those seeking employment, carers, people who are disabled or long term sick. Logically it’s more shocking that 38% are in work and paid so badly that their income is below the very low universal credit bar. Universal credit is subsidising the employers of that 38%.

According to the latest DWP data (Oct 2025), there are 2.6 million UC (Universal Credit) claimants in employment, which is about 33% of all Universal Credit claimants.
I would query how many of this 33% are working part time only and receiving top ups.
It’s a question of choice. I would spend the money differently, on sure start centres or more targeted help. The reality is in a metric basis children are removed from poverty. But is the money reaching children and improving outcomes?

Yes nails it

What - out of genuine interest - would be the ‘middle’, income-wise, that would pay more tax that would get us closer to a Scandinavian model?

Norway has 5 million people and is the richest country in the world per capita. I don't really think we can relate much sadly.

Second that

Sure. I’m just interested in what the under-taxed middle would be in UK terms, on the ‘Scandinavian’ comparison - presumably including Sweden, Denmark and Finland, as well as Norway.

Would it be a big tax hike for those earning, say, £30k or £60k, or what? Where’s the ‘UK middle’?

This 💯

If you ignore the fact that the UK has millions of economically inactive working-age people, the comparison will always look flattering to the Nordics. But those countries tax everyone more heavily, not just the rich. Middle-income and even lower income workers pay significantly higher income taxes + VAT at 25%. They also have a sovereign wealth fund so don't need the rich as much as the UK does.

It would be lower earning workers too.

It would surely be immoral to tax low earners more to support those on benefits particularly those who have never contributed? Perhaps that's where we are heading. Not a recipe for social cohesion.

How is it a recipe for social cohesion to tax the 'rich' till the pips squeak and leave the country? Or high earners to say F it and withhold their toil to join the middle earners below 100K.

This will leave the middle to low earners to do the heavy lifting to support the non-contributors. Perhaps that is Labour's end goal.

I am not sure morals come into this.

Youve slightly missed my point. I think morals come into it. I think its immoral to have such a large state that we can't afford it and the whole country will be wrecked. Labour need to cut spending including welfare not make low earners (or anyone including high earners who pay more than their fair sharw and have done for many years) pay more.

You can't make working people already struggling pay more to support those on benefits that could actually work. Thats immoral.

Rachel Reeves can’t win? No she can’t. Neither can Keir Starmer. Neither could Rishi Sunak. All decent politicians - compared to Boris Johnson and co - but the hand they have all been dealt is impossible. The aftermath of covid and Brexit and major wars and fuel crises etc.

I think they get good services for their taxes and unemployment is transitional not permanent for most people. That is very different to the UK.

@WhisperingAngelisnotbad RR has counterparts who , with the exception of Brexit, are also dealing with the aftermath of Covid, major wars and fuel crises. She seems to blunder from one miscalculation to another without thought of the consequences to the economy or population.

Very true. Things actually work.

The problem is that Labour aren't able, due to the membership of the party and their base, to do what is needed. Which is lower tax lower spending. If your base is the benefits class and you are making decisions in their interests, this is not really going to be a successful economy. We will I bet see this in the Budget. Higher welfare spending rather than cuts, and higher tax which won't raise any more money. So we spend significantly more than we earn. Plus £20billion/month servicing our ever growing debt. Thats on Labour.

It’s also the approach of the treasury now, run by Torsten Bell. He pioneered analysing every policy to see what effect it will have on different income segments of society and then prioritising the effect on the lowest 10%.

This sounds fine and nice and even noble. But running this playbook consistently drives the whole economy down. Yes, relative poverty reduces, a good thing, but this is achieved by pulling everyone else down. I don’t think Torsten actively wants to squash the top and middle. He just doesn’t care. Their well being is incidental.

That's a very good analysis and summary.

It's called being in power.

Every decision you make is going to annoy some people and some people are going to make some noise about it.

Time to woman up, decide what the party stands for and implement it in spite of the internet.

Otherwise you are just a leaf blown around in the wind.