What do with think will be in Labour’s budget?

[tenpairsofshoes]

They don’t seem to be giving much away but any indication that they might help kickstart the economy or are we just going to get £2 bus fares, £45 off our elec bill a year and petrol prices on google map? None of Labour polices seem to help anyone that is really struggling but isn’t in receipt of UC! I’m speaking as a single mother who is trying to sell a property to move on with my life but can’t. Yes I know I’ve very fortunate to have bricks and mortar but that doesn’t mean I’m loaded (because the property isn’t worth much)! I feel like everyone is expecting the chancellor pull a rabbit out of a hat but I think we’ll all be very disappointed/pissed off!

Many billionaires make a positive contribution. My concern is the control and influence they hold, and who is actually picking up the tab. We pay them more of our money but we actually own less. There is often also a substantial financial and social cost to their profit maximising behaviour, with the public left to foot the bill. Mental health, football/sports, cloud subscriptions, technology, cars...

@NorthXNorthWest

football/sports, cloud subscriptions, technology, cars...

Are they not luxury goods as opposed to essentials? I would say yes.

Not all luxuries are luxuries.

Football has a social and cultural value, particularly for working-class communities. If you support a larger club, attending matches has become unaffordable or difficult to access for many. Some clubs have dentures or impose minimum attendance requirements on season ticket holders, often the only way to watch your team live. You will lose your seat if you don’t attend or release your ticket often enough. If the club can't resell it - tough for you.

Cars are another example. Anyone living in London will tell you that even the Tube has limitations, and most of the country lives outside London. Many people need a car to get to work. Second hand prices astronomical, pushing people towards finance for their secondhand cars often with a large balloon payment to keep the monthly payments down. Have a shaky credit history or a "thin" file and watch the cost of finance soar, if it is available at all. Add in "chips" and the cost of servicing goes up and your ability to do your own cost saving repairs goes down.

Phones, surge pricing, streaming - music and audio...

We need more than to exist, don't you think?

Yes. A kick in the teeth for the poor sods living in HMOs. Where the £45 will be split between several of them, but their gas bill will rise as large (often poorly insulated) houses will use a lot of gas.

Nail on the head.

@NorthXNorthWest

I would say attending live football matches at the major clubs is most definitely a luxury.

Cars may be less so. However, I have relatives who have never had a car in their life.

Smartphones definitely a luxury.

I think the aim of the thread was for people to give a view on what the budget could do to ease the cost of essentials.

We need more than to exist, don't you think?

It helps, but I think many are living from day to day with little or no disposable income.

And for farmhouses who won’t qualify because they are on a business tariff

He’s annoyed me irrationally already by calling it an administration. We are not America!!

Lots of spending Willy Nilly so far. Nothing about how it’ll be paid for.

It feels wrong to always be helping people with bills. Why not use the money to help with insulation for example. We never seem to address the problem, it’s always a sticking plaster. Oil prices are only going one way and it’s a finite resource!

Just a spattering of sweeties to keep the sort of people who think we should be grateful for 12p a day happy.

At least it wasn't full of spiteful self harm last the last two years.

Britain’s welfare spending is expected to climb to £431.3bn by 2031-32, according to the latest forecasts from the UK’s budgetary watchdog.

Rising claims for incapacity benefits are set to push up the nation’s ballooning welfare bill.

It marks another blow for the Chancellor as more Britons are expected to sign on to benefits over the next five years.

In March, the OBR had estimated that the UK’s welfare bill would rise to £406.2bn – the equivalent to 11 per cent of GDP – by 2030-31.

However, the fresh estimates show the nation’s welfare spending is forecast to rise even faster, reaching £413.1bn by the end of the decade.

@Electra10E

Britain’s welfare spending is expected to climb to £431.3bn by 2031-32, according to the latest forecasts from the UK’s budgetary watchdog.

Yes. It's very scary, but what can be done?

Can't blame people for living longer. Nor can people be blamed if there are more looking for work than there are jobs available.

Can't blame people for living longer. Nor can people be blamed if there are more looking for work than there are jobs available.

A bit simplistic, no?

How about living healthier, making better life decisions, retraining, not being incentivised to claim by the crazy tax system versus working etc.

You can though look to a gov to put policies in for more jobs, rather than higher benefits.

@Electra10E

How about living healthier, making better life decisions, retraining, not being incentivised to claim by the crazy tax system versus working etc.

I see where you are coming from regards work vs benefits. As per the ONS, the UK has about 700,000 unfilled job vacancies. However, at the same time there are about 1,7 million unemployed. So, even if every unemployed person actively pursued retraining, healthier living, etc., there still wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone.

@EasternStandard

You can though look to a gov to put policies in for more jobs, rather than higher benefits.

I agree that job creation is a government duty. Higher benefits do little to encourage people to seek work.

However, I don't see it happening. due to:

Conservatives want cheap labour from outside the UK. Hence, no investment in training.

Labour happy to pay welfare as it will earn them votes.

Well, the UK has already suffered an 8% net reduction in headcount attributable to AI, so people need to wake up and do so quickly.

The onus is on the individual, not to rely on the tax-payer.

@EEexpat

I see where you are coming from regards work vs benefits. As per the ONS, the UK has about 700,000 unfilled job vacancies. However, at the same time there are about 1,7 million unemployed. So, even if every unemployed person actively pursued retraining, healthier living, etc., there still wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone.

More people working would boost productivity and economic activity and create more jobs, i.e. those going to work would be buying clothes/food, paying for transport, maybe going socialising after work, etc., thus spending their wages in the economy. It would also increase business output, business profits, etc., thus maybe increasing exports, increasing tax revenue on sales/profits, increasing tax revenue on extra staff wages, etc.

New business start ups also drives the economy - they need accountants, they need websites, they need equipment, etc. So it's not just the "proprietor" coming off benefits, there's the knock on effect of all the services/purchases they need which helps other businesses survive and grow.

All the emphasis on benefits is driving everything downward, i.e. people have less money than if they were working, so spending less, not paying for transport, not buying clothes/food for work, maybe not socialising as much, firms are producing less, so exporting less, paying less tax etc.

More people working would have circular benefits in driving economic growth, creating more jobs, etc.

We've far too many people stagnating in their homes which could well cause a downward "death spiral".

@Electra10E

The onus is on the individual

To look for work, yes. However, I would say job creation is a government task.

not to rely on the tax-payer.

About 90% of UK government income is generated by tax receipts. So, increased spending on public service of infrastructure projects is funded either by higher taxes or borrowing.

For a long time in the UK, people on low earnings are not much better off, if at all, compared to people claiming benefits. I worked in the Netherlands for several years and it was the same there. My daughter works in German and says the same.

So, the gap between earnings and benefits needs to widen, but how?

@EEexpat

I agree that job creation is a government duty. Higher benefits do little to encourage people to seek work.

I agree, we need new schemes like those in the 80s, such as YTS, JTS, ETS, etc to "encourage" people into the workplace and encourage employers to take them on.

We also need schemes to help/encourage people to start their own businesses, even as sole traders, to get them off benefits, and for those new small employers to take the plunge to take on their first employee/trainee as their business takes off - again, something that very few do these days because of the cost, risk and bureaucracy. At the moment, the crazy tax system discourages small business growth, i.e. employers NIC and VAT in particular.

Such a massive shame that the Chancellor made no mention of the VAT problem which prevents small businesses from growing, especially those serving private individuals such as shops, cafes, guest houses, tradesmen, etc.

@Badbadbunny we also need to make it easier for employers to dismiss people. The left on here will be up in arms at this. But I’ve had employees sit in front of me saying they want to leave, don’t like the job (no bad feeling or fault of the job, they just don’t like starting at 7am, working some Saturdays or work in general) but won’t leave because they then can’t claim benefits. Won’t get another job either as you know, that’s too much like hard work.

We need create an environment where it’s not something you brag about it the staff room.

@EEexpat

For a long time in the UK, people on low earnings are not much better off, if at all, compared to people claiming benefits. I worked in the Netherlands for several years and it was the same there. My daughter works in German and says the same. So, the gap between earnings and benefits needs to widen, but how?

We need to look at the "marginal" rates of tax compared with "marginal" loss of benefits when people move off benefits into paid work, or those already working but on benefits who are thinking of working more hours, taking promotions, etc.

It's no surprise that people don't work, or don't take extra shifts/promotions, when they'll be hardly any better off, i.e. the additional (marginal increase in) wages is taken by tax/nic combined with reduction in benefits, and at some income levels, they can be worse off.

We need to have an "over-ride" where, regardless of your income, you can't be worse off, and will always be better off, by at least 50% of your "extra" marginal earnings. I.e. someone on UC with a little part time job, getting an extra shift, of say £50 of earnings, MUST get to keep at least £25 of that, taking into account everything, i.e. loss of UC, tax, nic, student loans, housing allowance, council tax relief, etc etc. Otherwise just why would they do it? Especially if it involved a bus, train or taxi journey costing them money, or an extra couple of hours paid child care or after school club, or whatever.

Take it right up through the income levels, i.e. apply the same at £60k threshold where you start to lose child benefit, the £100k threshold where you start to lose personal allowance and lose free child care, etc etc.

Yes, it'd be complicated, but the benefits would be enormous. We keep hearing the soundbite "make work pay", but until we deal with the tax/benefit trap where people can be worse off or only marginally better off, by working more, taking promotions, etc., we'll never escape from the benefits death spiral.

@Badbadbunny

More people working would have circular benefits in driving economic growth, creating more jobs, etc.

I get all of that, but what will get the ball rolling to produce the circular benefits?

We've far too many people stagnating in their homes which could well cause a downward "death spiral".

Very possible, but still raises the question, if there are fewer jobs than people looking for work, how can they be blamed for not working?

Yes, I know and agree. I have dozens of sole trader clients who'd be willing to take on their first employee or trainee to help grow the business (Many have too much work and don't take on new work etc), but won't because they're scared of the risks of taking on the "wrong" person and being unable to sack them, or risk of an unfair dismissal claim, etc.

When I started in accountancy in the 80s, it was normal for tradesmen to always have a "lad" (apprentice) and many even employed a part time admin/book-keeper, and for shops/guest houses to have part timers, Saturday staff, etc. Barely any of my small business clients do that these days - they struggle on their own, stifling their growth potential.

I'm the same myself, even though, as an accountant myself, and know employment law, etc., I don't have staff, and have been refusing new clients for years (other than a chosen few referrals), now approaching retirement and getting ready to wind down and close down my business. It would have been ideal to have taken on a trainee a few years ago to potentially take over, or even an experienced person, but, I can't face the bureauracy/hassle/risk, so where someone could have been basically given a good little business on a plate, they've lost that opportunity and all my clients will be scrabbling around looking for new accountants or trying to do it themselves instead.

People are crying out for decent tradesmen, so we could start training people up in plumbing, car mechanics, electricians, roofers, plasterers, bricklayers, joiners, or even just good old gardening and DIY. Give grants for them to buy equipment etc. to help them get started. Bring back the adult education system that was scrapped when politicians became obsessed with sending 50% of 18 year olds to University, with the money coming from scrapping the adult education system that had served us well for decades?

Why is it always "someone else" who has to create the job?

What's wrong with people starting their own businesses/self employment? Lets encourage them by support, grants, training, making it easier, rather than burdening them with more bureaucracy, red tape, regulations, taxes, etc?

@Badbadbunny
@WhitegreeNcandle

It's called employing contractors via umbrella companies. You pay a rate per day or per hour which is inclusive of all holiday entitlement. So, days off are no extra cost to the employer. No redundancy as the contract will have a defined end date.