‘People want public services… but they don’t wish to pay for it’: Readers focus on the uncomfortable reality behind Britain’s fiscal squeeze | EUROtoday

As Chancellor Rachel Reeves prepares to ship her first main Spending Review, Independent readers have weighed in on one of many thorniest points in British politics: how you can restore the UK’s fragile public funds.

A brand new warning from the OECD urging Reeves to behave rapidly – with a mixture of tax rises, spending restraint and welfare reform – has reignited debate concerning the long-term sustainability of the nation’s economic system.

It comes amid rising borrowing, downgraded progress forecasts, and geopolitical tensions, together with Donald Trump’s revived commerce conflict and pressures to dramatically enhance defence spending.

The dialogue has sharpened as the federal government faces calls to seek out billions to guard advantages and pensions, whereas additionally making the nation “war ready” with a possible leap in defence spending to three per cent of GDP. But the place ought to that cash come from – deeper cuts to companies or larger taxes?

In the remark part, readers explored whether or not the present tax system is truthful, whether or not austerity has run its course, and if daring strikes like taxing wealth, fairness, or luxurious items could possibly be a part of the answer.

Others warned that with out extra environment friendly public spending, no quantity of tax will likely be sufficient.

Here’s what you needed to say:

Raise taxes or continued austerity

Two decisions actually: both increase taxes considerably, or proceed delicate austerity – limits to public companies spending (and high quality), and small cuts right here and there to welfare spending.

The downside with elevating taxes is we’re already taxed fairly closely within the UK, and additional will increase will hit individuals’s spending and financial progress… except, after all, solely the rich are focused for tax rises – however good luck with that.

Chrismatthews

Money will not be the difficulty – sources are

It is unnecessary to debate nationwide spending and budgets by way of cash. That works for people (to whom cash has worth), however not for nations (since all the cash possessed by one member is a legal responsibility of others… it has web zero worth to the nation*). We want to speak by way of productive/financial sources and begin from the plain level: they’re finite. Allocating extra sources to e.g. housebuilding (important) means fewer out there for different makes use of – regardless of who builds the homes, public or non-public sector. That means we’ll, on common, be worse off within the quick run, by way of private spending.

Discussion by way of cash makes all of it appear to be our private budgets… that results in significantly improper pondering.

*Unless it’s overseas cash, which has worth to the nation.

Much0

Want to share your view? Add it within the feedback right here.

Wealth inequality is getting worse

Bearing in thoughts the shift in wealth distribution:

1995–1998: The prime 10 per cent held 47 per cent of whole wealth, whereas the underside 50 per cent held 9 per cent.

2020–2022: The prime 10 per cent now maintain 57 per cent of whole wealth, whereas the underside 50 per cent maintain simply 6 per cent.

(ONS, Wealth and Assets Survey)

The UK ought to significantly contemplate some type of wealth taxation. There are a number of economies which have this; the UK might have a look at how efficient this type of taxation is, and what the drawbacks are.

I’m not saying the UK cannot work one thing out for itself, however the monitor file is not nice – in something.

wolf

The poorest pay a higher share of tax

Taken from the Equality Trust utilizing ONS figures:

“The poorest 10 per cent of households paid on average 48 per centof their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10 per cent of households, however, paid on average just 39 per cent of their income in tax.

Council tax is a key source of disproportionate taxation, with the poorest 10 per cent paying 7 per cent while the richest 10 per cent pay just 1.2 per cent.

Similarly, VAT hits the poorest harder, with the poorest 10 per cent paying 12 per cent while the richest 10% pay just 3 per cent.

The post-tax income for the richest 10 per cent is £112,874 – over 12 times higher than the poorest 10er cent’s post-tax income of £9,651.00.”

We actually cannot afford to help the life of the mega-wealthy.

TalkingSense

Taxes are already too excessive

Labour has already raised taxes above what was already the very best ever degree in historical past. Such ever-higher taxes result in ever-lower progress, and even declining GDP. Taxes have to be reduce, and well being and welfare overspending reduce.

Mark

Look to Scandinavia

Our occasion system has failed.

And capitalism itself has failed.

But at the very least Scandinavian international locations have the sense to make use of a lot fairer and extra humane variations of it.

As the standard of life in these international locations incontrovertibly proves, together with their well being programs, social companies, advantages, and transport programs.

Cyclone8

Minimum wage

What politicians keep away from discussing – together with Farage and Starmer – is whether or not taxation is equitable within the UK, and whether or not the UK authorities spending a lot on top-up advantages could possibly be decreased by elevating the minimal wage and ensuring it is enforced.

discussion board

Cutting advantages unacceptable

Cutting advantages is an unacceptable methodology of balancing the books. Taxing the wealthy is at the moment unimaginable except accomplished in a coordinated international approach. The solely issues left – as we’re already being ridiculously austere –are to have the center courses carry the burden and proceed to make financial savings by way of administration of immigration.

BigDogSmallBrain

Tackle public sector inefficiency

I feel taxes have been raised sufficient, and it is excessive time public sector inefficiencies are addressed. Of course, with a governing occasion beholden to the unions, that is most unlikely.

Ian Robinson

Hyper-luxury VAT might assist

A 100 per cent VAT on non-public jets, luxurious yachts, caviar, Ferraris, purses that value greater than the typical weekly store, diamond tiaras, and a whole lot of different hyper-luxuries would profit the various and affect the few. If you may afford a 3rd dwelling, a fourth vacation, or a personal chef, you may afford to pay much more in taxes.

FishPapp

People need companies, however not taxes

The downside, as I see it, is that individuals desire a good nation. They need public companies, clear streets, no potholes within the roads, healthcare, police, hearth brigade, and many others. But they do not wish to pay for it. Hence why elevating taxes is political suicide.

ChopperBill

Tax property fairness to chill the market

They might tax property fairness – it could decrease home costs, making them extra inexpensive. The homeowners gained’t be going anyplace for the sake of some proportion factors. But it wants bravery and imaginative and prescient. What the UK lacks is somebody able to promoting it to the general public.

NotRedorBlue

Some of the feedback have been edited for this text for brevity and readability.

Want to share your views? Simply register your particulars under. Once registered, you may touch upon the day’s prime tales for an opportunity to be featured. Alternatively, click on ‘log in’ or ‘register’ within the prime proper nook to sign up or enroll.

Make positive you adhere to our group tipswhich might be discovered right here. For a full information on how you can remark click on right here.