AS Chancellor Rachel Reeves prepare to review his first major expenses, Independent Readers weigh one of the most prudent issues in British politics: how to restore the delicate public finance of the UK.
A new warning from OECD Urge Reves to work quickly -With a mixture of tax growth, restraint and welfare improvement expenses have ruled the debate about the long-term stability of the country’s economy.
It comes amid increasing borrowing, downgraded growth forecasts, and live political stresses, including Donald Trump’s revived trade war and pressure to increase defense spending.
The discussion has accelerated as the government has faced calls to find billions to protect benefits and pension, while the GDP is “preparing” the country with a possible leap in defense spending up to 3 percent of the GDP. But where should that money come from – a deep deduction in services or high taxes?
In the comment section, the readers discovered whether the current tax system is appropriate, whether penance has run its course, and if Bold walks like wealth, equity, or luxury goods, it can be part of the solution.
Others warned that no amount of tax would be sufficient, without more efficient public expenses.
What did you say here:
Increase taxes or do continuous penance
In fact two options: either increase taxes significantly, or continue to have mild penance – the boundaries of public services (and quality), and here and there welfare expenses for small cuts.
The problem with increasing taxes is that we are already very heavy in the UK, and moving forward will kill people’s expenses and economic growth … until, of course, only, not only targeted to grow rich – but good luck with it.
Crismatthus
Money is not an issue – are resources
There is no point in discussing national expenses and budget in terms of money. It works for individuals (who have the value of money), but not for nations (since one member has an obligation of others… It has a pure zero value for the nation*). We need to talk in terms of productive/economic resources and start from a clear point: they are finite. Allocating more resources to EG Housebuilding (required) means less available for other uses – no matter who builds a house, public or private sector. This means that we, on average, in terms of personal expenses, will be worse in low runs.
Discussion in the context of money seems like our personal budget … which causes seriously wrong thinking.
*As long as it is not foreign money, which has value for the nation.
Such0
Want to share your idea? Add it to the comments Here,
Money inequality is deteriorating
Keeping in mind the change in money distribution:
1995–1998: Top 10 percent held 47 percent of the total funds, while the lower 50 percent organized 9 percent.
2020–2022: The top 10 percent now is 57 percent of the total funds, while 50 percent is only 6 percent.
(On, Money and Property Survey)
The UK should seriously consider some form of money taxation. There are many economies that this is; Britain can see how effective this form of taxation is, and what are the drawbacks.
I am not saying that the UK cannot do anything for itself, but the track record is not very good – in anything.
wolf
The poorest of the poorest tax pays
The Equality Trust was taken using ONS data:
“In 2022/23, an average of 48 percent of the tax income in tax was 10 percent of the house in 10 percent of the houses. The richest 10 percent of the houses, however, paid only 39 percent of their income in tax.
Council tax is a major source of inconsistent taxation, with the poorest 10 percent 7 percent, while the richest 10 percent pays just 1.2 percent.
Similarly, VAT makes the poorest hit, the poorest 10 percent pays 12 percent while the richest 10% pays just 3 percent.
The subsequent income for the richest 10 percent is £ 112,874-the tax of the most poor 10er cents is 12 times more than the tax-tax income. ,
We can’t really support the lifestyle of the mega-ride.
Talkingsense
Taxes are already too much
Labor has already raised taxes, which was already the highest level in history. Such high taxes increase growth anytime, and even GDP declines. Taxes need to be cut, and the health and well -being surpassing cut back.
Mark
Look at Scandinavia
Our party system has failed.
And capitalism has failed.
But at least Scandinavian countries have a feeling of impartial and more human versions.
Since the quality of life in those countries is inconsistently proven, including their health systems, social services, benefits and transport systems.
Cyclone 8
Minimum wage
What politicians avoid discussing-which includes Faraz and Stamor-whether the taxation is justified in the UK, and whether the UK should spend so much on top-profit benefits by increasing the minimum wage and ensuring that it has been implemented.
stage
Cutting benefits unacceptable
Cutting benefits are an unacceptable way to balance books. It is impossible to tax the rich until in a coordinated global way. Only things are left – as we are already ridiculous – to carry middle classes to carry the burden and continue to save through the management of immigration.
Bigdogsmallbrain
Decide public sector disability
I think the taxes are adequately raised, and this is high time. Public sector disabilities are addressed. Of course, for unions with a governing party, it is not very likely.
Ian Robinson
Hyper-Laxari VAT can help
Private jets, luxury boats, caviar, Ferrari, 100 percent VAT on handbags, which will benefit more than the cost higher than the average weekly shop, diamond tiyaras and hundreds of other hyper-leaks and will affect some. If you can afford a third house, a fourth holiday, or a private chef, you can pay too much in taxes.
Fishpap
People want services, but not tax
The problem, as I see it, is that people want a good country. They want public services, clean roads, roads in roads, healthcare, police, fire brigade, etc., but they do not want to pay for it. Therefore, increasing taxes is political suicide.
Chopperbill
Tax property equity to cool the market
They can tax the asset equity – it will reduce the prices of the house, making them more cheap. The owners are not going anywhere for a few percentage points. But it needs bravery and vision. Britain lacks that someone is capable of selling it to the public.
Notredorblue
Some comments have been edited to this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your thoughts? Just register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the top stories of the day. Alternatively, click on ‘login’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you follow us Community GuidelinesWhat can be found HereHow to comment for a complete guide Click here.
