Forum menu
I read today that over 55% of the population recieve more in benefits than they pay in tax, which I find astonishing.
Conversely, 59% of the population managed to go abroad on holiday last year.
As someone who recieves zero benefits, pays a wack load of tax, and can't afford to go on a holiday anywhere, let alone abroad, I find that kind of galling.
I'm all for benefits for those that need them, but if folks can afford overseas holidays I'm struggling to see why they need government handouts. I'm happy to pay as much tax as i do, but it shoukd be going to public services and those that need it, not for folks to spend on luxuries.
Only two things affect/annoy me in the budget
First is the NI having to be paid on anything over 2k a year that goes into my pension, I try to pay as much as I can each month into my pension so I can have a half decent retirement and wont need to rely on government handouts (there may not be a state pension when I retire in 20 years) so it annoys me they are taxing people who are actively saving for their future and not claiming anything from the government
2nd is the two child benefit cap being lifted, I have no problem with people wanting more than 2 kids and I'm happy to help pay for this but what annoys me is some people (including some of my own family members) have kept having more and more kids even though they have never worked in their life (one of them are in their mid 30's and are up to 7 kids!) and now they will be getting extra money for the extra 5 kids (5 kids at £80 a month child benefit means an extra £400 a month) they wont spend the majority of that money on the kids as they have managed so far without it and will instead spend it on themselves on booze, fags, gambling and wasting it which is a shame and wont lift the kids out of poverty
My wife and I have worked for 30 years so far and the only benefit we have ever claimed is child benefit for one child and that money was always spent on him, if we needed something but didn't have the money we went without, we made sure he had everything he needed
55% of the population recieve more in benefits than they pay in tax
It is important to remember that figure (it appears to be accurate) includes benefits in kind. What counts as benefit in kind varies by report but as a minimum includes use of NHS and education. It obviously also includes households that draws a state pension.
…what annoys me is some people (including some of my own family members) have kept having more and more kids even though they have never worked in their life…
I don’t think we should design the benefit system to specifically deal with ****less family members. Looking at who needs and gets help across the population should be the way forward. A few choosing to play the system shouldn’t result in the dismantling or defunding of the system that is supporting so many that need it.
It is important to remember that figure (it appears to be accurate) includes benefits in kind. What counts as benefit in kind varies by report but as a minimum includes use of NHS and education.
Fair enough..I personally wouldn't count 'services' as ' benefits' so that 53% numner is basically just nonsense !
Either way, that budget helps me in no way whatsoever! It leaves me in a conundrum when it comes to the next general election for sure..basically voting Labour makes me poorer, but voting tory or reform will make me hate myself..I think I'd rather be poorer than a xxxt.
Think next time I'll just abstain...
Most of us receive more from the state than we pay into it. The rest of should feel lucky that isn’t us.
After the attack on immigrants will come the attack on people who receive benefits. It was always going to be the case. Let’s try not to fall for it.
I think I'd rather be poorer than a xxxt.
Think next time I'll just abstain...
maybe vote to make the country a better place, rather than worrying about making yourself richer?
Thankfully in 3 and a bit years when that sal sac limit comes in should be my last at this company where I've been using this option to top up my pension. Its not quite clear what the details are on that yet, so will wait a few days to see what happens.
It's been a useful way of saving money for me these last 7-8 years, I got to that stage when I started earning money and had fewer bills and could put more away.
try to pay as much as I can each month into my pension so I can have a half decent retirement
that puts you in a very privileged position, wish i had extra cash at the end of the month to top up my pension
EV motoring will still be at least 1/3 the cost of diesel
That's only true if you own a home with a driveway and can afford £1k+ for a charger. For the majority who don't, they are forced to pay for public charging which is considerably more expensive than petrol or diesel.
I think Kelvin has a good point here, no matter the budget does to you personally the media will spin it according to their needs......'Its not hard enough on benefit scroungers' and its 'far to hard on millionaires who will now need to consider leaving the country'.
The actual facts will be forgotten and the culture war will continue, be it migrants, pensioners or young people. Not falling for this stuff requires individuals to think for themselves, something we seem to struggle with as a nation these days.
Reactionaries always punch down over.Strange how they never hit out at the corrupt 1% or the Royal parasites
That puts you in a very privileged position, wish I had extra cash at the end of the month to top up my pension
It doesn't feel like a privileged position, to get that extra money to put in my pension means I have to work harder, take on more responsibility, push myself to learn new things, take on first aid and fire warden roles, spend less on the nicer day to day things just to put a bit more in to my pension pot, if and when I get any kind of pay rise that extra goes straight in to the pension pot, I do everything I can possibly can do at work to earn more money
maybe vote to make the country a better place, rather than worrying about making yourself richer?
Yawn..
A very typical virtue signalling stw response. Back in the real world I'm 50, have zero savings, an extremely modest pension and zero cash to pay for anything due to various personal circumstances beyond my control
I know I am not as well off as many here but I have never really noticed any budget make any serious difference to me or my family, they all seem to just piss about at the edges. I guess if I was on minimum wage I'd notice or if I had a 2million pound house...but other than that....
I know I am not as well off as many here but I have never really noticed any budget make any serious difference to me or my family, they all seem to just piss about at the edges.
Exactly what I posted before the budget, it makes such a small difference to most people I am not sure why people get so excited about it. Any differences are minor and relatively well off people moaning about a small loss to sal sac or people with 2 million pound plus houses paying more council tax is hardly life changing.
Of course more dramatic things could be done like raising income tax and NI so it is only paid at £30k per year, offset against higher earners/wealthy but that sounds like someone trying to do something about inequality...
You a city dweller? A lot of rural folk are poor and a car is essential not a luxury.
I grew up in Herefordshire, and didn’t drive while I was there. It’s where my love of cycling started. I learnt to drive when my first kid was on the way years later. I am fully aware that for some people driving is not a luxury. The taxation system still needs the be used to discourage driving and incentivise other options. Even if you can only get to the shops by car, then pricing per a mile will encourage fewer shopping trips (the big shop) rather than regular smaller ones. For example.
So get on your bike (not the first with that policy) and fewer shopping trips is your policy for rural transport? What about getting to work and school or doctors et al. Good the taxation didn’t discourage you enough not to get a car when it became a luxury / essential when you had a child.
This might seem like I’m having a pop at you but some (and god knows I’m one!) live with massive levels of privilege over a lot of people so we should stop the ‘if only we discouraged driving or some other tiny change’ all will be well.
BTW it’s the fuel duty increase that the issue here not the pence per mile as the rural poor aren’t buying EV’s.
if only we discouraged driving or some other tiny change’ all will be well
A gross misinterpretation of my point, but carry on.
the rural poor aren’t buying EV’s
Absolutely.
Prediction: This budget will, like every other budget in my lifetime, create a few days of headlines for the poor overworked tabloid headline writers, and you tube creators (will no one spare them a thought!) and then it will never be mentioned again by anyone, and everyone will get on with their lives. The whole thing repeated next year.
try to pay as much as I can each month into my pension so I can have a half decent retirement
that puts you in a very privileged position, wish i had extra cash at the end of the month to top up my pension
Putting more than £2k per year into a DC pension does not make somebody "very privileged". It's more of a necessity for people in those schemes.
If you paid £2k per year for 40 years into a typical DC pension fund you'd expect it to be worth about £170k in today's money, allowing you to buy an annuity of about £600/month.
Even that isn't guaranteed because it's wholly reliant on stock market returns. If returns were just 2% lower, then the eventual annuity drops to around £400/month.
That is poverty, not privilege.
For the sake of comparison, somebody in a typical modern DB scheme, say a 1/57th career average scheme, who earned a career average of £45k, would get a pension of around £2.7k per month after the same 40yr career, about five times as much as our friend in the DC scheme.
To put it another way, the person in the DC scheme would have to contribute over £9k per year and again would still be reliant on stock market growth to get anywhere near to the value of the DB scheme. Yet apparently the Gov thinks £2k per year is a reasonable cap. The mind boggles.
I pointed out ages ago the government could simply remove the green levy if the wanted to on energy bills.
They did.
Makes total sense although this budget is defined by optics - they know Reform keep going on about 'net zero' tax etc.
That's why they've done it.
Probably the only rational well thought out fiscal move here.
More proof they simply can do something when political will is strong enough.
I pointed out ages ago the government could simply remove the green levy if the wanted to on energy bills.
They did.
Makes total sense although this budget is defined by optics - they know Reform keep going on about 'net zero' tax etc.
That's why they've done it.
Probably the only rational well thought out fiscal move here.
More proof they simply can do something when political will is strong enough.
They keep using the term " The Working Person" Are we becoming a novelty....?! Grrrr
I’ve just heard the Chancellor on Breakfast telly claiming “The only people paying to fill the potholes at the moment are the drivers of petrol and diesel cars”! Gaaaah! Of course, nobody challenged that.
I'm finding the pensions bit a tad confusing as to whether it affects me. Let's say I contributed 10% £3500 of my salary to my work's scheme, and work match up to a certain % (let's say 7%) £2450; does this affect me. I'm looking at the 2k cap and thinking it must. TIA
Isn't the £2k pension thing on the NI passback component not the contributions?
I can't find the details on this
I pointed out ages ago the government could simply remove the green levy if the wanted to on energy bills.
I fixed on a new deal a few weeks ago. Does that mean I'm tied into a deal with levies?
No one's 100% sure yet. There's plenty of time to work that out between now and the change. Here's Martin Lewis' comments on it...
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/11/energy-bill-cut-renewables-eco-martin-lewis/
I'm finding the pensions bit a tad confusing as to whether it affects me. Let's say I contributed 10% £3500 of my salary to my work's scheme, and work match up to a certain % (let's say 7%) £2450; does this affect me. I'm looking at the 2k cap and thinking it must. TIA
Yes
My understanding that any pension contribution over the combined 8% statutory minimum will be classes as salary sacrifice.
So in your example its 10%+7%-8% =9% will attract the additional NI (or not have the tax relief), but the first £2k is exempt
Something like 3500 x 12 x 9% = 3780, less the £2k = £1780 which is subject to the NI
If thats at the standard NI rate thats about £250 per year
Your employer will also have to pay NI, so they may also reduce the 7% value too
Although it doesnt take effect until Apr'29 so who knows if it will ever happen
I wish she would stop lying about “everyone making a contribution”. They’re not. The lazy and ****less are getting big rises at the expense of the hard working and prudent. That’s hardly fair.
THe big winners are the ultra rich as usual. There has been no change to get them to start paying a meaningful amount of personal taxation in the UK. There is still no attempt to close all the loopholes that they and their accountants use to minimise their liabilities. The mansion tax is a bit of a cop out and still doesnt really differentiate between a £5m home in London and someone owning a huge estate worth many times the £5m.
Did she remove the tax loophole for LLPs? Sorry, I've not been following this because I can't keep up with the leaks and rumours
Of course more dramatic things could be done like raising income tax and NI so it is only paid at £30k per year, offset against higher earners/wealthy but that sounds like someone trying to do something about inequality...
High earners will always have ways around paying tax, so you are really just shifting more and more of the tax burden onto middle earners - further eroding the benefit of studying, and trying to get a higher paying job. And it's already pretty crap in this country.
For example (next year):
working in a factory, 40 hours per week, minimum wage is £26.5k. Take home: £22,600
NQT/ECT (new teacher), starting wage in England is £33k. Student loan £65pcm. Take home £26,500.
So you've studied for 4 years, missed out on £50-£70k of earnings to take home an extra £4k a year.
And it's not just teachers, I've seen graduate software developer jobs advertised at under £30k.
Now if we take your suggestion, and entirely take all the minimum wage earners out of paying income tax then even more of the income tax needs to be payed by those earning £30k+.
NQT/ECT (new teacher), starting wage in England is £33k. Student loan £65pcm. Take home £26,500.
'New' in any profession always starts at a lower salary. The factory worker will still be on minimum wage in 10yrs - the teacher will be on a much higher salary. And then there's the holidays! 😜
NQT/ECT (new teacher), starting wage in England is £33k. Student loan £65pcm. Take home £26,500.
'New' in any profession always starts at a lower salary. The factory worker will still be on minimum wage in 10yrs - the teacher will be on a much higher salary. And then there's the holidays! 😜
I knew I shouldn't have used teachers as my example 😉
But anyway yes you're right but as you earn more, you hit higher rate tax, the student loan payment increases (massively) and you hit cliff edges in the marginal rate.
They're fiddling around with sal-sac to try and hit people trying to avoid those instead of just fixing the root cause. It's ridiculous.
Did she remove the tax loophole for LLPs?
Wasn’t this done last Autumn, or was that only a partial fix?
In this budget there’s a 2% increase from 2027 on tax on income from property (assuming the LLP hole has been closed, this will apply to those that would otherwise have used it). Here’s hoping that’s just a first step towards taxing landlords like others.
.If a job requires no skills or physicality, no anti social hours, isn't morally or otherwise objectionable, etc then it becomes the benchmark for the minimum. You add something to that, like night shifts, physical labour, objectionable work, etc then fewer people want to do it and it maintains a premium over the baseline.
In a free market yes. In a world where courts have ruled that retail workers doing dayshift in shops are entitled to the same pay as warehouse workers on shifts, no.
Equal pay rulings are also behind the Birmingham bin strike I believe. The council can't buy them off because numerus other groups who don't do a physical job in all weathers would get the same payrise.
High earners will always have ways around paying tax, so you are really just shifting more and more of the tax burden onto middle earners
Yep, and those ways around paying tax are very well known by any tax expert so get rid of every single one of them. And yes clearly sorting out equality means richer people will be worse off and poorer people will be better off.
Guessing you are not a fan of that, but I certainly am as to me inequality is the biggest issue in this country by far.
Now if we take your suggestion, and entirely take all the minimum wage earners out of paying income tax then even more of the income tax needs to be payed by those earning £30k+.
The reality is that the tax receipts from low earners dont add up to much.
If you're earning £20k per year thats only £1500 of tax per year
Bringing these people out of the tax system doesnt materially affect the total tax take.
Also if those people had that extra money in their pocket they would be spending it in the economy and due to the multiplier effect would create extra jobs, which would generate more tax than the £1500 of direct taxation.
Guessing you are not a fan of that, but I certainly am as to me inequality is the biggest issue in this country by far.
This^^^
The gap between the top 10% and the bottom 10% has been growing since the 80's and accelerated after the banking crisis in 2008.
If it keeps on increasing at this rate, we'll soon be back at Victorian levels of inequality, which wont be good for 99% of the population.
The super rich (eg Murduck) would rather make sure that the lower 99% of the population argue against each other rather than band together to redistribute the wealth accumulated by that top 1%
the rural poor aren’t buying EV’s
when really they should be:
even the most worn out battery depleted little EV will have more than enough range for trips to the local town and surrounding areas. And much more likely to have a driveway to charge on than someone fairly well off in a big city.
more easily driven in snow and muddy hills.
plus more reliable/cheaper to maintain, and maybe even with the possibility of vehicle to load capaibilty should there be a power cut.
Now if we take your suggestion, and entirely take all the minimum wage earners out of paying income tax then even more of the income tax needs to be payed by those earning £30k+.
The reality is that the tax receipts from low earners dont add up to much.
If you're earning £20k per year thats only £1500 of tax per year
Bringing these people out of the tax system doesnt materially affect the total tax take.Also if those people had that extra money in their pocket they would be spending it in the economy and due to the multiplier effect would create extra jobs, which would generate more tax than the £1500 of direct taxation.
I think you are massively underestimating how much it would affect the tax take.
Firstly you've cherry picked an example to make your argument - there are many people working full time minimum wage jobs. 40 hours a week for somebody aged 21+ in 2026 at minimum wage will be £26,400. Tax will therefore be £2766 and NI £1106 = £3872 lost for each of those.
But the poster I replied to actually said make income tax and NI start at £30K. The income tax at £29,999 is £3,486. The NI is £1,394. So you are losing many people paying £4880.
How many people are there earning between £12.7K and £30K? I don't know, but given the median wage is £37K I bet it's a lot, and therefore a very large drop in tax + NI take.
I wonder whether the NI on pensions is a growth thing for this government term. They are hoping people plough as much as they can into pensions before the tax is imposed, thereby funnelling money into financial sector. Similar aim as cutting the ISA limit unless you use stocks&shares.
How would you suggest the poor, rural or urban, afford an EV in the first place if your on around minimum wage? Get more debt or lease or buy on the never never?the rural poor aren’t buying EV’s
when really they should be:
even the most worn out battery depleted little EV will have more than enough range for trips to the local town and surrounding areas. And much more likely to have a driveway to charge on than someone fairly well off in a big city.
more easily driven in snow and muddy hills.
plus more reliable/cheaper to maintain, and maybe even with the possibility of vehicle to load capaibilty should there be a power cut.
Now if we take your suggestion, and entirely take all the minimum wage earners out of paying income tax then even more of the income tax needs to be payed by those earning £30k+.
The reality is that the tax receipts from low earners dont add up to much.
If you're earning £20k per year thats only £1500 of tax per year
Bringing these people out of the tax system doesnt materially affect the total tax take.Also if those people had that extra money in their pocket they would be spending it in the economy and due to the multiplier effect would create extra jobs, which would generate more tax than the £1500 of direct taxation.
I think you are massively underestimating how much it would affect the tax take.
Firstly you've cherry picked an example to make your argument - there are many people working full time minimum wage jobs. 40 hours a week for somebody aged 21+ in 2026 at minimum wage will be £26,400. Tax will therefore be £2766 and NI £1106 = £3872 lost for each of those.
But the poster I replied to actually said make income tax and NI start at £30K. The income tax at £29,999 is £3,486. The NI is £1,394. So you are losing many people paying £4880.
How many people are there earning up to £30K ? I don't know, but given the median wage is £37K I bet it's a lot, and therefore a very large drop in tax + NI take.
You need to research the amount of tax paid by each decile of the population as a % of the total tax revenue.
If you remove the bottom deciles from the tax system, it only has a negligible impact on the overall tax take from Income tax and NI.
But the poster I replied to actually said make income tax and NI start at £30K. The income tax at £29,999 is £3,486. The NI is £1,394. So you are losing many people paying £4880.
Yep, and that £5K is taken from richer people by say putting 40% up to 45%, closing all the tax loopholes for non PAYE and so on. I get it, you don't want equality to improve but I do and making someone on £30K a year £5K better off will make a MUCH bigger difference to their lives than making someone on £100K a year £5K a year worse off.