She has backed herself into a corner in more ways than just the manifesto commitment about not raising "the big three". For instance, when she followed up her budget with a statement that "I’m really clear I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" (for the whole parliament) - an entirely unforced error.
There is a political consensus that welfare is the spending area to go after. You don't necessarily need to impose cuts, you can change process. For instance claimants are allowed to claim by phone - this could be stopped, without notionally changing the amounts people receive. Jeremy Hunt also makes a good suggestion that you could mitigate mental health issues with proven NHS care programmes that are a fraction of the welfare cost, and work far better.
As Chris Faux suggests, the fuel duty escalator should be allowed to happen. Fuel prices have fallen, and these duties are very consistent with the Net Zero agenda.
The reforms California are making to make it harder for NIMBYs to block planning are interesting - and look far more concrete and plausible than anything proposed by Reeves' colleagues. These sorts of reform are 'free', and would unlock investment / spending.
There are ways to drive growth without raising taxes or borrowing.... but they will need the Labour backbenchers to actually support the government.
The 'not coming back for more' pledge was a bizarre hostage to fortune. The risk of nibbling around the edges in the autumn is that she has to come back at each fiscal event to reclaim her (completely arbitrary) £9.9bn in headroom. Still, if long-term interest rates fall, that might do a lot of the heavy lifting.
She should equalise CGT with income tax: c. £16 bn. And get retired people with income over the NI threshold (like me) to pay the 8% that employees have to pay (£5bn?). Begin restoring fuel duty by adding 5p to a litre of petrol (£2.5bn). I accept that the above estimates take no account of behavioural changes that might happen as a result.
Making suggestions without allowing for behavioural changes is armchair politics. At least you are self-aware!
CGT changes aligned with income taxes will accelerate the flight of capital away from the UK. Exactly the behavioural change that appears to be happening as a result of the non dom inheritance tax stubbornness.
We already collect a higher proportion of taxes from the wealthiest 1% than, I think, any other OECD country.
I am with you on taxing (righer) pensioners more, though that is making suggestions without allowing for political consequences. Also an armchair politics game. The more practical proposal is to replace the triple lock - for instance with a double lock (i.e. "state pensions will match at least 2 of the 3 triple-lock measures").
The state pension is already one of the lowest in Europe, and your proposal will hit those people who rely on it solely or mainly, without recognising that people with decent workplace pensions are effectively some of the most comfortably off in the country (apart from the very wealthy). As to politics, I don't think the Labour Party will be too worried about losing the votes of well off pensioners. Although as a comfortably off pensioner myself, I have always voted Labour (although reconsidering this currently).
it's very generous by Australian or American standards
and part of why our state pension is low is because we have the biggest private pension provision in Europe - the result of good policy that we should not undermine. But we end up giving state pension to rich pensioners, unlike Australia for instance.
She has backed herself into a corner in more ways than just the manifesto commitment about not raising "the big three". For instance, when she followed up her budget with a statement that "I’m really clear I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" (for the whole parliament) - an entirely unforced error.
There is a political consensus that welfare is the spending area to go after. You don't necessarily need to impose cuts, you can change process. For instance claimants are allowed to claim by phone - this could be stopped, without notionally changing the amounts people receive. Jeremy Hunt also makes a good suggestion that you could mitigate mental health issues with proven NHS care programmes that are a fraction of the welfare cost, and work far better.
As Chris Faux suggests, the fuel duty escalator should be allowed to happen. Fuel prices have fallen, and these duties are very consistent with the Net Zero agenda.
The reforms California are making to make it harder for NIMBYs to block planning are interesting - and look far more concrete and plausible than anything proposed by Reeves' colleagues. These sorts of reform are 'free', and would unlock investment / spending.
There are ways to drive growth without raising taxes or borrowing.... but they will need the Labour backbenchers to actually support the government.
The 'not coming back for more' pledge was a bizarre hostage to fortune. The risk of nibbling around the edges in the autumn is that she has to come back at each fiscal event to reclaim her (completely arbitrary) £9.9bn in headroom. Still, if long-term interest rates fall, that might do a lot of the heavy lifting.
And strong agree re fuel duty!
Of course if you really want long term interest rates to fall, you could always join the Euro….
They have plenty of money but choose not to spend it on us .
She should equalise CGT with income tax: c. £16 bn. And get retired people with income over the NI threshold (like me) to pay the 8% that employees have to pay (£5bn?). Begin restoring fuel duty by adding 5p to a litre of petrol (£2.5bn). I accept that the above estimates take no account of behavioural changes that might happen as a result.
Making suggestions without allowing for behavioural changes is armchair politics. At least you are self-aware!
CGT changes aligned with income taxes will accelerate the flight of capital away from the UK. Exactly the behavioural change that appears to be happening as a result of the non dom inheritance tax stubbornness.
We already collect a higher proportion of taxes from the wealthiest 1% than, I think, any other OECD country.
I am with you on taxing (righer) pensioners more, though that is making suggestions without allowing for political consequences. Also an armchair politics game. The more practical proposal is to replace the triple lock - for instance with a double lock (i.e. "state pensions will match at least 2 of the 3 triple-lock measures").
The state pension is already one of the lowest in Europe, and your proposal will hit those people who rely on it solely or mainly, without recognising that people with decent workplace pensions are effectively some of the most comfortably off in the country (apart from the very wealthy). As to politics, I don't think the Labour Party will be too worried about losing the votes of well off pensioners. Although as a comfortably off pensioner myself, I have always voted Labour (although reconsidering this currently).
it's very generous by Australian or American standards
and part of why our state pension is low is because we have the biggest private pension provision in Europe - the result of good policy that we should not undermine. But we end up giving state pension to rich pensioners, unlike Australia for instance.
You wealthy people live in a different bubble from most of us . A lot of retired people have to work to cover bills ...its not pocket money
If you work don't you pay NI?