"Average Earnings Growth" and triple lock

LHW99

"considering further measures on public spending".

Hope she's also considering her back benchers.

artyboy

Grumpy_chap said:

artyboy said:

And she's come out today and admitted that she is "looking at" raising taxes. Which everyone already knew, but this is the clearest signal it's going to happen. 

Well, I actually think that the reporting on this "looking at" comment has been spun rather unwisely by the press.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2drpzxpkp3o

As it says, the Chancellor is "looking at further measures on tax" and "considering further measures on public spending".

I have to say that I think it is the very job of the Chancellor to consider with an open mind measures on tax and spending as the very core of the basis of setting out the Budget.

I don't disagree at all with your last paragraph, but politically you would have to be very naive to make those statements unless you're preparing the public for it to almost certainly happen...

m_c_s

ggmf said:

Jezz - there are "forumites" on here who have very short memories and a complete lack of understanding of the deficite that the country has and how it ballooned under the previous administration,  as £'s were thrown around like confetti . Nodoubt there will be more "school ground" name calling of RR,  the debit needs to repaid, there is no easy way to achieve that,  the country does not have a magic money tree. it's easy to make election promises, but things are different when you are able open the books and look at the countries balance sheet.

Competent chancellors don't say in October 2024 "Future Tax rises will not be needed." and "I have fixed the economy and filled the black hole.". And let's not forget the deficit has ballooned even further under this Government, the Office for National Statistics recently reported the Government now has the highest borrowing in 5 years and this despite the huge tax increases last October which included the employer NI rises which most unbiased economists have said is ultimately tax on working people. Labour had full access to the Government finances. As Paul Johnson of the IFS wrote in August 2024 "The £22bn 'Black hole' was obvious to anyone who dared to look".
He sums it up very well " Frankly, nobody comes out this smelling of roses".

dont_use_vistaprint

My understanding is that only people who have paid full NI through work get the pension many others get pension credit / benefits. Are they are increased the same ? Because the the ones I know getting credit seem far better off than those getting pension as they pay no council tax and get 70% off water rates and get all extra types of support like free boilers & personal assistants / cleaners provided under a govt policy on adult care as long as they are getting pension credit, but if you get the state pension you would have to pay for all this. Triple lock is needed to keep pensioners on a par with those who have never worked 

Grumpy_chap

artyboy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

artyboy said:

And she's come out today and admitted that she is "looking at" raising taxes. Which everyone already knew, but this is the clearest signal it's going to happen. 

Well, I actually think that the reporting on this "looking at" comment has been spun rather unwisely by the press.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2drpzxpkp3o

As it says, the Chancellor is "looking at further measures on tax" and "considering further measures on public spending".

I have to say that I think it is the very job of the Chancellor to consider with an open mind measures on tax and spending as the very core of the basis of setting out the Budget.

I don't disagree at all with your last paragraph, but politically you would have to be very naive to make those statements unless you're preparing the public for it to almost certainly happen...

However, we now live in a society that demands answers to the what the Budget will hold well in advance of the budget and the media, supposedly representing our interests, derail any question to any Politician with some reference to the Budget and who will win / lose.

The Chancellor of the day is in the proverbial rock and hard place squeeze.  They can answer honestly that they are reviewing tax and public spending and will make an announcement at the Budget.  The alternative would seem to be  to say that they aren't really thinking about it and they'll just announce whatever comes into their mind and they feel like doing when they wake up on the morning of the Budget.

hugheskevi

Grumpy_chap said:

artyboy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

artyboy said:

And she's come out today and admitted that she is "looking at" raising taxes. Which everyone already knew, but this is the clearest signal it's going to happen. 

Well, I actually think that the reporting on this "looking at" comment has been spun rather unwisely by the press.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2drpzxpkp3o

As it says, the Chancellor is "looking at further measures on tax" and "considering further measures on public spending".

I have to say that I think it is the very job of the Chancellor to consider with an open mind measures on tax and spending as the very core of the basis of setting out the Budget.

I don't disagree at all with your last paragraph, but politically you would have to be very naive to make those statements unless you're preparing the public for it to almost certainly happen...

However, we now live in a society that demands answers to the what the Budget will hold well in advance of the budget and the media, supposedly representing our interests, derail any question to any Politician with some reference to the Budget and who will win / lose.

I agree with this, but think that past administrations going back to the previous Labour administrations have brought this upon themselves.

Once upon a time there was well established protocol that announcements would be made in the Commons first, not announced or deliberately leaked in advance.

The more trailing of policites to get headlines, as became common in advance of Budgets with just one unannounced big surpise contained in the Budget, the more speculation there inevitably will be. And that just leads to the desire for sensationalist headlines when a Minister has said nothing more than words to the effect of "no comment, wait for the Budget" - things like "Minister refuses to rule out," "Minister won't answer direct question," or even articles detailing how a hypothetical policy could work, augmented by references that Ministers are looking into this, as they refused to rule out changes in the area. All built from an irrelevant "no comment" response.

All of that made worse by politicians feeling the need to pre-commit on major issues, which very much undermines the 'no comment' response, as then journalists can easily write articles about all the things they are able to commit to, which strongly infers things they will not comment about are likely to happen.

Eldi_Dos

Regarding short memories the fiqures of, 412 a increase of 211, 121 a decrease of 251 and 72 a increase of 64 seems have left some forumites still in a state of shock/ denial, but it is pretty clear what the country thought.

The only surprise to me is the use of consensus rather than using the big majority to press legislation through.

Grumpy_chap

hugheskevi said:

I agree with this, but think that past administrations going back to the previous Labour administrations have brought this upon themselves.

Once upon a time there was well established protocol that announcements would be made in the Commons first, not announced or deliberately leaked in advance.

Yes, past Governments really were far more reserved and "Statesperson-like" in their dealings with the media and both the Governments and the wider Commons membership would adhere to protocol in a somewhat more professional way.

The rise of 24-7 news media creating ever more vacuums to be filled has just driven constant comments going straight to the public without any validation or consideration.  Being an MP is becoming ever-more like a reality TV show.  It can't be long before we get to see "Naked Ambition at First Sight Stranded in Traitors Bar" on our screens - watch these pour souls as they are stranded in a commons bar and only their recently matched partner to support them - but which partner will betray whom to further their own career ahead of true love?

Andy_L

dont_use_vistaprint said:

My understanding is that only people who have paid full NI through work get the pension many others get pension credit / benefits. Are they are increased the same ? Because the the ones I know getting credit seem far better off than those getting pension as they pay no council tax and get 70% off water rates and get all extra types of support like free boilers & personal assistants / cleaners provided under a govt policy on adult care as long as they are getting pension credit, but if you get the state pension you would have to pay for all this. Triple lock is needed to keep pensioners on a par with those who have never worked 

There are a lot of ways that people who aren't working can get "NI credits" that count towards eligibility for the SP

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-credits/eligibility

Cobbler_tone

Read another article (via the Guardian covering the IFS) and it is pretty clear (and no different to any other budget) that you will never please all of the people all of the time. In fact, you will normally upset a lot of them when times are tough.
Scrap the Triple Lock and some will be upset. Reduce the TFLS, ditto but less so. Even some suggestions (TBF only ever read on here) to blend the tax codes would produce winners and losers, depending what you earn. Cut tax relief on pension contributions at high levels, most people would never be impacted but some would be unhappy. Cut certain benefits, those who rely on them wouldn't be happy.
If they gave every person £5,000 then some would complain that the person earning £100k a year shouldn't have got it.
Scrap the winter fuel allowance, people moan, reintroduce it if you get less than £35k and people moan that it should have been a higher/lower threshold. 
Tax the 'rich' more, those 'hard workers' aren't happy. What is 'rich'? £50k a year, £100k a year, £200k a year, or a multi millionaire?

I'm getting tired though of reading all this 'I've worked hard all my life' mantra. Times change very quickly, the world changes incredibly quickly. I see these moans all the time at work about change. If you couldn't make changes that may negatively impact people, or sometimes create perceived unfairness vs others, then you could never really make effective changes.
A good example. You change a long service award from £100 to £1,000 (or visa versa). Is it fair/unfair on those that have just had a long service award in the months/years before?

Anyway, to keep on thread. Scrap the Triple Lock!