‘A kick in the teeth’: Readers say Rachel Reeves’ Budget ‘punishes responsibility’

Independent Readers were quick to express their disappointment, and in many cases outright anger, at a Budget they felt served Labour’s political interests rather than the needs of the country.

Many in our society felt that Rachel Reeves’s £26bn tax rise package hit hardest on those already feeling squeezed by the cost of living crisis and placed new burdens on taxpayers who say they are running out of financial progress.

With income tax thresholds frozen until 2030-31 and pushing more than 1.7 million people into higher limits, many readers questioned how a government elected on the promise of protecting “working people” could justify such a sweeping stealth tax.

Others cited pension contribution changes and cuts to ISA allowances as further evidence that people who save, plan and work hard are seen as easy targets.

The removal of the two-child benefit limit has been particularly controversial; many people accused the government of rewarding some households while demanding greater sacrifices than others. However, along with these increases, growth forecasts have also weakened.

Readers were all skeptical that the pain caused by this Budget would restore confidence in the economy.

Here’s what you need to say:

kick in the teeth

As a middle-class worker currently taxed at around 62 per cent, I find it completely unacceptable that Labor is removing the two-child limit. Having children is a personal choice and should be approached responsibly.

Additionally, accessing pensions through salary sacrifice is another blow in the teeth. I’m all for fair taxation, but we’re a long way from that now. I wasn’t shocked, but I was still deeply disappointed.

Anunaki

squeezed medium

This Budget is a complete disaster, punishing responsibility and rewarding irresponsibility. Rachel Reeves’ decision to extend the freeze on income tax thresholds is a cruel stealth tax on workers, the group Labor has sworn to protect. This is a blatant betrayal that is slowly bleeding the household dry.

Get a free partial share of up to £100.
Capital is at risk.

Terms and conditions apply.

Go to website

ADVERTISING

Meanwhile, taxing pension contributions above £2,000 and capping cash ISA allowance is a direct attack on aspirations and financial prudence. He tells everyone trying to save money and provide for their future that they are the new piggy bank of a government that does not have a pro-growth vision.

But the most frustrating measure is the removal of the two-child benefit limit. This is not compassion; It is economic ignorance. It actively encourages irresponsible behavior by signaling that the state will foot the bill for having more children, regardless of one’s ability to provide for one’s children. This is a policy that will encourage larger families at the direct expense of hard-working taxpayers who are already suffering from other tax increases.

The Tories are right about this: this is the Benefits Street Budget, and it’s being paid for by the middle class who play by the rules. It’s a truly disastrous set of priorities.

thomas

Desperate to please party members

Given the extraordinary mismanagement of the run-up to this Budget, it seemed quite appropriate that the OBR attended and accidentally published a link to their report two hours before the Chancellor stood up.

After weeks of expectations management distorting their manifesto by increasing income tax, there was yet another U-turn at the eleventh hour. As the saying goes, you can be hanged for sheep rather than lambs – and this Budget bears all the hallmarks of a Chancellor who is more desperate to please his own party members and cling to his own position than to do what is right for the economy and the country; This would mean raising income tax in a transparent way and not hiding behind the veil of further fiscal distress.

We have a welfare bill that is rapidly spiraling out of control, but he has removed the cap on child benefit; a stagnant economy and the highest tax burden since the 1940s; but more disingenuous income tax increases through fiscal drift, which will not only affect the poorest in society, but will also target the same middle- and high-income group that they need to spend to achieve economic growth.

VickiG

Inability or unwillingness?

Reeves could bring England in line with Scotland and reinstate a top income tax that applies only to those with the highest incomes. But this would violate a promise not to increase taxes on employees; Therefore, he breaks the same promise by increasing taxes on the lowest wage earners.

Is this an unwillingness or inability to bow to pressure from the Tufton Street oligarchs who appear to be dictating the cabinet’s policies? Judging by the combination of intentional and unintentional leaks, it could be both.

Jay

A reckless policy

Removing the two-child limit is a reckless policy. Distributing an average of £5,310 to £560,000 to larger families rewards personal choice while ignoring other households under the same cost-of-living crunch. This is unfair and risks encouraging inflation, making life harder for everyone, including the poor.

Musil

looking after themselves

Most of those affected will be Labor voters, so they will be left to fend for themselves if they make this change. However, taxpayers will not be happy about this and they will probably lose votes overall. The people they reward will probably vote for them anyway; The people they defrauded will be shaken to some extent.

Analyze This

Savers want stability

Does Reeves really think cutting ISA allowances will change the way people think? “Oh yeah, we should invest in stocks and shares right away.” Wrong. In these turbulent times, retirees and savers want stability. This will have no effect other than leading people astray. I’m sorry but Labor has no clue and you’ve lost my vote.

CatsWhiskers

Chaos in messaging

So it charges EV drivers (who say they want more) and freezes the cost of gasoline drivers (who say they want less). This is the usual chaos in messaging from the Conservative government.

They should use a fix on the higher tax levels to raise the lower tax level, lifting more people out of poverty (this includes me, for the record). They should not push harder because people with lower income levels will now have to pay taxes.

At least they say they are putting more money into the NHS and getting rid of the Police and Crime Commissioners.

Bryan

We want more but we won’t pay for it

People in this country constantly want more and more, but they are not ready to pay the price. We (still) have lower taxes than most Scandinavian countries, but we constantly scrutinize them and ask how they do it. You get what you’re willing to pay.

Icarus57

Reducing demand will reduce taxes

Reducing household incomes by an average of £1,250 by 2025-26 by applying fiscal drag would reduce demand, which would reduce taxes. Has there ever been a more buffoonish government that clearly needs to go because it cannot figure out the fundamental implications of fiscal policy?

forum

Punishing those who are educated

As predicted, Reeves collects taxes from workers and savers and passes the tax on to those who do not. Another Labor Budget that penalizes those who give themselves education, qualifications or useful skills in order to pass on their taxes to those who don’t care.

This will increase the tax burden on workers to over 38%, a new record. Same and same for Labor… until workers get tired of giving away more and more of their hard-earned money.

ChrisMatthews

Some of the comments in this article have been edited for brevity and clarity.

I want to share your opinions? Just register your information below. Once you sign up, you can comment on the most important stories of the day for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘sign in’ or ‘sign up’ in the top right corner to log in or register.

Be sure to follow our community guidelines, which you can find at. Here. For a complete guide on how to comment, Click here.