Regardless of whether Rachel Reeves misled us or not, she must resign | Politics | News

Rachel Reeves’ fall budget is without a doubt the most unfair budget in living memory. Simply put, it punishes those who get up and go to work and do the right thing, while rewarding those who don’t. Workers earning around £35,000 a year would be £1,400 worse off under the Chancellor’s plans, according to the Resolution Foundation.

Make no mistake, £35,000 is a modest, typical salary for a young professional. If your take-home pay after tax and student loans is just over £28,000, this is a serious blow, not a minor inconvenience. But in the same Budget the Center for Social Justice (CSJ), a respected think tank, reports that 18,000 non-working families will be £14,000 better off. That £14,000 is more than half the take-home pay of the young professional who goes to work to earn it.

And it doesn’t end there. Some large families in need will be £20,000 better off after the Budget, effectively earning the income many young workers bring home in a year’s time, according to The Times.

To earn this, I have to wake up at 6 am on Saturday and work for hours. They don’t have to work at all. How can this be true? Further CSJ analysis shows that a British family with three children, where at least one parent receives the average Universal Credit and related benefits, will receive up to £46,000 next year. Meanwhile, a family where one adult works full-time and the other part-time on the national living wage will take home £28,000. The working family is £18,000 worse off.

A worker will now need a salary of £71,000 to cover the total benefit income of a family with three children. That’s close to £90,000, the equivalent of a family with five children. This is three to four times what I earn, the idea of ​​being able to earn this much money feels completely unattainable. However, households receiving social assistance will now earn this level of income without working.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how backwards this is. That’s why my generation, whom Labor assumed would support them forever, need to finally wake up. This must be the Budget penny drop moment. Justice is not ideological. It’s simple: If you work, you should always be better off than those who don’t work. This shouldn’t be a controversial statement.

Young voters have stuck with Labor for years out of habit, cultural identity, university politics and peer pressure. Anything but actual policies. But this must be the breaking point. Young people should not forgive a Chancellor who believes his own effort is less valuable than doing nothing, who treats those trying to build the future as if they were the problem, as if they were greedy, as if they weren’t already doing enough and needed to do more.

Young people will, of course, recognize the fundamental injustice in this Budget and consider alternatives, including the Conservatives, who are currently the only party willing to defend the principle of fairness and the idea that work should be rewarded.

There is endless debate about whether Rachel Reeves misled the public about a financial black hole. Frankly, I don’t care if he does it or not. He should resign over the budget. A Chancellor whose decisions leave working households poorer than welfare-dependent households has failed at the most fundamental level.

This is a fundamental error of judgment. Reeves delivered a Budget that shattered the principle of fairness and replaced it with a system that rewards dependence and punishes responsibility. If that’s not resignation-worthy, then nothing is.

• Sophie Corcoran is Youth Director at Great British PAC