‘The books cannot be balanced by Doge-style cuts’: Readers debate how to tackle taxes in upcoming Budget

A.Head of Rachel Reeves’ upcoming budget, Independent Readers weighed in on Britain’s public finances and largely agreed that tax rises may now be inevitable if essential services are maintained.

When we asked what the chancellor should prioritize, most emphasized the need for fairness; He argued that income tax, national insurance (NI) and other taxes should be phased in, protecting lower earners while charging more from higher earners.

Calls for greater government efficiency, as well as closing loopholes and tackling tax avoidance, have also been widely emphasized.

Readers also called for broader systemic reforms: pulling private money out of politics, improving public service efficiency and ensuring that any tax increases are transparent and part of a long-term plan rather than a short-term fix.

Long-term policy decisions, from Thatcher-era tax cuts to the recent NI changes, have been cited as factors limiting today’s options, frustrating the public with declining services, rising energy bills and failing infrastructure.

Broadly, our community agrees that although no one likes paying more taxes, honesty, fairness and careful planning are essential for the UK to meet fiscal challenges without undermining public services.

Here’s what you need to say:

DOGE style cuts don’t work

Books cannot be balanced by making DOGE-style cuts. Whatever fantasies Farage comes up with, there are not 90,000 redundant civil servants waiting to be sacked with zero impact on public services.

We cannot continue to print money or borrow without lowering our credit score and/or further increasing our £120bn annual interest bill.

Therefore, tax increases are inevitable. Reeves will do what no chancellor since the crisis of 2008 has been able to do, and he knows full well it is the right thing to do. In a way it’s quite brave and almost admirable.

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

Terms and conditions apply.

Go to website

ADVERTISING

No, I don’t expect to be personally excited about paying more. So how long will we be willing to accept reductions in public services?

SteveHill

Why didn’t you have this conversation a year ago?

I heard Rachel Reeves’ entire speech and all the questions asked. I wish I were there and had the chance to ask this question:

“Why didn’t you have this conversation a year ago and reverse the 2p cut to national insurance that Jeremy Hunt recklessly donated before the election? That would have solved the £20bn black hole and wouldn’t have caused all the problems with business and employment.”

Of course the answer is obvious. No one will be able to break a major manifesto commitment within months of being elected. But I really wish he would. He would be in a much better position politically today.

cliveloseby

No surprise

This shouldn’t be a surprise, right? Rishi Sunak warned us before the last election.

Considering the state of the economy, something has to give. One of these is income tax, which must increase, and we need to accept this fact. In return, I would like to see a determined plan for fiscal discipline, economic growth and waste reduction. I would also like to see a reduction in energy costs by reining in green taxes.

Krispad

incremental bands

When Mrs Thatcher cut the top rate of income tax from 60 per cent to 40 per cent in the 1980s, economists warned it was unaffordable. This proves them right, given that all our public services are now on their knees as a result of decades of spending cuts to fund this cut.

But with a tax gap of £47bn, any chancellor forced to raise taxes to plug a £40bn black hole has a moral responsibility to invest additional ring-fenced resources to plug that gap and tackle the black economy so legitimate businesses can compete on a level playing field.

Increasing income tax seems inevitable, but it needs to be done in a transparent way. Personal allowances should be increased in line with inflation, and much more gradually increasing rate bands should be introduced, starting with a lower rate and following further rate ranges, rather than jumping from 20 percent to 40 percent. The top rate on the highest end of wealth should be increased to at least 50 percent, which would ensure a more equitable distribution of the tax burden in proportion to individual income levels.

VickiG

Cutting salaries and privileges of MPs

We could make a start on savings by cutting MPs’ and Lords’ salaries by 10%, limiting their bottomless spending accounts, preventing them from owning more than one home and “flipping” them when they want to renovate, ensuring they only have taxpayer-owned accommodation and ending subsidized food and drink in the Houses of Parliament.

Then stop the renovation of Parliament (something like £9 million for a door), move Parliament out of London to a new purpose-built building with apartments suitable for overnight stays, and reduce the legislature by at least 10 per cent, if not more. End paying “for expenses” to past PMs and reduce, if not eliminate, the number of unelected, unaccountable SPADs. But of course none of this will happen as long as we let MPs make their own rules.

Listen Very Carefully

Comparison of England and Mexico

I emigrated in 1990 and since then it seems to me that the UK has done poorly; Brexit was a terrible act of self-harm. I live in Mexico, a developing country. England needs to be a developed country. If so, why doesn’t the UK offer:

These are all government policies.

Heisenberg97

I feel targeted

I’ve been working for over 40 years, paid off my mortgage, and am trying to get a decent sized retirement benefit. I never claimed any benefits. I feel like I’m a target now. I should have been less responsible and spent more.

I assume the younger generation are thinking about this too, because their pensions/contributions will be taxed for longer than mine.

Flat as a mold

Closing tax loopholes

Our tax system needs a huge dose of medicine. For years we have run into loopholes to placate the wealthy, allowing them, by clever sleight of hand, to avoid most of the taxes our legislation allows to be collected. We need justice. Rachel must close all these loopholes before increasing our taxes.

just saying

Raising taxes fairly

Raise taxes fairly. Increase personal allowances, then gradually increase the percentages in the upper brackets. Increasing the basic personal allowance means the poorest are not affected by increases further up the chain.

SRKfan

We will run out of things to tax

Without major reform on the most important costs to government (i.e. our money), we will eventually run out of things to tax.

The welfare system (beset by fraud), the massive exodus of non-tax contributors and their dependents, and a public service at the bottom of the developed world productivity tables.

You can ignore all this for the next year or two, but where will you get the ££s tax from then?

Lambeth1000

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.