What do you hope for in the budget?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

What is "the change that Britain voted for? Does anyone know? Wish someone would ask Starmer to explain the soundbite, because I suspect he could not do so.

Fair enough, but nothing to do with the budget. There are many threads expressing dissatisfaction - can this one please be kept for suggestions about the budget? Posts don't have to agree with me, or be something the current government is likely to do, but I'd really like to hear what would make people happy, rather than yet more moans about what they don't like.

ronib

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

No, it's until they are 12. And yes, I want to stop that.

Visgirl1 interesting as the age limit was 18. So some savings there for any government.
Wouldn’t it be great if mothers hoping to return to work could be given guidance and free training to re-enter the workforce? Or does this happen at the moment?

ronib

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

They only pay NI if you have Child credit (old family allowance) up to the age of 12 only.

Doodledog

When I’m on my phone I can’t always use the quote facility but in reply to Mt61 above, I also would like to see everyone have to contribute to society in the form of work and taxation. I have also said on this thread that it is wrong that employers get subsidies from working taxpayers that allow them to keep staff on low hours so they don’t have to pay NI or a living wage. It is also wrong that some have to work 40 hours to earn what others get in subsidies when working half of that. It creates divisions and resentments that allow governments and the media to play one group against another.

...also would like to see everyone have to contribute to society in the form of work and taxation

The problem with that is - it's like a form of Communism.

And it takes away personal freedom.

It might seem OK on paper, but I don't think it would work. Everyone, metaphorically, has to pick up a shovel and go to work for a prescribed number of years, either paid or voluntary.

Can you see the very wealthy elite taking part in this?

We'd have to completely restructure society in order for this to happen, to one of state-control.

ronib

Cossy okay. I am always more vulnerable when out with my 4 year old….

As I said, we just need to agree to disagree.

I really think that parents and young people get a really bum wrap these days.

I absolutely agree NO ONE should feel vulnerable in their own areas.

Ooops soz Should read much in the minority! (If only we had an Edit/correction button! )

What is "the change that Britain voted for? Does anyone know? Wish someone would ask Starmer to explain the soundbite, because I suspect he could not do so.

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

Cossy okay. I am always more vulnerable when out with my 4 year old….

ronib

Doodledog you have a fixed idea that non working parents are funded by those who don’t work. In a partnership, the family budget is arranged to the benefit of the family unit. One partner may earn even more than Keir Starmer for example and the other partner may choose to stay at home and support the family that way, or combine with part time work. Stay at home mothers are usually supported by working husbands.

No, husbands pay tax and NI based on their own earnings, not the potential earnings of their wives (and vice versa). There is no mechanism whereby one person can pay the contributions of another. Also, working people produce goods or provide services to society which those who stay at home do not. Those who have to work are forced to pay for those who choose not to, which is something I would like to see changed, so that more people can make genuine choices as opposed to some lifestyles being prioritised over others.

But as I say, that’s a small part of what I would like to see the budget address, and I am keen to hear positive ideas from others rather than complaints about what might happen.

ronib

Cossy and the problem of school children on buses has worsened. I witnessed a group of children trying to physically overturn a bus in London. The public needs more protection now.

That’s very much a mi Oriya, sadly there’s always been “feral” children and rubbish parents, do you not remember Borstals? I genuinely do not believe children and parents are any worse now than they were 50 years ago.

Sorry, let’s agree to disagree on this one.

ronib

I hope Rachel Reeves can present the budget, regardless of content, in a neutral way. She has a habit of raising the national blood pressure by at least 20 points.
Please don’t fall for the gdp debt ratio argument - Japan has a staggering ratio of over 220 percent of debt to GDP. Are they freezing the elderly? In fact, from memory isn’t it a country that reveres the aged? That could be a good starting point for Reeves.

Hear, hear ronib!

Please don’t fall for the gdp debt ratio argument - Japan has a staggering ratio of over 220 percent of debt to GDP. Are they freezing the elderly

I think the GDP-Debt is a poor guide for a government to decide how much it can borrow, but it's useful - to convince the electorate that "we can't afford xyz", or that more "difficult" and "painful" decisions have to be taken.

I believe Japan's Debt-GDP - in recent years anyway - rose to over 250%, but its economy remained primarily stable.

I think these fiscal rules are a tad arbitrary.

Cossy and the problem of school children on buses has worsened. I witnessed a group of children trying to physically overturn a bus in London. The public needs more protection now.

Doodledog you have a fixed idea that non working parents are funded by those who don’t work. In a partnership, the family budget is arranged to the benefit of the family unit. One partner may earn even more than Keir Starmer for example and the other partner may choose to stay at home and support the family that way, or combine with part time work. Stay at home mothers are usually supported by working husbands.

Cossy

Here goes!

Deferral of WFA til next year.

Unfreezing of personal allowance and and increase.

More and still more social housing.

Less “admin” staff and less admin per say in schools/NHS/Police.

Bigger budgets for state schools.

Restrictions on benefits for those who CAN work but choose not to, and a raise in benefits for those unable to work.

Alcohol, vape and cigarette duty raised.

Fuel duty frozen.

Proper investigation/assessment of those “home schooling”

Keep 25% single person discount.

Fund more youth workers and youth services.

Ditto Probation.

Sensible living wages so those working for large companies are no longer subsidised by the govt (UC/ Working Tax Credits)

Review of SEN provision.

Social care and residential care overhaul.

Assuming the detail doesn’t have too many devils in it, I would vote for you😀

ronib

If parents are producing children who can’t behave on public buses, it’s time for change to coin a cliche. Parents should be paying for private buses therefore. As an additional thought Doodledogto your question.

Really?

I can remember getting a “normal” bus to and from school, many many years ago. We were noisy and shoving and pushing! Our parents would have been horrified

ronib

If parents are producing children who can’t behave on public buses, it’s time for change to coin a cliche. Parents should be paying for private buses therefore. As an additional thought Doodledogto your question.

And if they don’t have the money for private buses? Should the budget have a remedy for that? A special bus allowance, or a parental subsidy? If the latter, should it go to all parents or only those who work? How would you sell the idea that non-working parents should be funded by those who work? Or should those who can’t pay have to walk to school? What about those who can’t work for whatever reason?

I am not supporting any of these things, incidentally- just wondering how the budget can make a difference.

Here goes!

Deferral of WFA til next year.

Unfreezing of personal allowance and and increase.

More and still more social housing.

Less “admin” staff and less admin per say in schools/NHS/Police.

Bigger budgets for state schools.

Restrictions on benefits for those who CAN work but choose not to, and a raise in benefits for those unable to work.

Alcohol, vape and cigarette duty raised.

Fuel duty frozen.

Proper investigation/assessment of those “home schooling”

Keep 25% single person discount.

Fund more youth workers and youth services.

Ditto Probation.

Sensible living wages so those working for large companies are no longer subsidised by the govt (UC/ Working Tax Credits)

Review of SEN provision.

Social care and residential care overhaul.

in not I'm

I could manage without my bus pass. However, for those who have had the WFA taken and are just a few pounds over the qualifying amount, the pass could be a lifeline. Our local pub is giving free tea and coffee to pensioners every day I'm October, November and December. Pensioners could go places like this to save on heating etc. If they take the passes there will be no option for some people.

If parents are producing children who can’t behave on public buses, it’s time for change to coin a cliche. Parents should be paying for private buses therefore. As an additional thought Doodledogto your question.

School buses ?

ronib

Doodledog
Re education. Short story - I had the greatest misfortune to be on a bus with my small grandson who had a headache. It was school time. It was a nightmare. The children would not stop talking very loudly and requesting quiet was the wrong approach. Couldn’t easily get off the bus- deliberately obstructed and then hoards of children tried to enter on the exit door. So my point is why would anyone want to be a teacher? Seems to me that something is going badly amiss.

I agree. What can the budget do to correct that though?

Cabowich

So many good things suggested here. I know this is not a budget item, but I would love it if it were made mandatory for all MPs to live for two weeks on the state pension through the coldest two weeks of the year.

I know what you mean and would also like to see politicians made to understand how ‘ordinary people’ live as a result of their policies, but two weeks isn’t enough. Matthew Parris lived on unemployment benefits for a while but it proved nothing. It is after the boiler breaks or the roof leaks that living on a low income bites. A week or two when that doesn’t happen is different.

It is fashionable for wealthy people to have ‘no spend’ weeks. These just mean not going out for coffee and refraining from buying ‘stuff’ on Amazon. They still watch Netflix and live in high-rent homes with food in the fridge and clothes in the wardrobes. Not the same at all as living like common people do, as Jarvis Cocker expressed it so well.