“Has this austerity of New Age always arrived?” The questions of your Spring Declaration answered Andrew Grice

RAchel Reeves’ Spring Declaration has aroused an intense debate, with Key questions Emerging on cuts to wellness, taxation and on the wider economic strategy of the government.

As speculation grows for potential increases in taxes in the autumn budget, Independent Readers raised concerns about the impact on caregiver, low -income families and investments in critical sectors such as technology and housing construction.

I asked readers in questions in A question and answer live On March 27, offering insights on Labor’s tax policies, the potential for a tax on wealth and the largest implications of recent political decisions.

With the economy that faces the contrary winds – including the threat of US commercial rates under Donald Trump and the dissatisfaction of the public for wellness reforms – Reeves’ cautious approach has left his small tax room for Maneuver.

In the meantime, the voices of the opposition and the backbencher of the work continue to press for alternative solutions, including the targeted taxation on the rich.

Here is a selection of requests for the spring declaration from Independent readers – and my answers from “Ask me anything“Event.

Q: Why were there no investments in the technological sector?

NOREDORBLUE

A: I agree that it could have been mentioned. Rachel Reeves would have said that his spring declaration was not a budget and reminded us that he increased capital investments by £ 100 billion in his budget last October, also on research and development. We will probably feel more on the technological sector when the government publishes its long -awaited industrial strategy (soon!) And in the revision of the expenditure at the government level issued in June.

Q: Is there any mention of the impact on the caregiver that will lose the assistance allowance?

Jjamono

A: It is not something that the ministers seem eager to speak. But the Labor parliamentarians worried about the cuts of £ 5 billion to the benefits are aware of the threat to Carer’s allowance and I am sure that it will receive more attention in the period preceding the vote of the Municipalities on the changes expected in June. And Davey, the liberal democratic leader, who made the Key campaign problems of social assistance and caregiver and who has a disabled son, raised the matter. Unpaid assistants deserve greater recognition and support. About 445 million pounds contribute every day to the economy in England and Wales – £ 162 billion per year.

Q: Please explain, in terms of a young medium intelligence, could understand, what is the point of the elections, parts, parliament, prosecutor, etc.?

jealous

A: I think it was Winston Churchill, citing an academic, who said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the other forms that have been tried. I think our system, despite all its defects, is worth defending and improving. Democracy is threatened all over the world in an era of the so -called leaders of a strong man, for example in Russia, China, the United States or Türkiye. Some people would say that they are also at risk due to the rise of populists. I don’t think the United Kingdom is immune to this, as we can see with the rise of the Nigel Farage reform in the United Kingdom in the polls of opinion.

Q: Why doesn’t work help to instigate a global wealth tax?

Moderate

A: I think the support for a tax on wealth is increasing among the Labor parliamentarians, even if I suspect that it is still a minority vision between them. The question will be on the agenda as there will now be a great debate that Rachel Reeves should increase taxes in its budget in October this year. It could be forced to, since it does not want to change its tax rules (to allow them to increase loans) and the scope of further cuts to the shopping will be limited by the controversy on the savings on well -being.

There is a case to increase taxes to finance the largest defense expenditure that the United Kingdom will need in the new world. An idea is to equalize the tax on capital gains (CGT) with income tax so that they are charged to the same level. The chancellor increased the CGT in the budget last October so that he can go further. Equilization seems reasonable to me, although critics would claim that the entrepreneurs and therefore economic growth would hit. Some people would call it a tax on wealth.

A purest version would be a sampling of 1 % or 2 % on a certain level of activity, annually or as one -off. A cost of 2 % on people with more than £ 10 million could collect £ 24 billion. But I doubt that the government will travel this path. Critics are skeptical that it would work and say that the rich would find a way to get around it. Although the figures are disputed, there are some evidence that the non-Doms are leaving the United Kingdom following the recent repression. Reeves wants to reconstruct bridges with the companies burned by his decision to increase the national insurance contributions of employers and will not want to be accused of guiding the creators of wealth outside the country.

A tax on global wealth would prevent highly furniture from moving elsewhere to avoid it. But I don’t see any possibility of agreement on one – not least because Donald Trump is on the scene – or the United Kingdom that pushes for one.

Q: Why do you feel that most of the “waste” affected affects those who are lowest on the scale?

Itslikeacarcrash

A: You are right that most of the savings come from the least wealthy; Disabled people are not good. This morning I participated in an event at the Resolution Foundation Think Tank. His analysis discovered that two thirds of well -being cuts will fall on low -income groups. The changes in taxes and benefits will reduce the income of the second poorest fifth of the families of 1.5 percent in this five -year parliament and those of the richest fifth of only 0.6 percent.

There are no plans to reduce payments for parliamentarians or peers. Most of the parliamentarians have a basis in their electoral college (or nearby). Their family often lives there. Those who want a base in London (rather than being in the hotel) must satisfy the additional cost to keep two houses.

D: £ 2 billion for economic and social housing. What is the definition of “accommodation at affordable prices” and “social housing” here?

Robin Baldock

A: The government defines accommodation at affordable prices such as “accommodation for sale or rental, for those whose needs are not satisfied by the market”. The examples include social rent (at least 20 % below market rates); Rent at affordable prices or intermediate accommodation such as shared property, when people buy a share of ownership and rent the remaining fee. Social construction is provided by local authorities or agencies, such as associations of non -profit housing.

The £ 2 billion that mention 18,000 new houses at affordable prices. It is a down payment before a longer -term investment by the end of the year.

You are right on the problem of the banking ground. But there has been some good news in the spring declaration. The office for the responsibility of the Tax Watchdog budget, after talking to the construction of the house construction industry, thinks that we are on the right road for a maximum of 40 years in the construction of houses by 2030 and that 1.3 million houses could be built in five years, not much below the target of the government.

Q: Why are the ISA allowances not reduced?

Victor Smith

A: There were many speculations before the Spring Declaration according to which Rachel Reeves would have reduced the annual limit for Isa to cash exempted from £ 20,000 to £ 4,000. He did not, in part because he did not want the declaration to seem a budget after promising to have only one fiscal event a year. The government said yesterday that he wants to obtain the “right of balance” between cash and actions in the ISA as part of an investment retail revolution. So a change could happen in the budget this autumn.

Reeves could be attempted to review pensions. Treasury costs £ 42 billion per year, with £ 27 billion of what people who pay for the income rates of 40 or 45 %go, with only a third that go to the basic rates. In 2016, Reeves supported a fixed relief rate to 33 %. A change not violation of the work manifesto promises not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. But the chancellor could be wary of alienating company characters.

Q: This tightening of the fiscal belt/new era of austerity that anyone won anyone won the last elections?

Wednesday

A: YES. The public spending plans of the conservatives were very embellished, to put it politely. Knowing that the elections were coming, they did not put aside the money for articles such as the increases in remuneration of the public sector that would always have been in the pipeline. So Labor’s claims on a black hole. But all governments make choices. There were other ways to work to balance books. Rachel Reeves could have avoided spending cuts by increasing taxes, but did not want so early after its increase in taxes by £ 40 billion in the budget last October. He believes that there is no public appetite for tax increases when the tax burden is heading towards its highest level.

In defense, I suspect that the United Kingdom will have to dedicate over 2.5 percent of GDP. The government has set a 3 % goal in the next Parliament. This too may not be sufficient in the new world introduced by Donald Trump. The background line is that Europe must now finance its safety. I doubt that any future president of the United States will bring back and reverse Trump’s decision. The government of the United Kingdom is talking about the push to jobs and growth from a budget for the largest defense, but some experts are cautious about how big the benefits will be.

These questions and answers were part of a “Ask me whatever” hosted by Andrew Grice At 15:00 GMT on Thursday 27 March. Some of the questions and answers have been modified for this article. You can read the complete discussion in the comments section of Original article.

For more information on the United Kingdom policy, take a look at the confidential weekly newsletter of John Rentul. The E -mail, exclusive for independent Premium Subscribers, take you behind the Westminster curtain. If this sounds like something that interests you, Go here to find out more.