Living standards for all UK families are set to fall by 2030, with those on the lowest incomes declining twice as fast as middle and high earners, according to new data that raises serious questions about Keir Starmer’s pledge to make working people better off.
The grim economic analysis, produced by the respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), comes before the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, makes her spring statement on Wednesday in which she will announce new cuts to public spending rather than increase borrowing or raise taxes, so as to keep within the government’s “iron clad” fiscal rules.
In December, the prime minister announced a series of new “milestones” that he said would be passed before the next general election, which is likely to be held in 2029. The first of these was “putting more money in the pockets of working people”.
But with many Labour MPs already deeply concerned over Reeves’s plan to raise about £5bn by cutting benefits, including for disabled people, evidence that living standards are on course to fall markedly under a Labour government – and to decline most for the least well off – will add to the mood of growing disquiet in party’s ranks.
The JRF analysis rests on a realistic assumption that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will adjust its forecasts in line with the Bank of England and other main forecasters when it makes them public on Wednesday. The OBR is expected to halve the expected growth rate for this year from 2% to about 1%.
In what it describes as a “dismal reality”, the JRF said its detailed analysis shows that the past year could mark a high point for living standards in this parliament. It concludes that the average family will be £1,400 worse off by 2030, representing a 3% fall in their disposable incomes. The lowest income families will be £900 a year worse off, amounting to a 6% fall in the amount they have to spend.
The JRF also said that if living standards have not recovered by 2030, Starmer will not only have failed to pass his No 1 milestone but will also have presided over the first government since 1955 to have seen a fall in living standards across a full parliament.
…
Alfie Stirling, director of insight and policy at JRF, said further cuts were not the way to reverse the trend of falling living standards. Instead, he argued, Reeves should consider raising tax for the wealthiest.
“There is no doubt the government is facing an unenviable list of economic pressures and uncertainties, ranging from the domestic to the international. But how you manage these risks is a matter of political choice…
“It is wrong, and ultimately counterproductive, to try and rebuild the public finances through cuts to disability benefits. Instead, government should be addressing hardship and raising living standards directly, as part of their strategy for growth.
“Fiscal pressures should be met through tax reform. There are a number of options to raise revenue from those with the broadest shoulders, while also supporting growth by removing perverse incentives in the tax system and staying within the government’s manifesto commitments.”
Earlier last week a group of leading economists wrote to the Financial Times warning that it would be a “profound mistake” for ministers to cut spending or investment, adding that “the UK cannot cut its way to growth”.
But you’re broke and going broker, you can’t afford science and treatment, I’ve heard about the NHS being in a bad state for over a decade now, now if you were the worlds reserve currency like the USA then sure, turn on the money printer! but you’re not so… bit of a crappy situation to me!
If GDP and growth rises (by having more people working) then the budget can balance better and welfare can be increased
Maybe kicking everyone who thinks Brexit was a good idea in the shins might help move things along, wonder how many billions that has cost the UK
From my perspective it’s not about people or their disabilities, it’s simple economics, if you don’t have the money to provide the welfare but keep paying it out you can end up in a debt spiral or Argentina with 5000% inflation as the money printers are turned on to fund things when credit ratings are downgraded, is it really that surprising they are cutting back on spending?
Can Labour Fix the Welfare System? - TLDR News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1aQph1UMo
My understanding is there is no real link between COVID and welfare payments with young people for example least impacted by COVID but the biggest increase is payments to them for anxiety:
Which Starmer is directly tackling:
I don’t think there’s a popular way out of this, you can’t increase payments or keep them going because you’ll go broke, every time you move something budget wise somebody is going to get upset
A stinging rebuke to a guy that watched the NRL today on an illegal streaming website rather than paying a Murdoch owned streaming service 1 cent :\
To be honest there’s not enough content on Lemmy so I browse ‘all’ a lot and this came up
First point, Long Covid can cause mental health issues including anxiety and depression.
Secondly, there is money. The tax burden on the richest has dropped massively since the 50s and their effective tax rate is a lot lower. We could reverse that, but Starmer is a red Tory so wouldn’t consider it.
You never hear a government say "can we really afford these fighter jets or nuclear subs? Do they say there is no money left?Nope. They print money. To quote Tony Benn, if you can afford to kill people, you can afford to help people.
Finally, the NHS functioned well before the Tories took over. One of the most effective and cost efficient health systems in the world but as demand has increased due to an aging population the money available has frozen for it. We wasted a lot of money on covid for Tory business friends. Mismanagement doesn’t mean something doesn’t work.
Apologies on the Murdoch dig. Couldn’t resist it as it amused me. In reality, he’s spent a lot of money to persuade people to think just like you, so he would be proud. I can imagine that isn’t a nice thing.
In the post war years, Clement Atlee’s Labour spent massively with a higher debt to GDP and debt to GDP came down. Building homes and founding the NHS. It isn’t just the USA that can print money. I appreciate without this historical context and the media brainwashing that something with empirical evidence can seem impossible.
Could you quantify the economic benefit of that? Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.
the economic benefit of being the worlds reserve currency?
Easier Borrowing: The United States can borrow money more easily and at lower interest rates due to the high global demand for dollars. This allows the U.S. government to issue bonds at a lower cost, reducing the expense of its substantial external debt 123.
https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/41b78032-5b3e-463c-9a65-8aa9fbba4e79