The most striking thing about this vote is how thin the winning argument was even as it won comfortably: yes carried it by 22 points, yet the chamber's most-respected opinion overall came from a No voter, and the Yes side's five contributions read more like five different reforms than one campaign.
The case that pulled votes was blunt arithmetic about who currently escapes tax on income. The top-rated Yes opinion complained that a household on benefits worth £40,000 a year is "equivalent to probably 50 grand" once its tax-free status is counted, against a worker's £40,000 landing nearer £35,000 after deductions — "So wrong." Others on the same side pushed the logic further, with one insisting the change only works "as long as ALL income is included including the rich, buisness & the self employed," and another framing the current exemption in sharper, more personal terms about who "receives my money."
The No side, fewer in number but carrying the single highest-rated argument on the page, worried less about principle and more about mechanics. The top-ranked opinion overall demanded carve-outs — pensions below the basic-rate threshold exempted, a capped household maximum pegged to "£24,784.50 per year," a protected personal allowance — while the other No voice questioned the premise entirely: "Benefits would have to rise to make up for tax and we would be introducing more bureaucracy," proposing a higher minimum wage instead so taxpayers "werent subsidising" employers like "Tesco and Amazon."
The split echoes a familiar fault line in welfare politics — is the problem that benefits are too generous relative to low pay, or that low pay is propped up by benefits in the first place — and this chamber never quite resolved which question it was answering.
A decisive verdict on a system nobody, including its own supporters, agreed on the details of.
12 Opinions
Not sure of the point of doing this. Benefits would have to rise to make up for tax and we would be introducing more bureaucracy into the system. A better thing would be to make a higher minimum wage so we werent subsidising the low paid with benefits so that business owners like tesco and amazon can make huge profits
Hell no! Pensions going under basic rate of income tax should be exempt. Maximum benefits per household should be not greater that minimum UK salary £24,784.50 per year for 37.5 hours a week. This also should be an income tax-free Personal Allowance.
Yea but increase the tax free allowance.
Why should the idle, feckless and foreign who receive my money be exempt from the taxes I have to pay??? It makes no sense.
About time, family on benefits 40 grand a year no tax so equivalent to probably 50 grand. 40 grand for worker ends up equivalent to 35 grand. So wrong
I'd say yes as long as ALL income is included including the rich, buisness & the self employed.. It's not fair to included all the poorests income whilst allowing other more rich people and organisations to avoid paying tax by using accountants, offshore schemes and expenses..