Ahead of Rachel Reeves’ looming Budget, Independent readers have weighed in on Britain’s public finances – and largely agree that tax rises may now be unavoidable if essential services are to be maintained.When we asked what the chancellor should prioritise, many stressed the need for fairness, arguing that income tax, national insurance (NI), and other levies should be applied progressively, protecting those on lower incomes while asking more of higher earners.Closing loopholes and tackling tax avoidance were widely highlighted, alongside calls for greater government efficiency.Readers also urged broader systemic reforms: removing private money from politics, boosting public service productivity, and ensuring that any tax rises 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 recent NI changes – were cited as factors constraining today’s options, leaving the public frustrated with declining services, soaring energy bills, and failing infrastructure.Overall, our community agreed that while no one enjoys paying more tax, honesty, fairness, and careful planning are essential if the UK is to navigate its financial challenges without undermining public services.Here’s what you had to say:DOGE-style cuts won’t workThe books cannot be balanced by making DOGE-style cuts. Whatever fantasies Farage may conjure up, there are not 90,000 surplus civil servants waiting to be fired, with zero impact on public services.We can’t continue to print or borrow money without trashing our credit rating and/or further increasing our £120 billion-a-year interest bill.So tax rises are inevitable. Reeves will simply be doing what every chancellor since the 2008 crash has failed to do, knowing full well it is the right thing to do. In a way, it’s pretty gutsy and almost admirable.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteADVERTISEMENTNo, I don’t expect to be personally thrilled about paying more. But how long are we content to acquiesce in declining public services?SteveHillWhy did you not give this speech a year ago?I heard all of Rachel Reeves’ speech and all the questions asked. I really wish I had been there and had the chance to ask the following question:“Why did you not give this speech a year ago, and why did you simply not reverse the 2p cut on national insurance that Jeremy Hunt recklessly gave away before the election? That would have solved the £20 billion black hole and not caused all the issues with businesses and employment.Of course, the answer is obvious. No one is going to break a key manifesto commitment within months of being elected. However, I really wish she had done so. She would be in a far better position politically today.clivelosebyNo surpriseThis should come as no surprise, should it? Rishi Sunak warned us before the last elections.Given the position the economy is in, some things have to give. One of them is income tax, which will need to go up, and we have to accept that reality. In return, I would like to see a committed plan on fiscal discipline, economic growth, and slashing of waste. I also want to see a reduction in energy costs by reining in the green levies.KrispadIncremental bandsBack in the 1980s, when Mrs Thatcher reduced the top rate of income tax from 60 per cent to 40 per cent, economists warned it was unaffordable. Given that all our public services are now on their knees as a result of decades of spending cuts to fund that reduction, it proves they were right.But with a £47 billion tax gap, any chancellor having to increase taxes to plug a £40 billion black hole has a moral responsibility to invest additional ring-fenced resources to close that gap and tackle the shadow economy so legitimate businesses can compete on a level playing field.Increasing income tax seems inevitable, but it needs to be done transparently. Personal allowances should be increased in line with inflation, and far more gradual incremental rate bands introduced, starting with a lower rate, followed by more rate bands rather than a leap from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. The top rate on the highest portion of wealth should be increased to at least 50 per cent, which would create a fairer distribution of the tax burden proportionate to individual income levels.VickiGCutting MPs’ pay and perksWe can make a start on saving by cutting MPs’ and Lords’ pay by 10%, capping their bottomless expense accounts, stopping them owning multiple houses which they “flip” when they want them done up, looking at them having only taxpayer-owned accommodation, and ending the subsidised food and drink in the Houses of Parliament.Then stop renovations to Parliament – such as £9 million for a door – move Parliament out of London into a new purpose-built building with flats available for overnight stays, and reduce the legislature by at least 10 per cent, if not more. End the payment to past PMs “for expenses” and cut the number of unelected, unaccountable SPADs, if not eliminating them altogether. But of course none of this will ever happen while we let MPs make up their own rules.ListenVeryCarefullyComparing UK to MexicoI emigrated in 1990, and since then, it seems to me the UK has done poorly, with Brexit being an appalling act of self-harm. I live in Mexico, a developing country. The UK is supposed to be a developed country. If so, why does the UK not offer:Free university education Free childcare Free prescriptions Free broadband All of which are policies of the government here.Heisenberg97I feel targetedI have worked for over 40 years, paid off my mortgage, and am working on getting a decent-sized pension pot. I have never claimed any benefits. I feel like I am now a target. I should have been less responsible and spent more. I assume that is what the younger generation is also thinking, as it will be their pensions/contributions that will be taxed for longer than mine will be.Straight as a dieClosing tax loopholesOur tax system needs a very big dose of medicine. We have had too many years of loopholes to pacify the rich, allowing them, with clever sleight of hand, to avoid many of the taxes our legislation permits to be collected. We need fairness. Rachel must close all those loopholes before she raises our taxes.Just SayingRaising taxes fairlyRaise taxes fairly. Increase personal allowances, then raise percentages incrementally on the upper brackets. Increasing the basic personal allowance means the poorest don’t get hit by the increases further up the chain.SRKfanWe will run out of things to taxWithout major reform of the most significant costs to the government (i.e., our money), eventually we will run out of things to tax.The welfare system (beset with fraud), mass immigration of largely non-net tax contributors and their dependents, and a public service which is at the bottom of the developed world productivity tables.You can ignore all of these for the next year or two, but then where do you get the tax ££s from?Lambeth1000Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here. More
