Fund defence spending from tax rise on middle earners, thinktank tells Healey

Resolution Foundation argues that UK’s internationally low ‘tax wedge’ must rise to pay for defence ambitions

The chancellor, John Healey, must be prepared to raise taxes for middle earners if he wants to fund significantly higher defence spending, the Resolution Foundation thinktank has said.

But in his new post in No 11 Downing Street, Healey has made clear that he will wait until next year’s spending review before presenting a plan to meet Labour’s pledge of devoting 3.5% of GDP to defence by 2035.

In a new report, entitled Thin End of the Wedge, economists at the Resolution Foundation suggest he will not be able to raise the £28bn a year it would take to meet that promise without asking average workers to pay more.

"Despite recent increases, the UK still taxes average earners less than most of our international peers,” says the foundation’s chief economist, James Smith.

Yet at 32.4% for a single earner on average pay, it remains below the average for the OECD and the G7 major economies, they say.

When the economists looked at countries with higher public spending, they found these tended to ask their average workers to contribute more – instead of relying on business or wealth taxes, for example.

“No other OECD rich country has a bigger state and a lower burden on average workers, so any politician promising both is not being realistic,” Smith said.

“There is a strong case that any benefits of increased defence spending will be broadly shared, so the tax rises needed to find this should be too, including higher rates on middle earners.”

The tax wedge on a worker paid the median salary, of £33,000 as at April last year, is also low by historic standards, they argue – and is still below the level before the global financial crisis in 2008.

Healey will present his first budget on 28 October and needs to find approximately £1.4bn a year over the next three years to pay for Starmer’s defence investment plan – which Healey in his last job derided as inadequate.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/sep/02/fund-defence-spending-from-tax-rise-on-middle-earners-thinktank-tells-healey

that's not how we do things here...

It's interesting how the low and middle class have huge numbers over the millionaires but we still end up with a system where the low and middle class get screwed and pay for this tyranny. But hey, keep voting for the better of two evils from your assigned two choices provided to you by the uniparty. You're making it so much better.

2 minutes ago, mnstang said:

It's interesting how the low and middle class have huge numbers over the millionaires but we still end up with a system where the low and middle class get screwed and pay for this tyranny. But hey, keep voting for the better of two evils from your assigned two choices provided to you by the uniparty. You're making it so much better.

I don't know much about the UK or how they handle their finances so I asked Google Ai...

I know, you're shocked right?

2 hours ago, mnstang said:

It's interesting how the low and middle class have huge numbers over the millionaires but we still end up with a system where the low and middle class get screwed and pay for this tyranny. But hey, keep voting for the better of two evils from your assigned two choices provided to you by the uniparty. You're making it so much better.

The US has a much more progressive tax structure than most of the world.

The top 5% of earners pay 60% of the income taxes received by the irs, while the bottom 50% pay 3% of the total, with the majority of them getting more back than they pay in.

Back to the topic...

Is the UK increasing defense spending to meet the Un requirements?

If so this should reduce Un spending by the US.

5 minutes ago, krom said:

Back to the topic...

Is the UK increasing defense spending to meet the Un requirements?

If so this should reduce Un spending by the US.

that's not the topic... that's a deflection from how to pay for increased 'defence' spending

here's a fun one for you to chew on though...

2027 Proposed US Defense Budget - $1.5 Trillion

Current US Population - 342.6 Million

that's $4,378.28 per American citizen being spent... just next year

are you willing to write the US Treasury a check for that?

maybe that's how all proposed spending should be put out to the American public... and imo how all Federal Spending bills should be put forward, shown to the American public and voted on line by line rather than it all being buried in a massive omnibus bill

Edited September 2Sep 2 by Crnr2Crnr

As usual the math is not mathing...

1 hour ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

that's not the topic... that's a deflection from how to pay for increased 'defence' spending

here's a fun one for you to chew on though...

2027 Proposed US Defense Budget - $1.5 Trillion

Current US Population - 342.6 Million

that's $4,378.28 per American citizen being spent... just next year

are you willing to write the US Treasury a check for that?

maybe that's how all proposed spending should be put out to the American public... and imo how all Federal Spending bills should be put forward, shown to the American public and voted on line by line rather than it all being buried in a massive omnibus bi

Thought the topic is defense spending in the UK...

You're the one supporting increased taxes...

My opinion is that the main responsibility of the Federal government is defending the borders. That's one of the only things I'm OK with them doing with the money they take under threat of violence.

The government is by far the most expensive, least efficient way possible to to do anything.

1 hour ago, Deephaven said:

As usual the math is not mathing...

I honestly believe if all federal spending were laid out in such fashion... we might not be $40T in the red

good on the UK though for actually discussing it before spending and taxing it

$2,918.85

that's $1T of annual debt interest per American annually right now... and it's more like 1.1/1.2T

10 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

I honestly believe if all federal spending were laid out in such fashion...

It is exactly how it should be laid out. In the case of defense it should be greatly broken down as well. I am all for progressive research on new means, but spending on the stupidity in Iran is nonsensical.

3 minutes ago, krom said:

Thought the topic is defense spending in the UK...

You're the one supporting increased taxes...

My opinion is that the main responsibility of the Federal government is defending the borders. That's one of the only things I'm OK with them doing with the money they take under threat of violence.

The government is by far the most expensive, least efficient way possible to to do anything.

sort've... the article if you read it or what I copy/pasted is the UK figuring out how to pay for increased defense spending now in the near term, not later or never like we do.

we're never going to reduce our debt if we don't decrease spending and increase revenue... so if you see that as 'supporting increasing taxes' then so be it.

if the Dem's or hell... even the 'conservative' Republicans proposed and somehow managed to pass a balanced budget ammendment for FY27 or FY28 just how badly would Americans lose their marbles? just to balance the annual budget (not reduce the debt) they'd either have to massively cut spending, massively increase revenue or both

2 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

It is exactly how it should be laid out. In the case of defense it should be greatly broken down as well. I am all for progressive research on new means, but spending on the stupidity in Iran is nonsensical.

congress didn't approve spending $ on Iran or the war itself

DOD has done 'internal transfers' thus far but PH went to congress begging for another $67B to $88B that wasn't budgeted in the Big B Bill to pay for operation Epic Clusterfuck

and he wants $1.5T for FY27

24 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

sort've... the article if you read it or what I copy/pasted is the UK figuring out how to pay for increased defense spending now in the near term, not later or never like we do.

we're never going to reduce our debt if we don't decrease spending and increase revenue... so if you see that as 'supporting increasing taxes' then so be it.

if the Dem's or hell... even the 'conservative' Republicans proposed and somehow managed to pass a balanced budget ammendment for FY27 or FY28 just how badly would Americans lose their marbles? just to balance the annual budget (not reduce the debt) they'd either have to massively cut spending, massively increase revenue or both

No one is passing a balanced budget anything lol.

Just balancing the budget is political suicide, let alone paying down the debt.

13 minutes ago, krom said:

No one is passing a balanced budget anything lol.

Just balancing the budget is political suicide, let alone paying down the debt.

and that alone should be an enormous red flag on its own

paying our bills... is political suicide

we're doomed

The UK makes people actually pay for their military and wars? The US used to do that. Not no more. Wars to protect Israel’s survival and keep food and cocaine on Don Jr’s table is placed on the country’s credit card.

2 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

and that alone should be an enormous red flag on its own

paying our bills... is political suicide

we're doomed

That's why I keep telling you to stop worrying about it.

If you want to worry about the future of the country, both Islam and socialism are much bigger problems, with worse consequences, and a significant shorter time line. They are also something that it's not too late to fix.

Scared of a fake messiah, but worships another. Odd.

37 minutes ago, krom said:

That's why I keep telling you to stop worrying about it.

If you want to worry about the future of the country, both Islam and socialism are much bigger problems, with worse consequences, and a significant shorter time line. They are also something that it's not too late to fix.

nah... I'm concerned for future generations

I also don't waste my time worrying about the latest boogeymen...

3 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

that's not the topic... that's a deflection from how to pay for increased 'defence' spending

here's a fun one for you to chew on though...

2027 Proposed US Defense Budget - $1.5 Trillion

Current US Population - 342.6 Million

that's $4,378.28 per American citizen being spent... just next year

are you willing to write the US Treasury a check for that?

maybe that's how all proposed spending should be put out to the American public... and imo how all Federal Spending bills should be put forward, shown to the American public and voted on line by line rather than it all being buried in a massive omnibus bill

You'd think with all our bases in the middle east being smashed by a caveman country and abandoned in humiliating fashion, we should be spending less from now on since we're not manning and maintaining those. Maybe the Pentagon will even pass an audit or get close..

Keep voting for what got us here, fucking cult follower losers

3 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

nah... I'm concerned for future generations

I also don't waste my time worrying about the latest boogeymen...

If you actually cared about the future you'd be far more worried about islam and socialism than the national debt.

The national debt won't result in rape gangs wandering the cities, or "no go zones" like we see in the EU and UK

5 minutes ago, krom said:

If you actually cared about the future you'd be far more worried about islam and socialism than the national debt.

The national debt won't result in rape gangs wandering the cities, or "no go zones" like we see in the EU and UK

Are you capable of sticking to the topic in any thread?

17 minutes ago, krom said:

If you actually cared about the future you'd be far more worried about islam and socialism than the national debt.

The national debt won't result in rape gangs wandering the cities, or "no go zones" like we see in the EU and UK

I wonder if any of these guys are asking if Britain trying to pay for their defense spending has anything to do with Trump demanding NATO members to finally step up and pay their agreed on share of their GDP on defense? Its also obvious that some of these guys are more fixated on Jews instead of the threat of Islam. Which is crazy, but where we're at with some of these guys.

3 hours ago, krom said:

If you actually cared about the future you'd be far more worried about islam and socialism than the national debt.

The national debt won't result in rape gangs wandering the cities, or "no go zones" like we see in the EU and UK

The crooks in this administration are ushering in socialism with wars, excessive military spending, and policies that have created out of control inflation. People see how the Trump kids are getting filthy rich while they struggle to pay for groceries. As for Islam, I’m sorry about your luck. Muslims have always treated me well.

Edited September 3Sep 3 by spin_dry

9 hours ago, krom said:

If you actually cared about the future you'd be far more worried about islam and socialism than the national debt.

The national debt won't result in rape gangs wandering the cities, or "no go zones" like we see in the EU and UK

doesn't sound like a pressing matter for someone who lives in northern WI or upstate NY

ahhhh... this also has to do with the Falklands and Crazy Vladimir

Trump’s Falklands move shows Britain must be ready to defend itself

The UK has been living off the peace dividend, but this is now a dangerous world with serious threats from Russia, China and Iran. It means that the aim of spending 3 per cent on defence by 2030 is not an option or a luxury, it has become a necessity, as political editor David Maddox explains

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-falkland-islands-burnham-defence-spending-b3044113.html

recent Falklands theead

https://www.freedomsledder.com/index.php?/topic/83986-oh-ffs-now-its-the-gdamn-falkland-islands/

how long until Crazy Javier gets Trump's approval to try taking the island?

6 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

doesn't sound like a pressing matter for someone who lives in northern WI or upstate NY

Still far more pressing than what you obsess over.