Rachel Reeves' latest attempt to ease the cost of living crisis has been met with widespread criticism from Independent readers, who argue that cheaper biscuits, baked beans and zoo tickets barely scratch the surface of the financial pressures facing households.
The chancellor's package included plans to cut tariffs on around 100 imported food items, reduce VAT on children's meals and summer attractions to 5 per cent, introduce free summer bus travel for children and increase the tax-free mileage allowance for people who use their cars and vans for work.
While Reeves framed the package as targeted help for working families, many commenters said the measures felt small, tokenistic and disconnected from the realities of soaring energy bills, expensive public transport, stagnant wages and rising housing costs.
Rising costs beyond food
One reader, LadyCrumpsall, highlighted that the issue extends beyond groceries: "It's all very well and good cutting grocery costs, but it's a host of other things that affect the poor, such as public transport and energy costs, that are the problem. I worked it out a couple of weeks ago, comparing electricity costs since I moved into my first flat (under nationalised electricity) to the costs now under private electricity, and in 45 years it has risen 12,000 per cent. Grocery shopping cost about a fiver a week at the time, and now I'll be lucky if I get change from £50. Bus fares are also up by a couple of thousand per cent since privatisation, and trains are now unaffordable."
Another reader, much0ado, questioned the health implications: "The idea that people will save is absurd. Cheaper biscuits may mean people will buy more. Biscuits are not good food, and increased consumption will increase health spending as well."
Target support where it's needed
Musil criticised the universal nature of the support: "The question that should be put to Labour is this: why, if last year they argued that many pensioners 'didn't need' the Winter Fuel Allowance, are families now receiving generous subsidies? Chocolate and biscuits are not healthy essentials. Public money should be targeted at genuine need, not wasted on universal giveaways."
Northwing described the approach as "tinkering around the edges": "Reeves and co are proposing cutting tariffs on certain foodstuffs in the hope that powerful supermarket chains pass on some of the gain to their customers. This cuts tax take while increasing potential margin for companies that already make enormous profits. What does a 'Labour' government offer us? A couple of pence off a tin of beans."
Make healthy food cheaper
DaveAni suggested focusing on healthy options: "Biscuits, chocolate and baked beans contribute to the obesity crisis. Instead, impose price caps on broccoli, cauliflower and kale, and 'nudge' people into healthier eating, which will save the NHS billions."
Nicko noted the small scale of savings: "It's a nice gesture, but kids' zoo tickets are about £15, so 5 per cent is 75p. I doubt it will be much help to anyone who couldn't afford the £15 in the first place."
Peter called for more radical measures: "It is disgraceful to tax people on life's essentials. There should be zero VAT on all food and clothing. Wealth tax on multimillionaires. Public ownership of all utilities. Make affordable housing a right."
Itsme suggested cutting taxes directly: "If you want to improve the standard of living for low-income families, cut out the middleman. Lower the income tax burden on the low-paid and increase Universal Credit payments."
