Spending Review 2024: Income Groups (£10k-£96k) Share Their Spending Priorities

Michael

3 min read

Post on Jun 12, 2025

4.6

Share

Spending Review 2024: Income Groups (£10k-£96k) Share Their Spending Priorities

The UK's 2024 Spending Review is looming, and the nation is buzzing with anticipation. But what are the real spending priorities of everyday Britons? We delved into the financial realities of households across a broad income spectrum – from £10,000 to £96,000 annually – to uncover their perspectives on where government funds should be allocated. The results reveal a fascinating picture of diverse needs and shared concerns.

Methodology: Our research involved surveying over 1,000 individuals across various income brackets, ensuring a representative sample of the UK population. Participants were asked to allocate hypothetical government funds across several key areas, providing valuable insight into their spending priorities.

Key Findings Across Income Groups:

While specific priorities varied somewhat based on income level, several common themes emerged:

• Healthcare: Across all income brackets, healthcare consistently ranked as a top priority. Concerns ranged from long NHS waiting lists and access to specialist care (particularly pertinent for lower income groups) to the rising cost of private healthcare (a significant worry for higher earners). This highlights a shared desire for a robust and accessible healthcare system for all.

• Education: Investment in education was another consistently high-ranking priority. Lower-income groups emphasized the need for affordable childcare and improved state schools, while higher-income groups focused on funding for higher education and vocational training. This underscores a widespread belief in education as a crucial engine for social mobility and economic growth.

• Infrastructure: Investment in infrastructure, encompassing transport, energy, and digital connectivity, also received significant support. This reflects a broad understanding of the importance of modern infrastructure in supporting economic activity and improving quality of life. Rural communities, often represented in the lower income brackets, highlighted the need for improved transport links, while urban dwellers emphasized investment in renewable energy sources and enhanced public transport.

Income-Specific Priorities:

While shared concerns exist, income levels did influence specific spending priorities:

• Lower-income groups (£10,000-£30,000): This group emphasized support for social housing, affordable childcare, and increased benefits, reflecting the daily struggles faced with rising cost of living. They also expressed a strong desire for improved access to mental health services.

• Middle-income groups (£30,000-£60,000): This group expressed concern about increasing taxation and the impact on disposable income. They prioritized investments that directly benefited their families, such as improved schools, better healthcare access, and affordable housing options.

• Higher-income groups (£60,000-£96,000): While still supportive of public services, this group showed more interest in tax efficiency and economic growth initiatives. They emphasized investment in research and development, infrastructure projects boosting economic competitiveness, and initiatives that improve the UK’s global standing.

Implications for the 2024 Spending Review:

The findings of this research provide crucial insights for policymakers. Balancing the needs of all income groups requires careful consideration of targeted interventions alongside broader investments in vital public services. Ignoring the specific concerns of different income brackets risks exacerbating existing inequalities and undermining social cohesion. The 2024 Spending Review must address the urgent need for improvements in healthcare, education, and infrastructure while acknowledging the varied financial realities faced by UK households.

What are your priorities for the 2024 Spending Review? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

(Note: This article is for illustrative purposes and does not reflect actual survey data. Data referenced should be replaced with real findings if available.)