Supports the Government's efforts to reduce taxes for working people, highlighting the contrast with Labour’s policies in London that increase council tax and impose daily charges through the ultra low emission zone.

Asks whether there has been an estimate of how much additional tax revenue will come from more people entering employment as a result of these changes, suggesting that lower taxes could increase overall tax revenues.

Commends the Bill for putting money back into workers' pockets in Southend and notes the significant financial benefit to families earning around £36,400 annually.

Reflects on the historical context of national insurance and suggests that further cuts could be used to enhance individuals' compulsory savings under Conservative principles, shifting towards a 'savings state'.

Questions the claim of being a party of tax cuts by noting that according to OECD projections, tax levels are set to increase despite proposed NIC reductions. Challenges how these projected increases align with Conservative rhetoric on reducing taxes.

Supports reduction in national insurance contributions but criticises the Government for lack of funding and economic irresponsibility. Highlights potential tax hikes on pensioners if merged with income tax, which could result in a £46 billion unfunded tax plan.

Supports the reduction in national insurance contributions, noting that previous Conservative Chancellors have progressively reduced this tax burden. Emphasises the impact on hard-working families and self-employed individuals, stating that the changes will put around £330 per person back into people’s pockets. Points out that these measures are part of a wider trend of reducing taxes since 2010, which has helped taxpayers keep more of their earnings. Advocates for further tax reforms to simplify the system and potentially merge national insurance with income tax.

Argues that the Bill's tax cuts disproportionately benefit higher earners while having little impact on lower earners and pensioners. Mentions 300,000 excess deaths linked to austerity measures. Cites statistics showing minimal benefits for NHS staff but significant gains for MPs. Also criticises council tax hikes in England compared to Scotland's freeze.

Mr. John Redwood argued that high taxation levels are a result of pandemic spending, which makes reducing taxes crucial for economic growth. He urged revisiting IR35 reforms and extending VAT thresholds to support self-employed individuals in growing their businesses.

Mrs. Priti Patel agreed with John Redwood's view that the tax burden, regulations and difficulties are preventing individuals from starting their own businesses.

Mr. Clive Lewis argued that large corporations pushing out small businesses is another reason for the decline in self-employed and SMEs, not just tax burdens.

Mr. Richard Fuller shared concern that Labour has recognised IR35 changes backfired, urging Conservative party to address this issue before next election.

Mrs. Anna Firth welcomed the raising of VAT threshold and proposed extending it further for micro businesses.

Mr. Lewis argues that the Bill is part of a long line of policies promoting economic inequality and does not address pressing issues such as public service investment, climate adaptation, and social care reform. He highlights that while workers receive a small tax cut (£8 per week), those earning £20,000 and above benefit significantly more (up to £750 annually). He emphasises the Bill's failure to improve NHS waiting times and adult social care, citing examples from his constituency including high rates of malnutrition and poor mental health services. Lewis proposes taxing wealth more heavily as a solution to fund necessary public services.

Welcomes the Bill as it reduces national insurance contributions. Argues that smaller businesses will benefit greatly from this measure. Emphasises the importance of recognising how lower-income households will be positively impacted by £8 a week savings, which accumulates to significant sums over time. Criticises Labour's historical fiscal mismanagement and predicts another period of increased borrowing under a future Labour government. Defends the Government’s approach to taxation and national insurance contributions, highlighting the lack of direct linkage between NICs and NHS funding. Argues that current measures focus on long-term financial stability rather than short-term electoral gains.

Critiques the Bill as a deceptive attempt by the Conservative Government to claim tax cuts. Argues that the freeze on national insurance and income tax thresholds is imposing one of the highest tax burdens since WWII, particularly affecting hard-working families and pensioners. Points out that a typical household will have already paid almost £1,500 extra due to this policy and will face an additional £366 in costs next year. Warns about the £8 billion penalty for pensioners as a result of weakening the triple lock on pensions. Proposes new clause 2 to expose the Government's stealth tax measures, aiming to provide real support to struggling households through alternative policies.

Agrees with Robin Millar's points about culture eating strategy. Suggests that the Opposition lacks a coherent funding commitment while having a 'culture of tax and spend'. Believes the Government's approach of living within means will be more successful in the long term.

Hendry criticises the measures in the Finance (No. 2) Bill for negatively impacting public services and households due to austerity policies, highlighting that those earning up to £19,000 will remain worse off or unchanged while higher earners gain more from frozen thresholds. He cites the Institute for Fiscal Studies as stating that someone on minimum wage working full-time will see a net tax increase of over £200. Hendry also mentions that public services cuts beyond reasonable imagination are left due to lack of investment and policy choices.

Millar interjects to argue that someone on the national living wage is 35% better off in real terms compared to 2010, countering Hendry's argument about declining living standards.

Newlands questions Labour's commitment to change if they do not oppose the Government’s Budget and agree with it on multiple policy areas like Gaza, highlighting a lack of clear alternative proposals from Labour.

Double supports the Bill as it delivers a 2% cut in national insurance, benefiting households by £900 annually. He argues that this is possible due to difficult decisions made over years on public finances despite shocks like the pandemic and energy crisis.

Siddiq supports reducing national insurance contributions but criticises the current economic context for making such measures insufficient. She raises concerns about the lack of funding details for future pledges to abolish national insurance entirely.

Asked why Siddiq is not voting against the amendment if she finds it so bad, implying support or neutrality regarding the current reduction measure but criticism of its overall efficacy and impact.

Asked for a response from Siddiq, indicating support or at least an interest in understanding the Labour position on the amendment.

Suggested a procedural move regarding timing for votes on amendments and second reading.