2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
Either way it's not a good look for them. If Reeves in particular was not aware of the possible consequences of their pre election promises then there are serious doubts over her competence as Chancellor. If she was, then effectively they've been fibbing and keeping their fingers crossed.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]2 -
I somewhat resent the idea that I am not a working person. I'm nowhere near a six figure salary.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'll also be on the lookout next week for these pro business, pro growth policies to back up the rhetoric.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think quite a few of us do. I guess they might claim that it's a tax on companies, but not sure how that stands up for unincorporated businesses in particular. Maybe you're in the 'evil capitalist exploiter of the working people' category in their eyes, or they just haven't thought it through properly?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh boo hoo everyone.
Just imagine that they said it meaning the same as their predecessors would have said "the working man" and get over it.
0 -
I'm not sure why we're not just waiting till Wednesday, as Stevo suggested, and seeing what actually comes out and what the implications are for everyone. Of course, Tories will be outraged, no matter what, and Labour will dance on a pinhead to claim they've stuck to their manifesto pledges.
0 -
The issue is that they don't know what the term means themselves. I think most vaguely politically aware types know that "workers" was political rhetoric, given that it nods to previous concepts such as "downtrodden workers", rather than being a formal reference to people who work. But not having a definition ready to hand, having clearly not seen the need for this is not suggestive of great political minds at work.
1 -
Once upon a time working man would have meant someone who was paid weekly rather than on a salary. Is that anybody these days.
0 -
Presumably what they want to define as a worker (but are too scared to actually do so) is anyone in the public sector plus anyone in the private sector earning £100k or less. The reference to income from property and shares is presumably a proxy for folk outside this definition.
1 -
I mean, if you still see the country through 19th century eyes, maybe it makes sense, but in the real world, most businesses are small and owned by their directors, not some guy in a country house with a cotton mill tucked behind some scenic woodland.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I would have guessed it's more anyone below retirement age whose primary income is derived from ownership of assets, rather than their job. Perhaps more ambiguously it's anyone who is wealthy, rather than simply high earning.
It's just repackaging the just about managings, or the squeezed middles or whatever.
0 -
It's very charitable of you to attribute such a coherent (subject to "primary income" being properly nailed down) definition to our Fearless Leader and his sidekick!
But as others have observed, "owner workers" feel much more likely than pure "owners" as recipients of dividends when of working age.
Though on the plus side, a few MPs may get stung for their BTL assets!
0 -
Of course, 95% of employers are small businesses but 52% of people employed by businesses work for medium or large businesses.
But surely there should be a clue in the name Labour.
0 -
Looking at what Labour are saying about the definition of 'working people', it excludes anyone who is getting income from shares or property. They also said previously that it would be someone who could not 'write a cheque to meet an unexpected bill' or something similar. So technically most of us are fair game.
Let's see what happens next week...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Obviously Labour will sting whoever and for however much it thinks it can get away with in electoral terms. But having a "national debate" as to what a worker is, based round the ability to write a (presumably non-bouncing) cheque (for those who remember what they actually) is quite depressing.
Why not just call it the "Excessive non-employment income tax" and have done with it? I don't know anyone who voted Labour thinking that "the rich" weren't going to get stung further, so I don't think being honest would actually have been too much of a gamechanger. They weren't that popular really, and only got a big majority as the right wing vote was split between the Tories and Reform, which had bog all to do with tax policy.
0 -
Effectively they are saying it is restricted to the 'working poor'.
Hopefully next week will open a few people's eyes about Labour.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Tbh, the real political eye-opening has already happened i.e. the demonstration of decidedly poor judgement over the freebies etc. before we even got to needing a definition of "worker". I don't think anything next week will be a surprise conceptually, even if there are some unexpected "wizard wheezes" in the fine detail of how the broad shouldered will be stung.
0 -
I don't know why they don't just follow the lead of the last Government ad do a u-turn on what they said before the General Election. If there's a financial hole that needs filling just do it in the way that's easiest to raise the revenue needed and if that's increasing income tax or NI just do that. It was obvious at the time that the Tories were laying a trap by cutting NI and then pushing Labour to list all the taxes they weren't going to raise. As I said at the time, just go down the route of 'having managed to now see the state the last Government left the finances we've had to review our previous pledge' then hope you are able to grow the economy enough to reverse the decision prior to the next election. What's the point in having a huge majority and not making tough decisions?
0 -
Off at a tangent maybe, but I have to laugh ironically when politicians talk about making "tough choices". What they mean is having to make a choice that isn't going to be tough for them at all, as they are insulated from the impact, but that will potentially make them unpopular. Stop ****ing moaning and just make the decisions. No-one forces you to be Chancellor etc.
1 -
There's so much information in the public domain relating to the public finances that there's only so much that a new government could only credibly blame a few £b or so on not having had access to "the books". Reeves claimed £20b or so, but at least half of that is public sector pay rises she awarded, with circa £8b-£10b (the IFS has written quite extensively on this) a more realistic figure for what she couldn't know about in advance.
And of course, this far into the new Johnson administration, we were already into the Covid lockdown, and the pandemic would have b*ggered up even the most competent administration's plans, forcing a few U-Turns.
0 -
I reckon they haven't got the guts to do it.
1p on the basic rate of income tax plus a 1% VAT hike would cover most of what Reeves wants to raise and save all the frigging around with peripheral taxes. I'd also recommend they cut the public payroll to save a decent chunk of change, but have my squadron of pigs on standby for that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Income from shares and property are both included in unearned income. Seems fair enough not to include it in a definition of working income.
0 -
A couple of part time landlords I know would disagree with that, given the hours they put in.
In reality most people in that situation have their employment or business income as their main source and dividends/interest/rent as a top up. However they seem to be saying that such people are excluded from their 'protected' category. Remains to be seen what that means in practice.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not sure anyone is going to be sympathetic to landlords.
0 -
"But I thought they were going to raise tax but not affect anyone who has a job" doesn't pass the stupid test.
0 -
I saw a post on LinkedIn earlier suggesting they raid pension funds and take 1% plus a percentage on all house sales over £500k. It could have been written by Rick but was apparently from a retired person who felt that his generation were fortunate and should pay a share as the money spent has benefitted them. His argument was that no-one bats an eyelid at fund managers taking 1.5% a year from a pension fund even if it isn't performing so 1% towards the Government coffers shouldn't be an issue. I have no knowledge to argue with the numbers and rationale but obviously it bought uproar in the comments with the concensus seeming to be that the Government should make economy savings and not leave it to the population to cover them spending too much (which seems an odd argument if you take it to its natural conclusion). Public sector pensions seemed to be considered fair game by many though. The comments backed up what is often said on here, people are happy for taxes to go up but not for their taxes to go up.
0 -
If we were starting with a blank piece of paper then I think you're right, as I think there's practice of amongst the self-employed to take dividends rather than salary so as to not pay NICs even though the income tax treatment of salary and dividends are roughly the same, I think. (Call to Stevo for clarification here!)
But Labour was obviously with the benefit of hindsight (and realistically with foresight) being disingenuous with its reference to "workers", for electoral gain, trying to win the votes of "rich" workers who might be expected to vote Tory by making them think they'd also be safe from increases in income tax. Labour didn't mean "workers" though. They meant "workers of the type we approve of" (i.e. low paid, preferably in a precarious existence and thus more dependent on the state and therefore more likely to support Labour long term. Such dishonesty is unfortunately part of UK politics, but it is most definitely not "fair enough".
1 -
Probably why so many are quitting the rental market and rents are going pumas a result.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But that's what they were trying to claim in the run up to the general election. The fact that a lot of people actually bought that line and voted Labour should tell you something.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What taxes did you expect the Conservatives to raise if they'd got back in?
0
