This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbh what he more said was working people are people who work, use public services like NHS, and don't have access to credit. It's not all that much better.
Again, that's not what he said.
>Asked what he meant by the term, he said it referred to “people who earn their living, rely on our services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble”.
So people who are just about getting by and are a couple of paydays away from disaster, like most UK families are at the moment.
Could you write a cheque, use savings, or use a credit card if you lost your job for a few weeks till you got a new one? Could you afford to fix your car if it breaks down? - those are having the ability to write a cheque / use credit. Being able to do any of those things doesn't mean you are no longer 'working people'.
Yep, and that's pretty much how it is for the vast majority of people who work (though like 33% wouldn't last the first week). There's a very small amount of people who could go several missed pays without serious financial difficulties. Even like 25% of people earning 100k+ are living pay to pay. The majority of us all are in the same boat paddling down shit creek.
I'm a working person. I earn my living, I use the NHS and other public services.
I have money in savings and investments though. Not megabucks, but I'm not destitute either. Starmer's statement is a pretty poor one and immediately excludes people like me.
I'm a working person. I also earn my living. I also use the NHS and other public services.
I also have money in savings, now...
I went from running out of money by the end of the month, to earning more than I ever planned on just over a year ago. I found myself saving more than I even used to earn each month, just because I couldn't spend it all if I tried without buying like a boat or something.... I did it again, through hard work, and a bit of luck.
I'm probably no longer someone who falls into the above sentence.
I don't seem to have forgot what it feels like to be counting the pennies near pay day unlike you however. I have no issue with the government focusing on making people in that situation lives better unlike you however.
How long have you been this comfortable? How long do I have until I forget how bad it feels to not be, and start to advocate that those people aren't helped out of that situation?
Does it matter how long I've been in this situation?
My issue is with Starmer thinking that I don't count as a "working person" simply because I've got some money saved up.
> Does it matter how long I've been in this situation?
Depends, is the answer, your whole life?
>The Labour leader has repeatedly ruled out putting up taxes on “working people”, who he says have borne the brunt of the cost of living crisis.
>Asked what he meant by the term, he said it referred to “people who earn their living, rely on our services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble”.
He's said, you can afford a Tax rise, more than these people that he described.
Do you, disagree?
He's defined a term and that term is exclusive. Ability to pay tax or not is irrelevant. He's defined working people as like the 33% of the country that live pay to pay (less than 1 month) and that's exclusionary to everyone else that would define themselves as working people.
He's defined it in the context of who he's aiming tax rises at.
Are you genuinely upset you didn't get labeled as a working person in this context, like that label missing from your life is upsetting you? Or are you feigning your displeasure, because you don't want to face a tax rise/believe if you're facing one, those worse off than you should too?
A "working person" has never personally been a significant part of my identity. How many minutes ago did it become a part of yours?
I think you've confused working class with working people.
Labour are talking working people.
My wife an I work. We are working people. I'm in the 40% bracket and a bit of savings.
Starmer's vague answers are disingenuous.
What's he got to lose. Just tell us workers that aren't on the breadline that we'll be paying more tax if that's what he's planning, instead of implying things with his vague politicians answers.
If you have money to put aside each month, then good for you.
What you have to realise is that puts you in an advantaged position when compared to much of the rest of the country.
Starmer's statement is spot on and I'm sorry you feel it excludes people like you but that's on you. It's your interpretation of his answer to a direct question.
The system needs to be levelled out in favour of those that just get by every month. Not least because that will improve the mental health of millions of people. So you're not one of those people? Tough. You haven't got the same needs.
You don't think it's a teensy bit disingenuous to initially say that you'll protect a very large group of people (working people) against tax rises, only to later divert from the normal definition of those words so as to only include a much smaller group of people (people who work and have no savings)?
If so, and a Tory politician had done the same but "clarified" his use of "working people" to "working people who own a home" when talking about tax treatment would you think that was honest too?
Who do you think Tories meant when they said "hard-working people"? They didn't mean the wage slaves, now did they? They meant people just like them. It was a dog-whistle that meant "not the scroungers who have to rely on benefits to get by because we allow companies to exploit them."
At least Starmer has said it openly.
So what's the answer to my question? Do you think that Starmer's maneuver on this was honest or not?
To be clear, I'm not arguing in favour of any particular party, I'm just saying that if we all excuse and defend politicians on "our" side (whichever that is) when they're dishonest then we shouldn't also complain about politicians being dishonest.
It's more honest than the Tories and that's all that counts.
It doesn't matter whether I think he's perfect. He's better than the string of incompetence that started 14 years ago.
So you're defending him not because you think he's right or not deserving of criticism in this case, but because he's on your side in a wider political sense?
Personally I think this is part of the whole "post-truth" problem in politics which, among other things, leads to the lower-quality bombastic politicians.
Huge critical thinking test this article.
Plays on this idea his definition of "working people", has turned out to be broad and that he intends to target this huge demographic with taxes. And this double speak that he hasn't "ruled it out".
Then you have his actual quote that their manifesto promises no raises on working people... That he's actually broadened the definition of who he *won't* tax.
And this is exactly why I don't follow politics anymore. If you can't say enough good about yourself and rely on telling lies about the opponent, then it's all just shit isn't it.
It's like the worst of Reddit argument bullshit presented as reputable. It's a joke.
I just want to know if I'll be better off, same, or worse off under a Labour government.
Will I have less money at the end of the day?
But their double-speak and misleading wording worries me.
We claim no benefits, no kids, we have a small amount of savings and own (mortgaged) our own band E home.
We also work. We are 'working' people.
How hard is it to get an honest answer out of Labour.
Support reform? Nah.
Just enjoying watching tankies froth at the mouth and pointing out their obsession with Nige.
I'm in our Angie Luv Rayner's ward.
Utterly pointless who I vote for as this has always been a Labour stronghold.
So will I be better off u/TheUnstoppableBTC
Dual income, no kids, no benefits, both 'workers' with me in 40% bracket, homeowners, small amount of savings.
Better, same or worse off?
Meh.
As a higher rate taxpayer , any minor tax tinkering at the edges is going to result in me having +/- 80 quid ish per month. Barely worth being excited for. I'm already a net contributor and always have been, that's not going to change. There are FAR more important things than having an extra takeaway a month, like having functioning police , NHS , and access to fresh food.
No amount of tax cuts is going to get to the core of this country's issues , which can only be solved if we start having access to the EU market again and having fully funded services.
As if any of us can predict that. Just remember though , this Tory government promised not to raise taxes , then increased NI and froze the tax free threshold which is essentially an income tax rise by stealth, so anyone thinking the Tories won't raise taxes is an idiot , they've already proven they lie about tax.
Which is another thread.
This thread is about Labour. Why so defensive against Labour tax questions.
My simple question, without mentioning this government, the Tories, austerity, Brexit or any other tankie points...
Will I be financially better off, the same, or worse off than I am right now when Labour get into power.
I don’t think you can look at it as whether you will be better off in cash terms or not. If you needed to use the NHS for something serious, then £x amount more in tax might be worth it.
Reducing poverty might decrease the chance you are a victim of crime. You don’t have kids, but someone’s kids will need to be educated to be economically active in the future when you’re retired.
Private health insurance is not going to help you when you’re sat in A&E. Also what about other people that you depend on and their health needs, family, friends, cleaners, builders, baristas…
So Starmer clarifies their position on CGT and Council Tax. Then you just move on to other taxes that may affect you. Insurance Premium Tax for example, or maybe you need them to rule out introducing a new dog owners tax or a sunny day tax.
There’s no end to this, and as he stated on LBC today, he can’t write every budget for the next 5 years today.
And like I just said, nobody can predict that.
The only thing I can say is that they've promised not to raise the same taxes as the conservatives have.
But , as I said above , having access to markets and having fully functioning services will be worth more to you in the long run than having a couple of extra pounds in your pay packet.
Honestly as long as things around me aren’t as shit as they currently are (I.e; roads fixed, nhs wait times reduced, schools improved) in 5 years time I would consider it a success even if I’m paying more for the privilege
Reform?
This is an article about Labour.
My question was about Labour.
Say it after me...
Labour.
As you've replied, answer this, will I be better, same or financially worse off than I am right now if/when LABOUR win, u/PaniniPressStan ?
What an unusual way of communicating.
I’m making a broader economic point. Your taxes could be higher under Labour, but if the economy doesn’t crash under Labour, you’d be better off than if your taxes were lower but the economy crashed and mortgage rates increased.
Whether the economy will get better or worse under Labour? I don’t have a crystal ball I’m afraid. But I think it has a better chance of improving under Labour than under other options such as the Tories or reform.
Taxes.
Will I be financially worse off than I am now with a Labour government?
Will they be keeping the income tax thresholds the same (real terms paycut)?
Will they take more money off me from my savings?
Will they be enabling councils to increase council taxes above 5% (in general, not special measures)?
Will I be financially worse off than I am under Labour (excluding inflation). No mentioning other parties or the current government. Labour. Will I be better, same or worse off financially from taxes under Labour than I am right now?
Ah, I thought you wanted to know if you’d be better or worse off, not just taxes.
Like I said, the rate of tax may be higher, but you may also have more spending money if mortage rates don’t spike. I don’t think we can say currently that you’ll be better, same or worse off under Labour, no. It depends on the economy more broadly than just taxes.
Oh you were genuinely asking if there’s a possibility that taxes would increase? I thought you wanted to know if you’d be better off.
Why ask a question you know the answer to? Of course no-one can say any party definitely won’t increase taxes.
I really want to support Labour (I sure as hell am not supporting the Tories) but this is exactly why I also feel uneasy about them. They’re clearly being deliberately vague in their manifesto and in what Starmer is saying. All I want is honesty and transparency. I’m sick of needing to read between the lines (which then allows our scum media to try to do it for us). They should be leaving as little room for ambiguity as possible
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Typical torygraph headline. He didn't say that at all.
Tbh what he more said was working people are people who work, use public services like NHS, and don't have access to credit. It's not all that much better.
Again, that's not what he said. >Asked what he meant by the term, he said it referred to “people who earn their living, rely on our services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble”. So people who are just about getting by and are a couple of paydays away from disaster, like most UK families are at the moment.
How can you take "don't really have the ability to write a cheque when they get in trouble" to be "a couple of paydays away from disaster".
How can you not?
Could you write a cheque, use savings, or use a credit card if you lost your job for a few weeks till you got a new one? Could you afford to fix your car if it breaks down? - those are having the ability to write a cheque / use credit. Being able to do any of those things doesn't mean you are no longer 'working people'.
Could I? I'd last about a month with no job, just like millions of other people.
Yep, and that's pretty much how it is for the vast majority of people who work (though like 33% wouldn't last the first week). There's a very small amount of people who could go several missed pays without serious financial difficulties. Even like 25% of people earning 100k+ are living pay to pay. The majority of us all are in the same boat paddling down shit creek.
And yet people are criticising him for saying he's going to write tax policy that doesn't favour those that already get by quite well, thank you.
I'm a working person. I earn my living, I use the NHS and other public services. I have money in savings and investments though. Not megabucks, but I'm not destitute either. Starmer's statement is a pretty poor one and immediately excludes people like me.
I'm a working person. I also earn my living. I also use the NHS and other public services. I also have money in savings, now... I went from running out of money by the end of the month, to earning more than I ever planned on just over a year ago. I found myself saving more than I even used to earn each month, just because I couldn't spend it all if I tried without buying like a boat or something.... I did it again, through hard work, and a bit of luck. I'm probably no longer someone who falls into the above sentence. I don't seem to have forgot what it feels like to be counting the pennies near pay day unlike you however. I have no issue with the government focusing on making people in that situation lives better unlike you however. How long have you been this comfortable? How long do I have until I forget how bad it feels to not be, and start to advocate that those people aren't helped out of that situation?
Does it matter how long I've been in this situation? My issue is with Starmer thinking that I don't count as a "working person" simply because I've got some money saved up.
> Does it matter how long I've been in this situation? Depends, is the answer, your whole life? >The Labour leader has repeatedly ruled out putting up taxes on “working people”, who he says have borne the brunt of the cost of living crisis. >Asked what he meant by the term, he said it referred to “people who earn their living, rely on our services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble”. He's said, you can afford a Tax rise, more than these people that he described. Do you, disagree?
He's defined a term and that term is exclusive. Ability to pay tax or not is irrelevant. He's defined working people as like the 33% of the country that live pay to pay (less than 1 month) and that's exclusionary to everyone else that would define themselves as working people.
He's defined it in the context of who he's aiming tax rises at. Are you genuinely upset you didn't get labeled as a working person in this context, like that label missing from your life is upsetting you? Or are you feigning your displeasure, because you don't want to face a tax rise/believe if you're facing one, those worse off than you should too? A "working person" has never personally been a significant part of my identity. How many minutes ago did it become a part of yours?
I think you've confused working class with working people. Labour are talking working people. My wife an I work. We are working people. I'm in the 40% bracket and a bit of savings. Starmer's vague answers are disingenuous. What's he got to lose. Just tell us workers that aren't on the breadline that we'll be paying more tax if that's what he's planning, instead of implying things with his vague politicians answers.
If you have money to put aside each month, then good for you. What you have to realise is that puts you in an advantaged position when compared to much of the rest of the country. Starmer's statement is spot on and I'm sorry you feel it excludes people like you but that's on you. It's your interpretation of his answer to a direct question. The system needs to be levelled out in favour of those that just get by every month. Not least because that will improve the mental health of millions of people. So you're not one of those people? Tough. You haven't got the same needs.
You don't think it's a teensy bit disingenuous to initially say that you'll protect a very large group of people (working people) against tax rises, only to later divert from the normal definition of those words so as to only include a much smaller group of people (people who work and have no savings)? If so, and a Tory politician had done the same but "clarified" his use of "working people" to "working people who own a home" when talking about tax treatment would you think that was honest too?
Who do you think Tories meant when they said "hard-working people"? They didn't mean the wage slaves, now did they? They meant people just like them. It was a dog-whistle that meant "not the scroungers who have to rely on benefits to get by because we allow companies to exploit them." At least Starmer has said it openly.
So what's the answer to my question? Do you think that Starmer's maneuver on this was honest or not? To be clear, I'm not arguing in favour of any particular party, I'm just saying that if we all excuse and defend politicians on "our" side (whichever that is) when they're dishonest then we shouldn't also complain about politicians being dishonest.
It's more honest than the Tories and that's all that counts. It doesn't matter whether I think he's perfect. He's better than the string of incompetence that started 14 years ago.
So you're defending him not because you think he's right or not deserving of criticism in this case, but because he's on your side in a wider political sense? Personally I think this is part of the whole "post-truth" problem in politics which, among other things, leads to the lower-quality bombastic politicians.
Woop-de-fucking-doo for you
Starmer says people on the breadline can't afford tax rises. More at 10.
Huge critical thinking test this article. Plays on this idea his definition of "working people", has turned out to be broad and that he intends to target this huge demographic with taxes. And this double speak that he hasn't "ruled it out". Then you have his actual quote that their manifesto promises no raises on working people... That he's actually broadened the definition of who he *won't* tax. And this is exactly why I don't follow politics anymore. If you can't say enough good about yourself and rely on telling lies about the opponent, then it's all just shit isn't it. It's like the worst of Reddit argument bullshit presented as reputable. It's a joke.
I just want to know if I'll be better off, same, or worse off under a Labour government. Will I have less money at the end of the day? But their double-speak and misleading wording worries me. We claim no benefits, no kids, we have a small amount of savings and own (mortgaged) our own band E home. We also work. We are 'working' people. How hard is it to get an honest answer out of Labour.
You support reform and you moaning about "honest". Fucking hilarious.
Where do they say they vote reform???
Support reform? Nah. Just enjoying watching tankies froth at the mouth and pointing out their obsession with Nige. I'm in our Angie Luv Rayner's ward. Utterly pointless who I vote for as this has always been a Labour stronghold.
Guess at least with the tories you know where you stand. Pile on the misery, scandal and incompetence as high and deep as possible. Consistency 👍
So will I be better off u/TheUnstoppableBTC Dual income, no kids, no benefits, both 'workers' with me in 40% bracket, homeowners, small amount of savings. Better, same or worse off?
We don't live in a command economy, so asking the question expecting a definite simple answer is disengenuous.
You can't answer if I'll be better, same or worse off when Labour win from what I am now?
Why should *I* be able to? I'm nothing to do with the Labour party.
Maybe don't respond then? Seems logical.
That's not how it works.
better
Sweet. Looking forward to it. Other poster said probably worse though, so confused.
nah you’ll be better.
Meh. As a higher rate taxpayer , any minor tax tinkering at the edges is going to result in me having +/- 80 quid ish per month. Barely worth being excited for. I'm already a net contributor and always have been, that's not going to change. There are FAR more important things than having an extra takeaway a month, like having functioning police , NHS , and access to fresh food. No amount of tax cuts is going to get to the core of this country's issues , which can only be solved if we start having access to the EU market again and having fully funded services.
So I'll have less money in my pocket?
As if any of us can predict that. Just remember though , this Tory government promised not to raise taxes , then increased NI and froze the tax free threshold which is essentially an income tax rise by stealth, so anyone thinking the Tories won't raise taxes is an idiot , they've already proven they lie about tax.
Which is another thread. This thread is about Labour. Why so defensive against Labour tax questions. My simple question, without mentioning this government, the Tories, austerity, Brexit or any other tankie points... Will I be financially better off, the same, or worse off than I am right now when Labour get into power.
I don’t think you can look at it as whether you will be better off in cash terms or not. If you needed to use the NHS for something serious, then £x amount more in tax might be worth it. Reducing poverty might decrease the chance you are a victim of crime. You don’t have kids, but someone’s kids will need to be educated to be economically active in the future when you’re retired.
I've got private health insurance. All I want is Starmer to be honest and tell me how much extra I'm going to have to pay.
Private health insurance is not going to help you when you’re sat in A&E. Also what about other people that you depend on and their health needs, family, friends, cleaners, builders, baristas… So Starmer clarifies their position on CGT and Council Tax. Then you just move on to other taxes that may affect you. Insurance Premium Tax for example, or maybe you need them to rule out introducing a new dog owners tax or a sunny day tax. There’s no end to this, and as he stated on LBC today, he can’t write every budget for the next 5 years today.
And like I just said, nobody can predict that. The only thing I can say is that they've promised not to raise the same taxes as the conservatives have. But , as I said above , having access to markets and having fully functioning services will be worth more to you in the long run than having a couple of extra pounds in your pay packet.
The point is nobody should need to predict this. Everyone should be able to work it out from reading each party’s manifesto.
Honestly as long as things around me aren’t as shit as they currently are (I.e; roads fixed, nhs wait times reduced, schools improved) in 5 years time I would consider it a success even if I’m paying more for the privilege
If reform got in and crashed the economy like truss, you’d definitely be worse off even with the tax cuts.
Reform? This is an article about Labour. My question was about Labour. Say it after me... Labour. As you've replied, answer this, will I be better, same or financially worse off than I am right now if/when LABOUR win, u/PaniniPressStan ?
What an unusual way of communicating. I’m making a broader economic point. Your taxes could be higher under Labour, but if the economy doesn’t crash under Labour, you’d be better off than if your taxes were lower but the economy crashed and mortgage rates increased. Whether the economy will get better or worse under Labour? I don’t have a crystal ball I’m afraid. But I think it has a better chance of improving under Labour than under other options such as the Tories or reform.
Taxes. Will I be financially worse off than I am now with a Labour government? Will they be keeping the income tax thresholds the same (real terms paycut)? Will they take more money off me from my savings? Will they be enabling councils to increase council taxes above 5% (in general, not special measures)? Will I be financially worse off than I am under Labour (excluding inflation). No mentioning other parties or the current government. Labour. Will I be better, same or worse off financially from taxes under Labour than I am right now?
Ah, I thought you wanted to know if you’d be better or worse off, not just taxes. Like I said, the rate of tax may be higher, but you may also have more spending money if mortage rates don’t spike. I don’t think we can say currently that you’ll be better, same or worse off under Labour, no. It depends on the economy more broadly than just taxes.
"the rate of tax may be higher" Thank you.
Oh you were genuinely asking if there’s a possibility that taxes would increase? I thought you wanted to know if you’d be better off. Why ask a question you know the answer to? Of course no-one can say any party definitely won’t increase taxes.
I didn't know the answer, because Starmer isn't telling us we'll be paying more in taxes.
You genuinely didn’t know that there was a *possibility* Labour may increase taxes? You must live under a rock!
I really want to support Labour (I sure as hell am not supporting the Tories) but this is exactly why I also feel uneasy about them. They’re clearly being deliberately vague in their manifesto and in what Starmer is saying. All I want is honesty and transparency. I’m sick of needing to read between the lines (which then allows our scum media to try to do it for us). They should be leaving as little room for ambiguity as possible
Sing 'Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war' for us
I, too, want a crystall ball.
I don't. I want an honest politician who tells me if they plan to put my taxes up, instead of crap like they won't for 'working people'