[Politics] The Labour Government

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is all true, but there if far greater wealth inequality in Germany than here and a right wing that makes Reform look like the scouts getting 30% in some states. Not sure that all our problems are really about money and worrying that someone else might be getting what I think is a slightly better deal than me. Keep encouraging the envy, it's great for mental health.

Not sure about wealth inequality, where did you read its far greater? As for AFD and Reform, I’d say the key difference is AFD are more open about their policies and way more organised and professional as an operation. They also differ on the EU, or did. Other than that, what’s the difference?

 

[chip]

I'm surprised, wealth inequality is the same in Germany as here according to the GINI Index (always mentioned by the socially minded as THE measure). There are an awful load of stinking rich people in both, and the top 20% have it all.

According to here: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ much higher, more than Singapore too.

It's not the top 20%, that covers the median wage here (SE England), more like 0.1-1.0% by earnings. Your GP is probably in the top 2% and couple of headteachers comfortably in the top 1% by household according to th IFS.

 

[The Clamp]

It's really very simple and we both know the answer. You're a working person, I'm not. You won't get taxed more, I will.

Unless of course you want me to come up with a long detailed explanation of various parameters and definitions, so that you can then use that to find a case that you can fire back at me in a 'Gotcha' moment, in which case you can f*** right off

Complete nonsense of course. You have no idea of whom Labour have in mind by saying “working people” than anyone else does.

You can say “we all know what it means” but you’ve failed to explain it and given yourself a get out clause by trying to make the question seem ludicrous.


Nonsense.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Complete nonsense of course. You have no idea of whom Labour have in mind by saying “working people” than anyone else does.

You can say “we all know what it means” but you’ve failed to explain it and given yourself a get out clause by trying to make the question seem ludicrous.


Nonsense.

I have to be honest. From day 1 I assumed it meant NI and Income Tax in your payslip was unaffected. People who receive a salary from an employer (so a working person) would not see a loss in earnings.

At no point did I consider it to mean anything other than that. Everyone else (employers, business owners, landlords) do not fall under what I understood it to mean.

 

[chip]

Not sure about wealth inequality, where did you read its far greater? As for AFD and Reform, I’d say the key difference is AFD are more open about their policies and way more organised and professional as an operation. They also differ on the EU, or did. Other than that, what’s the difference?

I posted the figures I used in a link above. I will bow to your superior knowledge on AfD. I don't really know what reform are about and disinclined to read much about them. They seem to have a lot of articles about Afd in the FT, the comments section is very entertaining so I might read them. But, Germany is quite different to here in many respects, sometimes comparisons can't be as direct as we might like. Not sure that I am reassured or alarmed to know AfD and Reform so similar

 

[chip]

Complete nonsense of course. You have no idea of whom Labour have in mind by saying “working people” than anyone else does.

You can say “we all know what it means” but you’ve failed to explain it and given yourself a get out clause by trying to make the question seem ludicrous.


Nonsense.

I agree, and that is why I both love and hate ambiguity/uncertainty. However, you have to have a definition for "working people" to be meaningful. This is how the government defines it: https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

Worker​

A person is generally classed as a ‘worker’ if:

• they have a contract or other arrangement to do work or services personally for a reward (a contract can be written or unwritten)
• their reward is for money or a benefit in kind, for example the promise of a contract or future work
• they only have a limited right to send someone else to do the work (subcontract)
• their employer has to have work for them to do as long as the contract or arrangement lasts
• they are not doing the work as part of their own limited company in an arrangement where the ‘employer’ is actually a customer or client

--------------------------------------
Not sure that makes it much clearer because of the word "generally". Nothing specific about income from other sources or how large your savings are. Only PAYEE seems to be the message.

 

[KZNSeagull]

This whole "who is a working person" argument just shows what a nonsense it is to try to reduce a policy to a single sentence soundbite or a 3 word slogan.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I posted the figures I used in a link above. I will bow to your superior knowledge on AfD. I don't really know what reform are about and disinclined to read much about them. They seem to have a lot of articles about Afd in the FT, the comments section is very entertaining so I might read them. But, Germany is quite different to here in many respects, sometimes comparisons can't be as direct as we might like. Not sure that I am reassured or alarmed to know AfD and Reform so similar

I can’t say I’m an expert on the AfD. I have a lay understanding at best. I am most intrigued by their EU stance. They have no issue with membership per se, just the level of integration. This, at least, was the original position but this might have changed in recent times. They are scum bags though.

 

[Bodian]

Complete nonsense of course. You have no idea of whom Labour have in mind by saying “working people” than anyone else does.

You can say “we all know what it means” but you’ve failed to explain it and given yourself a get out clause by trying to make the question seem ludicrous.


Nonsense.

I have to be honest. From day 1 I assumed it meant NI and Income Tax in your payslip was unaffected. People who receive a salary from an employer (so a working person) would not see a loss in earnings.

At no point did I consider it to mean anything other than that. Everyone else (employers, business owners, landlords) do not fall under what I understood it to mean.

Same here - that's exactly what I took it to mean. And I think they have effectively said that - it's just the media don't want to listen and want to introduce 10,000 different variations so when 2 of them have increased tax they can point to it as a 'broken promise'.

 

[The Clamp]

Same here - that's exactly what I took it to mean. And I think they have effectively said that - it's just the media don't want to listen and want to introduce 10,000 different variations so when 2 of them have increased tax they can point to it as a 'broken promise'.

That’s certainly one interpretation of it. And makes sense.

My beef isn’t with the upcoming policy.

I have an idea of what a working person is. But unfortunately so does everyone else. And they don’t always marry up.

The issue I have is the lack of clarity.

Labour themselves have variously described a working person as someone who cannot write a cheque to fix an issue, isn’t a landlord, doesn’t own shares.

The media has exaggerated the issue but Labour ballsed the delivery up too.

They’d have been better off saying nought. Like they keep saying they are saying while saying ambiguous, misty things about a budget they aren’t being “tempted into talking about”.

I dunno. I suspect they’ll serve the “working person” well but I wish they’d get their house in order regarding how they deliver this info.

 

[Rdodge30]

It's really very simple and we both know the answer. You're a working person, I'm not. You won't get taxed more, I will.

It makes no actual difference what they meant when they wrote it- it was just amateurish writing and is of little relevance. If it wasn’t amateurish there would be no debate as to what they meant.

I am a small business owner with an extremely seasonal business and I have in the past done a hundred shifts on the bounce without a day off- I have done 100 hour weeks on occasion and 72 hour weeks regularly. There is no definition of working people that doesn’t include me and the Government is about to ****ing gut me financially.

To keep banging on about Truss, Boris etc etc ?? They were extremely poor at running the country - you are setting the bar extremely low if you need to use them to compare Starmer and Reeves.

I think we were all looking for a bit more than “better than Truss” weren’t we?

 

[The Clamp]

Ah. I think we finally have their definition of “working people”……themselves.

Who would have thunk it.


Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said "working people" would not see higher taxes on their payslips following Wednesday's Budget.

Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Phillipson said the manifesto pledge referred to people "whose main source of income is the income they earn from going out to work".

Asked if she, as a minister earning up to £160,000, counted as a working person, she replied: "My income derives from my job and I’ll pay whatever taxes are required of me."

 

[chip]

Ah. I think we finally have their definition of “working people”……themselves.

Who would have thunk it.


Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said "working people" would not see higher taxes on their payslips following Wednesday's Budget.

Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Phillipson said the manifesto pledge referred to people "whose main source of income is the income they earn from going out to work".

Asked if she, as a minister earning up to £160,000, counted as a working person, she replied: "My income derives from my job and I’ll pay whatever taxes are required of me."

And her salary puts her in the top 1% of earners, just an ordinary working person then. I wonder what her (non contributory) pension scheme looks like.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It makes no actual difference what they meant when they wrote it- it was just amateurish writing and is of little relevance. If it wasn’t amateurish there would be no debate as to what they meant.

I am a small business owner with an extremely seasonal business and I have in the past done a hundred shifts on the bounce without a day off- I have done 100 hour weeks on occasion and 72 hour weeks regularly. There is no definition of working people that doesn’t include me and the Government is about to ****ing gut me financially.

To keep banging on about Truss, Boris etc etc ?? They were extremely poor at running the country - you are setting the bar extremely low if you need to use them to compare Starmer and Reeves.

I think we were all looking for a bit more than “better than Truss” weren’t we?

Given we won't know until the budget is announced what is going to happen with regards to director's salary, dividends, profits etc, and a huge number of other things, I am interested to know how you are certain that the Government is about to '****ing gut you financially' as I would think a lot would depend on what and how you split your earnings from your business and if you have any other incomes ? (And I don't want to know, that's your business )

I'm pretty sure I'll be worse off after the budget, but I wouldn't claim to be 'getting f***ing gutted financially' particularly if the extra is going to areas that are currently falling apart and desperately need it.

And, although @The Clamp and @chip don't agree I would expect a simple salaried person earning £160,000 pa to get taxed more than someone on £40,000 pa.

The simple fact is that we will all find out next week

 

[The Clamp]

Given we won't know until the budget is announced what is going to happen with regards to director's salary, dividends, profits etc, and a huge number of other things, I am interested to know how you are certain that the Government is about to '****ing gut you financially' as I would think a lot would depend on what and how you split your earnings from your business and if you have any other incomes ?

And, although @The Clamp and @chip don't agree I would expect a simple salaried person earning £160,000 pa to get taxed more than someone on £40,000 pa.

The simple fact is that we will all find out next week

Exactly.

Nice to have a civilised political debate.

Lets hope Santa brings us all that we wish for

 

[Bodian]

Ah. I think we finally have their definition of “working people”……themselves.

Who would have thunk it.


Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said "working people" would not see higher taxes on their payslips following Wednesday's Budget.

Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Phillipson said the manifesto pledge referred to people "whose main source of income is the income they earn from going out to work".

Asked if she, as a minister earning up to £160,000, counted as a working person, she replied: "My income derives from my job and I’ll pay whatever taxes are required of me."

See post 3901 - that was the Treasury Minister's definition some days ago; so they seem to be settling on a standard line now.

[Politics] - The Labour Government

Treasury minister James Murray - "Working people are people who go out to work for their income". That might be rather a slap in the face for an awful lot of people who work from home and/or don't need to actually go out to generate income and thus pay their fair share of tax.

www.northstandchat.com

 

[chip]

And, although @The Clamp and @chip don't agree I would expect a simple salaried person earning £160,000 pa to get taxed more than someone on £40,000 pa.

The simple fact is that we will all find out next week

Is that really what you think I said?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Is that really what you think I said?

Apologies, just re-read

 

[The Clamp]

Although it’s irks me to admit it, I did rather well under the Tory government, in some respects.

But I never trusted them on wider matters.

I want to believe in Labour and as cheesy as it sounds, I don’t mind being a little less well off financially if it means our public services at least have a chance of recovering.

Not that that rests squarely on my shoulders.

I suppose whatever we all respectively think about this government, we’d all like to see some economic recovery.

And it’s not as if I am opposed to what they are doing but I do feel they have some issues with clarity of communication.

I dunno, I’m cautiously optimistic.

 

[abc]

Hate to agree with anything Richard Tice says but this is spot on: “it feels like an assault on small businesses, on entrepreneurship, on hard work and that will end up being an assault on growth”.

Small business owners are not ‘working people’ but MPs are. Freezing tax thresholds doesn’t mean paying more tax. Pensioners will freeze but that’s ok and fair. NI tax will increase but that’s not breaking the promise that NI will not increase. Etc Etc

I remember saying on this site that I looked forward to the grown ups being in charge. It feels like anything but, sadly.