- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I dont often agree with this Tory in disguise, but in this case he’s right.
Of course they’re not working people. They are leveraging capital to give them an income. That is not the same as chopping wood and carrying water.
That is correct. They might work, but in context they are not “working people”
Here “working people” is synonymous with “working class”. Thus, not landlords and shareholders obviously
I’m curious about your definition of shareholder; what if I owe £80 worth of fractional shares in an app-based investment service? Does that make me a shareholder?
It certainly doesn’t make you a worker.
It’s not my definition. It is the definition that is being used in context in the article. Read it before commenting
The definition being used is proper and common in modern usage.
Then your income wouldn’t be affected in any real way by raising taxes on those shares and getting cross that Starmer taxing unearned income is affecting you badly is bothincorrect and missing the point.
Starmer is raising tax on unearned income instead of working people’s taxes, which is very fair for a change, and you’re splitting hairs over definitions of who counts as workers. You’re so missing the point.
I agree with everything you’ve said.
I think if Starmer said “we aren’t going to raise tax on personal income, but on capital gains” he wouldn’t have to tie himself in knots trying to define “working people”.
I’m not trying to split hairs; it’s Starmer (who I, for clarity, support) that’s refused to be clearer about what he intends to do and ends up having everyone debate what “working people” means.
The challenge is that they clearly what some kind of threshold where personal income is also additionally taxed, and that’s when “working people” becomes a weird “I’ll know it when I see it” debate.
FWIW, I’m in the highest tax band and I support raising the highest tax band AND raising capital gains tax. It’s not Labour’s intent I disagree with, it’s their crappy own-goal communication style.
I’m sure he’ll acknowledge his mistake, apologise profusely and make amends with a round of capital-gains tax cuts.
I mean, he’s right. The whole point of my mother leveraging her home to become a landlord back then was because she had a stroke and literally could-not-work. Landlords aren’t working class. They’re just investors.
Truth hurts I guess.
Based from Starmer there.
Landlords and shareholders aren’t working people.
This might be my favourite thing he’s said yet
In a country like UK… He just pissed off a lot of parasites.
And thats a good thing! They got to comfortable over last 40 yeara.
UK is fucking gutted from within, and peasants accept it lol
Okay, so (hypothetically) I can be working for 50 hours a week to make ends meet. If I put any little savings I have from time to time into stock, I am not working people anymore? Just because I want to be financially responsible?
you’ll put those savings into a stocks and shares ISA where any gains from stocks are tax free guaranteed.
If you have more than £20k a year to put away into stocks and shares then yeah you need to pay some tax bruv.
That’s not what Keir said originally, he said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working people”. Then people got (rightfully) mad and his spokesperson had to recant for him.
Why are you so cross about this? He only means that he’ll tax their unearned income a bit more, and if they really are working people out won’t affect them much.
The extent to which it affects workers is the extent to which they aren’t workers. It isn’t the logical gotcha you seem to think it is.
Why am I so cross? Because I am stripped my working people by Starmer despite me working all my adult life and still can’t start buying a house, for putting a bit of my savings into stock, just so he can claim he “didn’t raise working people’s taxes”.
That’s just peak slimey politician behaviour.
Do I think people who own a lot of stocks and assets should be taxed. Yes, let’s tax those motherfuckers. But just be more honest and stop twisting the definition of working people.
🤡
No he did not.
He said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working taxes"
More accurately, he said they do not fit his definition of working taxes. Because that was the question the telegraph was trying to miss represent.
As does the Tory party and every government since the 1950s. That is why we have capital gains tax as well as income tax.
This whole argument is nothing but absurdly biased reporting from right wing press. Intentionally launched to try and sow division in the electorate. Just like every Tory tactic since the election was announced.
By your definition I should be called a footballer because I play football once a week casually. Ignore the 50 plus hour weeks of my actual job. I got $50 from football as season champions (it’s a gift card, for the bar, at the place I play). I better go update my linkedin!
You’re funny, good one.
What are you talking about? This is exactly what Keir Starmer is saying and is what I am calling stupid.
If Starmer suggested taxing football income you would be being a bit daft if you claimed that it was going to hurt the guy you just replied to on the grounds that he earned fifty quid from football.
“But he’s a worker too and he’s not rich and you promised not to tax him” is sillier than saying that he isn’t covered by the promise to not raise taxes on working people.
That’s because (and this is the bit that’s not quite got through to you somehow yet) the vast, vast, vast majority of his income is from working, not from football.
This isn’t hard to understand.
Owning stock doesn’t make you a worker. Being a landlord doesn’t make you a worker.
If you work on top of the above, you are a worker. If you do not, you aren’t.
There’s a big difference between “a landlord isn’t a worker” and “a landlord cannot be a worker.”
An absolutely based comment from Starmer.
I agree with you, but that’s not what Keir Starmer said. His spokesperson recanted it, but what he said originally was stupid.
Lol whatever you say.
Read the news please.
When asked by Sky News if someone who works but also gets income from shares or property is a working person, Starmer said “they wouldn’t come within my definition.”
But if he said “income from owning shares isn’t eligible for PAYE taxation and therefore isn’t covered by a pledge to not increase taxes on workers’ earnings” he wouldn’t have a headline and you would be accusing him of talking like a politician and breaking promises.
But no, he was asked this in the context of some disingenuous question like “bbbut you promised not to raise taxes on working people, and this will hurt working people, aren’t people with a hardworking fast food day job and a tiny bit extra from a few shares or renting out their spare bedroom just to make ends meet exactly the working people you promised not to raise taxes on?”
And Starmer says no, and now we have a headline because a bunch of shareholders who are experts at hoarding money because it’s all they really care about are as pissed as they ever get because tHe GovErNmunT iS tAkiN aLL MY mUnnY.
It’s the daily telegraph, for goodness sake. When did they ever care about ordinary people’s finances?!
No he did not.
He said that in his definition of working taxes. No, that person is not a worker.
And the Tory party agrees. That is why they call it capital gains tax rather than income.
This whole argument has been stirred by the right wing press since the election. Tories have constantly tried to claim the manifesto promise of no rise in working taxes means no tax rises at all.
It is an out right lie. And Starmer et al make it worse by refusing to address it.
Nothing the Tory party says or believes on taxation matches these claims. It is just a desperate attempt to sow division.
Yeah, Starmer is right though…
By definition if you make all the money you need to live from investments like stocks, bonds, or leasing out homes then you aren’t working class. If you work a regular job, but have some additional income from investment savings you are working class, but the Labour government isn’t having to focus on those investments going up as much as making your working life more comfortable.
Well I remember when I used to rent I don’t remember my landlord ever doing anything. He owns the property but he certainly didn’t maintain it.
Good fucking luck to any landlord looking to be named in a manifesto.
You might get mentioned. You won’t like how.
I don’t know why they seem to think they are. Yes some landlords do labor, but that labor is to maintain and improve value of their income from owning things.
That landlord aint much of a lord
Yeah he’s a relative who started as a handyman and kept investing in rental property.
Owning shit isn’t working. Why is this controversial?
Because the right wing media wants it to be. The answer is simple.
Cool if owning property is work. Let’s abolish capital gains tax and charge it as income.
Because at the end of it. That is what the telegraph etc is saying. They are trying to argue Starmer agreed to hold all taxes when the manifesto clearly stated working taxes.
Cool call their bluff all capital gains is now charged as income tax.
Ain’t capitalism grand.
Well no other system would sell a waxing kit to a yeti.
So I spose its… unique
As a landlord (I own two properties) and as someone who also works full time I agree with him.
It may take up some time but ultimately it’s an investment.
Landlords like myself aren’t (typically) struggling, so we should pay more tax, especially now as the country needs it. I am proud to say I don’t tax dodge and pay what I owe. But unfortunately there are many loopholes that can be exploited to avoid paying tax. Just a few weeks ago someone was telling me how I should put my properties under a LTD company to avoid paying tax (I didn’t and won’t). I hope the Labour government does more to close these loopholes for tax dodgers.
Thank you.
Because he is correct
Are you a landlord if you let a room to help you pay bills at the end of a month? Are you a shareholder if you have a pension?
Judging by the answers here, the answer is no. But then we’re talking about millions of people who work everyday factory jobs, retail jobs, or low level office jobs.
You make valid points in a logical sense but issue of class is the issue of class, not descriptor of economic activity.
Sure, class is the big issue on everyone’s minds. But the remedies people often throw around are here indiscriminate enough to target the room-letter and the building ownership company alike. The tycoon and the pensioner alike.
Coupling owner class with grandma is a nice touch.
Bigger point is that grandma siding with owner class is 🤡
Yes if you own rather then sublet and yes now final salary etc pensions are close to non existant.
Dose not mean it is wrong. But just like the others doing it it is not worked for income but investment income.
Judging from the answers here everyone has a pretty clear idea of the difference between investment and work.
Right, but I hope we’re able to see the difference between a working person who has investments and someone who earns the bulk of their income from investments. Similarly for real estate.
Because calling someone who works and has investment savings for retirement (such as a pension) “not a working person” is not just plain wrong, it’s extremely offensive, especially coming from a career politician like Starmer.
But that is not what is happening,
Starmer is talking about taxes, not people. Right-wing newspapers are trying to link the 2, but that is a false link.
We saw all this in the lead up to the election. The tory press tried it then but it was ignored.
If you remember, the Labour manifesto made promises about not raising “Working Taxes” That distinction was clear in the promise. But the Tory party and right wing press constantly interpreted it as not raising any taxes.
Many got pissed of that Starmer refused to address it then. How did not seem to think it mattered. Likely he thought it was not worth this argument.
He is now making exactly the same claim. Working taxes is not money earned from shares or rent. It never has been, that is why it is called capital gains tax etc.
Just because you may also work does not mean your rent income and retirement savings should be taxed as working income.
That is all he is saying. He is not raising working taxes because rent and share profit is not working taxes.
The right wing press are trying to make a fight that dosent exist. Rather then try to aregue why he should not change captal gains tax.
