392
Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
392 points (99.2% liked)
United Kingdom
4077 readers
288 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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’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.
It certainly doesn't make you a worker.
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 want 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.
There wasn't any way he could have communicated this that the Torygraph wouldn't turn into "Strarmer lied and broke his promises to working people". Saying it the precise way doesn't make for good campaign slogans.
I suspect they planned this. If he had said "we won't raise income tax and we won't raise employee national insurance contributions", he'd be giving a massive hint as to what he was planning, and the inevitable interview question would be about employer contributions and he wouldn't be able to rule them out, and then all the headlines would be about "Starmer promised to not raise national insurance but now he's let on that he's planning to after all" and all the news would be about Labour's tax rises and all this arguing would be happening before the election. A bit of ambiguity and headline management is unfortunately necessary.