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?
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 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.
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.