Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to want a party to "take on the rich and powerful"

135 replies

BlueJuniper94 · 24/07/2025 20:53

AIBU to want a party to "take on the rich and powerful" but without all the woke stuff? I don't really like that term but you know what I mean. Why doesn't this seem to be an option

OP posts:
KarminaBurana · 26/07/2025 10:49

Millions could be put into front line education if these Multi Academy Trusts didn't have large numbers of highly paid managers who aren't in schools.

KarminaBurana · 26/07/2025 10:43

FloraBotticelli · 24/07/2025 20:54

What’s your definition of rich and powerful?

Yes, and then there's the issue of "taking on"?
Taxing them? Limits to business?
Re-nationalisation?.
I can see that you have clarified some of this, and I agree with your points. The water companies are a good example.

topcat2014 · 26/07/2025 10:42

FloraBotticelli · 24/07/2025 20:54

What’s your definition of rich and powerful?

Usually starts at 50k when looking to tax us all to death

tramtracks · 26/07/2025 10:40

LillyPJ · 25/07/2025 08:18

'The equivalent of 60%' is misleading. You've disregarded the Personal Allowance and the lower tax band. Earnings over a certain amount should be taxed more. And once you get to much higher incomes, it's obscene to begrudge contributing more to the society that often enabled them to get to that position.

I tended to agree with your argument 10 or more years ago. But the tax thresholds have stagnated since 2021/22 and far far more ordinary people are getting caught up in paying the higher tax rates. A £100k plus salary isn’t what is was 10 year ago, for example circa £50k salary takes a worker into the 40% tax bracket today. In 2015 £50k was worth £36k.

So if the threshold continue to stagnate - more or less all lower income families will be dragged into higher tax brackets. Labour have indicated that the thresholds will stay as they are until at least 2028.

Yabberwok · 26/07/2025 08:13

BlueJuniper94 · 25/07/2025 06:24

Where is all that money going? Its hard to believe it is actually circulating around the country in a way people would actually feel, when standards of living are falling and the middle classes are being squeezed into non existence

I live on the edge of Bristol and fail to see the country you are describing. I now lead a very small life and look at the situation around me as an outsider and see:
A major city with lots of building projects.
A commercial district of office development has been built in the last 20 years revitalising the area around the station.
A city where a huge area of bars and restaurants has been built in the last 15 years and pop up food vans are on many street corners...and they are busy.
My town has lost 2 pubs and gained 7 in the last 25 years and grown by 10k people.
It's also gained 2 chain hotels, 4 supermarkets.
The docks visible from the M5 is basically a huge car park filled with imported new cars.
House prices are rising year on year.
There are lots of high end cars on the road.
Events like the Bristol harbour festival, balloon fiesta and food festivals are rammed.

There clearly a huge amount of disposable income out there. The stock market where the middle class will have their pensions and ISAs has grown over the last 12 months 10%

Soukmyfalafel · 26/07/2025 07:44

hattie43 · 25/07/2025 06:35

The Rich and powerful keep society functioning . They start businesses , keep people employed etc

They can do this without such a huge wealth divide existing. I think some people have no idea what a billion pounds looks like versus a million. If someone is a multi billionare that's a heck of a lot of money and a small increase in tax could do a lot. Ultimately it is the middle class that pays for a lot of the country's infrastructure through high taxes, whilst large corporations pay smaller proportions. We live in a time where people's taxes are going directly to landlords via housing benefit and not back to the state or propping up poor wage growth via benefits. It does not make sense. I'm not anticapitalism, but it's not working in its current form.

Also, lots of people start businesses everyday. Agree we need large companies with great infrastructure to serve our needs, but we also need small and medium businesses too.

Serpentstooth · 26/07/2025 06:30

BlueJuniper94 · 24/07/2025 20:53

AIBU to want a party to "take on the rich and powerful" but without all the woke stuff? I don't really like that term but you know what I mean. Why doesn't this seem to be an option

Brilliant idea! Wheres the money going to come from? When you've solved that one come back for a chat.

Theyreeatingthedogs · 26/07/2025 06:07

I don't like the term "take on". We already have too much conflict in politics. I'd like to see a more inclusive and cooperative approach. Jeremy Corbyn seems to be doing it for you but it will be a disaster with him taking votes off Labour and letting Farage in.

Meadowfinch · 26/07/2025 05:07

ThisTicklishFatball · 25/07/2025 14:33

Many people are drawn to the Labour Party, even though it is filled with millionaires and billionaires who ironically never share their wealth with their supporters.

The same pattern can be seen with millionaire YouTubers, TikTokers, digital influencers, and celebrities who talk about social inequality but don't sacrifice their wealth to support their followers. They preach endlessly but hold onto their riches and fail to genuinely support those who trust them.

It’s amusing how popular YouTubers, TikTokers, and other influencers advocate for taking wealth from the rich while they themselves grow wealthier, amassing fortunes by misleading their loyal audiences.

There are no Labour MP billionaires. The closest they came was Lord Sainsbury, who was never an MP, but sat in the HoL, and whose family is estimated to be worth £1.3bn

He placed 92 million Sainsbury shares in Innotech , a startup trust that pays all dividends to charity.

He is known for his charitable donations to various causes (over £1bn so far) including £18.5m to the Labour party, and does not 'hold on to his riches'.

HerewardtheSleepy · 26/07/2025 00:07

Take them on how and to achieve what?

windyfarmers · 25/07/2025 23:52

BlueJuniper94 · 25/07/2025 18:24

Pfft

You don't think the rich and powerful having all the wealth and power is a sign of social inequality/injustice? Then why on earth do you think they need to be taken on if you're happy with the status quo? Or is that just another brain fart?

SumUp · 25/07/2025 22:06

FortheloveofCheesus · 25/07/2025 21:06

And even though some corporation tax is was paid in the 2024 tax year, there is no transparency around how much of the profits are shunted into their loss making subsidiaries abroad. Transparency should be a given for large corporations

Not sure you know much about corporate tax. There are internationally agreed rules that can often require a corporate to "shunt profit into their loss making subsidiaries abroad" and these days there's actually a lot of transparency. If a company isn't making profits, it does not pay income tax. Thats not unfair.

Edited

Why assume that someone who has a different opinion to you is stupid?

I own my own company with 120 staff. I know how tax works, I have paid a lot over the years (and willingly!). I will not be engaging with corporate tax law on a Friday night 😂

tramtracks · 25/07/2025 21:59

LillyPJ · 25/07/2025 06:36

What's wrong with 'the woke stuff'? What 'woke stuff' don't you like?

Being ‘told’ what and how to think. About trans, religion, immigration, politics etc etc. the ‘bring kind’ nonsense being spouted by the least kind people imaginable. Woke stuff is insufferable.

FortheloveofCheesus · 25/07/2025 21:06

And even though some corporation tax is was paid in the 2024 tax year, there is no transparency around how much of the profits are shunted into their loss making subsidiaries abroad. Transparency should be a given for large corporations

Not sure you know much about corporate tax. There are internationally agreed rules that can often require a corporate to "shunt profit into their loss making subsidiaries abroad" and these days there's actually a lot of transparency. If a company isn't making profits, it does not pay income tax. Thats not unfair.

FortheloveofCheesus · 25/07/2025 21:04

The problem is at the moment we are getting poorer as a country. There isn't enough money and it means hard choices to get us back on track.

But any changes are met with resistance. If we keep on having a huge (and growing) proportion of the population not working due to mental health, we will become a poorer and poorer country.

Some younger people in particular seem to completely lack any grit at all, any challenge is characterised as a mental health crisis, the normal ups and downs of life are too much to cope with. I do really worry that the impact of covid & screens & social media have collided to complete fuck up the development of a whole cohort.

Jennps · 25/07/2025 20:58

SumUp · 25/07/2025 17:05

What a childish post! I’m not sure if I should bother to engage but…

Improving corporate responsibility, accountability, and ensuring sufficient contributions to services will make the UK work better. Companies benefit a lot from quality road and rail networks, an efficient grid, high speed internet, educated workforce, etc etc.

Amazon paid no corporation tax at all in 2022 and 2023, against sales of £24 billion and £27 billion. And even though some corporation tax is was paid in the 2024 tax year, there is no transparency around how much of the profits are shunted into their loss making subsidiaries abroad. Transparency should be a given for large corporations.

Your word salad makes no sense. Tax is paid on profits at 25%. It’s as simple as that. What does transparency has to do it. Are you saying there was fraud?

mutinyonthetwix · 25/07/2025 19:17

Surely this is what George Galloway has been pushing for yonks now. Looks like the latest iteration is the Workers Party of Britain.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 25/07/2025 19:08

Strawberrri · 25/07/2025 18:47

But we used to be producers - of wool and steel and pottery as well as coal and tin - world-class

We used to produce oil and refine it here but the do gooder lefties decided it’s better to buy it from Saudi and Iran and ship it here

What do gooder lefties? Thatcher closed down industry and embraced globalisation in the 80s.

Lollysoup · 25/07/2025 19:05

Strawberrri · 25/07/2025 18:47

But we used to be producers - of wool and steel and pottery as well as coal and tin - world-class

We used to produce oil and refine it here but the do gooder lefties decided it’s better to buy it from Saudi and Iran and ship it here

And when we were producers, the mill owners were the rich and powerful....

Strawberrri · 25/07/2025 18:47

But we used to be producers - of wool and steel and pottery as well as coal and tin - world-class

We used to produce oil and refine it here but the do gooder lefties decided it’s better to buy it from Saudi and Iran and ship it here

BlueJuniper94 · 25/07/2025 18:29

timetochangemename · 25/07/2025 18:26

I think you’d have to be rich and powerful yourself if you wanted to ‘take on’ the rich and powerful. You’d certainly not make any impact if you were poor and powerless.

There's more of us than there are of them... workers of the world unite 😃

Sadly though, you are right. Power centres are too diffuse now. There is no Bastille to storm

OP posts:
BlueJuniper94 · 25/07/2025 18:28

ToWhitToWhoo · 25/07/2025 15:56

Economic redistribution without the 'liberal BS' sounds like Stalinism to be honest! Economic redistribution WITH the 'liberal BS' sounds more like democratic socialism, and yes, we could do witha bit more of that at the moment.

Democratic socialism sounds ideal! But is not compatible with the liberal BS I'm referring to. The radical social agenda which has been forced down everyone's throats by extra democratic means is the very antithesis of democracy.

OP posts:
timetochangemename · 25/07/2025 18:26

I think you’d have to be rich and powerful yourself if you wanted to ‘take on’ the rich and powerful. You’d certainly not make any impact if you were poor and powerless.

BlueJuniper94 · 25/07/2025 18:24

windyfarmers · 25/07/2025 07:35

Because you can't take on the rich and powerful if you're going to ignore social injustice.

Pfft

OP posts:
Lollysoup · 25/07/2025 18:21

Lollysoup · 25/07/2025 18:20

It's hard not to like the "idea" of a more equal society, but the fact is the rich and powerful got that way because they (or their ancestors) had the intelligence, drive, skills foresight, ambition and motivation to make that happen.

And we still need everything they achive to happen, or there'd be no money to share out. If there was no financial reward for doing it, would they all still achieve at the same level?

I do think levelling the playing field with inheritance tax makes sense, and I'm someone who'd be affected by that, both on my parent's estate and on mine.

But also I don't think anyone who proposed that re inheritance tax would win, so it would all be a bit pointless.