Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think we can’t revive the country on the backs of the poor, the struggling, or the middle class?

210 replies

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 20:44

Every time there’s an economic crisis, it seems like the burden always fall on the same groups - through tax hikes, cuts to services, and stagnant wages, while the wealthiest remain untouched. Surely a country can’t truly recover if the majority of its people are struggling just to get by? Yet time and time again, we’re told we all have to “tighten our belts” - except, conveniently, those at the top.

AIBU to think this approach isn’t sustainable or is it just the reality of how economies work?

OP posts:
footiego · 27/07/2025 23:07

The whole top 1% pay 30% of tax is based on income tax. The cliff edges are wrong. However as I said a lot of the rich are not on PAYE hence why

"the average rate of tax paid by people who received one million pounds in taxable income and gains was just 35 per cent: the same as someone earning £100,000. But one in four of these paid 45 per cent – close to the top rate – whilst another quarter paid less than 30 per cent overall. One in ten paid just 11 per cent—the same as someone earning £15,000. The rich, it seems, are not all in it together."

Notmycircusnotmyotter · 27/07/2025 23:04

Those with the broadest shoulders carry pretty much everyone else. They're also mobile.

This is such 6th form "tax the rich" politics.

I earn in the top 1%. I'm also a single parent of two small children who cares for an elderly parent. I can't take any more tax; I'm barely breaking even with the various pressures I'm under.

footiego · 27/07/2025 23:01

It’s a catchy story but it misrepresents how taxation and public goods actually work. In real life, wealth isn’t just “earned” through hard work and beer rounds - it’s also concentrated through inheritance, capital gains, tax loopholes, and access to opportunity. The poor aren’t freeloaders at the table - they’re the ones pouring the drinks, cleaning the bar, and still struggling to afford a seat.

very true

TempestTost · 27/07/2025 22:58

I suppose I agree OP, but I don't really think it can be done on the backs of the rich, either.

The ones that are in the highest tax bands are already paying an extraordinary proportion of their income into taxes. At a certain point, more will mean people are disincentivised to work, or they move away - especially people in key careers like medicine where there is a lot of demand. (Or, they will see the many years of training and slog to do it, and decide it isn't worth it.)

And there is an issue of fairness, I think.

With the super-risc, they are not going to stay and be taxed, that class of people are effectively international, and their sources of income aren't straightforward in the way they are for most of us.

And this, imo, is the real problem. Not the international people, it's the international economy. Globalism is the reason industry and well paying jobs don't exist at lower levels as well, and why unions have no serious ability to negotiate for more for the working classes.

No country really has much ability to affect their national economy, they are too enmeshed in the larger global economy and banking system. Nowadays, even the left wing parties seem desperate to maintain the globalist consensus, so it doesn't look to me like anyone is trying to change it. Maybe the Americans, but god knows how that will turn out.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 22:55

EasternStandard · 27/07/2025 22:47

Ok we’ve recently had a GE that used the same lines on ‘broadest shoulders’ and teachers plus food backs and taxes have gone up.

Taxes on businesses which isn’t working, it’s squashing growth which means you’ll need to tax more. Why is that good?

If the answer to higher taxes not working is just load up with more you’d have to hope that’ll actually work not just squash growth even more. On the plus side there’s a new party who is saying what you are, so there’s people to vote for.

Fair point on the GE, it’s true that tax hikes alone won’t solve deep systemic issues, especially if they’re poorly targeted. But the real question is what kind of growth are we prioritising? Growth that concentrates wealth or growth that strengthens the foundations, like healthcare, education and affordable housing?

Raising taxes on working people while allowing capital gains, large inheritances and mega-corporations to slip through lightly isn’t a recipe for sustainable progress, it’s imbalance. The issue isn’t just tax levels, it’s where we tax, who benefits and how we reinvest. I’m not against growth, I just don’t think it should come at the cost of a functioning society.

OP posts:
MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 22:55

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:44

It’s a catchy story but it misrepresents how taxation and public goods actually work. In real life, wealth isn’t just “earned” through hard work and beer rounds - it’s also concentrated through inheritance, capital gains, tax loopholes, and access to opportunity. The poor aren’t freeloaders at the table - they’re the ones pouring the drinks, cleaning the bar, and still struggling to afford a seat.

And the idea that the richest will flee if taxed fairly is… revealing. If your commitment to a society ends the moment you’re asked to contribute proportionally, what does that say about the system or the person?

Fairness isn’t about resentment. It’s about recognising that we all benefit from a functioning society and those with the most resources have the greatest capacity to protect it.

Edited

Your posts are impressively well reasoned. You're kicking ass. xx

BebeBelle · 27/07/2025 22:49

sesquipedalian · 27/07/2025 21:36

OP, consider this -
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I’m not a ‘high earner’, my DH is. This really explains it so well. I agree that everyone should pay a ‘fair’ share of tax. Unfortunately the very wealthy will always find a way out of paying their way so you are mainly left with high earners to pay these high taxes. We have to pay our own nursery fees and we can’t afford
to have another child but in a team that I was managing where everyone was earning less than me, they had more children mostly 3 each, and more benefits. I’m also on statutory maternity pay cause I feel pregnant after changing jobs so that is a full deduction in pay on us as a household. It’s so sad, but I think you can only know what’s fair when you know what the other person is going through. I wouldn’t consider my husband being asked to pay more tax at this stage to be fair cause we really can’t afford to stretch ourselves anymore. Right now a family with 2 individuals earning full pay and getting extra benefits, nursery paid for, with housing paid for by the government is probably better off than someone in my situation. Some of my husband’s colleagues have left the country and some have cut down hours and the stories are the same everywhere.

HostaCentral · 27/07/2025 22:49

We could go the Nordic model and tax everyone, including the poor, more........They have higher VAT and lower tax thresholds, more people pay higher rates if tax, but get better services.

EasternStandard · 27/07/2025 22:47

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 22:33

I don’t hate wealth creators. I question a system that calls them that while downplaying the structural advantages many started with or the public infrastructure they rely on to thrive. Roads, education, legal systems, healthcare, all funded collectively.

No one succeeds in a vacuum. The point isn’t to punish wealth, it’s to ask whether those with the broadest shoulders are contributing fairly when the system is clearly buckling for everyone else. When teachers are using food banks and A&E corridors are the new waiting rooms, it’s worth asking is it really ‘punitive’ to expect more from those who’ve benefited most?

Ok we’ve recently had a GE that used the same lines on ‘broadest shoulders’ and teachers plus food backs and taxes have gone up.

Taxes on businesses which isn’t working, it’s squashing growth which means you’ll need to tax more. Why is that good?

If the answer to higher taxes not working is just load up with more you’d have to hope that’ll actually work not just squash growth even more. On the plus side there’s a new party who is saying what you are, so there’s people to vote for.

MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 22:45

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:39

My salary puts me in the top 1% of earners in the UK. OP is absolutely suggesting that people like me should pay more tax. I’m merely pointing out that we can (and will) change our behaviour to avoid doing so.

I just checked and was shocked to learn that the top 1% earn 160K or above. Obviously there needs to be a new tax category because by no means is that super rich.
My apologies. Perhaps the OP was not aware of that either.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 22:43

FancyLimePoet · 27/07/2025 22:35

What is “wealthy” to you ?

I agree those at the top should be taxed something and by those at the top I mean the the likes of Rishi Sunak who makes 50K of passive income a week. People who are asset rich and cash poor. They should be paying enough tax that forces them to release those assets.

We are in Scotland and paying an 80% marginal tax rate via PAYE. We would be better off earning less due to all the stuff we don’t get access to. I mean the economy cannot grow with such a punitive tax regime. We have no more to give!

There are also not enough net contributors to the system.

The top 10% will leave and things will only get worse.

I think conversations like this highlight how broken the current framing is. Wealthy shouldn’t just mean a salary number - it should include assets, investments, and how insulated someone is from economic shocks. Passive income like Sunak’s is exactly the kind of thing that needs reform.

I agree that squeezing middle earners through PAYE while letting capital gains slide by lightly taxed isn’t sustainable. That’s why I think we need smarter taxation - not just higher rates but closing loopholes, taxing unearned income properly, and making the system less reliant on a shrinking group of salaried workers. It’s not about punishing success - it’s about asking whether the balance is fair and who’s quietly carrying the weight.

OP posts:
Getmoveon14 · 27/07/2025 22:38

Rather than taxing the incomes of the rich perhaps we should raise the tax rate on things that aren't good for the country generally. I would start with second homes / Air B and B, inheritance flights and new cars. In many cases it would still be a way of taxing the rich.

footiego · 27/07/2025 22:37

@Lonelycrab absolutely, it's fucked.

FancyLimePoet · 27/07/2025 22:35

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 20:59

I’m not suggesting we ban rich people - just that wealthier individuals and corporations could shoulder more of the burden, especially during crises. Yes, they may pay higher absolute tax but they’re also less affected by cuts to services, stagnant wages, and rising costs. Meanwhile, those with the least are expected to “tighten their belts” while already stretched thin. The point is about fairness and sustainability, not abolishing wealth - though thanks for the leap.

What is “wealthy” to you ?

I agree those at the top should be taxed something and by those at the top I mean the the likes of Rishi Sunak who makes 50K of passive income a week. People who are asset rich and cash poor. They should be paying enough tax that forces them to release those assets.

We are in Scotland and paying an 80% marginal tax rate via PAYE. We would be better off earning less due to all the stuff we don’t get access to. I mean the economy cannot grow with such a punitive tax regime. We have no more to give!

There are also not enough net contributors to the system.

The top 10% will leave and things will only get worse.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 22:33

Notmycircusnotmyotter · 27/07/2025 22:26

Ffs

"The rich" pay > 60% of everything. The 1% pay > 30%. They don't take out of the system and have the means to live somewhere without punitive taxes. Why do you hate wealth creators?

I don’t hate wealth creators. I question a system that calls them that while downplaying the structural advantages many started with or the public infrastructure they rely on to thrive. Roads, education, legal systems, healthcare, all funded collectively.

No one succeeds in a vacuum. The point isn’t to punish wealth, it’s to ask whether those with the broadest shoulders are contributing fairly when the system is clearly buckling for everyone else. When teachers are using food banks and A&E corridors are the new waiting rooms, it’s worth asking is it really ‘punitive’ to expect more from those who’ve benefited most?

OP posts:
ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 22:29

KateMiskin · 27/07/2025 22:10

How do you suggest we rebalance?

There are threads like these every week "Tax the rich" but no clarity on who the rich are and how we tax them any more. Just vague words.

I get that “tax the rich” can sound like a slogan unless it’s paired with specifics so here are a few thoughts:

close tax loopholes and reliefs that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest - like non-dom status, carried interest exemptions, or inheritance tax planning that allows millions to be passed on tax-free

align capital gains tax more closely with income tax, so someone making money from selling assets pays a similar rate to someone earning through a salary

introduce more graduated property and land taxes, especially for second homes or extremely high-value real estate that’s under-taxed relative to value

reform pension tax relief, which currently gives disproportionately higher benefits to top earners

corporate tax transparency and accountability, especially for large multinationals shifting profits overseas to minimise UK tax liability

The point isn’t to vilify high earners - it’s to ensure the system isn’t skewed toward those already best insulated from economic shocks. We’ve had over a decade of real-terms public service cuts while extreme wealth has soared. Rebalancing means making sure we’re not always asking the lowest earners to make up the shortfall.

OP posts:
Lonelycrab · 27/07/2025 22:26

footiego · 27/07/2025 22:19

it's the middle & lower earners who pay less tax here vs other European countries but the issue is housing costs.

This is because we’ve based the growth of our economy on property price inflation via easy money (nice if you could get it ten years ago), ability for dodgy money to flood the country to buy up such assets/critical utilities, flog all the social housing, let the rich and older generations get richer,

And screw the future generations. Yay, dreamy isn’t it.

Notmycircusnotmyotter · 27/07/2025 22:26

Ffs

"The rich" pay > 60% of everything. The 1% pay > 30%. They don't take out of the system and have the means to live somewhere without punitive taxes. Why do you hate wealth creators?

footiego · 27/07/2025 22:20

We could also make pensioners pay national insurance.

100% but it won't happen for today's pensioners. Future generations will pay it as their state pension age is older.

summerskyblue · 27/07/2025 22:20

I agree with you OP.

Cutting someone's benefits means they won't be able to pay their rent/bills and feed themselves correctly. It has a huge, negative impact.

Just like taxing working people who barely make ends meet already will just push them over the edge.

However making wealthy individuals pay a bit more tax will hardly make any difference to their privileged, comfortable lifestyle.

That's the difference.

Always taking from those who already have very little is not going to grow the economy and it morally repugnant.

This is not why people voted Labour.

But you just have to read this thread to see how deeply people are brainswashed into thinking that the poor are the problem and cling to our ultra capitalist system even when you can see that it is failing most of us.

footiego · 27/07/2025 22:19

it's the middle & lower earners who pay less tax here vs other European countries but the issue is housing costs.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 22:19

AlastheDaffodils · 27/07/2025 22:06

OP I think a weakness in your argument is you haven’t really defined what you mean by “fairness” beyond “rich people should pay more.” You talk about contributing proportionately. As others have pointed out rich people already pay a disproportionate amount of their income in tax. Maybe “fairness” would demand they pay the same proportion as everyone else (ie less)? Some might say that in a country where over half of households are net cash recipients from the state fairness would demand that those people be asked to pay more, as they would in most European countries?

For what it’s worth I bought a house last year - standard 4 bed terraced in zone 3 London. Between income tax, NI, council tax and the stamp duty, I worked out my total tax rate was above 75%. So I was working purely for the government until October. Obviously I’m not going to be buying another house anytime soon, but that was pretty gutting. I really struggle with the idea that “fairness” says that 75% (or 45% in an ordinary year) isn’t enough.

You’re right that fairness is one of those slippery concepts that people interpret differently depending on where they sit in the system. For me, fairness isn’t just about percentages on a payslip but about outcomes and resilience: who ends up financially secure, who can access decent services without stress and who bears the brunt when things go wrong. It’s true that higher earners contribute a lot in income tax but we rarely talk about how wealth (not just earnings) is taxed far less heavily. Capital gains, property portfolios, inherited assets, those are often where inequality calcified.

The point isn’t to say that someone like you, paying a huge bill just to buy a family home, isn’t already contributing. It’s to ask why billionaires and large corporate interests so often avoid proportionate contribution entirely and why political choices keep squeezing people like you instead of addressing that structural imbalance.

So yes, fairness needs a definition. Mine would be: those with the broadest shoulders contribute not just more but in ways that reflect real economic power, not just wage income. And public services should deliver enough values that contributors at every level feel supported, not short-changed.

OP posts:
RandomNewIdentity · 27/07/2025 22:18

We probably can't raise income tax, but we could tax wealth, or tax nonlabour income at the same rate as labour income. We could also make pensioners pay national insurance.

EasternStandard · 27/07/2025 22:16

thatsthatsaidthemayor · 27/07/2025 22:03

Create a tax haven. That’s how other countries do it. The more you incentivise people to pay tax the more they pay.

Lower taxes you mean? It’s hard to convince the electorate. Although after taxes go up with Labour maybe it’ll swing the other way.

footiego · 27/07/2025 22:16

We don’t have a lot to offer other than money laundering/ house of cards ponzi money games and stalling property inflation now.

We fucked up by making housing the economy & we can't increase taxes because so much income is spent on housing particularly for the young.