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:
HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:39

MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 21:30

If that's all you paid you obviously aren't counted among the super wealthy, therefore the OP's proposal does not apply to you. She referred to those at the top.

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.

Eddielizzard · 27/07/2025 21:38

Nchangeo · 27/07/2025 21:16

Your right,

We are never going to tax, cut or save our way out of this. The deficit is huge.

The only way is growth. Gov really need to free up and empower small and medium business. Both at home and internationally.

Yes to this. Tax just reduces growth and we can't tax our way out of this. We need to encourage businesses to create wealth, not take wealth away from people. When you spend other people's money, it very soon runs out.

We need to make money. That means good incentives for investment in this country and encouraging start ups. Every person on this thread could start their own business, create great products / services, sell them, pay themselves, pay tax. Everyone wins.

Taking money away from people isn't going to do the job. We'll just grind ourselves into the ground.

Ineednewcurtainsandblinds · 27/07/2025 21:38

Who, by your definition op, are “the wealthiest” and how much do you think they should pay?

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.

MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 21:30

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:25

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

I paid over £80k in tax for the 2024/5 tax year. I really don’t see why I should pay more than that. I’m already a net contributor. Increasing my tax burden will just incentivise me to reduce the amount I earn. It’s already happening. The cliff edge at £100k means lots of people drop to PT and/or increase their pension contributions to stay below the threshold. It’s the reason so many doctors are PT.

If that's all you paid you obviously aren't counted among the super wealthy, therefore the OP's proposal does not apply to you. She referred to those at the top.

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:25

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

I paid over £80k in tax for the 2024/5 tax year. I really don’t see why I should pay more than that. I’m already a net contributor. Increasing my tax burden will just incentivise me to reduce the amount I earn. It’s already happening. The cliff edge at £100k means lots of people drop to PT and/or increase their pension contributions to stay below the threshold. It’s the reason so many doctors are PT.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:23

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:16

There is already a marginal tax rate of 60% between £100,000 and £125,140. Plus 2% NI and 9% student loan repayments (15% if you did a masters). So that can result in having only 23% of your earnings between those amounts as take-home pay. Do you really think that you can raise that any higher and argue that that is “fair”?

I’m aware of the taper effect and marginal rates in that band and yes, it does look high on paper. But the overall effective tax rate for someone earning £125k is still significantly lower than 60%.

More importantly, fairness isn’t only about percentages. It’s about what people can afford, what public services need to function, and who shoulders the burden when budgets are tight.

If the conversation stops every time a high marginal rate is mentioned, then we’re really just saying “the system can’t be made fairer because the wealthiest won’t like it.” And that’s not a sustainable model for a healthy society.

OP posts:
1457bloom · 27/07/2025 21:23

Communism doesn’t work!

Mrsttcno1 · 27/07/2025 21:22

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:17

I get that some high earners are mobile and could relocate but shaping national tax policy around the preferences of the most privileged isn’t sustainable or fair. People earning £200k+ are still in a far better position than the millions struggling with stagnating wages, rising costs and gutted services. The idea that fairness shouldn’t even be attempted because a few might step back or leave just reinforces the imbalance.

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

Again, you don’t seem to see that the top 10% already ARE paying 60% of all income tax. They aren’t a charity, and they aren’t responsible for keeping the country afloat anymore than they already are. Those with the broadest shoulders are already contributing the majority.

Dearg · 27/07/2025 21:21

Nchangeo · 27/07/2025 21:16

Your right,

We are never going to tax, cut or save our way out of this. The deficit is huge.

The only way is growth. Gov really need to free up and empower small and medium business. Both at home and internationally.

This is the absolute crux of the matter. If you need evidence look no further than Scotland.

Higher taxes on a smaller number of tax payers; large public sector supported by those taxpayers; dwindling business , industry and energy sector.

More tax needed to pay for all the fee stuff that the SNP herald to bring votes; fewer and fewer jobs. A vicious cycle.

We need injections into to the cycle from business growth, investment, the private sector.

MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 21:21

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:17

I get that some high earners are mobile and could relocate but shaping national tax policy around the preferences of the most privileged isn’t sustainable or fair. People earning £200k+ are still in a far better position than the millions struggling with stagnating wages, rising costs and gutted services. The idea that fairness shouldn’t even be attempted because a few might step back or leave just reinforces the imbalance.

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

Excellent points.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:17

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:10

If you try and tax me more, then I’ll simply drop to PT. The extra days will then be picked up by someone in another country. That’ll result in a net loss in UK tax revenue. My earnings will drop a fraction, but I’ll have a better work-life balance. If everyone earning £200k does the same, then that’s not actually going to help, is it? Or alternatively, I could move abroad. My professional qualifications are in demand, and I can work anywhere across Europe. Plus I don’t have any school-age children any more. I wouldn’t even have to change company, I could just ask for relocation.

I get that some high earners are mobile and could relocate but shaping national tax policy around the preferences of the most privileged isn’t sustainable or fair. People earning £200k+ are still in a far better position than the millions struggling with stagnating wages, rising costs and gutted services. The idea that fairness shouldn’t even be attempted because a few might step back or leave just reinforces the imbalance.

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

OP posts:
HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:16

There is already a marginal tax rate of 60% between £100,000 and £125,140. Plus 2% NI and 9% student loan repayments (15% if you did a masters). So that can result in having only 23% of your earnings between those amounts as take-home pay. Do you really think that you can raise that any higher and argue that that is “fair”?

Nchangeo · 27/07/2025 21:16

Your right,

We are never going to tax, cut or save our way out of this. The deficit is huge.

The only way is growth. Gov really need to free up and empower small and medium business. Both at home and internationally.

Theunamedcat · 27/07/2025 21:16

We need to attract rich people who spend money into the UK as it stands we are driving them away

Isitreallysohard · 27/07/2025 21:14

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:10

I’m not saying we don’t need high earners. But it’s a stretch to suggest that asking them to contribute proportionally more, especially during national crises, is the same as “punishing” them.

The idea that spending on services like cleaners and taxis equals social contribution oversimplifies what a functioning economy and fair society look like. And I’d be careful about writing off benefit claimants - many work, many can’t work for legitimate reasons, and they’re part of the same economy, often doing the hardest jobs with the least recognition. Fairness isn’t about blaming one group - it’s about everyone contributing in a way that reflects both their capacity and the collective need.

They do contribute more, that's just a fact. A big issue is also how many people are not net contributors. That number is bound to increase, then what will happen.

EmmaSheen · 27/07/2025 21:13

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?

For the majority of history the rich and powerful have been sheltered while the poor has to make do.

Lauren1983 · 27/07/2025 21:12

Who said the OP is talking about PAYE workers? I took it to mean the uber rich.

Isitreallysohard · 27/07/2025 21:12

Mrsttcno1 · 27/07/2025 20:50

Well if you look at the figures, currently the top 10% of earners are paying 60% of all income tax, the top 1% of earners are already paying around 30% of all income tax.

Increasing that further will just drive those earners away, lots of them have already left to set up elsewhere and suddenly then we don’t see any of their tax.

I agree with this, although companies can be taxed more and get rid of legal loop holes such a trusts etc. The problem is it's easy for the rich to hide money and avoid paying taxes but poor Joe Bloggs can't avoid it. And an actual poor person is basically always catching up as they will always be living pay check to pay check

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:10

SchoolDilemma17 · 27/07/2025 21:03

so basically in this country you get punished for working hard and earning a good salary. I know plenty of well educated people with good salaries who are leaving now or have left because of changes to income tax from foreign investments, VAT on private schools, punitive tax if you earn over 100k. These people employ cleaners, PTs, tutors, tennis coaches, nannies, eat out a lot, use taxis more than tubes, give to charity, have private health insurance. You think we don’t need them in the country? They contribute more than half the benefits claimants.

I have lots of colleagues in the charity sector who have lost many of their major donors now. Nobody is better off because wealthy people leave.

Edited

I’m not saying we don’t need high earners. But it’s a stretch to suggest that asking them to contribute proportionally more, especially during national crises, is the same as “punishing” them.

The idea that spending on services like cleaners and taxis equals social contribution oversimplifies what a functioning economy and fair society look like. And I’d be careful about writing off benefit claimants - many work, many can’t work for legitimate reasons, and they’re part of the same economy, often doing the hardest jobs with the least recognition. Fairness isn’t about blaming one group - it’s about everyone contributing in a way that reflects both their capacity and the collective need.

OP posts:
HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:10

If you try and tax me more, then I’ll simply drop to PT. The extra days will then be picked up by someone in another country. That’ll result in a net loss in UK tax revenue. My earnings will drop a fraction, but I’ll have a better work-life balance. If everyone earning £200k does the same, then that’s not actually going to help, is it? Or alternatively, I could move abroad. My professional qualifications are in demand, and I can work anywhere across Europe. Plus I don’t have any school-age children any more. I wouldn’t even have to change company, I could just ask for relocation.

CopperWhite · 27/07/2025 21:09

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.

It is not fair or sustainable to tax people so much that it stops being worth striving to build a successful business or to work and study until you’re at the top of a career.

Mrsttcno1 · 27/07/2025 21:08

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.

The top 10% are already paying 60% of all income tax- they are already paying the majority, and they’re not a charity, it’s not their responsibility to keep this country afloat.

Aimtodobetter · 27/07/2025 21:08

It’s pretty clear that at some point when you keep raising taxes on rich people you end up with less tax, not more tax. The idea that rich people aren’t taxed heavily / haven’t had taxes them increased a lot is a bit strange given the various tax raises done - if you want to compare the UK vs Europe most analysis suggests we actually tax rich people similarly to the rest of the Europe (and a lot more than in the US) but tax lower earners a lot less than in Europe which is why they have high overall tax takes as a percentage of GDP. If you want to see the downside of always looking to try and find a way to take more taxes from rich people (a) look at the way that Labour is having to look at rolling back some of their tax changes around non doms as it’s starting to look like there is a risk they may cost money rather than make money, (b) look at what’s happened with CGT where CGT amounts raised in tax have been falling and are now predicted to fall even more with all the changes (and those changes all pushed tax rates up instead of down).

Swipe left for the next trending thread