Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

639 replies

gggddjkki · 16/10/2025 08:32

I don’t remember anxiously waiting for budgets like we have the last few years earlier on in my adulthood. But when you read statements like this (as I have seen in the headlines today) what do you interpret it to mean? What does taxing the wealthy look like to you? Taxing higher earners more? From what point? Higher taxes on industry?

OP posts:
Bumblebee72 · 18/10/2025 20:49

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:45

Don’t set them off again.

Well anyone can be an economist. It's not like being a Doctor or a Lawyer where you need qualifications and registration with a professional body.

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:45

Bumblebee72 · 18/10/2025 20:40

Just like Rachel Reeves!

Don’t set them off again.

Readyforslippers · 18/10/2025 20:43

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:41

What would be a better word?

You don't need a word.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 20:42

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:31

Oh FGS. Read what I actually wrote. One of the point in the list which apparently you’re so upset about specifically stated that some of the people who plan to vote Reform are doing so because they are very wealthy and successful and it will benefit them immensely financially to do so. Just like a very small proportion of those who voted for Brexit did so for the same reasons, primarily those with money in tax havens who didn’t want beneficial ownership to have to be disclosed per the soon-to-be-implemented EU directive on this matter. Reform’s financial backers and their support from the likes of Rupert Murdoch is also motivated by financial gain.

My entire point is that different potential Reform voters have different motivations and there isn’t one motivation that applies to all like some homogenous mass. Some reasons are rational (in terms of self-interest, like those I’ve just described) and some are not.

I have specifically stated in multiple posts now that knowledge and intelligence are different (I thought everyone was now aware of this? But perhaps general knowledge has degraded further than I thought). At no point have I called anybody stupid so stop falsely trying to claim that I have done so. Enough now.

You've stated lack of education as a factor. How does that change someone's vote if they voted the same as someone who was a professor in economics (for example) or thr head of an investment bank? They ticked the same box. You clearly think Reform is somehow the "wrong" box.

Education is not a factor in voting. You don't need to prove motive in the ballot box.

All the motives you listed for Reform voters you word in a derogatory fashion. What motives are correct in your eyes and which party would they be voting for.

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:41

Readyforslippers · 18/10/2025 20:32

It's the repeated use of the word 'claim' that comes across as bizarre.

What would be a better word?

Bumblebee72 · 18/10/2025 20:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Just like Rachel Reeves!

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:37

Readyforslippers · 18/10/2025 20:32

It's the repeated use of the word 'claim' that comes across as bizarre.

Exactly. Very weird.

I think it’s probably best just to not engage with the poster further given they really don’t seem well.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I see. You now want to resort to accusing other people of your own behaviour.

You do realise that everyone can read all of the posts, do you?

Readyforslippers · 18/10/2025 20:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

It's the repeated use of the word 'claim' that comes across as bizarre.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:31

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 20:24

I'm not sure who you are seeking to persuade and what you are seeking to persuade them of. You won't change anyone's mind with that approach. And if you aren't trying to persuade anyone of your point of view then why the posts?

It always makes me laugh when people say less educated people vote Reform or Brexit (for example). Such snobbery. Highly educated people vote Reform. Why does the value of their vote suddenly change if they left school at 15 with no GCSEs and live in a council house in Sunderland? They voted the same as someone who might be a professor of European politics or head of an investment bank. Ticking a box doesn't make you moral or clever and neither does it make you immoral or stupid. It's just ticking a box. There's no judge in the sky overseeing who is "right". It's just democracy.

Oh FGS. Read what I actually wrote. One of the point in the list which apparently you’re so upset about specifically stated that some of the people who plan to vote Reform are doing so because they are very wealthy and successful and it will benefit them immensely financially to do so. Just like a very small proportion of those who voted for Brexit did so for the same reasons, primarily those with money in tax havens who didn’t want beneficial ownership to have to be disclosed per the soon-to-be-implemented EU directive on this matter. Reform’s financial backers and their support from the likes of Rupert Murdoch is also motivated by financial gain.

My entire point is that different potential Reform voters have different motivations and there isn’t one motivation that applies to all like some homogenous mass. Some reasons are rational (in terms of self-interest, like those I’ve just described) and some are not.

I have specifically stated in multiple posts now that knowledge and intelligence are different (I thought everyone was now aware of this? But perhaps general knowledge has degraded further than I thought). At no point have I called anybody stupid so stop falsely trying to claim that I have done so. Enough now.

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:30

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:25

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:10

Like I said, I’m aware you claim not to be a teacher.

Claim?

This is the weirdest thing I’ve ever come across on Mumsnet, and that’s saying something.

If I was a teacher why would I claim not to be one? Why are you so obsessed with teachers?

Economics isn’t even a subject in schools (one of my complaints about them) so how would I even be a teacher if I wanted to (leaving aside the small issue of cutting my salary to a fraction of what it is)? I don’t deal well with noise or other people’s children who aren’t close relatives/ family friends, in small doses so I’m sure I’d last about 2 hours in a classroom. 😆

But you carry on with your weird obsession. Your posts are coming across as though need some psychological intervention.

This thread has made me so very grateful that I have a job that involves no contact with the public which inevitably contains a proportion of people who are mentally unhinged.

Leavesfalling · 18/10/2025 20:24

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 19:36

I think a similar list could be made for many of the motivations of Labour voters.

I haven’t said anybody is stupid. You are perhaps mistaking my comment about poor economic understanding (which is about knowledge and in my opinion a key failing of our education system) and - in many cases poor numeracy as the data about UK school leavers shows - for a comment on people’s intelligence or intellectual ability which is largely innate. It wasn’t - I said nothing whatsoever about people’s intelligence.

My comments were about poor knowledge and therefore being unable to make rational assessments of what the significant matters are from an economic perspective and distinguish between things which are a (deliberate) distraction and those which will actually make a meaningful difference to the public finances and therefore productivity, growth and living standards. I also commented about people’s frustration with the ongoing mismanagement for decades now and said this was understandable.

Not being numerate or having been taught the basics of economics (not covered by the national curriculum) makes the electorate easier to manipulate. This is not calling the electorate “stupid”. Intelligence and knowledge are not the same. I was pointing out a failure (in my opinion, a very deliberate one) in the education system.

Again, meanings being assigned to words by you and other posters which are not what they actually say. If I wanted to say all Reform voters were racist and stupid then that’s what I’d have said. It wasn’t, so I didn’t. My words mean what they actually state.

I would encourage all Reform voters who react like this to any discussion on politics to examine their behaviour because this shows the complete hypocrisy of the usual “insulting people won’t persuade them”, “people need to engage and understand each other’s point of view”. Yet even when asked for theirs and someone trying to engage with them, it’s met with a barrage of insults and attempts to twist their comments and pretend they mean something else. It’s too exhausting so no wonder people give up.

If you actually want to discuss the things that are bothering you about the country and ways that people could come together behind a policy program that wasn’t divisive and had majority support that might actually improve things, then a change of approach on your part is needed, not just from those who actually do insult you for your views. Not everyone is the enemy and if you treat them as such with this kind of adversarial and aggressive approach then quite clearly nothing will improve. It’s much too tiresome to try to have rational conversations with people if they absolutely refuse to do so and wilfully misrepresent everything you say, so people won’t bother to engage with you if you continue to do this.

Edited

I'm not sure who you are seeking to persuade and what you are seeking to persuade them of. You won't change anyone's mind with that approach. And if you aren't trying to persuade anyone of your point of view then why the posts?

It always makes me laugh when people say less educated people vote Reform or Brexit (for example). Such snobbery. Highly educated people vote Reform. Why does the value of their vote suddenly change if they left school at 15 with no GCSEs and live in a council house in Sunderland? They voted the same as someone who might be a professor of European politics or head of an investment bank. Ticking a box doesn't make you moral or clever and neither does it make you immoral or stupid. It's just ticking a box. There's no judge in the sky overseeing who is "right". It's just democracy.

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 20:10

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:01

Why have you made multiple posts about this then, even responding to me telling you that I am not a teacher but an economist by asking me if I’m an economics teacher. Bizarre. And then further posts still going on about it.

Why would anybody be ashamed of being a teacher? What an odd comment. And quite obviously I am not ashamed of being a teacher even if it was somehow shameful, given that - as you’ve been told multiple times now - I am not a teacher.

I’m sorry that you think my description of my job is vague. I’m not going to disclose all of my personal details to you, a random and seemingly slightly unhinged poster on the internet. I’m not even sure why you were asking about my job to begin with or why you were making what seemed to be an attempt to make a derogatory comment about teachers as though this would be an insult. The fact remains, however, that I’m not a teacher, so whatever your obsession with them stems from I’m afraid I’m unable to help and I can’t see how your obsession with teachers is relevant to the thread.

Like I said, I’m aware you claim not to be a teacher.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:05

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:01

Why have you made multiple posts about this then, even responding to me telling you that I am not a teacher but an economist by asking me if I’m an economics teacher. Bizarre. And then further posts still going on about it.

Why would anybody be ashamed of being a teacher? What an odd comment. And quite obviously I am not ashamed of being a teacher even if it was somehow shameful, given that - as you’ve been told multiple times now - I am not a teacher.

I’m sorry that you think my description of my job is vague. I’m not going to disclose all of my personal details to you, a random and seemingly slightly unhinged poster on the internet. I’m not even sure why you were asking about my job to begin with or why you were making what seemed to be an attempt to make a derogatory comment about teachers as though this would be an insult. The fact remains, however, that I’m not a teacher, so whatever your obsession with them stems from I’m afraid I’m unable to help and I can’t see how your obsession with teachers is relevant to the thread.

And no, before you come up with more weird conspiracy theories, I do not and have not ever worked in education.

I work in finance, and have done throughout my career.

HTH.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 20:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Why have you made multiple posts about this then, even responding to me telling you that I am not a teacher but an economist by asking me if I’m an economics teacher. Bizarre. And then further posts still going on about it.

Why would anybody be ashamed of being a teacher? What an odd comment. And quite obviously I am not ashamed of being a teacher even if it was somehow shameful, given that - as you’ve been told multiple times now - I am not a teacher.

I’m sorry that you think my description of my job is vague. I’m not going to disclose all of my personal details to you, a random and seemingly slightly unhinged poster on the internet. I’m not even sure why you were asking about my job to begin with or why you were making what seemed to be an attempt to make a derogatory comment about teachers as though this would be an insult. The fact remains, however, that I’m not a teacher, so whatever your obsession with them stems from I’m afraid I’m unable to help and I can’t see how your obsession with teachers is relevant to the thread.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 19:54

Fraudornot · 18/10/2025 19:02

Also how would you means test? On yearly income? People with pension pots would just draw down the minimum each year to prevent losing the pension. On savings? That would completely discourage saving for retirement.

I’ve already covered that in my earlier posts, if you read them…

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 19:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

NorthXNorthWest · 18/10/2025 19:48

Fraudornot · 18/10/2025 18:57

When you reach pensionable age but carry on working you no longer pay NI - because you have paid what you need to to get your pension.
Also you still pay tax - so if you have a private pension add that to your state pension and you will be taxed as a normal working person (less the NI).

As much as I hate to say it, I think that NI should continue in that situation.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 19:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

You have a really weird obsession with teachers, don’t you? What’s that all about?

For the fourth (I think?) time: I am not a teacher. Whatever your weird problem with teachers is, it has nothing to do with me.

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 19:46

NorthXNorthWest · 18/10/2025 19:42

You can lead a horse to water...

Indeed! 😆

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 19:45

slightlyunimpressed · 18/10/2025 19:30

The argument for voting reform which appears most often in the FT is that they will upend the entire welfare state - their economic plans are so incredible that the bond markets will pull the plug and the Uk will have a Greece moment. The economic disaster will be worth it for the shirkers to get their comeuppance. I think it is likely to be a bumpy few years whatever happens.

Yes, I think there’s a big risk of this, particularly because of the scapegoating of benefits now as a distraction, as though everything will be fine if this issue is fixed. It certainly needs a lot of change, but ironically as I pointed out earlier if Reform are elected and cause the huge economic crash that their policy program will make inevitable and when the bond markets do pull the plug, the first welfare to be cut drastically will be the state pension because it’s by far the most expensive and poorly targeted and many of their voters are pensioners!

The FT is one of the few newspapers in the UK left where there is largely sensible, factual analysis of the situation.

NorthXNorthWest · 18/10/2025 19:42

PlanetMa · 18/10/2025 18:05

No. It wasn’t. Try again.

You can lead a horse to water...

HailCeaser · 18/10/2025 19:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Swipe left for the next trending thread