When politicians won't answer the question

[Elektra1]

Just heard Treasury Minister James Murray on the Today programme talking about the changes to the government's borrowing rules, and changes to taxes in the impending budget. He was asked 5 times whether landlords work for a living (I assume due to changes to CGT and SDLT) and simply repeated the same response ("we are talking about how people make their money").

Landlords clearly make at least some of their money by buying and selling properties, and renting them out. Nothing wrong with that, it's a job. So why not just answer the question? Do they seriously think that the audience is taken in by repetition of the same non-answer? It just makes me think they must be shit at their job (being a politician).

They’ve been using this line since before the GE. You’d think they could say what it actually means. It is hopeless

“these days”? The famous Jeremy Paxman interview when he repressed the question to Michael Howard 12 times as in 1997!
Yes, I include 1997 as modern times.
It's very poor that they care more about presentation than policy. They should have the courage of their convictions and be able to persuade the electorate of their rationale. We need more debate and less soundbite.

@cardibach It's hard not to get worked up over this. Personally, I was furious reading the news this morning. Dismissing people with assets as if they're not "working people" is absurd. These assets don’t just appear out of thin air—they’re the product of hard work, sacrifice, and commitment.

@Chowtime , how do you figure out that landlords have made their investments ‘through luck’?

I’ll tell you about my ‘luck’. I left school at 16 and went straight out to work, I paid my mum for my keep and saved from my very first pay packet. My then boyfriend did the same. He’d gained experience working in catering and wanted to open a takeaway so we lived a very frugal life and saved like mad for some years. We wrote a business plan and took it to the bank when we found a shop we wanted to buy. It wasn’t a takeaway and there was the first massive risk we took because we needed planning for change of use. We got our loan and planning and had to invest thousands not only on the building but on turning our shop into a takeaway more risk. We worked that business for nearly 40 years paying lots of tax along the way and providing employment for many people over the years. Our staff all stayed with us for a long time because we treated and payed them well. We earned good money but were aware that we didn’t have a pension and so we bought our fist buy to let, we have seven now. We could have frittered our money away but instead we concentrated on investing for our future. We now have investments which were intended to provide a comfortable retirement and are now retired. We made of own luck, no one gave us anything, we took massive risks, we rarely took holidays, my husband didn’t take a day off sick in nearly 40 years. We’ve done all the right things to not be a burden on the state in our old age. There are many like us. You could do it too if you fancy the hard work, risk and commitment.

I am amazed people don't understand what a working person is - a person with a salary thorough the PAYE scheme.

Possibly other assets that provide interest or dividends or rental income will be taxed differently.

The hard truth is that we are going to have to pay more tax into the system to improve the depleted public services that the tories managed into decline, how that is done will become clear this week.

Stressing people out with comments like 'they are coming for your home because it is an asset' is not helpful.

Dismissing people with assets as if they're not "working people" is absurd.
It's weird. Remember when Call-Me-Dave from the "Nasty" party became PM; his slogan was "we're all in this together".
Labour (of the people, for the people) under Starmer's PMship seems to be all about division and pitting people against each other.

Amazed by the interviewee? Why no answer from the Labour MP on what a working person is? If so simple

@cardibach those assets have been paid for from income that's already been taxed. If I invest in something I am taking a risk. The value of it can go down or up. I need a return for that. I worked hard to save that after tax income to invest in something that could lose me money, or make me money. I'm trying to be responsible and save for my retirement.

But according to Labour I'm not a "working person"

It really shouldn't need saying, and I have explained it to you as others have already done.

Working people are also those who own and setup businesses, so company directors and also the self employed but even though the majority of them do not fiddle their earnings, many politicians think they do.

I am amazed people don't understand what a working person is - a person with a salary thorough the PAYE scheme.

Lots of people aren't PAYE, but are working people including the very many people who are self employed

Maybe they are @schloss as directors they can take a salary so yes classed as working people.
It depends how you take your remuneration.

Exactly. It amazes me how politicians cannot see through to obvious consequences. I rent out my flat and have for years since moving in with DH. The various punitive changes on landlords recently have meant that people are exiting the market big time. The last time mine was up for rent i had over 50 offers. From people who were offering on anything they could find as they were desperate. It would be a disaster if the rental market collapsed entirely. The fact is many people need to rent. Thats just a fact. And people have to live somewhere, we can’t all have huge housing allowances like MPs get. And of course i pay tax on my rental 40%. I am contributing to this economy significantly. I don’t appreciate being told I am not a person worthy of respect by this government, which is what the sneering exhibited by Starmer really means.

Self employed people not in a limited company pay income tax.

Stressing people out with comments like 'they are coming for your home because it is an asset' is not helpful.
But it was Labour who started this rhetoric. Tax should be fair on all. It shouldn't be a matter of "we'll look after our mates in the Unions and - unsaid but know what they mean - we'll go after everyone else". That is appalling.

Are they? All of them? Some aren’t inherited, or built via passive means of increase? He’s not saying that someone who works to earn an income is t a working person. He’s saying we should tax all forms of income fairly/with some equity. At present we don’t.

Really? Labour are refusing five times to answer because of this?

That is funny. They are all over the place with it. This morning two competing headlines on what a ‘working person’ is you’d think they could say.

How ridiculous this reasoning is

All money is taxed multiple times, that’s a nonsense argument. Nobody is saying you can’t get a return, just that if you do you should be fairly taxed on it.
And they aren’t saying you aren’t a working person if you work. Just that passive income isn’t working income and so far isn’t being taxed fairly.

But not PAYE, which was your definition.

Not PAYE which was your definition earlier. Why change?

Yes I was saying that to help clear it up, because some people struggle. But I expect small non limited company business owners will not be part of any raised passive earnings taxes as it is income tax.

@cardibach Inheritance stems from someone’s lifetime of work, often from grandparents who’ve already been taxed on that income. Why do we keep resenting people who are making strides to improve their lives? High earners are criticized, asset holders are criticized—as if success is something to be ashamed of. Nothing stops anyone from taking charge of their own growth and working toward financial security.

I am amazed people don't understand what a working person is - a person with a salary thorough the PAYE scheme.

Yes it didn’t last long, looks like they need a definition

But those who inherit haven’t paid tax on it. And in recent times, neither has anyone else - huge increases in property values, for example, have never been taxed. Nobody is criticising high earners. Nobody is criticising asset holders. There is just a suggestion that maybe all types f income should be taxed fairly/with some equity. It’s not a criticism.

Edit to add: as has been repeatedly pointed out, IHT only affects 4% of estates anyway currently.

I have clarified below.