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).

@cardibach I think that saying that people with assets are not working people is criticism.
Why would anyone take financial risks if they barely get to keep the rewards? Penalizing success discourages innovation and drives us toward mediocrity. The idea that everyone should end up with the same outcome leans into a socialist mentality—success and ambition deserve recognition, not punishment.

How is it luck yes some people may have inherited property or wealth to purchase properties to rent out but lots have worked hard for what they have, labour always seem to have an attitude to anybody owning anything unless it is themselves. Two legs good four legs better springs to mind.

You are similarly all over the shop, S/E were out and now in, or not

What’s your simple definition?

Is it still this?

a person with a salary thorough the PAYE scheme

Or what exactly?

How is it? I don’t work as I’m retired. I don’t feel criticised if someone says that.
Plus as I keep telling you it’s not about the person but the income. Passive income should be taxed in the same way as other forms of income. People banging on about the technical definitional know this, I’m sure you know this, stop pretending it’s something it isn’t.

Edit: barely keep any? Do I barely keep any of my pension because it’s fairly taxed? Did I barely keep any of my salary because it was fairly taxed?

But those who inherit haven’t paid tax on it

So, just to clarify, are you are saying that if you are gifted something then the value of that gift should be taxed?

And no, landlords aren't working people, they live off investments which they have accumulated through luck.

I don't understand this.

DH and I rented for over a decade - he's in HE and job moves across country are frequent. We rented from people moving in with new partner renting out their flat rather than immediately get rid, people renting on behalf of parents in care homes, form a person doing a course for 12 months in another part of UK, from someone working abroad for a while - and from people setting up a property business who usually also worked full time still - they were usually easier to deal with as they saw it as a business.

I know few others well now ex landlords mainly though FIL - who was in building trade all his life a trade notorious for poor pension provision - FIL was savvy and did private pensions early in life but others did mix of private pensions and doing up in evening and weekend properties then renting or selling - a few rented till retirement then used sale to fund retirements.

All of them still worked and all of them had borrowed to buy their home then life led then to rent out or set up business with associated risks and costs and work.

I suspect they will be targeting profits and income which isn't from PAYE scheme - makes sense in many respects but branding such people as non workers is just bloody odd messaging.

They also need to make sure there is a private rental sector for people not in a position to buy yet or ever- as they won't be able to build enough HA houses for that section of the population. If they don't it will hit young people much harder and affect their voting base.

Gifts are a little different I think. Though in principle, maybe - on gifts over the IHT threshold perhaps?. But inheritance comes after the death of the person who paid the tax. Someone totally other gets the benefit. And it’s only on 4% of estates currently. Many countries pay far more IHT at far lower levels and it doesn’t seem to have stopped people building wealth/assets.

...and some of the interviewers are very annoying and obstructive and full of their own importance and they know, at least on the BBC, that if they can goad an MP into saying something foolish at 0723, it'll be headline news at 0800, 0900, 1000, 1100, et cetera.
I expect the interviewers are trained to be as goady as possible. Some of them are better than others at keeping a calm atmosphere. Some keep talking over the interviewee and won't give up and the whole thing develops into a quarrel which you can't hear properly. Cue for switch-off.

I think Labour really need to get their PR sorted out. The country is in a mess and more money is needed to improve services. That is always going to mean that someone feels hard done by when taxes are increased or allowances removed. Kier Starmer's negative speech about how awful things are didn't help. Things are awful but people need to be given hope and not just gloom and doom.

I know that a large section of the media are hostile to the government and make things worse by coming up with all kinds of suggestions of what will be in the budget which may never actually come to pass. The government don't help themselves though. The current outcry about public sector pensions being protected while private ones are not is a prime example.

I have said this in other threads but I don't know whether this is just because the majority of the cabinet have no previous experience of government or whether they really are out of their depth. It does seem though that they give the impression of floundering. As to their actual policies I think it is too early to come to any firm conclusions.

The words 'working people' have been used for ages now. They didn't suddenly appear before the last General Election.

Your argument is that the recipient hasn’t paid tax, whereas the counter-argument is that the income/earnings to create that gift (whether it is given before for after death) has still been taxed through various means such as PAYE, CGT, Dividend tax etc. In other countries with higher rates, tax planning probably helps the wealthy avoid paying it anyway.

IHT is another debate so derails slightly from the OP’s question. What I find annoying is that apparently the Labour manifesto was “fully costed”. How come then they never mentioned WFA, changes to NI, changes to IHT for example in the election campaign? I don’t accept the mysterious black hole either as a justification. I wish politicians were honest, answered questions clearly and stop treating the electorate like we’re idiots. Labour said they would be different but the first 4 months in power have proved they are just as dishonest as others before them.

Seems DH and I who worked all our lives are not working people as we have shares from the company we worked for from the share save scheme. Plenty more like us also.

Why so hard for Labour to answer the question on it

What’s your definition?

They aren’t floundering. It’s just people don’t like what they are doing, and other people are making up things they might do to scare each other, and other people are wilfully misinterpreting/pretending not to understand things.
Have a look at this. Not bad for just over 100 days, most of which was recess of one sort or another. It’s an independent website, incidentally.
https://pledgeprogress.co.uk

FFS. You are working people if any of your income comes via a salary. They are saying that won’t be taxed more (in most cases). The passive income from shares is separate from your working income and may be taxed more, in line with other forms of income. Prime example of wilful misinterpretation.

So if I don’t think I’m getting a fair return because I’m being taxed at a rate I don’t think is fair should my investment increase in value, I won’t make that investment. Therefore, growth will not happen. Increasing taxes makes economic recovery harder and reduces consumer confidence as I will have less money to spend

On your comment on inheritance tax, don’t you think 40% is sufficient? What do you think the rate should be? The people that earnt that money paid tax on it. You seem to support multiple layers of taxation - do you think the Government spends our tax receipts efficiently ? We are about to have to pay a lot more in debt service interest and in mortgage rates given the rise in gilt yields to higher than they were when Liz Truss had her moment in the limelight.

Just how does the Government expect to get growth having talked the country down for its first 100 days and now raising taxes and borrowing substantially. Same old Labour.

Have you actually read what his definition of a working person is

It’s not 40% of the whole inheritance though, is it? This is what annoys me. People claiming they won’t get anything when they’ll get up to a million quid before a penny of it goes in tax. Same for taxes on investment income - not the million quid but, obviously, but that it won’t be on all of it. Just income over a threshold.

@cardibach yes, barely keep any. If I’m already facing a 45% tax on my earnings, only to see my assets taxed at the same high rate? That effectively takes away nearly half of my income. The government should encourage those who are willing to risk their capital rather than penalize them. If capital gains taxes are excessively high, why would investors choose to put their money into companies? The same goes for entrepreneurs looking to start new businesses. The UK needs investment to grow, and imposing heavy taxes will only scare off potential investors.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it was used as a decision tool for who would pay more tax though? Why couldn’t they simply say employers NI will go up but employees won’t if that’s what they were planning.

I really hope that at the next General Election, journalists ask specific questions and push for proper answers, no hiding behind soundbites. I would rather Labour had said in their campaign that they would put 1p on income tax as it’s needed for the NHS/Education etc. Everyone would then know what you were voting for.

Over a threshold. Unless you earn so much that you don’t have one, in which case you are in an insanely privileged position.

Meaning of "work": "to be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result; do work."

Landlords engage in such activity, in the form of maintaining their properties, buying and selling them, engaging with tenants and estate agents, all in pursuit of money. I don't see how that's different to what I do, which is providing professional services (in my case, legal services), in the pursuit of making money.

All of this slicing and dicing of the meaning of the term "working people" is absolute bollocks. If you engage in any activity in order to make money, you're a working person!

For The millionth time it’s about the income not the person. If a landlord does it as a company and draws a salary, that is taxed via income tax at one rate. If it’s taken in other ways it isn’t. This isn’t very equitable, is it?
Are you at all familiar with the concept that words can have different meanings in different contexts, though?

they’ll get up to a million quid before a penny of it goes in tax.

Just to clarify, regarding misinterpretation, the basic IHT level is £325,000. The £1m allowance is if you are married and own a home worth more than £350,000.

@cardibach Maybe I am, maybe I’m not, but that brings us back to the original point of this conversation, where we’ve digressed a bit. To have assets, I’ve put in the effort—just like others in similar positions. That’s why I find it absolutely absurd to suggest that people with assets aren’t seen as “working people.” It’s nothing more than resentment. So, I’ll leave it here; we can agree to disagree on this one.