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).

Keir has announced what a working person is and it doesn't include anyone who owns assets such as shares or property. So if you work hard, own your own house you'd better be ready - they are coming after you

He was talking about income from property, not the homes people live in.

@cardibach "Are you at all familiar with the concept that words can have different meanings in different contexts, though?"

Thanks for the patronising tone. I'm a partner in a fairly well known law firm, so yes, I'm very familiar with the concept of interpreting meaning in language.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE in practice whether someone draws a salary (and don't forget the dividends!) from a registered company which is the owner of property they - as the ultimate beneficial owner - actually owns - or whether they simply own the property as an individual and do the exact same "work" in relation to that property. They are "working".

The use of the term "working people" during the election was a planned mantra to announce the taxes that were not going to go up - the fact there has not been an agreed definition from the Labour Party shows how calculated this was - they can make it anything they want it to be.

So in the budget if they wish to raise the higher tax band rate they feel they can as they do not fit the "working people" definition - "cannot write a cheque out" which Starmer trots out all the time.

Basically Labour raise taxes and penalise anyone who has worked hard, taken risks, started businesses including owning additional properties etc.

Those who voted and fell for the "working people" weasel words will now realise they are in fact not the "working people" Labour are talking about.

@Parry5timesbeforedeath

"Loss to the state with lost taxes on income. again… why do politicians of all stripes seem to be incapable of seeing logical consequences?"

Because politicians especially those on the left get more votes from emotion than they do from logic.

So taking your example of VAT on private school fees. Yes if the number private school pupils is reduced (by my analysis) by 15% or more people over the next 5 years (down4.6% in Year 7 entry and 1.7% overall so far) then the policy will cost more to implement than it raises in tax revenue. This does not include your example of some parents going part time because they no longer need the money for PS fees.

But the majority will still support this policy even if you can logically show it will cost them money because emotionally they believe it is unfair that children of rich parents can get a "better" education by paying for it.

I totally get that it is unfair but logically their aspiration should be to improve education for everyone- "levelling up" rather than penalising those doing well "levelling down".

@PandoraSox - was he though? Perhaps he needs to explain it in more detail. Labour need to clarify exactly what they think a working person. In fact the media need to give them a list and let them say yes or no eg. Is a working person someone who buys old houses, renovates them themselves, rents them out and does maintenance on them? If not if they then work in the local pub for 3 hours a week are they now a working person? If I volunteer in a charity shop for 20 hours a week, am I a working person?

You get my drift. They won't explain themselves because as per their view of what a woman is - a working person is what Labour decides is a working person and everyone else is ripe for shafting.

for the same reasons they do now. They prefer to work for themselves. The potential rewards are bigger (even with more equitable tax). Lots of reasons. I doubt any are doing it because the tax system is different now to be honest.

The left believes in equality and fairness which the right dismisses as politics of envy and anti growth

The right believes in aspiration and personal responsibility which the left dismisses as greed and selfishness.

I didn’t make a sweeping statement, so the rest of your post isn’t worth reading.

In this context. Which anyone not fishing around for reasons to justify their objections would realise. This is pointless.

But if someone purchases a property and hires a letting agent to manage it on their behalf then it's much more like an investment than salaried employment?

I’ve explained all this a million times. Go ahead. Hate the term and the policies it may be used to explain. I give up.
I don’t have a misconception about IHT.
How anyone can call Labour divisive after the culture wars of the last about 5 years. I have no idea.

It affects the way they are taxed though, yes? Levels of tax from investments, dividends etc are different. Which is why so many small business owners called their pay dividends before the pandemic then complained when they couldn’t get financial support.

@cardibach

"for the same reasons they do now. They prefer to work for themselves. The potential rewards are bigger (even with more equitable tax). Lots of reasons. I doubt any are doing it because the tax system is different now to be honest."

This makes no sense at all. Why on earth would anyone risk their own savings , longer hours and less job security just because they would prefer to work for themselves and might get lucky.

Sure there will be some that do it for the passion (florists, restaurants etc) but for those that are hard nosed business like then the risk reward is nuts and they would be far far better off keeping their savings and getting a nice safe public sector job with less stress and less hours.

Sure it won't stop all new businesses being set up but it sure as hell will reduce the numbers.

@cardibach yes, it affects the way they're taxed, as it always has done. But I started this thread about the meaning of the phrase "working people". Work is work. An artificial construct of "active" or "passive" income is just that: artificial. If you own and manage properties, you have to work in relation to those properties. It's not a "passive" exercise where the money just rolls in while you lie on the beach in Barbados.

TBH I’ve sometimes thought that Labour (some of them, anyway) actually prefer a majority of the population to be poor and downtrodden, since they’re then more likely to vote Labour.

I agree that the meaning of "working person" is being muddled by Labour. But it is fairly clear that they are not going to introduce a new tax next week on people's principle private residences. That is scaremongering tbh.

Perhaps in the long term Labour will reform council tax in England, but that is another matter.

Basically Starmer tried to be clever using "working people" and it is going to backfire, or it already is.

And? Tax is still paid and you seem to be unaware of CT from £1 profit upwards

People are still working, even those not on PAYE

Do you have a definition of ‘working people’?

So far on all these threads I have read that private school children are going to leave in droves, all the wealthy people are going to live overseas and now small business owners and landlords are going to throw in the towel. This budget is going to do a lot of damage.

I think everyone will be glad when we get to the actual budget and the scaremongering and speculation is over - I don't think it's helping anyone.

Not sure at this point there will be a sigh of relief afterwards and a polling uplift that it wasn't as bad as feared - I think everyone just fucking irritated having a tell us the worst so we can get on a deal attitude.

TBH I’ve sometimes thought that Labour (some of them, anyway) actually prefer a majority of the population to be poor and downtrodden, since they’re then more likely to vote Labour.

Not a Tory voter but in Labour run wales and I have at times wondered this myself.

I don’t disagree but money for services isn’t the big problem. They can’t (or dont want to for whatever reason) stop immigration. The numbers in the press are the tip of the biggest ocean. Boats are a tiny percentage, hundreds of thousands more are coming on lorries etc. They are here to get a home, regular benefits and free healthcare. I don’t blame them, wouldn’t you if it was on offer? But we have run out of places to put them and a lot have very high needs. We needs billions to fix, nevermind keep up with it. We are drowning and it’s really upsetting to work with. However you feel about them, they are here or on way & no one is going to stop them. It needs funding and staff to sort out. We have to pay for it but politically, it’s difficult to justify.

Stop with ‘Labour run Wales’ nonsense right now. I live there too and I’m fed up of people making it sound like some sort of post apocalyptic hell scape. It’s fine. And unless there is complete control - which devolution doesn’t give - then the Senedd’s hands are a bit tied with major reform.

Same. Quite happy living in Wales.

I live In Wales using Welsh schools and Welsh NHS - paying council tax to a welsh Labour council - I get to vote for the welsh government.

The idea I am not allowed a view of the country I live pay taxes in or the government in power - is ludicrous.

I have never said it a hell hole - it is a lovely place with great people - but I have issues with some government views and polices as I'm allowed to in a democracy. I'm fully ware of what power the Senedd have and don't because it impacts my life and my family.

When political parties are in power they can't keep everyone happy and will face criticism on their polices and their attitude - it's part and parcel of being in power in a democratic government - I find it odd some Labour supporting posters on here can't handle that.

My views are based on my kids experiences in their welsh schools and living in Welsh city I do - I don't always feel Labour don't always wants us to be ambitious and strive for more.

How dare you tell me my lived experiences aren't allowed because they don't fit in with your limited world view.

@Summernightsinthe21stcentury

"So far on all these threads I have read that private school children are going to leave in droves, all the wealthy people are going to live overseas and now small business owners and landlords are going to throw in the towel. This budget is going to do a lot of damage"

Personally I don't think that private school children will leave in droves but you only need an overall 15% reduction in numbers from pre VAT policy to post VAT policy for the tax to become net negative. Already we have seen a 4.7% reduction in Year 7 enrolments so if that continues then after 3 to 4 years it will be net negative.

I don't think that all the wealthy people will go and live abroad but when the top 1% of income earners (300k people) pay 30% of all income tax revenue then you don't need that many leaving to make a big impact. More likely is that many will reduce their hours or retire early.

And lastly not all landlords or small business owners will throw in the towel. But in a tight housing market you don't need many landlords doing this to make a difference. And in an economy crying out for growth you don't need to discourage many small business owners to quit to make a difference.