Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

So people earning over £80k are wealthy, unless they are JC??

321 replies

usernamealreadytaken · 15/05/2017 13:53

In an interview with Julie Etchingham, JC apparently said he's not wealthy, despite earning over £130k p/a, because of WHERE HE PUTS HIS MONEY (but he's not going in to that!). AIBU to think this is the most ridiculous statement he has managed to put out in recent weeks?

Given that Labour want the wealthiest in our society (earning over £80k) to pay more taxes, what Good Reason could he possibly have to not include himself in that bracket? Discuss :-)

OP posts:
PamplemousseRouge · 15/05/2017 13:57

I was also wondering - as a side-point - aren't (Labour) MPs shooting themselves in the foot a bit, because most of them will probably already earn at least £80k a year (given that the basic annual salary for an MP is £74,000?

Disclaimer: this isn't a rant against Labour. I'm just quite surprised, as this tax for £80k+ earners would work against MPs.

PamplemousseRouge · 15/05/2017 13:59

And good point OP about JC apparently saying he's 'not wealthy enough' Hmm really, Jezza? Although I have to say I did think he was very principled. Until seeing this thread.

RoseGoldProsecco · 15/05/2017 14:01

They'll find out who's wealthy when the truly wealthy fuck off, the economy tanks, and their number of people earning over £80k plummets.

Clue: there won't be enough of them!

MariposaNieve · 15/05/2017 14:04

I heard the exact same from someone on Netmums, claiming that 60k a year is hardly wealthy, especially if you have a high mortgage and other outgoings. But you choose to have higher outgoings as your money goes up, so if that leaves you skint then that's your own issue. 60k is nearly triple what most people earn, so yes it's wealthy.

120k a year? Don't get me started on how stupid and arrogant his claim is.

stella23 · 15/05/2017 14:05

Did he mean through that he wasn't wealthy personally?

Say you earnt 100k but gave 99k away you wouldn't be wealthy. I'm not suggesting that's what he does, bits it how it could be read

Leonardo44 · 15/05/2017 14:08

Surely he wouldn't be an exception to those changes though? He would also be paying more tax.

Agree with Mariposa

Kursk · 15/05/2017 14:09

For me £80k means you are wealthy. But you may not feel wealthy if your household has a high turnover.

GreatFuckability · 15/05/2017 14:11

I thought this post was going to be about Jesus Christ.

But, I'm failing to see the point here. I think he is wealthy, but hes entitled to disagree, however I don't think hes saying that he won't pay the extra tax is he? so whats the disparity?

Whatthefoxgoingon · 15/05/2017 14:14

Nobody cares how you spend your money. If over £80k is wealthy according to corbyn then he's a bloody hypocrite if he claims not to be wealthy himself!

A millionaire who gives millions away to charity and lives in a cave is still wealthy!

Sorry I'm having trouble believing anyone could be that thick....

Whatthefoxgoingon · 15/05/2017 14:15

Surely he didn't really say that did he???

Spam88 · 15/05/2017 14:23

I'll reserve judgement until I've actually seen the interview tonight. But I can't see that it's unreasonable to say that you don't live a wealthy lifestyle because of where your money goes, whilst still acknowledging that the amount you earn puts you into the wealthiest 5% of the population.

As for the comment about labour MPs 'shooting themselves in the foot' if they increase income tax for those earning over £80k, it very much depends on your attitude towards tax doesn't it? That makes the assumption that their primary aim is to protect their own income. FWIW, I'm a basic rate tax payer and would gladly support a policy to increase the tax I pay if I thought the benefits for the country were worth it, I wouldn't see that as shooting myself in the foot.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 15/05/2017 14:24

Pamplemousse Pricipled wealthy Labour MPs, or indeed voters, aren't going to worry about shooting themselves in the foot because decent wealthy people don't mind paying more tax if necessary. Not everyone votes purely in their own self interest.

Moanyoldcow · 15/05/2017 14:26

There's a difference between 'wealthy' and 'wealthiest'. The average salary in the U.K. £27,600. I don't think that it is unreasonable to think more than THREE TIMES the average salary is among the wealthiest and therefore should pay more tax. FWIW Ido not earn £80k but my household income is about that. I'm not 'wealthy' but I'm pretty fucking far from being down the mines and suffer no financial hardship. I'd happily pay a few more percentage points in tax.

LapdanceShoeshine · 15/05/2017 14:30

I know when there was a whipround to buy him a particular bike, it raised £000s & he gave it to charity. I wouldn't be surprised if much of his leader's salary (on top of MP's salary) goes the same way but he's not going to brag about it.

Also he generally makes one of the smallest expenses claims, so he's buying his own breakfast etc, unlike people like IDS Angry

A salary like that doesn't make anybody wealthy - it means they can live better than they would otherwise, but that's not the same thing. He owns one house in London, which happens to be worth over £500k, but so do millions of other Londoners thanks to the property market.

I've seen him described as a champagne socialist today - it's ridiculous - like that the DM headlines about Labour planning to tax "workers" earning more than £80,000 Hmm

shinyredbus · 15/05/2017 14:33

he is an utter fool. no idea why he is still heading the party.

JanetBrown2015 · 15/05/2017 14:34

The country is getting its knickers in a twist over this issue of who is rich and who is wealthy etc. Some people forget how much tax and national insurance and student loan is taken off the higher salaries and that you may not get a single person allowance etc so it is not as simple as saying as £80k is double £40k. However it is more, without doubt.

Corbyn presumably has ex wives and children to pay for or perhaps he meant he donates a lot to charities. He is certainly not someone who is likely to be wasting money. I am a May supporter, but I think Corbyn is a good man too from a personal point of view.

No party represents my views - of wanting a much much smaller state and much lower taxes sadly.

Judashascomeintosomemoney · 15/05/2017 14:42

Jack Dromey refused to admit to Andrew Neil that he was one of the 'rich' a few weeks ago. At the time Labour were saying the 'rich' were those earning GBP70,000, Neil pointed out that as an MPs salary is GBP74,000, Dromey was rich. Of course he couldn't sit there, as a champion of the working people, and say yes I am rich. The following week suddenly GBP80,000 was 'rich' according to Labour. How, er, convenient.

MyBeautifulSquid · 15/05/2017 14:46

It would be quite wealthy to me! But I live in a cheap shit area with a small mortgage. But It is not wealthy for those with massive mortgages / and / or living in the South esp London

And I say this as a Labour member

CillaInDrag · 15/05/2017 14:47

IMO yes it does mean you are wealthy, extremely so compared to most people

Whatthefoxgoingon · 15/05/2017 14:47

I'm so fucked off at the Labour Party. I don't to vote for the tories but this sort of shit makes me think labour are a bunch of hypocrites and don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. There's literally no viable option in my opinion.

Judashascomeintosomemoney · 15/05/2017 14:55

squid but I think OP means it's not the amount, or the context, it's more the hypocrisy of Labour in that if you earn GBP80k (and esp if you vote Tory), YOU are wealthy. If I am the Labour leader (or even just an MP) and earn more than GBP80K, I am NOT wealthy. God no, you are, I'm not. A bit like JC can send HIS DS to Grammar, but you can't. Dianne Abbot can send hers to private school but if you do you're evil and rich. Principles are just for the little people.

Badbadbunny · 15/05/2017 15:04

It's always the same from the "principled":-

People who are higher rate taxpayers are "rich" until you become one yourself.

People who earn more than £80k are "rich" until you become one yourself.

People who earn more than £50k and lose their child benefit are "rich" until you become one yourself.

SantasLittleMonkeyButler · 15/05/2017 15:05

I agree with the PP who said that so long as JC is not in any way claiming that he should personally be exempt from any tax increases, then there is absolutely no issue.

Maybe he isn't personally rich. We have no idea where his money goes - maybe he does give lots away or maybe he has very high outgoings. How would we know? You can earn £10k per month, but if your outgoings are £11k each month are you still rich? Certainly not in terms of money in the bank, no. In assets - maybe.

Some people feel comfortably off with £25k per year, others won't feel comfortable with less than £100k. He personally doesn't consider himself as rich - so what? He obviously does acknowledge that his income is higher than average, as he will be in the bracket to pay more tax.

Nothing to get anyone's knickers in a knot about.

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 15/05/2017 15:08

Over £70,000 is top 10% of earners isn't it?
So yeah, MP'S are rich.
Not the richest. But rich enough to expect to pay more tax.

MissEliza · 15/05/2017 15:14

Ha ha good point Op. You've just pointed what a hypocrite he is.