Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

This may be unpopular - but what about the squeezed middle?

590 replies

AndroidUsername · 24/10/2022 07:43

They are talking about raising taxes on the average person now. Which will really effect lower middle class families who are already feeling the pinch due to increases in cost of food, gas and electic, increasing childcare costs and rent or morgage increases. They are going to increase pensions and benefits with inflation but lots of middle class earners are not having their wages increased with inflation but will now have their taxes increased. What about help for the middle class, especially lower middle class and working class who earn slightly to much to qualify for any help but will now stuggle with all these increases.

OP posts:
HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 24/10/2022 12:52

Posters pointing out the short sighted politics are absolutely right

They only care about the next 5 years.

And so do voters

Look at climate changed. Been know about since the 80s

Not a lot has changed. People certainly don't want to change behaviour if it affects them directly.

We that will mean we will pay more in the long run Firstly with money and then with health and life's.

Countries that take the long game will come out best. Not us.

Bacibaci · 24/10/2022 12:52

Former millionaire trader Gary Stephenson explains how the super rich increased their wealth under covid in this short video.

Gary here six months ago talking to Times radio says tax the rich like him more.

Jaxhog · 24/10/2022 12:52

Mydogatemypurse · 24/10/2022 08:06

Its the people who work eg public sector workers whos wages are very much behind inflation levels. They dont qualify for housing or benefit help and end up worse off than if they didnt work.

If you believe this, then you obviously don't work in the private sector! Public sector workers are generally doing a lot better than those in small businesses in particular. It's horrendous at the moment.

MintJulia · 24/10/2022 12:52

I'm a single mum too, but old enough to have been through this before.

I'm going to cut back hard, home cook, eat cheaper, turn the heating down, concentrate on keeping my family warm, fed and healthy. No major purchases unless I absolutely cannot avoid it. Essentials only. Hide the credit card and try to come out of this without a major increase in debt.

We're in for a couple of tight years but we knew that would happen after Covid. 🙁

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 24/10/2022 12:52

Bloody typos. You get the gist.

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 24/10/2022 12:53

Small business owners tend to vote Tory though. What do you expect?

Worriedddd · 24/10/2022 12:53

People were taking bounce back loans to use as house deposits when stamp duty was frozen. Or taking the money then running abroad. I know this my OH earns 6 figures as a self employed contractor and some of his colleagues were doing it.

Watzzap · 24/10/2022 12:55

FreddyHG · 24/10/2022 08:01

It's the price demanded by so many of the vocal people on here who want raised benefits and health spending. Someone has to pay for it.

This ^^ unfortunately. The money has to come from somewhere.

As a thought….would people like the U.K. to stop immigration and giving international aid, so the money could be used to help the poorest in this country?

bercan · 24/10/2022 12:55

I honestly think the west is in decline.

well yes because we have had no investment or growth (except in housing) for years plus we are ageing.

Worriedddd · 24/10/2022 12:58

bercan · 24/10/2022 12:55

I honestly think the west is in decline.

well yes because we have had no investment or growth (except in housing) for years plus we are ageing.

Yep and the short termism policies will do absolutely nothing to fix it. The next few years are going to be hard I only hope we can come up with solutions.

MavisChunch29 · 24/10/2022 12:59

I think there was always going to be a shift in standards of living as the world starts to become more equal in terms of pay, but the fact remains that the uber rich - I'm talking FTSE 100 directors and above in salaries - haven't shifted in their standards, in fact they have only become richer as they hoover up more of the available money at any one time. So if they were made to be a bit less greedy by proper global tax systems - no loopholes, no hiding places, then the wealth could generally be better distributed and everyone can have a good standard of living!

PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior · 24/10/2022 12:59

bercan · 24/10/2022 12:41

of course there was abuse but the idea of furlough to protect peoples jobs so when things open up again the industry still exists makes sense in lockdown scenarios.

@Worriedddd what would you have done differently in a lockdown?

Lockdown simply would not have been workable without furlough. I'd agree this wasn't made clear enough at the time though.

Worriedddd · 24/10/2022 13:01

PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior · 24/10/2022 12:59

Lockdown simply would not have been workable without furlough. I'd agree this wasn't made clear enough at the time though.

No it wasn't and they didn't make clear what the economic consequences would be. Many people thought the magic money tree would go on forever surely people knew inflation and depression was coming after printing so much money ?

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:02

People were taking bounce back loans to use as house deposits when stamp duty was frozen.

so you think no pay even if you can't work because some people are fraudulent? Do you believe benefits should still exist?

MotherofPearl · 24/10/2022 13:02

GoGoose · 24/10/2022 12:49

I will leave the important comments from the Guy Hands interview here. They really do corroborate my own experience recently. Investors need some convincing the UK is the place to invest. It is not as if there are few opportunities elsewhere - the world is highly competitive. When investment is made, it will be at a higher price for the UK as the returns on inward investment will now increase comparatively higher. I have emphasised the important parts (to me anyway).

>>

"Guy Hands, who runs private equity firm Terra Firma and has been a Brexit critic, warned the UK faces higher taxes, lower benefits and a possible International Monetary Fund bailout.

His comments come after a tumultuous period sparked by the mini-budget.
But Mr Hands suggested the problems facing the UK go back much further.

"The reality is when they did Brexit, they had a dream. And the dream was a low-tax, low-benefit economy," he told the BBC's Today programme.

Outgoing Prime Minister Liz Truss had tried to push through those policies, but it had not worked, he said.

"Once you accept that you can't actually do that, then the Brexit that was done is completely hopeless, and will only drive Britain into a disastrous economic state," Mr Hands said.

"So I think [if] the Tory party can own up to the mistake they made and how they negotiated Brexit and have somebody leading who actually has the intellectual capability and the authority to renegotiate Brexit, there is a possibility of turning around the economy, but without that the economy is frankly doomed."

He added that the Conservative Party was, in his view, not fit to run the country.
"I think it's got to move on from fighting its own internal wars and actually focus on what needs to be done in economy and admitting some of the mistakes they've made in the last six years which have frankly put this country on a path to be the sick man of Europe," he said.

**

Mr Hunt - who is backing Mr Sunak - is scheduled to set out the government's economic plan for taxes and spending on 31 October. But Mr Hands argued that much more needs to be done, in order to turn the economy around.

He said that as a businessperson, he tried to be positive about the investment landscape.

But the reality, he said, is the country faces "increasing levels of poverty, and it's poverty which is moving up the economic level", reaching middle income households who will struggle to pay their mortgages.

He painted a stark prospect for the economy, saying to expect "steadily increasing taxes, steadily reducing benefits and social services, higher interest rates, and eventually the need for a bailout from the IMF".

Mr Hands comments come after a warning at the weekend from a former governor of the Bank of England, Lord Mervyn King, who said the UK was facing a "more difficult" era of austerity than the one after the 2008 financial crisis in order to stabilise the economy.

Lord King said the average person could face "significantly higher taxes" to fund public spending."

I've just read the full interview and he speaks a lot of sense.

goldfinchonthelawn · 24/10/2022 13:03

Magn · 24/10/2022 08:11

I had a bit of a look in to this after a recent thread. Apparently fewer than half the people in this country are net contributors via tax which is much lower than it was say 50 years ago, largely driven by the percentages of retired people. This makes it much harder to raise support as fewer people are worth taxing so you need to raise their taxes more for the same outcome, and at a point where all their costs are going up too. I don't know what the answer is.

This is what I've never understood. If the vast majority of people are struggling on low wages they can't pay much tax nor can they boost the economy by spending as they have no free cash. It goes on mortgage, commute, utilities and food.

If all the wealth bottlenecks at the top it can't trickle down. If the super rich were forced to pay a healthy living wage to all their employees, if we changed the law so that companies could prioritise wages, customer value and work environment over shareholder dividends, then surely, eventually everything would start moving again. We'd all be richer, we'd all spend more. Even the most extravant wealthy people can't eat out in more than one restaurant at a time - how can that wealth trickle down?

And if we were all better paid, then we'd all pay more tax instead of the money being siphoned off into tax avoidance schemes for the super rich. So we could then invest in NHS, schools, transport. The wealthier the minions, the healthier the economy, I would have thought. But it's never put to the test.

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:03

Many people thought the magic money tree would go on forever surely people knew inflation and depression was coming after printing so much money ?

who are these people you are talking about?

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:04

logically people are always going to care what they have in their pockets now then in 2 yrs time.

Worriedddd · 24/10/2022 13:05

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:03

Many people thought the magic money tree would go on forever surely people knew inflation and depression was coming after printing so much money ?

who are these people you are talking about?

People now asking for energy and mortgage bailouts.

MichelleScarn · 24/10/2022 13:07

Ginandthings · 24/10/2022 11:00

The idea of means testing to decide if you pay to use a service we already pay for is a very scary thought! I understand that things can’t go on as they are but rather than taking more from people someone needs to take an honest look at how things are run.
I’m a single parent to 2 dc who works full time and earn £60k, on paper it looks ok, until you deduct childcare, mortgage (cheaper than rent), the fact I’m entitled to nothing, not even child benefit. I genuinely struggle to pay all the bills each month, my ex pays the absolute minimum but obviously means testing just looks at income rather than outgoings.

Agree with this, very scary to be what it feels like to be double charged for this. But I've found you often get vitriol for saying that. "Oh well it's your fault for choosing these outcomes/lifestyle. Just move or earn more"

GoGoose · 24/10/2022 13:10

Worriedddd · 24/10/2022 12:53

People were taking bounce back loans to use as house deposits when stamp duty was frozen. Or taking the money then running abroad. I know this my OH earns 6 figures as a self employed contractor and some of his colleagues were doing it.

HMRC are methodically combing through small businesses and prosecuting those were evidence points to loans not being used for business purposes. Sole traders and 'one-man companies' are a specific target as are those put into liquidation or an informal 'strike-off' at Companies House. Banks are routinely supplying HMRC with details of borrowers, company numbers and bank records. Not using a BBL for business purposes is likely to be fraud and this includes drawing the money back out to pay the sole trader or director's domestic costs. There are regular prosecutions and being banned from directorships for 5 plus years. Voluntary disclosure to HMRC will avoid this. Business insurance policies will shortly be asking the question if BBL / CBILS were used wholly for qualifying purposes - lie and the policy is invalid.

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:10

People now asking for energy and mortgage bailouts.

so most of the population then?! 😆

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:11

energy prices have been hugely impacted by the war though so not sure how the gov could have warned people about that?

Worriedddd · 24/10/2022 13:15

bercan · 24/10/2022 13:11

energy prices have been hugely impacted by the war though so not sure how the gov could have warned people about that?

No but they should have told the public the reality of printing lots of money. We can hand out this money but things will get very painful for UK PLC going forward. They simply don't have the money to bail everyone out now, interest rates are going up including the national debt. Taxes will need to probably rise.

RosaGallica · 24/10/2022 13:16

Weonlyhavealoanofit · 24/10/2022 11:49

The older I get, and I’m retired, the more it’s apparent that ‘the system’ doesn’t work. Post war, there was plenty of work in factories and the nation produced a huge amount of things which the rest of the world wanted. For a variety of reasons, not least Thatcher’s determination to destroy the unions, successive governments have embraced the ideology of globalization and light touch regulation. Now we have an economy which is about ‘financial services’ and dominated by activity in the City of London. The SE has seen growth, but the rest of the UK (bar some isolated pockets of wealth) has struggled and part of the struggle is the failure to tax fairly and squarely, the very rich including corporations. For far too long, the rules have been deliberately designed to benefit the very rich, be it the use of ‘non-dom’ status or the use of secretive trusts, contrived off shore arrangements and the use of off the shelf companies, to hide monies. The tax burden is heaviest on those who are not rich. It is lightest for those at the top who are most able to pay. Until ‘we’ insist on a fairer tax system and stop pretending that “small government: low taxes” improves our society, the squeeze will continue. Very rich people can bypass all of the things funded by the state. They don’t need a good Public Health Service, good state schools, libraries, geriatric care facilities and a functioning transport system. These same people/corporations don’t need a functioning robust parliamentary democracy, their influence is bought using lobbyists and donating to its party of choice. Does the economy exist to benefit the nation or is it the other way round?

This. Neoliberalism was a theory that promoted international movement of capital, and paid no attention to actual production and how the things we need are made. Similarly home-grown sustainability was waved aside in favour of the idea of a globalised market and - can’t remember what it’s called - the idea that each region of the world should specialise in one area. Lovely idea if all the world cooperated and was at peace and there were no transportation impacts on the environment. London’s economy boomed with all that “lovely” international investment they went on about, and with deregulation freed up those who made money from everyone else’s work to buy the country out from under us. The house prices were the start of the practical impacts, coupled with the reduction in jobs that saw the massive competitive push into more qualifications, which then had to be paid for by someone.

To a pp who asked why ‘we’ allowed it, it was because money for nothing was waved at the boomers, who were the first generation to face consumerism and teenagerdom. In large part they got irritated with complaints from what was then the much smaller population of under-30s who they exploited to make their wealth. They concocted every excuse they could to ignore us. It’s only when the millennium generation grew up and sheer numbers tipped things over that we had the numbers to make them hear.

Swipe left for the next trending thread