Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think we can’t revive the country on the backs of the poor, the struggling, or the middle class?

210 replies

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 20:44

Every time there’s an economic crisis, it seems like the burden always fall on the same groups - through tax hikes, cuts to services, and stagnant wages, while the wealthiest remain untouched. Surely a country can’t truly recover if the majority of its people are struggling just to get by? Yet time and time again, we’re told we all have to “tighten our belts” - except, conveniently, those at the top.

AIBU to think this approach isn’t sustainable or is it just the reality of how economies work?

OP posts:
Dearg · 27/07/2025 21:21

Nchangeo · 27/07/2025 21:16

Your right,

We are never going to tax, cut or save our way out of this. The deficit is huge.

The only way is growth. Gov really need to free up and empower small and medium business. Both at home and internationally.

This is the absolute crux of the matter. If you need evidence look no further than Scotland.

Higher taxes on a smaller number of tax payers; large public sector supported by those taxpayers; dwindling business , industry and energy sector.

More tax needed to pay for all the fee stuff that the SNP herald to bring votes; fewer and fewer jobs. A vicious cycle.

We need injections into to the cycle from business growth, investment, the private sector.

Mrsttcno1 · 27/07/2025 21:22

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:17

I get that some high earners are mobile and could relocate but shaping national tax policy around the preferences of the most privileged isn’t sustainable or fair. People earning £200k+ are still in a far better position than the millions struggling with stagnating wages, rising costs and gutted services. The idea that fairness shouldn’t even be attempted because a few might step back or leave just reinforces the imbalance.

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

Again, you don’t seem to see that the top 10% already ARE paying 60% of all income tax. They aren’t a charity, and they aren’t responsible for keeping the country afloat anymore than they already are. Those with the broadest shoulders are already contributing the majority.

1457bloom · 27/07/2025 21:23

Communism doesn’t work!

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:23

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:16

There is already a marginal tax rate of 60% between £100,000 and £125,140. Plus 2% NI and 9% student loan repayments (15% if you did a masters). So that can result in having only 23% of your earnings between those amounts as take-home pay. Do you really think that you can raise that any higher and argue that that is “fair”?

I’m aware of the taper effect and marginal rates in that band and yes, it does look high on paper. But the overall effective tax rate for someone earning £125k is still significantly lower than 60%.

More importantly, fairness isn’t only about percentages. It’s about what people can afford, what public services need to function, and who shoulders the burden when budgets are tight.

If the conversation stops every time a high marginal rate is mentioned, then we’re really just saying “the system can’t be made fairer because the wealthiest won’t like it.” And that’s not a sustainable model for a healthy society.

OP posts:
HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:25

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

I paid over £80k in tax for the 2024/5 tax year. I really don’t see why I should pay more than that. I’m already a net contributor. Increasing my tax burden will just incentivise me to reduce the amount I earn. It’s already happening. The cliff edge at £100k means lots of people drop to PT and/or increase their pension contributions to stay below the threshold. It’s the reason so many doctors are PT.

MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 21:30

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:25

A functioning society needs investment and that means those with the broadest shoulders contributing proportionally. If the only way the system works is by appeasing those most able to leave, maybe it’s time we asked harder questions about what we value.

I paid over £80k in tax for the 2024/5 tax year. I really don’t see why I should pay more than that. I’m already a net contributor. Increasing my tax burden will just incentivise me to reduce the amount I earn. It’s already happening. The cliff edge at £100k means lots of people drop to PT and/or increase their pension contributions to stay below the threshold. It’s the reason so many doctors are PT.

If that's all you paid you obviously aren't counted among the super wealthy, therefore the OP's proposal does not apply to you. She referred to those at the top.

sesquipedalian · 27/07/2025 21:36

OP, consider this -
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Ineednewcurtainsandblinds · 27/07/2025 21:38

Who, by your definition op, are “the wealthiest” and how much do you think they should pay?

Eddielizzard · 27/07/2025 21:38

Nchangeo · 27/07/2025 21:16

Your right,

We are never going to tax, cut or save our way out of this. The deficit is huge.

The only way is growth. Gov really need to free up and empower small and medium business. Both at home and internationally.

Yes to this. Tax just reduces growth and we can't tax our way out of this. We need to encourage businesses to create wealth, not take wealth away from people. When you spend other people's money, it very soon runs out.

We need to make money. That means good incentives for investment in this country and encouraging start ups. Every person on this thread could start their own business, create great products / services, sell them, pay themselves, pay tax. Everyone wins.

Taking money away from people isn't going to do the job. We'll just grind ourselves into the ground.

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:39

MuckFusk · 27/07/2025 21:30

If that's all you paid you obviously aren't counted among the super wealthy, therefore the OP's proposal does not apply to you. She referred to those at the top.

My salary puts me in the top 1% of earners in the UK. OP is absolutely suggesting that people like me should pay more tax. I’m merely pointing out that we can (and will) change our behaviour to avoid doing so.

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:44

sesquipedalian · 27/07/2025 21:36

OP, consider this -
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

It’s a catchy story but it misrepresents how taxation and public goods actually work. In real life, wealth isn’t just “earned” through hard work and beer rounds - it’s also concentrated through inheritance, capital gains, tax loopholes, and access to opportunity. The poor aren’t freeloaders at the table - they’re the ones pouring the drinks, cleaning the bar, and still struggling to afford a seat.

And the idea that the richest will flee if taxed fairly is… revealing. If your commitment to a society ends the moment you’re asked to contribute proportionally, what does that say about the system or the person?

Fairness isn’t about resentment. It’s about recognising that we all benefit from a functioning society and those with the most resources have the greatest capacity to protect it.

OP posts:
ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:48

Ineednewcurtainsandblinds · 27/07/2025 21:38

Who, by your definition op, are “the wealthiest” and how much do you think they should pay?

When I say the wealthiest, I’m talking about individuals and corporations with significant disposable income and accumulated wealth, those in the top few percent who are most insulated from economic shocks and have the greatest capacity to contribute. It’s not just about income, it’s also about assets, tax planning privileges and influence. Someone earning £200k a year is in a very different position from someone earning £25k and someone with £5 million in assets is in a different league again.

As for how much they should pay, I don’t think there’s one magic number. But I do think the burden of national recovery should fall more heavily on those who can comfortably afford it, rather than constantly squeezing those who are already stretched thin.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 27/07/2025 21:50

ForBreezySloth · 27/07/2025 21:48

When I say the wealthiest, I’m talking about individuals and corporations with significant disposable income and accumulated wealth, those in the top few percent who are most insulated from economic shocks and have the greatest capacity to contribute. It’s not just about income, it’s also about assets, tax planning privileges and influence. Someone earning £200k a year is in a very different position from someone earning £25k and someone with £5 million in assets is in a different league again.

As for how much they should pay, I don’t think there’s one magic number. But I do think the burden of national recovery should fall more heavily on those who can comfortably afford it, rather than constantly squeezing those who are already stretched thin.

You’re not wrong on the lower end who are already up to their eyes and can’t afford more. But if you want the upper end to pay you’ll need a way to ensure they don’t just opt out by leaving.

footiego · 27/07/2025 21:51

Well if you look at the figures, currently the top 10% of earners are paying 60% of all income tax, the top 1% of earners are already paying around 30% of all income tax.

The truly rich don't tend to be on PAYE though

footiego · 27/07/2025 21:53

Top 10% of earners paying 60% of all income tax- they quite literally are keeping things going.

Doesn't 65k put you in the top 10? Our wages are shockingly low. And the frozen tax bands are ridiculous

Nchangeo · 27/07/2025 21:53

Eddielizzard · 27/07/2025 21:38

Yes to this. Tax just reduces growth and we can't tax our way out of this. We need to encourage businesses to create wealth, not take wealth away from people. When you spend other people's money, it very soon runs out.

We need to make money. That means good incentives for investment in this country and encouraging start ups. Every person on this thread could start their own business, create great products / services, sell them, pay themselves, pay tax. Everyone wins.

Taking money away from people isn't going to do the job. We'll just grind ourselves into the ground.

Exactly.

Can I just put this quote here to demonstrate the power of small business…

SMEs account for 99.8% of the business population (5.5 million businesses). SMEs account for three-fifths of the employment and around half of turnover in the UK private sector. Total employment in SMEs was 16.6 million (60% of the total), whilst turnover was estimated at £2.8 trillion (52%).

This country is run on small business. We employ the most people. Our turnover is half the countries total.

Everyone talks about the 100k tax trap. That my friends pales in complete comparison to the damage done by the VAT cap. No one has any idea how much growth could occur if they freed up this barrier for small business.

footiego · 27/07/2025 21:55

wealth taxes don't appear to work but we do have a huge issue with housing costs with disproportionately impacts younger people. I don't know how we fix it now.

Summerhillsquare · 27/07/2025 21:55

PowerfulFishRiver · 27/07/2025 21:01

But they're also being paid 35 per cent of all the income, which is far more than their fair share!

Exactly, they ain't all upping sticks, how many options are there with lower taxes for mere millionaires? (Not billionaires, they buy countries not just houses)

Anyway a land value tax and non home capital gains tax is the answer, NOT income tax. Purchase taxes should only be on non renewable resources and should be higher. Standing charges for gas and elec abolished and added to the kWh used. Tax reliefs on higher rate pension contributions and other breaks for the richest abolished. Tax is about more than 'raising' money, it can be used to reduce inequality.

HarryLimeFoxtrot · 27/07/2025 21:57

And the idea that the richest will flee if taxed fairly is… revealing. If your commitment to a society ends the moment you’re asked to contribute proportionally, what does that say about the system or the person?

I’m already paying over £1500 per week in tax. How the fuck do you think that isn’t being “taxed fairly”? And high earners like me ARE ALREADY contributing more proportionately. People have patiently explained that to you over and over again. You’re naive if you genuinely think you can squeeze significantly more tax out of this set of taxpayers. It isn’t happening.

footiego · 27/07/2025 21:58

HMRC counts the wealthy as those earning 200k plus a yr or with assets over 2mill. I don't think they are even sure if they pay the right taxes because their tax affairs are so complex.

EasternStandard · 27/07/2025 21:58

Eddielizzard · 27/07/2025 21:38

Yes to this. Tax just reduces growth and we can't tax our way out of this. We need to encourage businesses to create wealth, not take wealth away from people. When you spend other people's money, it very soon runs out.

We need to make money. That means good incentives for investment in this country and encouraging start ups. Every person on this thread could start their own business, create great products / services, sell them, pay themselves, pay tax. Everyone wins.

Taking money away from people isn't going to do the job. We'll just grind ourselves into the ground.

Yes this

footiego · 27/07/2025 21:59

Anyway a land value tax and non home capital gains tax is the answer,

Which will disproportionately impact pensioners as they have the majority of the housing wealth. They won't want to pay...

MarvellousMonsters · 27/07/2025 22:01

BallerinaRadio · 27/07/2025 20:54

We couldn't possibly tax the rich people any more no we don't want them to run away do we however would we cope without the rich people who make us all better off

🙄

But it trickles down….. Hmm

ForWittyTealOP · 27/07/2025 22:01

Mrsttcno1 · 27/07/2025 20:50

Well if you look at the figures, currently the top 10% of earners are paying 60% of all income tax, the top 1% of earners are already paying around 30% of all income tax.

Increasing that further will just drive those earners away, lots of them have already left to set up elsewhere and suddenly then we don’t see any of their tax.

Oh not this again. Firstly that demonstrates nothing except that wealth inequality is wildly out of balance in the UK. Secondly higher rate tax payers consistently overestimate how much of the country's income is derived from income tax. Yeah they might pay more income tax (lower earners pay more proportionately in regressive taxes like VAT and council taxes) but they're really not keeping the country afloat by the sweat of their brow.

RhaenysRocks · 27/07/2025 22:03

But where do you put the line for "wealthy"? If the VAT on school fees debates showed anything it's that there's no agreement. There are thousands if perfectly ordinary households with ordinary professional jobs who are scraping every barrel they have to afford fees because their local state offering is poor or doesn't meet SEN etc. Outside of the SE, where housing is less, it is possible to do it, but the vast majority of threads refused to accept that anyone who can JUST afford it, cannot actually just find 20% more. Apparently anyone who can achieve it is one of "them" and rolling in it. The reality is that those parents, if given a good state option would take it and be spending the money on a cleaner, a gardener, eating out more, supporting the local economy.

Theres no objective way of calculating "rich". Some would say I am..a SP on about 50k. I have a mortgage that I will not be able to pay off til I sell and downsize when i retire. My teens are expensive to run and will continue to be for probably at least another 5-10 years. I have debt, a crappy car. But I earn 50k which will sound like lots to some and a pittance to others. You can put that line anywhere.

Swipe left for the next trending thread