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

[ForBreezySloth]

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?

Create a tax haven. That’s how other countries do it. The more you incentivise people to pay tax the more they pay.

@Eddielizzard so how do you encourage businesses to create wealth? Businesses and governments haven't invested in staff/people hence reduced productivity. Obviously Brexit hasn't helped. We also have too much concentrated in London and not enough growth in other cities.

Probably should have read the thread - a very informative article.

I think the level of anger in your response actually highlights the wider point I was making. No one is denying that high earners contribute a lot in raw numbers but fairness in taxation isn’t just about absolute figures, it’s also about how wealth is structured and who bears the brunt when times are tough.

If someone is paying £1,500/week in tax, that suggests they’re earning an incredibly high income. That puts them in a position of privilege and insulation compared to the majority of people who are facing stagnant wages, crumbling services and little ability to absorb shocks.

The question isn’t “can we squeeze more?” it’s “can we rebalance better, especially when the current system continues to hit the same groups hardest time and time again?” A fairer society isn’t about punishing success, it’s about asking more of those who can afford more when the alternative is asking too much of those who can’t.

Growth came from closer trading relationships from our nearest neighbors and the connectivity that that globally gave us. Growth figures were undeniably strong at that point

Brexit destroyed that, and companies either left or stagnated or gave up like my own business at the time. The magic Brexit beanstalk believers will claim otherwise but the numbers prove I’m right.

We don’t have a lot to offer other than money laundering/ house of cards ponzi money games and stalling property inflation now.

Oh, I forgot…we have frothing, angry patriotism. How appealing. Very conducive to growth.

OP I think a weakness in your argument is you haven’t really defined what you mean by “fairness” beyond “rich people should pay more.” You talk about contributing proportionately. As others have pointed out rich people already pay a disproportionate amount of their income in tax. Maybe “fairness” would demand they pay the same proportion as everyone else (ie less)? Some might say that in a country where over half of households are net cash recipients from the state fairness would demand that those people be asked to pay more, as they would in most European countries?

For what it’s worth I bought a house last year - standard 4 bed terraced in zone 3 London. Between income tax, NI, council tax and the stamp duty, I worked out my total tax rate was above 75%. So I was working purely for the government until October. Obviously I’m not going to be buying another house anytime soon, but that was pretty gutting. I really struggle with the idea that “fairness” says that 75% (or 45% in an ordinary year) isn’t enough.

Think about how much is spent daily on the immigration fiasco. We need to pause that for the moment and get our own affairs in order

How do you suggest we rebalance?

There are threads like these every week "Tax the rich" but no clarity on who the rich are and how we tax them any more. Just vague words.

I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying - the line between “comfortable” and “wealthy” can be incredibly murky, especially once you factor in region, cost of living, family structure, or things like SEN provision that push people into private options out of necessity, not luxury. My post isn’t about vilifying individual families trying to do their best - it’s about recognising that systemic pressure keeps falling on the same income brackets over and over, while wealth in the top few percent (we’re talking serious assets, capital income, inheritance, financial insulation) often remains shielded.

If we’re serious about recovery, fairness needs to involve nuance, yes, but also the courage to distinguish between struggling professionals, the comfortably off, and the truly wealthy. The danger is when public debate gets stuck treating everyone above the average as “rich” and everyone below as “lazy” - both are unhelpful caricatures.

Here’s a couple ideas off the top of my head

You tax eg foreign owned amazon a percentage for each and every delivery they make in the UK.
so it pushes up prices-good!

You tax foreign owned assets in the U.K. ie Russian/anywhere in the world… property and company assets at a far higher rate.
They can’t pick up their house or land and leave!

If those multi billionaires want those things here- charge them more

We don’t have a lot to offer other than money laundering/ house of cards ponzi money games and stalling property inflation now.

We fucked up by making housing the economy & we can't increase taxes because so much income is spent on housing particularly for the young.

Lower taxes you mean? It’s hard to convince the electorate. Although after taxes go up with Labour maybe it’ll swing the other way.

We probably can't raise income tax, but we could tax wealth, or tax nonlabour income at the same rate as labour income. We could also make pensioners pay national insurance.

You’re right that fairness is one of those slippery concepts that people interpret differently depending on where they sit in the system. For me, fairness isn’t just about percentages on a payslip but about outcomes and resilience: who ends up financially secure, who can access decent services without stress and who bears the brunt when things go wrong. It’s true that higher earners contribute a lot in income tax but we rarely talk about how wealth (not just earnings) is taxed far less heavily. Capital gains, property portfolios, inherited assets, those are often where inequality calcified.

The point isn’t to say that someone like you, paying a huge bill just to buy a family home, isn’t already contributing. It’s to ask why billionaires and large corporate interests so often avoid proportionate contribution entirely and why political choices keep squeezing people like you instead of addressing that structural imbalance.

So yes, fairness needs a definition. Mine would be: those with the broadest shoulders contribute not just more but in ways that reflect real economic power, not just wage income. And public services should deliver enough values that contributors at every level feel supported, not short-changed.

it's the middle & lower earners who pay less tax here vs other European countries but the issue is housing costs.

I agree with you OP.

Cutting someone's benefits means they won't be able to pay their rent/bills and feed themselves correctly. It has a huge, negative impact.

Just like taxing working people who barely make ends meet already will just push them over the edge.

However making wealthy individuals pay a bit more tax will hardly make any difference to their privileged, comfortable lifestyle.

That's the difference.

Always taking from those who already have very little is not going to grow the economy and it morally repugnant.

This is not why people voted Labour.

But you just have to read this thread to see how deeply people are brainswashed into thinking that the poor are the problem and cling to our ultra capitalist system even when you can see that it is failing most of us.

We could also make pensioners pay national insurance.

100% but it won't happen for today's pensioners. Future generations will pay it as their state pension age is older.

Ffs

"The rich" pay > 60% of everything. The 1% pay > 30%. They don't take out of the system and have the means to live somewhere without punitive taxes. Why do you hate wealth creators?

This is because we’ve based the growth of our economy on property price inflation via easy money (nice if you could get it ten years ago), ability for dodgy money to flood the country to buy up such assets/critical utilities, flog all the social housing, let the rich and older generations get richer,

And screw the future generations. Yay, dreamy isn’t it.

I get that “tax the rich” can sound like a slogan unless it’s paired with specifics so here are a few thoughts:

close tax loopholes and reliefs that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest - like non-dom status, carried interest exemptions, or inheritance tax planning that allows millions to be passed on tax-free

align capital gains tax more closely with income tax, so someone making money from selling assets pays a similar rate to someone earning through a salary

introduce more graduated property and land taxes, especially for second homes or extremely high-value real estate that’s under-taxed relative to value

reform pension tax relief, which currently gives disproportionately higher benefits to top earners

corporate tax transparency and accountability, especially for large multinationals shifting profits overseas to minimise UK tax liability

The point isn’t to vilify high earners - it’s to ensure the system isn’t skewed toward those already best insulated from economic shocks. We’ve had over a decade of real-terms public service cuts while extreme wealth has soared. Rebalancing means making sure we’re not always asking the lowest earners to make up the shortfall.

I don’t hate wealth creators. I question a system that calls them that while downplaying the structural advantages many started with or the public infrastructure they rely on to thrive. Roads, education, legal systems, healthcare, all funded collectively.

No one succeeds in a vacuum. The point isn’t to punish wealth, it’s to ask whether those with the broadest shoulders are contributing fairly when the system is clearly buckling for everyone else. When teachers are using food banks and A&E corridors are the new waiting rooms, it’s worth asking is it really ‘punitive’ to expect more from those who’ve benefited most?

What is “wealthy” to you ?

I agree those at the top should be taxed something and by those at the top I mean the the likes of Rishi Sunak who makes 50K of passive income a week. People who are asset rich and cash poor. They should be paying enough tax that forces them to release those assets.

We are in Scotland and paying an 80% marginal tax rate via PAYE. We would be better off earning less due to all the stuff we don’t get access to. I mean the economy cannot grow with such a punitive tax regime. We have no more to give!

There are also not enough net contributors to the system.

The top 10% will leave and things will only get worse.

@Lonelycrab absolutely, it's fucked.

Rather than taxing the incomes of the rich perhaps we should raise the tax rate on things that aren't good for the country generally. I would start with second homes / Air B and B, inheritance flights and new cars. In many cases it would still be a way of taxing the rich.

I think conversations like this highlight how broken the current framing is. Wealthy shouldn’t just mean a salary number - it should include assets, investments, and how insulated someone is from economic shocks. Passive income like Sunak’s is exactly the kind of thing that needs reform.

I agree that squeezing middle earners through PAYE while letting capital gains slide by lightly taxed isn’t sustainable. That’s why I think we need smarter taxation - not just higher rates but closing loopholes, taxing unearned income properly, and making the system less reliant on a shrinking group of salaried workers. It’s not about punishing success - it’s about asking whether the balance is fair and who’s quietly carrying the weight.