Page 11 | A 1p / 2p raise to income tax should lawfully trigger a general election

TesChique · 2025-10-30T06:27:27+00:00

There are vague promises in manifestos, and there are those which are explicit and should be binding except in exceptional circumstances (war etc) If labour, or any party reneges on a core manifesto promise it should lawfully trigger a general election They have lied to the public. AIBU to think we need to see this change in law?

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 10:09

BadgernTheGarden · 30/10/2025 09:33

So why is the rest of Europe also struggling?

Brexit was a long time ago now, about time to stop blaming everything on that, look to the future, and sort out the current problems.

Show quote history

The rest of Europe don't have the highest prices for food we are witnessing, The 'Food Foundation’s Basic Basket', shows a 27% increase in cost since April 2022, it is the stuff of fairytales to think that when you cut off your closest trading partner your food bills won't be impacted- THANKS BREXIT!

I was visiting family in Germany in the summer, in a tourist hotspot, ice cream could be bought for 2 euros the equivalent ice cream would be £5 here. I visited Aldi frequently and it was like going back in time with the food bill, £5 -£10 difference!!

snowmichael · 30/10/2025 10:10

Happyjoe · 30/10/2025 08:20

Lol, we didn't get an election to kick out the tories when they lied and lied about brexit did we? That cause far more damage to this country, some people still stick their heads in the sand as to how much and want to vote Farage for even more rubbish that will further ruin this country.

No. Can have an election when due, that's how it works.

> Can have an election when due, that's how it works.
"When it's due" could be tomorrow or any time before 2029 (with 28 day's notice of course)
We do not have fixed term parliaments

cloudtreecarpet · 30/10/2025 10:11

The mistake Labour made was not biting the bullet and putting a penny on income tax when they first came in. They should have just done it, apologised but explained (as they did) that things were worse than they thought and then got on with the job knowing they couldn't be chucked out straight away.
But they were scared off by the view that raising tax is what Labour "always does" so they tried something else with the NI change hoping big business would soak that up.
Of course they didn't, didn't reduce top pay or share dividends but cried poverty and stopped expanding, employing more people or even laid people off. This played perfectly into the aim of turning Labour supporters away from the party & from the left in general. Reform have seen this and stepped in to the gap.

We are being played as a nation by the super rich, by big businesses and vested interests.
There is enough money to go around, there is enough money to provide decent public services, there is enough money to lift people out of poverty. It's just stuck in fewer and fewer people's hands.

EasternStandard · 30/10/2025 10:11

hettie · 30/10/2025 09:55

In this country there has always been an interesting narrative about tax. It's 'unfair' or a 'burden' or 'we shouldn't have to pay so much' some other unidentified poor sod should pay more but not me
Which is odd because we still aren't anywhere near the top tax taking countries ranked either against developed countries or overall. See the graphs (from the OBR and the non partisan tax foundation for balance).
What we have had (and this possibly feeds the narrative) for the last 20 or so years is a dogmatic belief in light touch regulation and free market capitalism as the solution to everything. Privatisation and market forces is great in some contexts and sectors utterly shit in others. Our taxes have been wasted. If the top of my head recent examples would include:
The olympic games G4 contract failure.
Carrilion failure
PPI for capital funding for hospitals and schools.
The privatisation of certain bits of national infrastructure (water, trains and I would argue buses, definitely BT weirdly keeping a monopoly on all the infrastructure for broadband etc effectively creating a monopoly).
More awfully still:- the PPE and COVID loans scandals, the privatisation then the nationalisation of the probation service, the corporate capture by venture capitalists of children's homes (children's homes FFS...) and the unsafe services they have provided, the 'green insulation' scandal where the levy from bill payers went to unregulated cowboy 'traders' who have wrecked homes, caused mould and damp and have now buggered off with the cash leaving the state to pick up the bill. The cladding scandal (again we will all be paying for this...).
The awful list has not just wasted taxes, but have caused harm. They are all market failures or a result of poor regulation and oversight. And that has been due to a frankly stupid and dogmatic belief that the market is always right and will correct things and that the state needs to get out of the way. Bullshit narratives about cutting red tape and releasing the transformative potential of the private sector. Unregulated and unfettered free market capitalism just does not serve the best interests of a whole society. It's a fantasy.
If course the equally stupid fantasy is that if we soak the rich and completely stifle capitals ability to move fluidly and re nationilse everything then we will be sorted.
Honestly watching the debate in this country sometimes is like being stuck in a third grade 6th form common room debate where no one has read animal farm.
Back to the OP...Tax is good. It's a mark of a civilised democracy, relatively speaking as a country we aren't really over taxed. Loopholes need to go and the distribution needs sorting (income tax is actually very good at this, it's quite progressive). And yes everyone probably does feel we pay 'too.much tax' for shit services, but that's because we haven't had a balanced approach where the state operated with appropriate checks and balances to make the private sector work for us and the good management of delivery functions of government/the public realm have been eroded. Poor scrutiny, lack of talent and a whole lot of bullshit have lead us to this place and depressingly I don't see it changing any time soon. We fall for grifters and bullshit and promises of quick fixes in this country not boring competence (which takes time).

‘Tax is good’

It’s not good at getting growth so you’ll be asking for more next year.

Labour couldn’t stick to their last budget pledge because those higher ‘good’ taxes hammered growth.

snowmichael · 30/10/2025 10:11

CeeJay81 · 30/10/2025 08:21

I kind of agree with a small income tax rise but single people on minimum wage, are entitled to very little in benefits.1% would only be like £5 a week but when you have very little money to budget with as it is, it's just going to make it harder. Minimum wage isn't enough to live on.

> £5 a week
That's three meals or two journeys to work if you're on low income

purplely · 30/10/2025 10:11

OP if you really believe everything the politicians - of any party - tell you then you are incredibly naive.

EasternStandard · 30/10/2025 10:12

Florencesndzebedee · 30/10/2025 10:05

This is the best post I have read on Mumsnet in a long time.

Show quote history

Maybe if you’re Reeves or Starmer

snowmichael · 30/10/2025 10:13

MojoMoon · 30/10/2025 08:28

Manifestos are not a legally binding document.
A parliamentary term is five years - things happen and a government has to respond to that, not be bound to a document written a few years ago.

There is not more special about a manifesto statement on income tax any more than a statement on any other kind of tax. Or any other policy.
Do you want an election if they change their minds on VAT? Or CGT?

> A parliamentary term is five years
No it isn't
We do not have fixed-term parliaments
The maximum a government can go without calling an election is five years, but even that can be overridden by parliament

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 10:13

ChelseaBagger · 30/10/2025 10:06

I think it's fair that if there's a deficit to make up, we should all contribute towards it.

Obviously there will always be some lower earners who take more from the system then they contribute, which is right and proper But we can't rely on a few at/near the top to subsidise our whole society - it's not fair, and it's precarious (the Dubai exodus is well and truly in motion).

If they are all leaving for Dubai, who is frequenting the restaurants in London where the cheapest bottle of wine is £70? Is it because they like the heritage and cultural opulence of a city like London?

grrrlatrix · 30/10/2025 10:14

😂

Cinnamon77 · 30/10/2025 10:14

There are decent socialist women in the Labour Party but Starmer appointed the useless, corrupt ones to his cabinet.

It's time to get rid of HIM, not the Labour government

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 10:14

If they are all leaving for Dubai, who is frequenting the restaurants in London where the cheapest bottle of wine is £70?

pensioners?

snowmichael · 30/10/2025 10:16

WildLimePoet · 30/10/2025 08:30

If you’re only going to be paying a couple of hundred more in tax per year, the you have nothing to be annoyed about. You are probably not a net contributor and are taking more from the system than they you are paying in. Your taxes are not going to make any difference.

Show quote history

Your arithmetic is abominable
If someone is paying £200 more per year as a result of a 1% rise, that means they are currently paying £20,000 p.a.
So they are almost certainly a net contributor

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 10:17

Tax is good’

It’s not good at getting growth so you’ll be asking for more next year.

Well it's nuanced.

Good public services that are funded by tax that results in a healthy, educated, economically productive population particularly amongst the young does result in growth.

The shit bit is when you have high taxes and declining public services.

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 10:18

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 10:14

If they are all leaving for Dubai, who is frequenting the restaurants in London where the cheapest bottle of wine is £70?

pensioners?

No, pensioners don't account for the makeup of these fully booked at the weekend restaurants in central London. I mean, they may make up one or two but no, they are not all pensioners.

iamoit · 30/10/2025 10:18

It’s frustrating because taxes are already rising every year by stealth with the threshold freeze, so this is a double whammy. I do fully support a socialist society but I do not trust this government (nor any other in recent times), nor indeed the electorate frankly, to deliver it. Services are shit, quality of life feels like it is rapidly declining whereas I grew up thinking it naturally progressed.

We are just not a prosperous country, for lots of reasons. And I don’t see how we improve that without a more productive economy, which doesn’t appear to be materialising any time soon.

HRTQueen · 30/10/2025 10:18

No

I do not want a government that only works in a way to keep their voters happy/support the general publics opinion that is populism politics

Governments have to make difficult choices that very often disappoint many people

if that mean breaking manifesto promises then so be it, it was a very foolish promise (one I personally didn’t believe) to make in the first place given the issues they know they faced

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 10:19

@Goldenbear I was being facetious

Northquit · 30/10/2025 10:19

The economy works by people having money to spend in it.

This will stop people having as much money to spend. Bear in mind food, water and energy bills are mountain climbing at the moment and you'll realise this is a real doom-laden piece of shit for them to do,

They need to encourage businesses and employment.
You can collect more tax across more people and the world gets better.

Some of us are ready to pop we've been squeezed that much.

Goldenbear · 30/10/2025 10:21

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 10:19

@Goldenbear I was being facetious

I know but there probably are pensioners in that setting, wealthy ones so just wanted to be accurate.

snowmichael · 30/10/2025 10:22

TiredofLDN · 30/10/2025 08:44

At the best guess, Brexit has cost the economy approximately 100bn a year. 5% of the economy (though this is ofc contested). John Springford’s analysis - CER think tank- is considered as good as it can be, given the number of variables - and that’s roughly where he comes out.

Thats not nothing, is it?

Brexit was the most enormous act of self harm. And has achieved nothing except made us look foolish, irrelevant, and relatively friendless, in a world where we desperately all need friends.

Show quote history

> At the best guess, Brexit has cost the economy approximately 100bn a year. 5% of the economy
So, not even close to half of the problem
Assuming all that was profit and should be taxed is the mistake made by those with economically illiterate minds
Brexit is responsible for a reduction in PAYE/VAT tax take ... of about £2-3bn annually at most
But that reduction is more than made up for in increased income from tariffs (£3-4bn but now declining) on EU inward goods

Didimum · 30/10/2025 10:26

GasPanic · 30/10/2025 09:47

Sounds exactly the same as the UK, apart from the labour markets.

Show quote history

Except it isn't exactly the same.

And that's why I pointed out the difference in recoverability. France has and will remain more economically integrated and stable. It attracts more foreign investment, its industrial base and energy sector are stronger due to its reliance on nuclear power. Socially, France's welfare state and labour protections help cushion people against inflation and unemployment better than the UK, where COL have risen faster and real wages have fallen more sharply.

Despite bouts of political unrest in rest, it remains anchored in the EU framework, giving it a degree of predicability and stability that investors and markets value.

So no, France's economy isn't perfect, but avoiding the dislocation of Brexit means it has weathered global shocks more effectively that the UK.

JHound · 30/10/2025 10:26

You are being ridiculous.

EasternStandard · 30/10/2025 10:28

Didimum · 30/10/2025 10:26

Except it isn't exactly the same.

And that's why I pointed out the difference in recoverability. France has and will remain more economically integrated and stable. It attracts more foreign investment, its industrial base and energy sector are stronger due to its reliance on nuclear power. Socially, France's welfare state and labour protections help cushion people against inflation and unemployment better than the UK, where COL have risen faster and real wages have fallen more sharply.

Despite bouts of political unrest in rest, it remains anchored in the EU framework, giving it a degree of predicability and stability that investors and markets value.

So no, France's economy isn't perfect, but avoiding the dislocation of Brexit means it has weathered global shocks more effectively that the UK.

Show quote history

No it hasn’t weathered them better.

Legolava · 30/10/2025 10:28

snowmichael · 30/10/2025 10:16

Your arithmetic is abominable
If someone is paying £200 more per year as a result of a 1% rise, that means they are currently paying £20,000 p.a.
So they are almost certainly a net contributor

Show quote history

Are you sure about that? Maybe before calling other people out on arithmetic, check your own…

If they pay £200 more because of a 1p rise. Roughly, they are on about £32,500. They will be paying tax of around £4K currently. Certainly not in net contributor stage.

To pay £20,000 a year in tax, you’d be on about £81k with no PC. With a 1p rise that would be £680 ish.