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.

AIBU Income Tax rise.

627 replies

H202too · 30/10/2025 09:56

To be panicking about income tax rise.

Things are tight and to loae even £30-60 a month will be difficult.

I know people are talking about the mansion tax being a no go. But I would prefer this than taxing the workers as per usual.
The tax free rate should be put up. What a mess.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Bruisername · 30/10/2025 13:40

when rates were super high in the 70s the super rich moved abroad (Monaco is still very popular)

there was the story of the led zeppelin singer - his wife was in an accident and he jetted in to visit her in hospital and was told he had to leave before midnight to protect his tax position - so he did!

the world is more globalised than ever making it easier to move abroad for those with jobs that don’t need a specific geographical location

BananaPeels · 30/10/2025 13:41

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 13:37

But I think it's a bit of a cop-out to just say 'well all the super-rich will leave the UK' if you impose very high rates of tax over a certain amount.

I remember when it was pretty easy to be domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes, but remain living in the UK. A law was brought in that said you either had to a certain amount annually (I think it was about 50k at the time), or just be domiciled here and pay tax like everybody else. People were forced to get on board with it. Obviously they did whatever was 'cheaper' for them, but it worked.

Bluntly, beyond a certain point of income, no-one NEEDS that much. I know a number of very, very high earners, and they aren't going to start struggling if their take home pay goes from 750k a year to 500k a year. But start raising taxes for the families struggling along on 25k, and there's a problem.

The polarity in the UK is getting worse every single year, and it's not right.

Whether you need it or not is irrelevant. If you have earned enough and don’t need anymore then you might as well just say I’ll stop working and just live off what money I have. Your argument is that you need to keep working out of obligation to pay tax and most people won’t do that. They will just say it isn’t worth my time to work and give most of it away when I can just go and enjoy life.

KateMiskin · 30/10/2025 13:41

Somehow we have confused those on PAYE and with zero inherited wealth with the super rich.

TakeMeDancing · 30/10/2025 13:43

Bluegrassdfly · 30/10/2025 13:20

Your naive.

They’ve worked for that money and paid taxes asked of them. Who are you to take it off them?

Have they paid taxes on it though? Their wealth advisors pull them through loopholes in the system.

Dragonscaledaisy · 30/10/2025 13:43

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 13:28

@Bluegrassdfly my experience in the tax world is the wealthy can often structure their finances very differently vs someone on PAYE & therefore pay less tax than the equivalent earner on PAYE. But things may have changed.

It's still largely more tax efficient for many people to take the majority of their salary via dividends on which interest is paid at a different rate to income tax. Tax advisors will always stay one step ahead of any government changes.

Bluegrassdfly · 30/10/2025 13:44

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 13:37

But I think it's a bit of a cop-out to just say 'well all the super-rich will leave the UK' if you impose very high rates of tax over a certain amount.

I remember when it was pretty easy to be domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes, but remain living in the UK. A law was brought in that said you either had to a certain amount annually (I think it was about 50k at the time), or just be domiciled here and pay tax like everybody else. People were forced to get on board with it. Obviously they did whatever was 'cheaper' for them, but it worked.

Bluntly, beyond a certain point of income, no-one NEEDS that much. I know a number of very, very high earners, and they aren't going to start struggling if their take home pay goes from 750k a year to 500k a year. But start raising taxes for the families struggling along on 25k, and there's a problem.

The polarity in the UK is getting worse every single year, and it's not right.

You do t get to decide how much if their wealth someone gets to keep. That’s communism and we in the UK will never vote for that. Unless and until the public mood changes I suggest you deal with it.

Bruisername · 30/10/2025 13:46

The proportion of people earning over 100k is tiny. You’re not going to make up the shortfall from them

the Laffer curve needs to be taken seriously

Cluborange666 · 30/10/2025 13:46

It won’t impact the average worker as it’ll also come off your NI contribution. It’s neutral for you.

Bluegrassdfly · 30/10/2025 13:46

TakeMeDancing · 30/10/2025 13:43

Have they paid taxes on it though? Their wealth advisors pull them through loopholes in the system.

Yes! The Wild West of widespread tax avoidance died in the 1990s. I’m so sick of this ‘the wealthy are dodging tax’ arguments when the vast, vast majority aren’t. It’s tiresome and obscures the fact that if we want better public services we all have to pay for them.

Cluborange666 · 30/10/2025 13:48

MyrtleLion · 30/10/2025 13:14

It is the work of an instant to cut services to the bone. We had 14 years of cuts.

It takes much longer to repair the damage done.

  1. Labour is best placed to repair the damage.
  2. Any other party promising better is lying.
  3. It takes time to restore services.
  4. Things didn't get better in 1997, it took till about 2000/2001 before we saw a difference.
  5. Taxes pay for health, education, defence, roads, rail, the justice system, policing, the fire service, pensions, child benefit and many other things.
  6. If you don't like paying tax then don't complain that the services are terrible.

This ^
Also why is no one mentioning the same reduction in NI so that it won’t impact ordinary workers? The OP won’t be worse off.

Bootsies · 30/10/2025 13:49

80smonster · 30/10/2025 10:05

Interesting, when this has been discussed previously, the majority on MN said they wanted to pay more tax for better services? That is what many opined during the private school VAT raid. Now the raid is on everyone’s pockets - we aren’t so keen? What a surprise. I’ve said it hundreds of times, but I’ll say it again: you’ll all have to pay. Taxation is for the many, not the few. Scandinavian countries where services are robust take more money from low and mid earners. I couldn’t be less shocked that Labour will be going after everyone…

No everyone can afford more in tax. they should go after the wealthy. I can only work part time as I spend about 80-100h caring for two families members who have complex support needs. As I earn slightly above minimum wage, I don't qualify for carers allowance and I provide all the care for free. At the same time, I am not able to build up my hours or change jobs (my current role is very flexible and only this enables me to carry on working). My wage is slightly above NMW. I did not get a pay rise this year, I won't get one next year. We are cutting back more and more. If you are living in relative poverty, tax rises aren't ok just because it funds services. also what services. I have a child on a 6 year waiting list for various assessments. my adult child needs round the clock care (I work when they attend a special needs college). There is no social care, no supply. I am absolute not happy to pay anything extra. I provide already an excessively weekly amount of social care support on behalf of the gov for nothing in return

CantHaveTooMuchChocolate · 30/10/2025 13:49

Dragonscaledaisy · 30/10/2025 11:38

And yet she's wasting £40 billion on quantitative tightening. I would say she's a fool and the ever increasing black hole in the economy is entirely the consequences of her actions.

Edited

Inflation is a massive problem, and is why food bills, housing etc are all so expensive. It’s a hidden tax. A lot of this was caused by the quantitative easing during covid, which is now coming home to roost. By reducing money supply this should help with inflation, or would you prefer to see bills, costs continue to rise?

TakeMeDancing · 30/10/2025 13:50

Bruisername · 30/10/2025 13:40

when rates were super high in the 70s the super rich moved abroad (Monaco is still very popular)

there was the story of the led zeppelin singer - his wife was in an accident and he jetted in to visit her in hospital and was told he had to leave before midnight to protect his tax position - so he did!

the world is more globalised than ever making it easier to move abroad for those with jobs that don’t need a specific geographical location

The Rolling Stones moved away in the 1970s too.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 30/10/2025 13:51

Cinnamon77 · 30/10/2025 12:14

If you're not on X then here

Thank you, Cinnamon77 - as another who's not on Twitter it was good to see this proof

It'll make no difference of course, and to fans the fault will be yours for posting it, but hey - Starmer seems to want her around, and with the majority they've got I doubt there'll be any shifting her

Zigazigarrr · 30/10/2025 13:51

As someone who is having to find thousands of extra for school fees a year, I say suck it up buttercup.

As PP have said, everyone is happy with the idea of socialist collective responsibility until it hits their paypacket. And for those saying having this view is a function of supporting Farage or Reform, it's not. It's simply reflecting a quote from Karl Marx "no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all".

Dragonscaledaisy · 30/10/2025 13:53

CantHaveTooMuchChocolate · 30/10/2025 13:49

Inflation is a massive problem, and is why food bills, housing etc are all so expensive. It’s a hidden tax. A lot of this was caused by the quantitative easing during covid, which is now coming home to roost. By reducing money supply this should help with inflation, or would you prefer to see bills, costs continue to rise?

I'd prefer someone with a basic understanding of economics in the role of Chancellor. Rachel Reeves is destroying the country.

TakeMeDancing · 30/10/2025 13:54

Bluegrassdfly · 30/10/2025 13:46

Yes! The Wild West of widespread tax avoidance died in the 1990s. I’m so sick of this ‘the wealthy are dodging tax’ arguments when the vast, vast majority aren’t. It’s tiresome and obscures the fact that if we want better public services we all have to pay for them.

The whole Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow, et al incident was most certainly not in the 1990s.

AFAIK, David Cameron still has his Cayman Islands stuff going on.

Animatic · 30/10/2025 14:00

Elbowpatch · 30/10/2025 11:00

If you are paying a lot of tax already you must be earning a lot of money, so can afford to pay more tax.

Increasing the higher rate and leaving the basic rate alone would be fairer.

Not at all but certainly I could afford to transfer to swiss office for few years. You can' t expect milking people who already pay quite a lot out of pocket (e.g.education, childcare and healthcare) ,essentially subsidising the system.

Luna6 · 30/10/2025 14:04

tupils · 30/10/2025 10:21

If things are so tight for you I imagine you can’t pay for private healthcare?
If you have children, I guess they go to local schools?
You probably don’t have your own security team?
If so, surely improved public services are in your best interests?
You will be a net beneficiary, not a net contributor.

Edited

You are a fool if you think the extra tax will not go on public services. It is to fill the massive black hole of debt that RR seems to have created.

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 14:04

@Bluegrassdfly - but this whole thread is about the government deciding how much wealth people get to keep! That’s not communism 😂

This government seems very keen to hit the ‘squeezed middle’ - which most of us probably are. Yet they are doing nothing about the VERY high earners - why?

Bruisername · 30/10/2025 14:07

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 14:04

@Bluegrassdfly - but this whole thread is about the government deciding how much wealth people get to keep! That’s not communism 😂

This government seems very keen to hit the ‘squeezed middle’ - which most of us probably are. Yet they are doing nothing about the VERY high earners - why?

Because they know they won’t make much. The middle income earners are trapped here so the government will keep squeezing

they can’t get more from the top without losing a lot and they can’t get any from the bottom. So it’s the middle that’s hit

Applesonthelawn · 30/10/2025 14:08

She really needs to get young (and old) able bodied people back into full time productive work on which they will pay tax, and with a mindset that promotes excellence so they consider it a necessity for their mental health rather than something they sacrifice for the sake of work/life balance. Nobody seems to enjoy work or take pride in it any more in spite of all the efforts to make workplaces more flexible, inclusive, etc. And tbh, it's not even surprising.

BananaPeels · 30/10/2025 14:10

Bootsies · 30/10/2025 13:49

No everyone can afford more in tax. they should go after the wealthy. I can only work part time as I spend about 80-100h caring for two families members who have complex support needs. As I earn slightly above minimum wage, I don't qualify for carers allowance and I provide all the care for free. At the same time, I am not able to build up my hours or change jobs (my current role is very flexible and only this enables me to carry on working). My wage is slightly above NMW. I did not get a pay rise this year, I won't get one next year. We are cutting back more and more. If you are living in relative poverty, tax rises aren't ok just because it funds services. also what services. I have a child on a 6 year waiting list for various assessments. my adult child needs round the clock care (I work when they attend a special needs college). There is no social care, no supply. I am absolute not happy to pay anything extra. I provide already an excessively weekly amount of social care support on behalf of the gov for nothing in return

but what do you mean by wealthy though?

if you are talking about super rich - they can avoid easily

if you are talking about middle class high earners then you are just clobbering aspiration and they start to decrease in productivity. As I said before I choose to work 4 days a week- why? Because the extra day puts me into the losing my personal allowance bracket and it just isn’t worth it vs quality of life being home that one day a week.

i know people who have turned down promotions because the extra stress wasn’t worth it for the extra reward and they don’t want to give up family time.

it is very hard on people such as yourself but ultimately increasing the burden on the relatively high earners will just stifle growth.

tupils · 30/10/2025 14:10

cloudtreecarpet · 30/10/2025 10:54

Why are things so tight for everyone right now?
We never question that. Why are supermarkets putting their prices up almost daily but not seeing a dent in their profits or share holder dividends for example?

There is more going on that is causing us all to feel poor than this suggested tax rise.

The cynic in me does suspect that supermarkets, now having pretty much gained a monopoly between them, are all just putting up their prices and saying “cost of living chaps” with a shrug, while filling their pockets.

EasternStandard · 30/10/2025 14:11

Luna6 · 30/10/2025 14:04

You are a fool if you think the extra tax will not go on public services. It is to fill the massive black hole of debt that RR seems to have created.

Will go on I assume but yes to this.

Swipe left for the next trending thread