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.

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
EasternStandard · 30/10/2025 15:21

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 15:04

But @Legolava and @notaweddingdress - we are talking about a small percentage of people here. It seems mad that a consultant doctor earning 110k is paying roughly the same rate of tax as a banker earning 5 million.

And I don't really buy the 'tax the ultra rich and they'd all leave the UK.' I have a friend who earns a good few million a year. If his earnings on over a million a year were to be taxed at a significantly higher, he wouldn't actually be changing his current lifestyle - he'd just be sticking far less into his private pension and savings that he'll then be passing onto his kids. He wouldn't be uprooting his life and family here to move somewhere else just to have more money to squirrel away...

But hit the people who are low and middle earners, and that's when people start thinking 'well, it doesn't make financial sense for me to strive to earn more' or even earn at all, in some cases.

Well no one wants it to be them. Which is why Reeves and Starmer should have avoided stuffing up and needing more taxes.

222days · 30/10/2025 15:23

EasternStandard · 30/10/2025 10:55

Or maybe someone who remembers this

Labour's manifesto is, "fully funded and fully costed - no ifs, no ands, no buts… no additional tax rises."

"I have been very clear that every policy we announce, and every line in our manifesto, will be fully costed and fully funded."

“Nothing in our plans requires any additional tax to be increased.”

“We’ve got the Office for Budget Responsibility now… You don’t need to win an election to find out [about the public finances].”

“I don’t believe that fiddling around with tax rates is the best way to grow the economy.”

It was me who posted these quotes, that you have copy and pasted here.

Reeves was clearly lying. Everybody with half a braincell knew she was lying at the time. It was repeatedly pointed out by every reputable economic organisation of which I’m aware. However, voters prefer to believe in free cake than to face reality which is why: a) why she made these clearly false claims in the first place (although this was actually quite stupid because the Conservatives had behaved so appallingly in office that Labour would have won anyway and, arguably, they might have been better off winning with a slightly smaller majority without some of the slightly more extreme and incompetent candidates becoming MPs and therefore causing difficulty now in power to pass sensible legislation which would have been easier to pass with a smaller majority but fewer extremist MPs); and b) why she is now handicapped from doing what needs to be done to fix things. She has sufficient economic education to know that what needs to happen is for income tax to rise, but alongside large-scale reform of the tax system to restore the social contract as I’ve said on other threads, but she is being torn between the economics and reality, and political and optics issues caused by these plainly absurd promises made pre-election which cannot be kept and should never have been made in the first place but Labour MPs do not want to be broken because they know that it will be fuel for future election campaigns to claim that nobody can trust a word they are saying.

It’s quite astonishing that in a situation where it would have been almost impossible for them to lose the last election they made these ridiculous and unnecessary pledges, goaded by the Conservatives’ claims that they’d raise tax, when they didn’t need to do so in order to win. We can see that by the fact that they managed to win without putting forward any economic policies at all of any substance beyond not raising taxes (which it was clear ANY Government was going to have to do, as was pointed out repeatedly pre-election).

They fell straight into the trap and now we’re all suffering the consequences with lots of “small” but for the specific groups to which they apply very significant and economically damaging tax rises being made instead, causing this doom loop, because politicians will not level with the public and state the plainly obvious fact which is unequivocal which is that if they expect the level of services available in continental Europe then our lower and middle earners must pay far more tax than they are doing. This is a mathematic fact: there is no other way to fund it and milking higher earners (but who are not wealthy) has already reached its limit and passed the peak of the Laffer curve some time ago. HMRC data demonstrates this, with bunching below each threshold, falling tax revenues when taxes are hiked further, highly skilled people cutting working hours or retiring early or emigrating, resulting skills shortages requiring more immigration, productivity falling etc.

We have an extremely top-heavy system with our higher PAYE earners paying some of the very highest tax rates in the world and receiving third-world services in return or, indeed, being excluded from receiving many of the services that they fund at all. They are voting with their feet. There is no faster way to destroy the country’s future or any prospect of future growth than to convince its most talented and high-potential young people to leave. Meanwhile they cannot tax the actually wealthy properly because the UK investment prospect is now so poor through decades of underfunding and underskilling and poor infrastructure that FDI - upon which we’ve become reliant - needs them not to make yet more of these people run for the hills.

A European model of Government with state services that people in the UK expect requires low and middle earners to pay far more than they are. Politicians need to level with them and tell them that this is the choice: pay a fair share (clearly still much, much lower even proportionately than higher earners are paying) OR accept far fewer services and keep your low taxes. The top-heavy tax system has been pushed to its limit and the social contract broken and the effect of continuing that path further will be a further acceleration in decline.

We need actual leaders who can articulate a plan for the future, give people some hope that these supposed “hard decisions” actually have a purpose and WILL lead to an improvement, but no it won’t be immediate. Otherwise the cakeists will continue to rise and the decline will get even steeper and become a freefall from which there is no way out.

Sadly much of the electorate prefer to vote for promises that it’s quite clear cannot and will not be kept than to face reality, so politicians will continue to serve them what they demand: promises that they’ve articulated no credible way whatsoever to keep. A lot of the electorate prefer this to a credible plan which might not be nice in the short term but actually WILL lead to a long-term improvement. Even better if you can chuck some scapegoats in (immigrants, disabled children etc) to blame when your never-credible promises are broken. Nigel Farage is the caricature of this on steroids which at one point would have been so ridiculous it was beyond a joke but now a significant number of voters are, unbelievable,. actually taking him seriously when quite obviously electing Reform would be 100 times worse and make the doom loop of falling living standard a sheer drop at terminal velocity, very obviously much worse and faster than the incompetence we’ve seen from Labour and the Conservatives.

This Labour Government are as disappointing and economically illiterate as the Governments for the last few decades so there is little hope in my opinion, because they electorate are served what they demand and they demand incompetent leadership promising them unicorns which will never arrive. There are steps that could be taken to start to improve things - the only way of doing so being to take the steps needed to increase productivity - but not one political party has anything resembling a leader who is prepared to try to articulate this to the electorate and the electorate do not want to hear it and would prefer to spend their time fighting over the division of the remaining, mouldy-looking cake crumbs. So expect more of the same, and ongoing decline.

hairbearbunches · 30/10/2025 15:25

@silverbirchjuniper Exactly. The person on minimum wage and the person earning £110k have far more in common than the person earning £110k and the billionaire. But those at the bottom have more anger for the person earning £110k than the billionaire. It's classic divide and conquer we're being subjected to by those in power because whilst we're all knocking seven shades of shit out of each other, the richest continue to get richer.

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 15:25

@Bruisername - well some might (although I don't think Paris anywhere near competes with salaries these days, and Singapore is, bluntly, dull as hell) but lots wouldn't. Most people commanding this level of income have built their lives here and will be at a stage of life where their kids wouldn't want to be uprooted to go live in a different country.

My point is, beyond a certain (enormously high) level of earning, you can very much afford to be taxed more. People can and do get on with it. In my own sector, (much lower) salaries have remained stagnant for YEARS, but the cost of living has rocketed. Everyone has less money. It's very annoying, but I have much less disposable income now than I did several years ago. I'm not selling my house or leaving London or working less to pay less tax - I am just getting on with it. And if your take home pay is STILL hundreds of thousands a year, even after tax, I think people in that position can get on with it too!

samthepigeon · 30/10/2025 15:26

kirinm · 30/10/2025 10:47

So? I’m paying more than a lot of people to use the same services. Why should I do that?

SOMEBODY has to pay or there’ll be no services at all.

You are right.
It benefits everyone to have better services. I don't want people around me to be ill, even if I am not ill myself (they may get illnesses and then spread them to me). I want children to be well-educated, even if I do not have children myself (they will be making my life better in so many ways as adults). I want disabled people and old people to be well-looked after, even if at this time I am neither disabled or old.

samthepigeon · 30/10/2025 15:28

Bruisername · 30/10/2025 13:13

Don’t forget state pensions were only properly introduced in 1946 with the 65/60 retirement age. Before that it was 70 but only for 30 or so years and then there was no state pension

what was introduced in 1946 is no longer tenable - we are talking a very small number of people who have benefitted from it.

the big cost is the public sector final salary pensions with an early retirement age. I know someone who has a final salary post office pension from 30 years ago when they retired at 50. There’s no way that was ever going to be tenable.

Do early retirement in the public services still exist? Or are you talking historically?

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 15:28

However, voters prefer to believe in free cake

True

if they expect the level of services available in continental Europe then our lower and middle earners must pay far more tax than they are doing

But housing costs are prohibitive so you would be paying it back too many in housing benefit. Also even if we did increase tax on these groups is it enough to fund pensions & the NHS for the growing ageing population?

they electorate are served what they demand and they demand incompetent leadership promising them unicorns which will never arrive.

Agree

Bruisername · 30/10/2025 15:32

samthepigeon · 30/10/2025 15:28

Do early retirement in the public services still exist? Or are you talking historically?

Historically. Although I do know a civil servant planning to retire 10 years early but they are saving for that

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 15:36

@EasternStandard - well of course 'no-one wants it to be them'. But there's a BIG difference between a teacher on 45k a year facing tax hikes that will mean she will struggle to pay her mortgage, and a banker having a few less hundred grand a year to stick into his own already vast savings pot.

Allergictoironing · 30/10/2025 15:39

Zero of which many of we so-called higher earning professionals saw because we were the ones working 14+ hour days to ensure essential services were maintained and the wheels of education, law, social services and local authority mandates kept turning.

I was working full days & more during Covid, Local Authority mandated roles. Not safely working out of a home office but face to face with the public all day every day thus vastly increasing my chances of catching Covid. I felt I was one of the lucky ones because I wasn't having to work in the Health Service or in a cramped office but mostly in the outdoors so I could get away when I was being verbally abused by people because I was "the government" so lockdown was all my fault. Earning little more than minimum wage at the time.

The majority of those having to work for essential services during the lockdowns, rather than get 80% salary to sit at home, came in the lowest rate tax bracket and would be classed as low income (nurses, administrators, manual council workers, help desks, supermarket staff etc). Very few of the higher earning professionals were to be seen at that time, as the day to day work was mostly done by us minions.

HPFA · 30/10/2025 15:40

Gall10 · 30/10/2025 10:32

How to spot a Farage groupie!

Their latest policy is for disabled people to go back to driving little three-wheelers.

222days · 30/10/2025 15:41

silverbirchjuniper · 30/10/2025 15:36

@EasternStandard - well of course 'no-one wants it to be them'. But there's a BIG difference between a teacher on 45k a year facing tax hikes that will mean she will struggle to pay her mortgage, and a banker having a few less hundred grand a year to stick into his own already vast savings pot.

You clearly don’t understand basic maths. The sheer number of people in each group means that you CANNOT fund the public services being demanded by taxing “the rich” more, even if you taxed them 100% of their income.

Zigzagmug · 30/10/2025 15:42

Bruisername · 30/10/2025 15:32

Historically. Although I do know a civil servant planning to retire 10 years early but they are saving for that

I dont know any teachers who've gone on much longer than 55 and I know several NHS technical support people who retired very early.

That said, I've just retired from the private sector at 55. It has nothing to do with my occupational pensions.

samthepigeon · 30/10/2025 15:43

DorothyCrowfootHodgkin · 30/10/2025 15:05

So you're saying that those people must work hard to subsidise those who don't? Or who choose not to and therefore earn less? Some people work hard because they want to earn X in order to afford Y, and there is nothing wrong with that. If they want an expensive car, a home abroad, or a Rolex, that's their prerogative, provided they earn the money to pay for them. It's nobody's right to tell them they shouldn't want those things if they are not going to rely on anyone else to buy them.

Lots of people work hard and don't get remunerated big-time for it. It all depends how you classify hard work. Teachers? Yes, they work hard. Do they get paid excessive mega-bucks? No.

Bluegrassdfly · 30/10/2025 15:44

222days · 30/10/2025 15:41

You clearly don’t understand basic maths. The sheer number of people in each group means that you CANNOT fund the public services being demanded by taxing “the rich” more, even if you taxed them 100% of their income.

All UK income tax taxpayers pay the basic rate of tax. 1.2% earn enough to pay the top rate. That’s why basic rate rises are needed.

SushiForMe · 30/10/2025 15:44

Bootsies · 30/10/2025 15:13

Oh yes, I forgot, I don't pay much in so I don't deserve much. and all the benefits I am supposed to get. DH earn too and we are just above the cut off for UC. so we don't get any cent. We pay a mortgage for which we do no get help and my childs PIP goes on their various disability related needs and doesn't cover it all so we top it up. But thank you. Some people almost sound jealous when I say DC is disabled. All the money we must be getting!!!

I contribute about 80h of care per week. If DC would be in care, it would cost the government 3-4k per week. If anything, I am saving the state a bombe!

Edited

We might disagree on taxes etc but please do not think I was targeting you because you mentioned a disabled DC. I know from experience that these things cost a lot and fully understand that PIP is meant to pay for this, ie not a benefit to top up income.

222days · 30/10/2025 15:44

HPFA · 30/10/2025 15:40

Their latest policy is for disabled people to go back to driving little three-wheelers.

Yes the weird right-wing obsession with Motability is also pointless and economically illiterate given that even if Motability ceased to exist tomorrow it would not reduce the welfare bill by a single penny.

These threads always descend into people’s hobby horses about bankers or asylum seekers - which are a rounding error in public spending - or things like Motability that they clearly don’t even understand which make no difference to the public finances at all. People are obsessed with irrelevancies and personal grievances. It’s impossible to have a sensible discussion about economics on Mumsnet usually and the things that actually need to change to have any prospect of rising living standards.

Allergictoironing · 30/10/2025 15:45

HPFA · 30/10/2025 15:40

Their latest policy is for disabled people to go back to driving little three-wheelers.

Ah, people who need a wheelchair will find that easy to get it into! Apart from people like me who can't get out of a low car (spinal issues) which most 3 wheelers are. A half decent (sitting position) car is a necessity for me to commute to my full time job.

HPFA · 30/10/2025 15:45

There is apparently a recent paper published with idea on how to cut public spending by 3%. It involves freezing the state pension, abolishing all pensioner benefits, raising the retirement age to 70, imposing a £20 charge for seeing the doctor.......

Anyone prefer that to a tax raise?

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3m4fiusjmc22k

Chris Giles (@chrisgiles.ft.com)

I keep being told spending cuts are easy. Honest proposals such as those recently outlined by Policy Exchange show they are not My column https://www.ft.com/content/f0861743-bd84-4190-b7fd-d3b9fa6899db

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgiles.ft.com/post/3m4fiusjmc22k

Allergictoironing · 30/10/2025 15:48

There seems to be a lot of Victorian values on this thread. No need for social care, everyone has to pay their own way & Devil take the hindmost, only have the services (like health, education etc) that you've paid your "share" to, no additional help for the disabled.

Suppose it will be work houses next.

HPFA · 30/10/2025 15:50

samthepigeon · 30/10/2025 15:26

You are right.
It benefits everyone to have better services. I don't want people around me to be ill, even if I am not ill myself (they may get illnesses and then spread them to me). I want children to be well-educated, even if I do not have children myself (they will be making my life better in so many ways as adults). I want disabled people and old people to be well-looked after, even if at this time I am neither disabled or old.

We all understand the principle of insurance when it comes to cars but not when it comes to tax.

People complain about the cost of car insurance but it's not usually on the lines of "£400 and I didn't crash my car!! It's a disgrace"

Yet with tax it's always "my child isn't disabled so why am I paying for someone else's child?"

Pluto46 · 30/10/2025 15:54

Notmycircusnotmyotter · 30/10/2025 11:04

I wish we were cutting the welfare bill, removing the triple lock and dealing with the irregular immigration system before raising taxes.

This - alternatively we could do what Labour are doing and just kick the can down the road

222days · 30/10/2025 15:54

Bluegrassdfly · 30/10/2025 15:44

All UK income tax taxpayers pay the basic rate of tax. 1.2% earn enough to pay the top rate. That’s why basic rate rises are needed.

That’s my point. You cannot fund the public services the UK public is demanding without lower and middle earners paying far more.

The choice is to have continental European levels of public services and the vast majority of people - who have been carried by our ever-diminishing proportion of higher earners for the last couple of decades - to pay far more, OR for the public to accept that they will have a more US-style model of public services. You can’t have both. Especially with close to zero growth and barely any productivity increases.

It has become a case of dividing up the remaining mouldy cake crumbs while the public fight over them like rats in a sack blaming < insert most recent group of scapegoats > rather than address the fact that the fundamentals of our economic model have been broken for a long time and it has now reached its limit with the credit card maxed out.

So a choice has to be made and no politician wants to articulate this reality to the electorate.

There are policy choices that could be made that would result in UK growth and rising productivity and therefore rising living standards within a couple of electoral cycles but nobody wants to tell the electorate that because everybody is already fed up because of the last few decades of incompetence and failure to take these actions earlier when they should have been taken so the electorate yell “CAKE, NOW!” and the politicians oblige by promising it even though they know they cannot deliver it.

When they don’t deliver it the electorate becomes even more enraged and decides to vote for someone who promises an even bigger and less plausible cake, which again - quite obviously - will not materialise.

dressinggowns · 30/10/2025 15:59

There is apparently a recent paper published with idea on how to cut public spending by 3%. It involves freezing the state pension, abolishing all pensioner benefits, raising the retirement age to 70, imposing a £20 charge for seeing the doctor.......

Anyone prefer that to a tax raise?

The above is coming regardless for younger people

Figcherry · 30/10/2025 15:59

This is more true now than ever.

AIBU Income Tax rise.