To think Labour is not the party of the working people.

[pinkpalmleaves]

I voted for Labour as I believed their election pledge of being a party for the working people but genuinely I can’t think of one thing, since they’ve been in power, that they’ve done to help me (a single working mother on around £42k a year)! I get zero help from UC, these mystical breakfast clubs don’t exist, people aren’t employing people due to their ridiculous NI implications, they aren’t building affordable housing, energy prices are insanely high and all they talk about is grants (which won’t affect me as I live in a flat)! Genuinely I can’t think of one thing that they’ve done to help working people in the middle. Why are Labour sticking their heads in the sand? Why do they refuse to help the squeezed working class? They are stopping this economy from thriving - as
nobody can afford to spend anything extra (treats, holidays, meals out etc etc)!

As do/did we. I just won't be voting for a Reform candidate and @RichardTice , it sounds as if you might.

Sticking with Tory?

Did you? Or is your rental income from properties on which the tenants are or have been paying the mortgage? How much of your investment income derives from interest or dividends from the investment? You may have earned some of the money to buy it but your rental and investment income require no work on your behalf.

@Blossomtoes, please! Don't be disingenuous. Even in commercial property, you expect the tenant to pay rent, surely. The rent was calculated to pay off the mortgage within the term. Once paid, one worries about the investment plan.

And these copper-bottom deals go awry. I refer you to previous posts where I explained that because of a business failure and COVID, we had an £80k hole. Those take several years to fix.

So the money isn’t earnt or worked for, it’s paid by the tenant. It’s hardly disingenuous to point that out - inconvenient though it might be.

The tenants need a home. To get one, you rent or buy, depending on your means. Renting out a house does not commit the owner/landlord to a long term subsidy.

It is a transaction. You have a property I want to live in. I pay rent and live there.

For the record, I have one commercial property let to a third party, and I am in the process of developing a second. For my pension fund.

I can't understand why we don't tax EVERYBODY at the same rate, regardless of where the money comes from.
We already tax pensioners if their total income goes above the tax threashold, so why not people claiming benefits, PIP and maintenence?
My DH lost his job last year and now works in a low-paid role for 30 hours a week. He pays tax (his last payslip was £1320 take-home) so i don't understand why it's so controversial to suggest benefits claimants getting the same amoubt also pay tax.
Pulbic sector pensions also need looking at as they are massively out of step with private pension provision and early retirement far too easy.

Yes @Tipsowner, I know all of that. The fact remains that any income derived from tenants, whether it pays a mortgage or into the owner’s bank account, is passive. No work has earned it. It’s a fact, not a judgement.

Completely true Blossom, but you are ignoring the risk element. Or does only hewing branches and hefting logs labouring qualify?

We don’t tax benefits because it would be ridiculous and pointless. Like playing shops with public money. Like the idiocy of giving every pensioner WFA and then having to adjust the tax codes of everyone above the threshold.

What risk? If you don’t have a tenant and you can’t pay the mortgage you sell it. Where’s the risk in that?

Some benefits are already taxable.

No they are not

At this rate they should just call themselves The Benefits Party. The mooted idea of fuel help only for benefits claimants! It just gets worse.

While weat it the Green Party can be renamed The Islam Pulling the Strings of Fools Party. I see a long-standing member has quit in protest at their abandoning of environmental concerns.

The party of non-working people.

None of them are, that’s been obvious for a long time hasn't it? It seems to me elections have been won the last few times by simply not being the other party…labour won because they weren’t the tories, the tories won when Corbyn was leader because he they weren’t Corbyn’s labour etc.

It was our home till we moved to the UK. Then we rented it out. We have some other flats abroad we rent out as well.

So why some and not others?
The two biggest benefits are pensions (which are taxed) and UC (which are not).
We need parity across the board. As soon as your income reaches £12,570, you are taxed.
This would also mean it would be easier to means test for things such as extra fuel payments rather than using the blanket 'on benefits' criteria, which covers a vast difference in income.

Nothing wrong with passive wealth or inherited wealth at all. I merely mentioned that we are high earners with income generated by working right now in the context of current Labour policies making us feel like “it doesn’t pay to work”, even though we are in a better position financially than many.
It wasn’t to imply that lower earners don’t work or to say passive income/inheritance was lazy or unearned in any way. Obviously in the passive income/inheritance scenario, the “it doesn’t pay to work” isn’t relevant currently- at some point in the past, maybe quite distant past, the money was obviously earned (if legal!) .

Presumably work was undertaken to buy the property in the first place. I work in construction and know quite a few people that have done up houses for profit etc. They put in a bloody hard graft spending their weekends renovating a rundown property and turning it into somewhere desirable. And that's after already working at least 10 hours more than most office workers during the week.

The poster I was responding to owns a commercial property. Judging by the reports of tenants most residential landlords don’t lift a finger.

Reeves has just said any will help will be targeted, not just for those on benefits and too right...

Can you explain why anyone eg above 50k pa should get help with energy costs?

Even if energy cap goes up £500 (we don't know the amount yet and its coming down over £100 next month) thats around £10 per week, so 3 coffees, 2 pints of beer, 1 bottle of wine.

Whatever happened to our resilience? instead at every cost increase, the cry, usually from the (well off) 'right, is "Give me more"