All very well and noble that Andy Burnham chooses to give 15% of his salary to causes he believes in. But with a generous taxpayer-backed unfunded DB pension scheme to fall back on in retirement, one could argue he does not face the same financial risks around retirement security as many PAYE workers and private-sector professionals funding their own pensions privately. That matters because much of the discussion around Burnham centre on his charisma, authenticity and that he “is the man for the job”. It is entirely legitimate to ask whether someone with that level of financial security may view tax, redistribution and personal financial risk differently from those still trying to build long-term security for themselves and their families.
A quick search puts Burnham’s salary at around £118k per annum, right where the £100k cliff edge starts to bite. Given that charitable donations attract tax relief, a cynic might argue he is not simply sacrificing income, but choosing to direct part of the money that may otherwise have gone in general taxation towards causes he personally believes in.
You have not addressed the fact that, Labour’s messaging increasingly gives the impression that higher earners, long-term homeowners and people who have built up "assets", savings, pensions etc over decades are “privileged” groups / cash cows from whom even more can reasonably be extracted and treats them as thought they are essentially the same as billionaires. What is the TUC's view on these people? It is fair or proportionate? Especially given that globally mobile billionaire wealth is often far harder to tax in practice than UK-based PAYE professionals, graduates, homeowners, pensioners, and self-funders tied to the domestic economy.
You haven't addressed that fact that some graduates and professionals already face effective marginal deduction rates approaching 70% once the £100k taper, National Insurance and student loan repayments are combined. Many ordinary homeowners are guilty of nothing more than staying in an area for years whilst prices rose around them, or restoring dilapidated homes over decades. Likewise, self-funders in social care often pay enormous sums from the proceeds of homes they worked their whole lives to buy whilst simultaneously reducing pressure on the wider care system.
At some point, it is reasonable to ask whether ever increasing effective tax rates and property taxation genuinely create growth and aspiration, or whether they risk discouraging the very behaviours governments have encouraged for decades: work, saving, investment and self-provision. Too often we focus on charismatic leaders fighting dehumanised targets using proactive terms “billionaires”, “asset hoarders”, “privileged homeowners”, for the "worthy", rather than stepping back and asking whether the overall system genuinely stacks up in the medium and long term.
If the ability to build some level of security through work, saving and responsible choices is itself increasingly treated as a “privilege”, then what exactly are people being encouraged to strive for? Because once politicians like Andy decide that a certain level of security or success is “too much” and should therefore face high, ever increasing levels taxation, they are effectively deciding for other people what level of aspiration, security and self-provision they are allow to achieve.