Are you a landlord if you let a room to help you pay bills at the end of a month? Are you a shareholder if you have a pension?
Judging by the answers here, the answer is no. But then we’re talking about millions of people who work everyday factory jobs, retail jobs, or low level office jobs.
Sure, class is the big issue on everyone’s minds. But the remedies people often throw around are here indiscriminate enough to target the room-letter and the building ownership company alike. The tycoon and the pensioner alike.
Right, but I hope we’re able to see the difference between a working person who has investments and someone who earns the bulk of their income from investments. Similarly for real estate.
Because calling someone who works and has investment savings for retirement (such as a pension) “not a working person” is not just plain wrong, it’s extremely offensive, especially coming from a career politician like Starmer.
Starmer is talking about taxes, not people. Right-wing newspapers are trying to link the 2, but that is a false link.
We saw all this in the lead up to the election. The tory press tried it then but it was ignored.
If you remember, the Labour manifesto made promises about not raising “Working Taxes” That distinction was clear in the promise. But the Tory party and right wing press constantly interpreted it as not raising any taxes.
Many got pissed of that Starmer refused to address it then. How did not seem to think it mattered. Likely he thought it was not worth this argument.
He is now making exactly the same claim. Working taxes is not money earned from shares or rent. It never has been, that is why it is called capital gains tax etc.
Just because you may also work does not mean your rent income and retirement savings should be taxed as working income.
That is all he is saying. He is not raising working taxes because rent and share profit is not working taxes.
The right wing press are trying to make a fight that dosent exist. Rather then try to aregue why he should not change captal gains tax.
Are you a landlord if you let a room to help you pay bills at the end of a month? Are you a shareholder if you have a pension?
Judging by the answers here, the answer is no. But then we’re talking about millions of people who work everyday factory jobs, retail jobs, or low level office jobs.
You make valid points in a logical sense but issue of class is the issue of class, not descriptor of economic activity.
Sure, class is the big issue on everyone’s minds. But the remedies people often throw around are here indiscriminate enough to target the room-letter and the building ownership company alike. The tycoon and the pensioner alike.
Coupling owner class with grandma is a nice touch.
Bigger point is that grandma siding with owner class is 🤡
Yes if you own rather then sublet and yes now final salary etc pensions are close to non existant.
Dose not mean it is wrong. But just like the others doing it it is not worked for income but investment income.
Judging from the answers here everyone has a pretty clear idea of the difference between investment and work.
Right, but I hope we’re able to see the difference between a working person who has investments and someone who earns the bulk of their income from investments. Similarly for real estate.
Because calling someone who works and has investment savings for retirement (such as a pension) “not a working person” is not just plain wrong, it’s extremely offensive, especially coming from a career politician like Starmer.
But that is not what is happening,
Starmer is talking about taxes, not people. Right-wing newspapers are trying to link the 2, but that is a false link.
We saw all this in the lead up to the election. The tory press tried it then but it was ignored.
If you remember, the Labour manifesto made promises about not raising “Working Taxes” That distinction was clear in the promise. But the Tory party and right wing press constantly interpreted it as not raising any taxes.
Many got pissed of that Starmer refused to address it then. How did not seem to think it mattered. Likely he thought it was not worth this argument.
He is now making exactly the same claim. Working taxes is not money earned from shares or rent. It never has been, that is why it is called capital gains tax etc.
Just because you may also work does not mean your rent income and retirement savings should be taxed as working income.
That is all he is saying. He is not raising working taxes because rent and share profit is not working taxes.
The right wing press are trying to make a fight that dosent exist. Rather then try to aregue why he should not change captal gains tax.