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.
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.
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 🤡
Because he is correct
Truth hurts I guess.
Of course they’re not working people. They are leveraging capital to give them an income. That is not the same as chopping wood and carrying water.
That is correct. They might work, but in context they are not “working people”
Here “working people” is synonymous with “working class”. Thus, not landlords and shareholders obviously
I’m curious about your definition of shareholder; what if I owe £80 worth of fractional shares in an app-based investment service? Does that make me a shareholder?
It certainly doesn’t make you a worker.
Then your income wouldn’t be affected in any real way by raising taxes on those shares and getting cross that Starmer taxing unearned income is affecting you badly is bothincorrect and missing the point.
Starmer is raising tax on unearned income instead of working people’s taxes, which is very fair for a change, and you’re splitting hairs over definitions of who counts as workers. You’re so missing the point.
I agree with everything you’ve said.
I think if Starmer said “we aren’t going to raise tax on personal income, but on capital gains” he wouldn’t have to tie himself in knots trying to define “working people”.
I’m not trying to split hairs; it’s Starmer (who I, for clarity, support) that’s refused to be clearer about what he intends to do and ends up having everyone debate what “working people” means.
The challenge is that they clearly what some kind of threshold where personal income is also additionally taxed, and that’s when “working people” becomes a weird “I’ll know it when I see it” debate.
FWIW, I’m in the highest tax band and I support raising the highest tax band AND raising capital gains tax. It’s not Labour’s intent I disagree with, it’s their crappy own-goal communication style.
It’s not my definition. It is the definition that is being used in context in the article. Read it before commenting
The definition being used is proper and common in modern usage.
I’m sure he’ll acknowledge his mistake, apologise profusely and make amends with a round of capital-gains tax cuts.
Based from Starmer there.
Landlords and shareholders aren’t working people.
This might be my favourite thing he’s said yet
In a country like UK… He just pissed off a lot of parasites.
And thats a good thing! They got to comfortable over last 40 yeara.
UK is fucking gutted from within, and peasants accept it lol
Okay, so (hypothetically) I can be working for 50 hours a week to make ends meet. If I put any little savings I have from time to time into stock, I am not working people anymore? Just because I want to be financially responsible?
This isn’t hard to understand.
Owning stock doesn’t make you a worker. Being a landlord doesn’t make you a worker.
If you work on top of the above, you are a worker. If you do not, you aren’t.
There’s a big difference between “a landlord isn’t a worker” and “a landlord cannot be a worker.”
An absolutely based comment from Starmer.
I agree with you, but that’s not what Keir Starmer said. His spokesperson recanted it, but what he said originally was stupid.
No he did not.
He said that in his definition of working taxes. No, that person is not a worker.
And the Tory party agrees. That is why they call it capital gains tax rather than income.
This whole argument has been stirred by the right wing press since the election. Tories have constantly tried to claim the manifesto promise of no rise in working taxes means no tax rises at all.
It is an out right lie. And Starmer et al make it worse by refusing to address it.
Nothing the Tory party says or believes on taxation matches these claims. It is just a desperate attempt to sow division.
Lol whatever you say.
Read the news please.
When asked by Sky News if someone who works but also gets income from shares or property is a working person, Starmer said “they wouldn’t come within my definition.”
But if he said “income from owning shares isn’t eligible for PAYE taxation and therefore isn’t covered by a pledge to not increase taxes on workers’ earnings” he wouldn’t have a headline and you would be accusing him of talking like a politician and breaking promises.
But no, he was asked this in the context of some disingenuous question like “bbbut you promised not to raise taxes on working people, and this will hurt working people, aren’t people with a hardworking fast food day job and a tiny bit extra from a few shares or renting out their spare bedroom just to make ends meet exactly the working people you promised not to raise taxes on?”
And Starmer says no, and now we have a headline because a bunch of shareholders who are experts at hoarding money because it’s all they really care about are as pissed as they ever get because tHe GovErNmunT iS tAkiN aLL MY mUnnY.
It’s the daily telegraph, for goodness sake. When did they ever care about ordinary people’s finances?!
By your definition I should be called a footballer because I play football once a week casually. Ignore the 50 plus hour weeks of my actual job. I got $50 from football as season champions (it’s a gift card, for the bar, at the place I play). I better go update my linkedin!
You’re funny, good one.
What are you talking about? This is exactly what Keir Starmer is saying and is what I am calling stupid.
If Starmer suggested taxing football income you would be being a bit daft if you claimed that it was going to hurt the guy you just replied to on the grounds that he earned fifty quid from football.
“But he’s a worker too and he’s not rich and you promised not to tax him” is sillier than saying that he isn’t covered by the promise to not raise taxes on working people.
That’s because (and this is the bit that’s not quite got through to you somehow yet) the vast, vast, vast majority of his income is from working, not from football.
you’ll put those savings into a stocks and shares ISA where any gains from stocks are tax free guaranteed.
If you have more than £20k a year to put away into stocks and shares then yeah you need to pay some tax bruv.
That’s not what Keir said originally, he said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working people”. Then people got (rightfully) mad and his spokesperson had to recant for him.
No he did not.
He said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working taxes"
More accurately, he said they do not fit his definition of working taxes. Because that was the question the telegraph was trying to miss represent.
As does the Tory party and every government since the 1950s. That is why we have capital gains tax as well as income tax.
This whole argument is nothing but absurdly biased reporting from right wing press. Intentionally launched to try and sow division in the electorate. Just like every Tory tactic since the election was announced.
Why are you so cross about this? He only means that he’ll tax their unearned income a bit more, and if they really are working people out won’t affect them much.
The extent to which it affects workers is the extent to which they aren’t workers. It isn’t the logical gotcha you seem to think it is.
Why am I so cross? Because I am stripped my working people by Starmer despite me working all my adult life and still can’t start buying a house, for putting a bit of my savings into stock, just so he can claim he “didn’t raise working people’s taxes”.
That’s just peak slimey politician behaviour.
Do I think people who own a lot of stocks and assets should be taxed. Yes, let’s tax those motherfuckers. But just be more honest and stop twisting the definition of working people.
🤡
I dont often agree with this Tory in disguise, but in this case he’s right.
Yeah, Starmer is right though…
By definition if you make all the money you need to live from investments like stocks, bonds, or leasing out homes then you aren’t working class. If you work a regular job, but have some additional income from investment savings you are working class, but the Labour government isn’t having to focus on those investments going up as much as making your working life more comfortable.
Comrade Starmer lmao
He’s right though. I’d very much like a PM to take a hard line on these chuckle fucks.
Nothing “comrade” about it. It’s just sense.
He definitely is. It’s refreshing to finally even hear this sentiment from our government. However it’s just words, hopefully we start seeing some positive changes in the rental and housing market.
Very small scale landlords are often working people, and lots of working people own shares. That said, the bigger landowners and stock holders are much less likely to be working people. Those fuckers contribute nothing of value to society.
No landlord is a working person, otherwise they wouldn’t be landlords.
I know plenty of people who work full time in real jobs, and also rent out a house. Renting a single building doesn’t give you enough to quit your job where I live.
I’m super dubious because Starmer has done very little to earn my trust, but I would be very keen to be surprised, or even proven wrong
Yer, I totally trust the Telegraph on what Starmer says on the lines in a class war. Completely trustable source on the subject. Not at all trying to put that line with as many people on its side not Starmers…
Rare Starmer W
Broken clock moment.
Context for this statement?
Is he pandering to beat down brits?
He’s a self serving neoliberal who doesn’t give two fucks about the working class.
He has made it clear all along that he is nothing but a corporate and establishment shill, and while making this one accidentally accurate statement about landlords, his party is planning to, for example, go ahead with pretty much the exact same cuts and abuses (E: like the government having unlimited access to the bank accounts of all benefits claimants) that the Tories had planned for the poorest in society, along with trying to force as many sick and disabled people in to work as they can (without providing any more support or income to help this happen of course, just more punishment for those who
can’t“refuse”). Landlords will not be getting any of the same treatment.His statement doesn’t reflect any moral leanings, nor a will or intent to change anything for the better.
Yesterday I heard they were reducing the amount people on universal credit can have their payment reduced for utility debt etc, which is good. It’s not all completely horrible, there are some silver linings.
Well I remember when I used to rent I don’t remember my landlord ever doing anything. He owns the property but he certainly didn’t maintain it.
This man has never had renters
Could you imagine a world where the word rent never existed. I bet it would be awesome.
I’d rather the word homeless never existed
I’m pretty sure you mean that you’d like a world with no landlords and not a world where short term housing solutions don’t exist. No rent would imply the latter. Unless you know of a way to do it without paying rent?
Community housing that’s fully tax funded. Common houses or public houses have been around for millenia, until the last couple hundred years really.
Oh and “the tragedy of the commons” is literally propaganda made up by a literal feudal lord.
How did that work when it came to deciding who gets the more desirable housing versus the less desirable ones? Or those who are not from the area and don’t pay taxes to cover the housing?
Let’s work on getting people housed before faffing about with pointless nonsense like more or less desirable housing. When even the victorians has lower homelessness rates you don’t get to worry about desirability.
Second point, who cares? If they’re living there now they pay tax there now. It does not matter they didn’t pay tax before they lived there, that’s how all other services work. You don’t pay for the roads in a town you just moved to until you’re moved in.
It’s not pointless. Depending on where you live, there’s a good chance you do have an abundance of cheap housing available. They’re just not in desirable locations, so many would opt to either pay extra for the privilege of living in more desirable homes or even living on the streets.
Regarding taxes, I’m talking about those who haven’t previously paid taxes, are not currently paying taxes while living in the area, and have no plans to pay taxes after they leave the area.
Oh do go get fucked.
My last renter texted me and told me the toilet wouldn’t flush. She said she “took it apart” but couldn’t fix it so it needed to be snaked out. I go there and a neighbor told me she set a can of cat food on the tank for her kitten to eat and it knocked the can into the bowl. She tried to flush it down. Her boyfriend shows up and tells me the same story. She only took the tank off (nowhere near where a clog would be) and she replaced it without replacing the gasket so it had been leaking water. Once I knew what the problem was I fixed it in 30 minutes. Her keeping the truth from me made it take a lot longer and cost more. I charged her $300 less rent than the property next door in a trendy neighborhood because I didn’t want to be "part of the problem ". Long story short, not everyone is cut out to be a home owner.
Sounds like a moron, but fixing a toilet once doesn’t make it a job. It’s passive income like an investment
Own a house then get back to me
I own a house, got a plumber for replace a cistern was like 30 mins of work, and I did that whilst working!
Your comment doesn’t make sense and is confusing. Are you AI?
Illiterate and a landlord? That does check out, you pathetic excuse for a parasitic infection somehow confused for a human.
I own a house. I work and I hire people if I can’t fix something myself. So far I’ve only had to do that once in 4 years. Owning a house is not a job. Landlord literally has “LORD” in the name… kinda hard to defend, friend.
That’s the strangest argument I’ve heard in a while. Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is. Plumbing, electrical, carpentry, roofing, HVAC are all jobs and if you don’t think so you must be one of these Republicans that think a person who gets their hands dirty doesn’t deserve a living wage.
A plumber or a sparky doesn’t just maintain one house, and if they’re just doing maintenance, probably work on hundreds of houses a year. Maintaining your own house takes a fraction of the time and effort of working a housing-related trade full time.
Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is.
I think you just agreed with each other a little bit.
Pay income tax rather than capital gains tax on your house.
Then get back to me.
Pay income tax rather than capital gains tax on your house.
Then get back to me.
I paid income taxes, property taxes and since I sold the house I will soon pay capital gains taxes
My toilet and drain is maintained well enough that it would flush some cat food if needed.
Thanks to my landlord that is Mountainbiking all day.
Your claim to be a worker because you did half an hour’s work in a month for a landlord’s income that’s so large you can afford to discount it by £300 a month isn’t the winning argument you think it is.
It’s a good thing we’ve got people like you making that choice instead of leaving it to everyone to decide
And, as everyone here says. He is correct. It is an investment. Not work. Yes you are taking a risk, that is the point. If you work, you should not be taking a risk. But instead paid for your labour.
Unfortunately, saying it here doesn’t matter. Papers like the telegraph and other Tory press are not going to care about the facts. They only care about creating division.
More importantly, Starmer et al. Are also not going to make the effort to argue this case. No effort is going to be made to push forward the true difference between working class income and actual investment income.
Anyone watching saw this argument starting during the election. It was clear then when labour started talking about working taxes. The Tories instantly started arguing that the Tories were talking about not raising taxers at all. Anyone watching saw this discussion forming.
And Starmer et al. intentionally ignored it rather than draw attention to the difference. They will not bother to fight the terminology now either.
