Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass Einkommenssteuer und Sozialversicherung steigen – da Sky News die Definition von „berufstätigen Menschen“ erhält
https://news.sky.com/story/income-tax-and-national-insurance-unlikely-to-rise-as-sky-news-obtains-definition-of-working-people-13459288
Von Anony_mouse202
39 Kommentare
Ah, I keep forgetting I am in the land of milk and honey with my over £45,000 wage, total mistake Rachel, tax away my exceedingly rich arse.
So VAT, then. Which is the most regressive way to tax anyone.
Cheers Rachel, I’ll get off the train at the next stop and go home since I’m not a working man any more. Might still be early enough to go back to sleep
>Reeves is unlikely to hike these taxes because the Treasury says those earning £45,000 or less qualify as „working people“.
This is just a continuation of last years ‘working people’ debate when Kier said ‘I have in mind people who go out to earn their living, may have some savings, but don’t have the ability to sort of routinely write a big cheque if they get into difficulties.’
And millions of Britain’s found out this government doesn’t see them as working people. They’re clowns to bring this up again. They really are.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-does-keir-starmer-think-a-working-person-is/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/24/keir-starmer-hints-at-tax-rises-on-people-with-income-from-assets
> Rachel Reeves is unlikely to raise **the basic rates of income tax and national insurance** in order to avoid breaking a promise to protect „working people“ in the budget.
Not exactly what it says in the headline is it?
The fact that they are still trying to cling to some sort of definition of „Working People“ rather than just admitting they were wrong to make that manifesto pledge and that the situation demands that they break it shows they aren’t serious people.
45k is their definition? So they’ll be lowering higher rate threshold from 50 to 45 no doubt. Middle class cannot possibly be allowed to have anything after all.
If they raise higher rate tax but do nothing about the historically low levels of tax paid by median and low earners I will be finished here. I already see myself taxed out of the arsehole for basically no public services in return (but lots handed over to millionaire boomers, illegals, and people with ADHD who apparently need a brand new cars every three years at my expense).
There’s a tipping point and I, and I suspect many others with „broad shoulders“, are at it.
[Edit for a typo – taxpayers > tax]
I sometimes wonder why I bother waking up in the morning and go to work.
The tax bands being frozen is already a bloody stealth tax. If they increase the higher rate income tax bracket I’m done here.
Just raise EE NI back to 10% from 8% as it’d still be lower than the 12% it was up to a few months before the election.
For a stimulus you could reduce or remove ee autoenrolment for two years (keep the employer one).
Other things, restrict tax benefits on pension contributions, add a bit to the upper employee NI rate, remove the personal allowance taper.
Might as well put a picture of Rachel Reeves on my desk to remind me who I’m doing it all for.
didnt the tories try to raise national insurance and taxes at some point and every single newspaper argued „dont bloody do it its a terrible idea“
Oh, shit, I had no idea I am not in fact a broke boy and am in fact rich beyond my wildest dreams.
Happy to make that sacrifice as long as billionaire wealth continues to be protected
So those on £46k don’t work? I’m liking this, how do I sign up?
If, as the article states, the root cause of the issue is productivity, might I suggest that making it increasingly less attractive to put that extra effort in, take on that additional responsibility etc. to achieve a moderately higher salary is literally the worst thing they could do.
Abolish NI and incorporate into income tax: equalise rates of tax for earned and unearned income, remedy the worst inequality of the triple lock without removing it on paper. If you REALLY wanted to address the financial issues of this country without disproportionately hurting working people, the solution is right there.
Anyone who would starve to death eventually if they stopped working today and couldn’t for the rest of their lives is a working person. There fixed it for you Rachel Reeves.
So someone earning 45k will be redefined as a cash cow for govt purposes? Not a working person, a working cow to be milked by our esteemed leaders.
The Media is writing the Budget right now… all because they want to create their outrage narrative.
I hate Taxes, I hate the stangant growth we’re had since 2010, I hate what the Tories did to us, I hate how the Media have served up this new Government as the ones responsible for 14 years of shit.
But we need to come to terms with what COVID bail outs cost, and what the Ukraine war Inflation has done. (lets exclude the self inflicted 14y of budget cutting and BREXIT issues for a moment)
These things cost the country a large fortune, we are in massive debt to COVID and Inflation made it worse to pay those debts back. At some point we are going to have to pay the bills.
Either more cost cutting or more taxes. Both are shit. Cost cutting gets you no where and just creates more costly mess (see Tories 2010-2024) raising Taxes in the right places and investing in the right places, is probably the only way out of the mess we are in.
Labour just keep digging and digging a hole for themselves. Like do they have a Tory doing their PR trying to ensure they don’t get re-elected?
45k is an odd number to pick given the higher rate threshold is 50k. I wonder if they are planning to reduce that threshold to 45k. Maybe even they will increase the rate for higher tax payers if they don’t consider us working people. If that’s the case then my pension is going to grow rapidly until 2029 and the government will get less tax off me than they do now.
The fact this wage is considered high earning is tragic. You realise I work full time for my wage right even though I am just over your arbitrary number spouted (which doesn’t align to existing tax bands completely but thats another point).
Wher-king pee-ple
You can just hear these MPs bash out that term. Urgh.
Unpopular opinion but I’ve been of the opinion that Labour should have cancelled the NI reduction that was offered by Sunak as a last ditch effort to win the election. That It’s too late now because people got used to it but I’m sure it could have been argued very early on that it was a reckless swan song move by the tories and needs to be reverted.
So about 1 in 5 people in the UK who work a full-time job aren’t “working people” according to Rachael Reeves.
So among the non-working group would be teachers in senior positions, nurses in senior positions, doctors, engineers, some senior firefighters, senior academics…
All famously lazy non-workers.
Good to know I’m no longer working. I’ll tell my boss that I don’t need to log in anymore because I don’t work here anymore.
Why not just break the manifesto commitments and stop this silly ‚fiscal merry-go-round‘ every time there’s a budget…
So it doesn’t include people who have saved for a rainy day. Like everyone should be encouraged to do.
One of the most absurd definitions of all time. Reeves and Starmer are in Newspeak mode.
So basically they are going to squeeze the middle again and punish those of us who rose above being a minimum wage drone.
Have a PhD, on 47k, if they raise the rates then I’m dropping a day and will probably qualify for uc help with two kids. So I’ll be less productive and reliant on the state, but why should I work harder for less!
The „working people“ thing is purely down to the fact that we don’t have honest conversations about economic class in this country.
You’ll have graduates that are a single paycheque away from the street who pay more than half their income in rent claiming they are middle class whilst the tradesman who owns his own business and runs a BTL on the side swear down that he’s working class.
This is why you get bizarre language like „culturally working class“ to describe business owners and landlords.
Don’t politicians sometimes leak rumours of bigger tax hikes than they actually plan, just to make the actual increase seem less severe?
>the Treasury says those earning £45,000 or less qualify as „working people“.
Are they having a fucking laugh?
I make 47k, my wife works part time. Got about 25-30% in deductions, almost a full grand. My wife pays food but I have to subsidise it. Mortgage and bills taking up a lot of the wage.
Very hard to save anything. Don’t feel like a top earner.
Yet another chance for r/unitedkingdom posters to argue why their specific group shoulders too much of the burden and more of it should fall on [insert group here].
It honestly seems ridiculous they haven’t fixed the tax trap at £100k yet. People are putting obscene levels of income, untaxed into pension because at this bracket, earning over £100k can put you at a net negative if you have children by quite a large margin. You will have to earn £130,000 to be close to even with people earning £99,999 net income. And they are going to raise taxes instead of just fixing these cliff edges. Which means more income going untaxed reducing revenue. And they cannot close the salary sacrifice because people will just take lower paid jobs instead of taking the promotion reducing GDP. Simply because earning £20k less at that level means a higher net income. Double that for dual income households with children.
And it still bewilders me that not a single party is even talking about it. People would be more willing to pay tax on that income if the marginal rate for that bracket was not negative.
Lot of people swinging internet dong about how much they earn, lol. Some people have no shame, really.
Same people, probably, that whinge about benefit scroungers and immigrants.
I already get taxed more in Scotland for earning over £45k so presumably if England matches ours there is no chance the SNP will see sense and lower it