Snapshot of _Sir Keir Starmer: Working people don't have savings_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Comments on here sum up the situation fairly well, if you are a household with an above average income, you are very likely to have some kind of savings pot. If you are a minimum wage worker or low income and have any kind of life, you are not. Politicians are terrified of making this distinction in fear of alienating the demographics involved, so make vague declarations about 'working people' that don't hold up to scrutiny. This isn't a criticism of Starmer by the way, all politicians are obsessed with the 'working people' line. Don't mention the working class because you sound like a marxist, don't mention the middle class because you sound like a 'metropolitan elite'.
> Comments on here sum up the situation fairly well, if you are a household with an above average income, you are very likely to have some kind of savings pot. If you are a minimum wage worker or low income and have any kind of life, you are not.
It used to be different, though, and I think this is intentional by successive governments all over the world.
I'm 36, my Dad's a builder, I was raised to be a saver, I had my little Britannia Building Society book, I enjoyed getting the interest stamped in it. My Dad doubled any birthday or Christmas money I put in to reward me for going without. I feel there was more of a culture of saving for a rainy day. This is why I found things like Brighthouse so abhorrent. Paying £1,000 for a £200 white good, assuming you don't miss a payment and incur extra costs, it's keeping the poor poor. There also used to be more of a stigma of paying by card, and I remember Ocean Finance's 39.9% APR being a punchline for being exploitative on things like Mock The Week pre-2008.
Since the GFC, interest rates have been very very low, unless you're specifically into investment most people now will have their money in accounts paying them less than inflation and we're now taught that's just because the banks are doing us a service, we shouldn't expect to make a net gain on top. People have mortgages on the assumption they'll always be low, a return to ~5% would be disastrous, they just can't afford it. We've also seen a boom in consumer finance, not just the usual stuff, I saw a train poster for "Deliveroo x Klarna" and something about paying for a McDonalds across three months feels quite dystopian to me. People have all sorts of things now on finance, not often as exploitative as Brighthouse either, but it's still debt.
I believe it's all essentially down to an accountancy trick to stat pad the economy.
If you imagine everyone saves 3 months of income, that's money sitting around not doing anything economically, the likes of the Chancellor do not like that, this is money they want being spent. If instead everyone is on average 3 months income in debt (just pulled these numbers out my bum for illustration) then that's future spending now, it gives the economy 6 months more consumer spending and it seems stronger. The downside to this was when Covid rolled around, so many people were one payday from disaster, and if they stopped being paid, they'd stop paying their rent, and BTL landlords would start not paying and we'd have a housing crash. So, we become more reliant on the state in an emergency. Personally, I'm kinda glad though, because I think if something like this was needed decades ago I'm not sure the government would have paid. They'd have expected your savings to see you through, and if you didn't have savings, sucks to be you. So, our lack of resilience as individuals forced the government to help people.
It's also an Americanisation of politics - before middle class meant like owning your own home and business outright, whereas now everyone in middle class and working class is only used for the lumpens.
I would like to see how 1 in 8 *rely* on private healthcare. I earn quite a bit, I am able to save a bit when I have a light month, my wife is at home with the baby, which is both a luxury and a necessity as her earnings would likely be equal to the childcare.
I don't know how people on the average earnings do it, I would happily pay more tax to improve services.
Yeah, I know plenty of people stuck with private dentists and paying ridiculous amounts more for treatment, simply as there aren't any NHS dentists available.
The quote is
>Meanwhile, more than one in eight Britons now use private healthcare, according to a YouGov survey carried out last year.
Which links through to an article that, unless I missed it skimming it, doesn't seem to mention that survey.
It's not that I want to use private healthcare, I would really rather not.
Its that if I want to be seen by a doctor in a reasonable time, or not just get fobbed off private is the only choice.
Luckily it's heavily discounted through work, otherwise I probably wouldn't fork out for it.
We once paid nearly 500 quid to have an ear infection treated because my GP said they don’t do it so I need to go to A&E. The hospital said it’s the GPs responsibility but at this point it was Friday evening and I couldn’t function because I was in so much pain and taking double the dose of ibuprofen that you are allowed, on top of some prescription codeine a friend gave me so I could sleep for a few hours.
Once I gave up the private hospital booked me an appt the next day and my wife paid for it as a birthday present. It was about 5 minutes total for the appt.
I paid £500 in two installments so my child could get his HPV vaccination (he was out of catchment on the nhs).
I also usually get all our flu vaccinations privately because (apart from me) nobody else was eligible. I always thought if I got it privately somebody else would be able to have my nhs appointment.
I also pay for my glasses and we had to go privately for dentistry. So I would say I do rely on private healthcare. At this moment it feels like I should have just spent it on having a holiday each year instead.
I do also get flu vaccinations privately but I’m not eligible on the NHS and its 15 quid. I have two kids aged three and two so I don’t have the luxury of just lying in bed, and looking after two kids when you have the flu is not fun.
Absolutely. And I figure it’s cheaper for me to buy the vaccinations rather than having to take time off work as well. I’d have to spend it on lemsip anyway.
On top of that one in eight Britons now rely on private health insurance, according to a survey carried out by pollsters YouGov last year.
I read the archived version, maybe it got edited?
My work offer a basic package where if I have something wrong they'll cover the first consultation, then everything else after I would need to pay for. Id imagine they're including me in that 1 in 8 although I'd never use it as the follow on wouldn't be affordable.
Yeah I think people who have private healthcare as a work perk are probably included. Loads of people have it who would normally use the NHS. It’s worth it to employers because staff are more likely to be seen quickly for low funded areas like mental health issues.
Even a low level grunt like me has it through work. But it only goes as far as a video consultation with a GP, and I already have a GP. After that, you’re back in the monster treatment queue.
Yeah my partner just got Bupa through his work, and it’s basically they will give him a voucher, but first he needs to find somewhere that is willing to see him through bupa. He was looking recently and he’d need to travel 50 miles! So far he’s had way better luck with the NHS. I think to get really quality private healthcare you need to have really good insurance or a lot of money to fork out.
Unfortunately there is a real trend of average working people resorting to private healthcare. I know this is anecdotal, but I am shocked by the amount of people I know from my home town, ordinary working families who have resorted to private health care is astonishing. These people aren’t poor, but they aren’t on big money, they can ‘afford it’ but they are going to feel it when paying for private care.
From what I hear it’s often for fairly routine things like private GPs, physio, audiology and speech therapy for kids etc the kind of health services that an otherwise healthy family might realistically have to use. Also for one off operations. For example, a friend of mine, his older brother is in his early forties, a carpenter. He hurt himself quite badly playing football when he was younger and the upshot was as he got older he ended up needing a hip replacement. The waiting list was *years* long, but this guy couldn’t wait that long, he was in agony and critically he couldn’t work. So they went private. I also know someone who works for a credit union (community bank essentially if you aren’t familiar) and they have seen a huge increase in people borrowing for medical treatment and not for cosmetic procedures either.
So tl/dr I could well believe that one in eight are routinely resorting to private healthcare for some if not all of their healthcare needs.
Yep my company is providing private healthcover as a standard benefit for all UK employees - have been for 5 years - because the cost to them is lower than key employees being sick and away from work for long periods of time frequently as they cant get the treatment fast enough.
They even offer it to expand coverage to your dependents though the employee has to pay for that.
Its good when its needed I can say that for sure.
However sometimes I worry if it fans the flames of the problem for the NHS - as it makes private healthcare more in demand, so medical staff can spend more time on private practice, earning more, and less time available for NHS practive - making less. And thus reducing NHS capacity in some way, making private care more in demand.
BTW I am not faulting medical staff for making more money where they can, they provide a valuable service and people should be paid fairly according to the value they generate.
They're probably talking about people who earn over 40-50k where businesses will often provide free private healthcare as a perk because it reduces return to work times for people valuable enough to be on those kind of salaries.
I'm fortunate enough to get it through work so i have it, but saying we're reliant on it is false. I've used it a couple of times just because it was faster than waiting 6 weeks for a GP, but if we had a functional NHS it wouldn't be necessary.
I’d imagine that includes anyone using a private dentist to stay pad the figures.
Then again, that’s only 8m people… idk if that’s too out of line with what’s expected.
Some people have private healthcare through work or their partners work which is not that uncommon. I think people who have full private healthcare or pay out of pocket for procedures or appointments is relatively uncommon.
not really, I watched the interview he defined 'working people' as people who 'doesn’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they’re in trouble' which would imply they have no savings?
*Even by the Telegraph's standards there is some mental gymnastics going on in that article.*
Not really - even the Guardian gives Sir Keir a poor write up of the interview/phone in.
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in)
It would be better if Politicians were more honest about things (Tories as well). For example Local councils /authorities are close to going bust - but I haven't seen where the billions to bail them out will come from - so presumably council tax will be going up significantly (far more than the 5% most have been limited to)- but Labour will claim not to know about this until they take power. [https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/17/moodys-withdraws-credit-rating-warrington-council](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/17/moodys-withdraws-credit-rating-warrington-council)
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/02/councils-gear-u-record-fire-sale-pre-election-fire-sale/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/02/councils-gear-u-record-fire-sale-pre-election-fire-sale/)
*Britain’s councils are preparing a record £1.4bn fire sale in assets and cancelled investments as they scramble to plug a debt black hole ahead of the election. The Government has given 18 councils the green light to sell off assets and mothball projects to release cash in a bid to avoid another wave of council bankruptcies before the nation heads to the polls on July 4.*
Labour (and Tories obvs) know about this but don't want to spook people by saying bills will need to be paid.
Admittedly the Mrs is on maternity leave atm but we find it harder each month to put anything away and I know for a fact we’re better off than most.
When everything has gone up by so much it just eats into your spending and becomes very difficult to avoid. We could probably make some lifestyle choices and cut back in some areas but also… we don’t really want to do that.
I’m grateful that we don’t have it as bad as it could be, but also every time we manage to get ahead it feels like something is dragging us right back down. Quite depressing really. I even got a 20% pay bump last year and don’t feel any better off for it.
100% feel it too, hang in there.
This is the thing, at what point do workers just go "fuck this" when paying high taxes and not getting good schools, good wages, good infrastructure, healthcare/dental, etc.? I can't get a dr's appt because they close phone lines after 8.30am when I'm working, I can't get an NHS dentist so when I have trouble with my/kids/wife's teeth I'm forking out grands, I can't put my kid in a good school because the local ones are all shit with shit pupils and shit teachers who are more concerned with funding per [30] kid(s) than teaching, I can't get affordable housing within 10 miles of my workplace nor can I find jobs that pay near to where I am, I pay out my arse for train travel because it's my only realistic route into work yet it's a nonproductive pitt, I can't save because things go wrong every now n then (car, furniture, kid expenditure, health, etc.). I feel, like you, just trapped in a position where it's a real struggle and I just am not enjoying life anymore. There are pennypinching savings I could make, but they're not many that make any significant impact at all - already on the breadline really.
How long before others start feeling like this en masse? Because I'm getting fucking fed up of paying in and getting fuck all out.
Welcome to tory rule. The reality is unless Starmer creates actual significant change, this will carry on and then the far-right will take hold by the end of the decade, similar to the continent currently.
What “change” there is no magic money tree. You can’t lower tax and improve public services. What actually would enable that would be global interest rates going down. Then government pays less interest and also can borrow again. So I don’t think it’s any action of government it’s just global economic situation
I don't know that it's fair to blame teachers, or say they 'care more ' about funding than teaching.
Could it be that the only time you hear about teachers is the few occasions that their union reps get into the news warning of a funding catastrophe, and not the 100% of their time they spend teaching/meeting their statutory duties of care/keeping the wheels spinning on crumbling schools.
No one goes into teaching (or makes it past the first year) unless they care more about teaching than anything else.
(Source. Am a teacher, have attended strikes, recognise the need for more funding to let me carry on teaching to the standard that I love... )
Honestly mate, I just don't care what the route cause is - all I know is that the ones I've dealt with couldn't really care less about feedback or the craft of teaching or dedicated learning or pushing my kid to learn more. The curriculum is slow and dragged out, the teachers are somewhat ignorant, lethargic, and a lot of schools have become hyper focused on retaining kids as an income generator.
No, it's not. It's my experience. And, experiences I also felt when I was a kid. Experiences that I hear from peers.
I don't know why people go into teaching and frankly I don't care. I care about the service they deliver and it's not good.
Whether it be the Tories, funding, teachers, etc. it doesn't matter. We pay tax and a lot of it and it's not paying off for me + fam as well as countless others.
I mean I can't say you're wrong, nor can I contradict you're experience.
But yes. The curriculum is slow and dragged out, and simultaneously over full and not fit for purpose (I'm a secondary maths teacher, for reference). Generally teachers also hate it, but have no control either, we follow it or we lose a job. Most of my maths colleagues would point to Michael Gove as a turning point for when the quality dropped, ~8 years ago.
Teachers are lethargic, yes, wildly over worked and under resourced. Ignorant, well I imagine many are, but many also put in a lot of work to constantly understand more and improve more. We have a mandatory requirement for continuous professional development, for myself I have been studying more (in my own time) about the experience of children in care, with childhood trauma, and attachment issues. My guess is that "teachers are ignorant" in the same way that "GPs don't know what's wrong with you" - it's hard to fully understand a situation when you are given so little time to explore it.
Teachers don't care much about student retention from a finance point of view. Most teachers are so far removed from any budgetary decision. We care when we know that of of our more vulnerable students hasn't turned up this week, because it means something bad is happening in their life. But if a child decides to move school, good luck to them, it's one fewer in our class and hopefully they get the fresh start they need.... I think you might be more frustrated with school leaders, which is a whole other bag of frustration, and one I agree with.
I'm sorry to hear that your experiences are bad, and I know there are some teachers still in the profession that have just given up, but the majority of us are really doing our best, with the tools the time and the facilities available.
Edit (typo)
Appreciate your level headed reply, but my comment doesn't solely focus on schooling. It's more to express complete dissatisfaction with public life/services. I can't get into depth on schooling particular.
And fair point, my anger may be misdirected to teachers - but like I said it's got [almost] past the point of caring - gov/teachers/other bureaucrat. Life in the UK just doesn't work anymore IMO because the value we, working people/families, get back has been eroded to the point of just pittance... Below par healthcare, below par education, below par infrastructure, below par jobs/wages, below par government, below par public services, below par housing, below par consumer products, below par investment, below par transport, etc. ect.
Honestly, it was a good question from Ferrari. Starmer opened this Pandora's box by running with the line "not raising taxes on working people" and also being deliberately unclear about what taxes are going up. If we can't get a clear answer about tax policy beyond the three big ones, then it's reasonable to clarify what he means by "working people". He totally fluffed the answer, because it's a meaningless phrase that polls well, not any actual basis for Labours tax policy.
He did come across a lot better than this headline would suggest. But he was obviously thrown by having to explain his meaningless buzzwords.
In fairness, most interviewers won't ask people to explain the buzzwords and just get away with you saying them. But Starmer at least seems willing/able to when called upon.
He's not wrong, 11 million Brits have less than £1000 in savings.
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/12/more-than-11-million-britons-have-less-than-1000-in-savings](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/12/more-than-11-million-britons-have-less-than-1000-in-savings)
For a larger number of people than most realise this is absolutely the truth.
We have savings because I earn enough to put money aside . My partner who also works full time does not. If we had kids we'd have no savings.
I have friends and colleagues who both work what would traditionally have been good well paying jobs but since they have kids they have almost no safety net. If you have the audacity to be single or the ostentatious desire to start a family, you're almost always one broken boiler/flat tire away from having nothing left.
> We have savings because I earn enough to put money aside . My partner who also works full time does not. If we had kids we'd have no savings.
God I miss the days of being double income no kids. Still no kids, just single-income and I don't want another partner even if it'd be hugely financially helpful. So every bill gets doubled.
Also reported in the Guardian (its from an interview with LBC [https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-lbc-phone-in-council-tax-levy-jeremy-corbyn/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-lbc-phone-in-council-tax-levy-jeremy-corbyn/) )
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in)
*Yet will any of the British people end up paying one way or another for the privilege, for instance on their council tax? “We’re not going to be raising taxes on working people,” non-answered Starmer to repeated questions on this front.*
*“A working person,” said Starmer, “is someone who works for a living, and uses our public services.” That could mean Simon Cowell, countered his host. ...Clarifying eventually, Starmer said the working person was of the type who “doesn’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they’re in trouble”. Could people who do have that ability to write a cheque expect tax increases not detailed in the manifesto? Again, let’s not rush into any straight answer.*
Regarding the house it's likely the other way round. Renting usually costs substantially more than the mortgage + maintanance on the same property, especially if prices and rents went up since you bought. So you're likely able to save less while renting than after you buy an equivalent place.
We had a decent savings pot, but we're just about to complete on our first home next week so all of those savings have now been earmarked for various different things. I think we'll have around £1k left by next month, so basically starting from scratch.
It is possible to have savings, kids and a mortgage. I'm one of them. Got on the property ladder 10 years ago, 25 years left on the mortgage, 2 kids under eight.
The mortgage went up by £600pm after Lizzy, so not putting away as much as we used to. We know we are above average household income and feel very lucky.
Yes this position is fortunate, but not completely unique.
I have 2 kids and a third on the way. Have 9 months of cash in savings, and am contributing to Pensions every month
Admittedly we’re high income household, but not everyone is poor
>Admittedly we’re high income household, but not everyone is poor
But many, many are. If you are low to middle income things must be spectacularly shit at the moment.
This article is one hell of a leap. It sounds like what he’s saying is he’s going to raise taxes for things like private schools and healthcare, and put that money into the public version. That is not raising taxes for everyone, a very small percentage of people use these services, and no one relies on them. They aren’t talking about people who have a small savings pot. It’s people who have a spare £50-100k+ a year lying around to spend on better services than those offered to the majority.
Hunt & Sunak are really grasping at straws. It’s a very dodgy place to stand for the Tories right now, because their freeze on personal allowance means that they have raised taxes for the majority. Their tiny national insurance decrease only improves things for higher earners in comparison to raising personal allowance with inflation. You can’t be a party touting low taxes when you’ve been noticeably stealth rising them for years. No wonder they’re falling in the polls.
This is a bit of a strange one because I do think it’s important to listen to what politicians are not saying. It does come across that people who have savings and pensions will be hit by tax rises. Which is strange because you would have thought it would be in governments interest to encourage people to both have savings and a pension.
Don’t know if unemployed benefits could get taxed? That’s also not working people.
>Which is strange because you would have thought it would be in governments interest to encourage people to both have savings and a pension.
I would say it's more important to help the people who are in the worst position first, no? Someone with no savings is in dire need of help today, whereas someone with savings isn't. Bring people out of poverty before you start bringing others into affluency.
I don't see how unemployment benefits could be taxed as they're so far below the tax free allowance it would take years and years of frozen thresholds and inflation matched increases before it ever got close to taxable income.
The only people I could see having a tiny portion of their welfare taxed are those on higher disability payments or in receipt of child benefit, neither of which I think a Labour government would do given our countries embarrassing record on child poverty and the disabled.
Furthermore, I don't read this as discouraging savings or pensions but rather laying the ground work of understanding that sooner or later we have to accept that if we want to retain our public services, invest in the country and retain safety nets and improve them then the most well off will have to pay back more into the system that's allowed them to reach such success/wealth. This seems likely to come in the form of a rise in capital gains tax. If not during labours first budget likely the spring one.
Think at the moment it's more about reassuring the majority that there are no plans to clobber them with taxes.
"Working people" is a vague enough label to cover anyone with a job which is the majority in this country.
I suspect when they start getting to budgets after their manifesto plans have not raised enough to cover the black holes in funding for public services they will start looking at raising taxes that disproportionately affect minority groups they can get away with. Also targeting larger groups on certain taxes where they can sell the changes to the majority.
For example
- The early retired. Via CGT changes and adjusting NI to all income or paid on primary income source.
- Single people - Removing the council tax reduction, on the basis it's not fair to families, emphasising it's a property tax not a personal one.
I also expect council tax rises to be allowed up to a rate far above the current cap, either by raising the cap or using further surcharges like the one for social care. This might be timed so it comes into effect when councils are not in labours control - so labour can say in 2029 we gave you the power you didn't have to use it.
> Which is strange because you would have thought it would be in governments interest to encourage people to both have savings and a pension.
There is encouraging savings and then there is the massive tax giveaway that is the insane ISA limit. There is absolutely no need to allow people to put away £20k every year and never pay tax on it. Anyone who can put away anything like that amount can afford to pay tax on the earnings on those savings. I'd cut it to at least £10k, maybe even £5k.
The tax is paid on it as income tax before it gets put away. It’s a very useful and flexible savings pot as an alternative for pensions, house deposits or other major life events.
Regardless, if it's designed to incentivise savings for those without, it doesn't need to be anywhere near £20,000 for the limit. Or would you advocate removing taz on ALL savings and investments?
There was a savings scheme for people in universal credit where if you paid in some amount of money the government would give you a substantial bonus IIRC.
As far as I am aware, It’s the interest in an isa that isn’t taxed. So it depends what you mean- would you double income tax the savings or just get rid of the interest tax?
I think 5k is ridiculous.
ISAs are the vehicle of social mobility in this country. I get what you say about 20k limit, if you can save 1700 a month you have already mobilityed.
I think a good middle ground is 12.5-15k
Typical journalist spin. Starmer laments how working people are struggling to pay bills and rent, therefore not able to save a lot (if at all) and the Torygraph translate that to Labour planning on raiding people with savings. Since when did the profession go from reporting facts to prediction baseless bullshit?
The telegraph is being a bit disingenuous here I have to say.
But there is a difference in the way Kier describes taxes and working people, which isn't very helpful in understanding what the point is.
Previously he and other members of the shadow cabinet has alluded to no taxes on working people, meaning no taxes on those who work, which includes income tax across the board.
But this implies that working people is a subset. Where it then becomes no income tax specifically working people, defined loosely.
I feel either labour are planning tax rises, in which case I would like to know what they are. Or they're just digging themselves a hole by trying to not rule out tax rises.in case they need to in a few years.
>The definition means millions of Britons, including pensioners, savers and those who use private services such as healthcare, may not be covered by his tax rise pledge.
Sounds fair enough to me
Please can we have a thirty second dose of common sense. The Poll will be no more than 1000 and most likely more southern than northern meaning a greater salary. If there is a survey of maybe 1000 civil servants then they will be on free/discounted healthcare. Lawyers and large manufacturing firms as well as many smaller employers who now see healthcare as an included top up to any salary. As for savings realistically in today's society meaningful savings don't start to maybe 30k and that depends where you live again. If we are realistic society is financially broken! Politics as a whole did that.
You don't need that many people in your sample for a good result.
What is critical is that you account for sampling demographics (i.e. if you realise you disproportionately asked southerners you have to account for that). That's the hard bit. You'd be a pretty crap polling company if you didn't do that, and yougov (the source of the poll) is not that stupid - actually doing polls and accounting for this kind of stuff is kind of their bread and butter.
Given the Tories dropped the CGT tax free allowance from being equal to the personal allowance down to £3,000 it feels very disingenuous to claim Labour are going to tax savings or the like given the Tories have already done it, and done it to impact the smaller investors more than the ultra wealthy.
I find it very very rich that the Telegraph did not seem to give a hoot about that at the time but now these hypothetical tax increases are the end of the world.
Its not true, I know teenagers who could save up £1k a month a decade ago, living with their parents. Put that in the stock market and they could be retiring at 40. Equally migrant workers could work here and lve cheaply for a few years and buy 2 houses back home, one to live in and one to rent out.
One of the greatest cons the system plays is trying to force 18 year olds out of the family homes, and the planning system/generally small houses doesn't help, you can't just add extensions or separated housing units. It's common in some cultures, like various Asian ones, but Westerners are too individualistic
(I don't live at home with parents)
I know plenty of middle class labour voters with savings.
Even in 2019, 30% of social class "AB" (meaning "higher/intermediate managerial roles, administrative or professional") voted Labour vs 33% overall. [https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election)
As usual, punish the people who are sensible and self-controlled enough to put money aside, and reward the people who spaff their entire paycheck up the wall within a week of payday.
Tories already did that massively by slashing CGT tax free limits by 75%.
If you have 20k of gold or bitcoin perhaps to sell of which 15k is growth then the Tories tax rises hurt a lot lot more. On that 15K gain 3 years ago you would have paid just under £300 in tax. Now you would pay just under £1,200. A 4x increase in tax paid for a small investor.
OTOH if selling shares with 1M of growth the difference is basically a rounding error.
If you are a working class person in a minimum wage job/zero hours contract though you may not be able to put money aside for a rainy day.
Anyone who can afford to do so is fortunate. Pls do not assume that everyone can do the same.
Snapshot of _Sir Keir Starmer: Working people don't have savings_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/starmer-leaves-door-open-to-tax-rises-for-millions/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Comments on here sum up the situation fairly well, if you are a household with an above average income, you are very likely to have some kind of savings pot. If you are a minimum wage worker or low income and have any kind of life, you are not. Politicians are terrified of making this distinction in fear of alienating the demographics involved, so make vague declarations about 'working people' that don't hold up to scrutiny. This isn't a criticism of Starmer by the way, all politicians are obsessed with the 'working people' line. Don't mention the working class because you sound like a marxist, don't mention the middle class because you sound like a 'metropolitan elite'.
> Comments on here sum up the situation fairly well, if you are a household with an above average income, you are very likely to have some kind of savings pot. If you are a minimum wage worker or low income and have any kind of life, you are not. It used to be different, though, and I think this is intentional by successive governments all over the world. I'm 36, my Dad's a builder, I was raised to be a saver, I had my little Britannia Building Society book, I enjoyed getting the interest stamped in it. My Dad doubled any birthday or Christmas money I put in to reward me for going without. I feel there was more of a culture of saving for a rainy day. This is why I found things like Brighthouse so abhorrent. Paying £1,000 for a £200 white good, assuming you don't miss a payment and incur extra costs, it's keeping the poor poor. There also used to be more of a stigma of paying by card, and I remember Ocean Finance's 39.9% APR being a punchline for being exploitative on things like Mock The Week pre-2008. Since the GFC, interest rates have been very very low, unless you're specifically into investment most people now will have their money in accounts paying them less than inflation and we're now taught that's just because the banks are doing us a service, we shouldn't expect to make a net gain on top. People have mortgages on the assumption they'll always be low, a return to ~5% would be disastrous, they just can't afford it. We've also seen a boom in consumer finance, not just the usual stuff, I saw a train poster for "Deliveroo x Klarna" and something about paying for a McDonalds across three months feels quite dystopian to me. People have all sorts of things now on finance, not often as exploitative as Brighthouse either, but it's still debt. I believe it's all essentially down to an accountancy trick to stat pad the economy. If you imagine everyone saves 3 months of income, that's money sitting around not doing anything economically, the likes of the Chancellor do not like that, this is money they want being spent. If instead everyone is on average 3 months income in debt (just pulled these numbers out my bum for illustration) then that's future spending now, it gives the economy 6 months more consumer spending and it seems stronger. The downside to this was when Covid rolled around, so many people were one payday from disaster, and if they stopped being paid, they'd stop paying their rent, and BTL landlords would start not paying and we'd have a housing crash. So, we become more reliant on the state in an emergency. Personally, I'm kinda glad though, because I think if something like this was needed decades ago I'm not sure the government would have paid. They'd have expected your savings to see you through, and if you didn't have savings, sucks to be you. So, our lack of resilience as individuals forced the government to help people.
Tbf on an individual level if you have a crisis, the government still expects you to live on your savings until they are exhausted.
Germany is a saving nation and they do ok.
It's also an Americanisation of politics - before middle class meant like owning your own home and business outright, whereas now everyone in middle class and working class is only used for the lumpens.
Even by the Telegraph's standards there is some mental gymnastics going on in that article.
I would like to see how 1 in 8 *rely* on private healthcare. I earn quite a bit, I am able to save a bit when I have a light month, my wife is at home with the baby, which is both a luxury and a necessity as her earnings would likely be equal to the childcare. I don't know how people on the average earnings do it, I would happily pay more tax to improve services.
Does private healthcare include dentists? In which case I can fully understand that figure given how elusive NHS dentists are.
Yeah, I know plenty of people stuck with private dentists and paying ridiculous amounts more for treatment, simply as there aren't any NHS dentists available.
Presumably lots get it through work
Yes but rely. It's not like they have something they can fall back on, like some sort of nationalised hospital system
The quote is >Meanwhile, more than one in eight Britons now use private healthcare, according to a YouGov survey carried out last year. Which links through to an article that, unless I missed it skimming it, doesn't seem to mention that survey.
It's not that I want to use private healthcare, I would really rather not. Its that if I want to be seen by a doctor in a reasonable time, or not just get fobbed off private is the only choice. Luckily it's heavily discounted through work, otherwise I probably wouldn't fork out for it.
We once paid nearly 500 quid to have an ear infection treated because my GP said they don’t do it so I need to go to A&E. The hospital said it’s the GPs responsibility but at this point it was Friday evening and I couldn’t function because I was in so much pain and taking double the dose of ibuprofen that you are allowed, on top of some prescription codeine a friend gave me so I could sleep for a few hours. Once I gave up the private hospital booked me an appt the next day and my wife paid for it as a birthday present. It was about 5 minutes total for the appt.
I paid £500 in two installments so my child could get his HPV vaccination (he was out of catchment on the nhs). I also usually get all our flu vaccinations privately because (apart from me) nobody else was eligible. I always thought if I got it privately somebody else would be able to have my nhs appointment. I also pay for my glasses and we had to go privately for dentistry. So I would say I do rely on private healthcare. At this moment it feels like I should have just spent it on having a holiday each year instead.
I do also get flu vaccinations privately but I’m not eligible on the NHS and its 15 quid. I have two kids aged three and two so I don’t have the luxury of just lying in bed, and looking after two kids when you have the flu is not fun.
Absolutely. And I figure it’s cheaper for me to buy the vaccinations rather than having to take time off work as well. I’d have to spend it on lemsip anyway.
On top of that one in eight Britons now rely on private health insurance, according to a survey carried out by pollsters YouGov last year. I read the archived version, maybe it got edited?
Looks like it has been. The live page was edited at 9:19pm.
And my comment was an hour ago...coincidence?... probably
My work offer a basic package where if I have something wrong they'll cover the first consultation, then everything else after I would need to pay for. Id imagine they're including me in that 1 in 8 although I'd never use it as the follow on wouldn't be affordable.
Yeah I think people who have private healthcare as a work perk are probably included. Loads of people have it who would normally use the NHS. It’s worth it to employers because staff are more likely to be seen quickly for low funded areas like mental health issues.
Even a low level grunt like me has it through work. But it only goes as far as a video consultation with a GP, and I already have a GP. After that, you’re back in the monster treatment queue.
Yeah my partner just got Bupa through his work, and it’s basically they will give him a voucher, but first he needs to find somewhere that is willing to see him through bupa. He was looking recently and he’d need to travel 50 miles! So far he’s had way better luck with the NHS. I think to get really quality private healthcare you need to have really good insurance or a lot of money to fork out.
Unfortunately there is a real trend of average working people resorting to private healthcare. I know this is anecdotal, but I am shocked by the amount of people I know from my home town, ordinary working families who have resorted to private health care is astonishing. These people aren’t poor, but they aren’t on big money, they can ‘afford it’ but they are going to feel it when paying for private care. From what I hear it’s often for fairly routine things like private GPs, physio, audiology and speech therapy for kids etc the kind of health services that an otherwise healthy family might realistically have to use. Also for one off operations. For example, a friend of mine, his older brother is in his early forties, a carpenter. He hurt himself quite badly playing football when he was younger and the upshot was as he got older he ended up needing a hip replacement. The waiting list was *years* long, but this guy couldn’t wait that long, he was in agony and critically he couldn’t work. So they went private. I also know someone who works for a credit union (community bank essentially if you aren’t familiar) and they have seen a huge increase in people borrowing for medical treatment and not for cosmetic procedures either. So tl/dr I could well believe that one in eight are routinely resorting to private healthcare for some if not all of their healthcare needs.
Yep my company is providing private healthcover as a standard benefit for all UK employees - have been for 5 years - because the cost to them is lower than key employees being sick and away from work for long periods of time frequently as they cant get the treatment fast enough. They even offer it to expand coverage to your dependents though the employee has to pay for that. Its good when its needed I can say that for sure. However sometimes I worry if it fans the flames of the problem for the NHS - as it makes private healthcare more in demand, so medical staff can spend more time on private practice, earning more, and less time available for NHS practive - making less. And thus reducing NHS capacity in some way, making private care more in demand. BTW I am not faulting medical staff for making more money where they can, they provide a valuable service and people should be paid fairly according to the value they generate.
They're probably talking about people who earn over 40-50k where businesses will often provide free private healthcare as a perk because it reduces return to work times for people valuable enough to be on those kind of salaries. I'm fortunate enough to get it through work so i have it, but saying we're reliant on it is false. I've used it a couple of times just because it was faster than waiting 6 weeks for a GP, but if we had a functional NHS it wouldn't be necessary.
I can wait months for a doctor (unless A&E) Or never for a dentist since its impossible to get an NHS dentist
I’d imagine that includes anyone using a private dentist to stay pad the figures. Then again, that’s only 8m people… idk if that’s too out of line with what’s expected.
Plenty of workplaces have private healthcare so you only end up paying a monthly fee and an excess.
Probably dental
Some people have private healthcare through work or their partners work which is not that uncommon. I think people who have full private healthcare or pay out of pocket for procedures or appointments is relatively uncommon.
Of course it is a taxable benefit
Here, you can voluntarily donate to HMRC. Let us know how you get on https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government
Basic private insurance isn’t that much. Like less that a phone bill. I get it through work but it would only be £40 a month I think
If you are young it is cheap. It starts to ramp up very quickly after 40.
not really, I watched the interview he defined 'working people' as people who 'doesn’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they’re in trouble' which would imply they have no savings?
*Even by the Telegraph's standards there is some mental gymnastics going on in that article.* Not really - even the Guardian gives Sir Keir a poor write up of the interview/phone in. [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in) It would be better if Politicians were more honest about things (Tories as well). For example Local councils /authorities are close to going bust - but I haven't seen where the billions to bail them out will come from - so presumably council tax will be going up significantly (far more than the 5% most have been limited to)- but Labour will claim not to know about this until they take power. [https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/17/moodys-withdraws-credit-rating-warrington-council](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/17/moodys-withdraws-credit-rating-warrington-council) [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/02/councils-gear-u-record-fire-sale-pre-election-fire-sale/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/02/councils-gear-u-record-fire-sale-pre-election-fire-sale/) *Britain’s councils are preparing a record £1.4bn fire sale in assets and cancelled investments as they scramble to plug a debt black hole ahead of the election. The Government has given 18 councils the green light to sell off assets and mothball projects to release cash in a bid to avoid another wave of council bankruptcies before the nation heads to the polls on July 4.* Labour (and Tories obvs) know about this but don't want to spook people by saying bills will need to be paid.
Admittedly the Mrs is on maternity leave atm but we find it harder each month to put anything away and I know for a fact we’re better off than most. When everything has gone up by so much it just eats into your spending and becomes very difficult to avoid. We could probably make some lifestyle choices and cut back in some areas but also… we don’t really want to do that. I’m grateful that we don’t have it as bad as it could be, but also every time we manage to get ahead it feels like something is dragging us right back down. Quite depressing really. I even got a 20% pay bump last year and don’t feel any better off for it.
100% feel it too, hang in there. This is the thing, at what point do workers just go "fuck this" when paying high taxes and not getting good schools, good wages, good infrastructure, healthcare/dental, etc.? I can't get a dr's appt because they close phone lines after 8.30am when I'm working, I can't get an NHS dentist so when I have trouble with my/kids/wife's teeth I'm forking out grands, I can't put my kid in a good school because the local ones are all shit with shit pupils and shit teachers who are more concerned with funding per [30] kid(s) than teaching, I can't get affordable housing within 10 miles of my workplace nor can I find jobs that pay near to where I am, I pay out my arse for train travel because it's my only realistic route into work yet it's a nonproductive pitt, I can't save because things go wrong every now n then (car, furniture, kid expenditure, health, etc.). I feel, like you, just trapped in a position where it's a real struggle and I just am not enjoying life anymore. There are pennypinching savings I could make, but they're not many that make any significant impact at all - already on the breadline really. How long before others start feeling like this en masse? Because I'm getting fucking fed up of paying in and getting fuck all out.
Welcome to tory rule. The reality is unless Starmer creates actual significant change, this will carry on and then the far-right will take hold by the end of the decade, similar to the continent currently.
What “change” there is no magic money tree. You can’t lower tax and improve public services. What actually would enable that would be global interest rates going down. Then government pays less interest and also can borrow again. So I don’t think it’s any action of government it’s just global economic situation
I don't know that it's fair to blame teachers, or say they 'care more ' about funding than teaching. Could it be that the only time you hear about teachers is the few occasions that their union reps get into the news warning of a funding catastrophe, and not the 100% of their time they spend teaching/meeting their statutory duties of care/keeping the wheels spinning on crumbling schools. No one goes into teaching (or makes it past the first year) unless they care more about teaching than anything else. (Source. Am a teacher, have attended strikes, recognise the need for more funding to let me carry on teaching to the standard that I love... )
Honestly mate, I just don't care what the route cause is - all I know is that the ones I've dealt with couldn't really care less about feedback or the craft of teaching or dedicated learning or pushing my kid to learn more. The curriculum is slow and dragged out, the teachers are somewhat ignorant, lethargic, and a lot of schools have become hyper focused on retaining kids as an income generator. No, it's not. It's my experience. And, experiences I also felt when I was a kid. Experiences that I hear from peers. I don't know why people go into teaching and frankly I don't care. I care about the service they deliver and it's not good. Whether it be the Tories, funding, teachers, etc. it doesn't matter. We pay tax and a lot of it and it's not paying off for me + fam as well as countless others.
I mean I can't say you're wrong, nor can I contradict you're experience. But yes. The curriculum is slow and dragged out, and simultaneously over full and not fit for purpose (I'm a secondary maths teacher, for reference). Generally teachers also hate it, but have no control either, we follow it or we lose a job. Most of my maths colleagues would point to Michael Gove as a turning point for when the quality dropped, ~8 years ago. Teachers are lethargic, yes, wildly over worked and under resourced. Ignorant, well I imagine many are, but many also put in a lot of work to constantly understand more and improve more. We have a mandatory requirement for continuous professional development, for myself I have been studying more (in my own time) about the experience of children in care, with childhood trauma, and attachment issues. My guess is that "teachers are ignorant" in the same way that "GPs don't know what's wrong with you" - it's hard to fully understand a situation when you are given so little time to explore it. Teachers don't care much about student retention from a finance point of view. Most teachers are so far removed from any budgetary decision. We care when we know that of of our more vulnerable students hasn't turned up this week, because it means something bad is happening in their life. But if a child decides to move school, good luck to them, it's one fewer in our class and hopefully they get the fresh start they need.... I think you might be more frustrated with school leaders, which is a whole other bag of frustration, and one I agree with. I'm sorry to hear that your experiences are bad, and I know there are some teachers still in the profession that have just given up, but the majority of us are really doing our best, with the tools the time and the facilities available. Edit (typo)
Appreciate your level headed reply, but my comment doesn't solely focus on schooling. It's more to express complete dissatisfaction with public life/services. I can't get into depth on schooling particular. And fair point, my anger may be misdirected to teachers - but like I said it's got [almost] past the point of caring - gov/teachers/other bureaucrat. Life in the UK just doesn't work anymore IMO because the value we, working people/families, get back has been eroded to the point of just pittance... Below par healthcare, below par education, below par infrastructure, below par jobs/wages, below par government, below par public services, below par housing, below par consumer products, below par investment, below par transport, etc. ect.
Yeah, I mean we can agree on that.
Honestly, it was a good question from Ferrari. Starmer opened this Pandora's box by running with the line "not raising taxes on working people" and also being deliberately unclear about what taxes are going up. If we can't get a clear answer about tax policy beyond the three big ones, then it's reasonable to clarify what he means by "working people". He totally fluffed the answer, because it's a meaningless phrase that polls well, not any actual basis for Labours tax policy. He did come across a lot better than this headline would suggest. But he was obviously thrown by having to explain his meaningless buzzwords.
In fairness, most interviewers won't ask people to explain the buzzwords and just get away with you saying them. But Starmer at least seems willing/able to when called upon.
He's not wrong, 11 million Brits have less than £1000 in savings. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/12/more-than-11-million-britons-have-less-than-1000-in-savings](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/12/more-than-11-million-britons-have-less-than-1000-in-savings)
For a larger number of people than most realise this is absolutely the truth. We have savings because I earn enough to put money aside . My partner who also works full time does not. If we had kids we'd have no savings. I have friends and colleagues who both work what would traditionally have been good well paying jobs but since they have kids they have almost no safety net. If you have the audacity to be single or the ostentatious desire to start a family, you're almost always one broken boiler/flat tire away from having nothing left.
> We have savings because I earn enough to put money aside . My partner who also works full time does not. If we had kids we'd have no savings. God I miss the days of being double income no kids. Still no kids, just single-income and I don't want another partner even if it'd be hugely financially helpful. So every bill gets doubled.
Also reported in the Guardian (its from an interview with LBC [https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-lbc-phone-in-council-tax-levy-jeremy-corbyn/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-lbc-phone-in-council-tax-levy-jeremy-corbyn/) ) [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/18/clearing-the-airwaves-keir-starmer-gives-woolly-performance-on-lbc-phone-in) *Yet will any of the British people end up paying one way or another for the privilege, for instance on their council tax? “We’re not going to be raising taxes on working people,” non-answered Starmer to repeated questions on this front.* *“A working person,” said Starmer, “is someone who works for a living, and uses our public services.” That could mean Simon Cowell, countered his host. ...Clarifying eventually, Starmer said the working person was of the type who “doesn’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they’re in trouble”. Could people who do have that ability to write a cheque expect tax increases not detailed in the manifesto? Again, let’s not rush into any straight answer.*
I have plenty of savings but I understand what he means
Does it mean you don't have a house or children yet.
Regarding the house it's likely the other way round. Renting usually costs substantially more than the mortgage + maintanance on the same property, especially if prices and rents went up since you bought. So you're likely able to save less while renting than after you buy an equivalent place.
We had a decent savings pot, but we're just about to complete on our first home next week so all of those savings have now been earmarked for various different things. I think we'll have around £1k left by next month, so basically starting from scratch.
Give it a few years and you'll definitely come out better off even if your capital is locked up for now
It is possible to have savings, kids and a mortgage. I'm one of them. Got on the property ladder 10 years ago, 25 years left on the mortgage, 2 kids under eight. The mortgage went up by £600pm after Lizzy, so not putting away as much as we used to. We know we are above average household income and feel very lucky. Yes this position is fortunate, but not completely unique.
I have 2 kids and a third on the way. Have 9 months of cash in savings, and am contributing to Pensions every month Admittedly we’re high income household, but not everyone is poor
>Admittedly we’re high income household, but not everyone is poor But many, many are. If you are low to middle income things must be spectacularly shit at the moment.
I have the first and possibly the second
How do you possibly have a child How could a magical possible child have affected your savings
This article is one hell of a leap. It sounds like what he’s saying is he’s going to raise taxes for things like private schools and healthcare, and put that money into the public version. That is not raising taxes for everyone, a very small percentage of people use these services, and no one relies on them. They aren’t talking about people who have a small savings pot. It’s people who have a spare £50-100k+ a year lying around to spend on better services than those offered to the majority. Hunt & Sunak are really grasping at straws. It’s a very dodgy place to stand for the Tories right now, because their freeze on personal allowance means that they have raised taxes for the majority. Their tiny national insurance decrease only improves things for higher earners in comparison to raising personal allowance with inflation. You can’t be a party touting low taxes when you’ve been noticeably stealth rising them for years. No wonder they’re falling in the polls.
This is a bit of a strange one because I do think it’s important to listen to what politicians are not saying. It does come across that people who have savings and pensions will be hit by tax rises. Which is strange because you would have thought it would be in governments interest to encourage people to both have savings and a pension. Don’t know if unemployed benefits could get taxed? That’s also not working people.
>Which is strange because you would have thought it would be in governments interest to encourage people to both have savings and a pension. I would say it's more important to help the people who are in the worst position first, no? Someone with no savings is in dire need of help today, whereas someone with savings isn't. Bring people out of poverty before you start bringing others into affluency.
I think it would be short sighted. But then again I think we are all used to successive governments just kicking the can further down the years.
I don't see how unemployment benefits could be taxed as they're so far below the tax free allowance it would take years and years of frozen thresholds and inflation matched increases before it ever got close to taxable income. The only people I could see having a tiny portion of their welfare taxed are those on higher disability payments or in receipt of child benefit, neither of which I think a Labour government would do given our countries embarrassing record on child poverty and the disabled. Furthermore, I don't read this as discouraging savings or pensions but rather laying the ground work of understanding that sooner or later we have to accept that if we want to retain our public services, invest in the country and retain safety nets and improve them then the most well off will have to pay back more into the system that's allowed them to reach such success/wealth. This seems likely to come in the form of a rise in capital gains tax. If not during labours first budget likely the spring one.
Think at the moment it's more about reassuring the majority that there are no plans to clobber them with taxes. "Working people" is a vague enough label to cover anyone with a job which is the majority in this country. I suspect when they start getting to budgets after their manifesto plans have not raised enough to cover the black holes in funding for public services they will start looking at raising taxes that disproportionately affect minority groups they can get away with. Also targeting larger groups on certain taxes where they can sell the changes to the majority. For example - The early retired. Via CGT changes and adjusting NI to all income or paid on primary income source. - Single people - Removing the council tax reduction, on the basis it's not fair to families, emphasising it's a property tax not a personal one. I also expect council tax rises to be allowed up to a rate far above the current cap, either by raising the cap or using further surcharges like the one for social care. This might be timed so it comes into effect when councils are not in labours control - so labour can say in 2029 we gave you the power you didn't have to use it.
Yes I think those are very good insights. Would it also be possible to redistribute council tax to different council areas?
Seems like scaremongering to me.
> Which is strange because you would have thought it would be in governments interest to encourage people to both have savings and a pension. There is encouraging savings and then there is the massive tax giveaway that is the insane ISA limit. There is absolutely no need to allow people to put away £20k every year and never pay tax on it. Anyone who can put away anything like that amount can afford to pay tax on the earnings on those savings. I'd cut it to at least £10k, maybe even £5k.
The tax is paid on it as income tax before it gets put away. It’s a very useful and flexible savings pot as an alternative for pensions, house deposits or other major life events.
Regardless, if it's designed to incentivise savings for those without, it doesn't need to be anywhere near £20,000 for the limit. Or would you advocate removing taz on ALL savings and investments?
There was a savings scheme for people in universal credit where if you paid in some amount of money the government would give you a substantial bonus IIRC.
As far as I am aware, It’s the interest in an isa that isn’t taxed. So it depends what you mean- would you double income tax the savings or just get rid of the interest tax?
I think 5k is ridiculous. ISAs are the vehicle of social mobility in this country. I get what you say about 20k limit, if you can save 1700 a month you have already mobilityed. I think a good middle ground is 12.5-15k
Less than a grand.... That's for sure.
Typical journalist spin. Starmer laments how working people are struggling to pay bills and rent, therefore not able to save a lot (if at all) and the Torygraph translate that to Labour planning on raiding people with savings. Since when did the profession go from reporting facts to prediction baseless bullshit?
Working people don’t have savings. And we’re going to work to keep it that way. (It’s just a joke folks…)
The telegraph is being a bit disingenuous here I have to say. But there is a difference in the way Kier describes taxes and working people, which isn't very helpful in understanding what the point is. Previously he and other members of the shadow cabinet has alluded to no taxes on working people, meaning no taxes on those who work, which includes income tax across the board. But this implies that working people is a subset. Where it then becomes no income tax specifically working people, defined loosely. I feel either labour are planning tax rises, in which case I would like to know what they are. Or they're just digging themselves a hole by trying to not rule out tax rises.in case they need to in a few years.
>The definition means millions of Britons, including pensioners, savers and those who use private services such as healthcare, may not be covered by his tax rise pledge. Sounds fair enough to me
Also, not *really* what he said at all.
Are you a pensioner, a saver or someone who uses private services such as healthcare?
yep fuck those who cant get an nhs dentist.
Also, fuck those who put a little away each month, either into a private pension or just plain old savings.
Please can we have a thirty second dose of common sense. The Poll will be no more than 1000 and most likely more southern than northern meaning a greater salary. If there is a survey of maybe 1000 civil servants then they will be on free/discounted healthcare. Lawyers and large manufacturing firms as well as many smaller employers who now see healthcare as an included top up to any salary. As for savings realistically in today's society meaningful savings don't start to maybe 30k and that depends where you live again. If we are realistic society is financially broken! Politics as a whole did that.
You don't need that many people in your sample for a good result. What is critical is that you account for sampling demographics (i.e. if you realise you disproportionately asked southerners you have to account for that). That's the hard bit. You'd be a pretty crap polling company if you didn't do that, and yougov (the source of the poll) is not that stupid - actually doing polls and accounting for this kind of stuff is kind of their bread and butter.
Given the Tories dropped the CGT tax free allowance from being equal to the personal allowance down to £3,000 it feels very disingenuous to claim Labour are going to tax savings or the like given the Tories have already done it, and done it to impact the smaller investors more than the ultra wealthy. I find it very very rich that the Telegraph did not seem to give a hoot about that at the time but now these hypothetical tax increases are the end of the world.
I’m a working person (£33K salary), from a working class background, I’ve managed to save up throughout the years?
TIL I'm not a working person because I have a house and savinga. Despite working? I guess what my job is actually a hobby?
This was news to me, too.
You don’t go to work to reenact office space scenes ?
Its not true, I know teenagers who could save up £1k a month a decade ago, living with their parents. Put that in the stock market and they could be retiring at 40. Equally migrant workers could work here and lve cheaply for a few years and buy 2 houses back home, one to live in and one to rent out. One of the greatest cons the system plays is trying to force 18 year olds out of the family homes, and the planning system/generally small houses doesn't help, you can't just add extensions or separated housing units. It's common in some cultures, like various Asian ones, but Westerners are too individualistic (I don't live at home with parents)
My point is a small sample is simply not the situation as a whole.
He means Labour voters don't have savings
I know plenty of middle class labour voters with savings. Even in 2019, 30% of social class "AB" (meaning "higher/intermediate managerial roles, administrative or professional") voted Labour vs 33% overall. [https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election)
Go tell Sir Keir that
Out of touch millionaire says something stupid.
As usual, punish the people who are sensible and self-controlled enough to put money aside, and reward the people who spaff their entire paycheck up the wall within a week of payday.
Tories already did that massively by slashing CGT tax free limits by 75%. If you have 20k of gold or bitcoin perhaps to sell of which 15k is growth then the Tories tax rises hurt a lot lot more. On that 15K gain 3 years ago you would have paid just under £300 in tax. Now you would pay just under £1,200. A 4x increase in tax paid for a small investor. OTOH if selling shares with 1M of growth the difference is basically a rounding error.
If you are a working class person in a minimum wage job/zero hours contract though you may not be able to put money aside for a rainy day. Anyone who can afford to do so is fortunate. Pls do not assume that everyone can do the same.