Keir Starmer's definition of working class

I take your point about conscription, and agree that it would be difficult to find a way to ensure that everyone contributes to society without some form of compulsion, but at the same time, those who claim benefits are compelled to prove that they are looking for work, declare sources of income that lift them above subsistence and so on, even if they are working and producing goods or services

I understand exactly what you are saying and agree, in principle.

But I believe the difference between the benefit claimant and, say, someone who is not working but being supported by a partner is this:

The benefit claimant is saying to the 'State', "I cannot work for xyz reasons and need your support directly" whereas the 'supported' individual who is not working is, in effect, saying "my partner will cut his / her expenditure and we will both manage on less - but I don't need the State to support me directly with any finances".

And I understand what you are saying, but see it slightly differently

I see it as the single-worker couple saying to the state 'Only one of us will pay their (financial) dues to society, and we will allow other people, many of them worse off than us, to pay for the other to stay at home and make both of our lives easier and cheaper than those of dual-working couples.'

As I say, it doesn't matter, as this is all musing, but I think we can easily agree to disagree?

I’m not sure I understand all this. Is the point being made, that people who are supported by their partner without any intervention from the state, should themselves, pay tax?
I’m obviously misunderstanding some of the points made here. For example,
there is, and has been ever since I started teaching, even young parents who turn up at the school gate, wearing make up products on which they have paid tax, and contributed to the revenue of the shop, on which the shop pays tax.
They drop their children off and disappear in cars on which they pay road tax and fuel tax, to the gym.
At the gym they pay fees, contributing to the revenue of the gym, on which the gym pays tax.
They may then go out to lunch, paying tax on the food they eat and contributing to the revenue of the restaurant, who will then pay tax.
They aren't working in the accepted sense of the word, or paying direct tax on their employment of time, but they keep other people employed.
There aren’t necessarily enough jobs to go round even if they wanted to work, but if they aren’t claiming benefits, how would they be assessed for tax?
If I’ve lost the plot and misunderstood what has been said, I’m sorry.

Good point. 👍🏻

My point (^again^) is that there are those who don't contribute to society either financially or otherwise, but still take from it in the form of health, education, use of roads, benefit of defence, police and all manner of other things that come from living here, so they do cost the state. Many of those people criticise benefit claimants, many of whom do work. People 'supported by their partner' are not really, as the partner pays his or her own tax and NI - the amount depending on their earnings, not that of the non-working adult who is not contributing.

Yes, there are purchase and other taxes, but the non-working partner is only paying those out of money they have not earned - so as well as opting out of working and producing goods or providing services to the rest of us they are simply using money that is already in the household to buy their lunches and other goods. It is not making new money.

If benefit claimants are seen as taking from society when many of them do work, I don't see why the people I mention are any different. They are neither contributing their labour (ie the goods and services that would produce) nor the taxes levied on earnings. All income tax increases are paid by those in work, who are expected to support those who don't. IMO, if people are capable of doing so they should be expected to contribute one way or another. If they can't pay taxes they could do some sort of community service, similar to that being mooted for young people.

I'm not going to say all this again, as I've repeated it several times already on this thread. As I've also said, I realise that it is not a mainstream POV, but I genuinely don't understand why there is a perceived difference between those who claim benefits (many of whom work) and those who can afford not to, but don't work either when they are capable of doing so. Mothers of babies, older people, the sick, disabled and carers are a different matter, but I would include parents of school-age children in this, certainly.

I am happy to discuss this, but not to keep repeating it.

Frankly I am tired of hearing this. I see a clear distinction between the spouse of someone who is a high earner and therefore paying a lot of tax - and as I have said before could probably not do that job without someone at home - and people earning so little that they are propped up by the taxpayer.

Doodledog I cannot agree, what you are advocating is conscription to work

As long as anyone is not claiming benefits (pension excluded) they can do as they please within the law.

Right, I get it. SAHP, retirees who only have state pensions, parents whose children are at school, people who are unable or unwilling to have children, etc.

So how would you suggest these non tax payers are assessed for tax?

At what point would SAHP be expected to pay tax?

Would they get a tax break when their children start Uni as that’s an incredibly expensive time? (I’m currently contributing to the support of two uni students).

What criteria would be used to assess their need and level of contribution to the tax budget?

Would they get any remission if they were able to show that they are applying for any of the scarce or non-existent jobs that those in need or claiming benefits are struggling to get?
Late on Saturday evening is probably not a good time to get my head round this, but I’d be interested to know how you think it could be made to work.

Doodledog

And I understand what you are saying, but see it slightly differently

I see it as the single-worker couple saying to the state 'Only one of us will pay their (financial) dues to society, and we will allow other people, many of them worse off than us, to pay for the other to stay at home and make both of our lives easier and cheaper than those of dual-working couples.'

As I say, it doesn't matter, as this is all musing, but I think we can easily agree to disagree?

As I say, it doesn't matter, as this is all musing, but I think we can easily agree to disagree?

Absolutely! It's just good to debate a matter which is interesting and important, without the insults and rudeness / name-calling etc which can 'sully' so much political debate on these types of threads.

My view is much the same as most of the others on here. If a couple can manage with only one of the pair working, then that is nothing to do with the state. One of my sons is a successful barrister and I can assure you that he pays an eye watering amount of tax. His partner no longer works as they live in a semi rural area and their child needs taking to and from school. His partner does that, as well as looking after the house including repairs and maintenance, and caring for the large garden. The tax my son pays more than covers their ‘debts’ to society if they should need a GP appointment or hospital care. My son has also run the London marathon for the last two years and raised rather a lot of money for charity. At present their child attends an independent school which means they are not using funds from the state for education. He is however, about to attend a state school when he enters senior school later this year.
So long as people are not asking the state to provide their living accommodation and/or provide money for their day to day living expenses, and they are paying all the taxes they are due to pay, then the state has no business in their lives whatsoever. Essential services are provided for all, rich or poor, available at the point of need, which is exactly how I like it. I also like that the state provides top up funds for workers on extremely low pay, although I question why employers have been allowed to get away with paying such low salaries.

maddyone 👏👏👏

We all have different opinions, and as long as everybody understands the trade offs, okay. In my eyes a society where one partner is entitled to stay at home if the other earns a lot of money, but not otherwise, stinks.

I think mollygo that Doodledog is talking about a principle rather than the detailed nitty-gritty of how that principle could be applied and who might or might not be exempt, etc.

My 'objection' is not to the principle of everyone contributing to the society in which they live, but to the idea that it can be measured in any way other than by the crude method of direct taxation.

When I took my work sabbatical to make life easier for my partner to set up in his own business, I didn't think about it then, but prompted by DD's concept, I'm now looking at my own contribution to society - because my late ex did set up a successful business, which not only provided a service to the wider public but generated a fairly hefty whack of tax to the Treasury, whilst employing people with specific qualifications not usually needed in mainstream business, who were very pleased to have the opportunity of a job for which they had served a long (7 years) apprenticeship, which were becoming very thin on the ground. Though my late ex died some years ago - the business is still running, though scaled down because of Covid, Brexit and the way the economy has bounced around. However, a service is still provided, people are employed, and tax receipts are going into the Treasury.

My small contribution, but a contribution no less - well, how can that be measured? For how long would it be 'valid'. All too complex to work out, but, as I said, I don't think DD is arguing about that, just the principle of it.

Personally, ideal though it might be, I don't think it could possibly work under modern Capitalism, only in a primitive society where it would be essential for survival of that society.

And that's my objection. Not to the principle, but to the practicalities of it. Measuring people's 'contributions' both in monetary and physical terms would be nigh on impossible, it would be an administrative nightmare.

Thanks Dickens.

Oh. A principle. I get that. I just couldn’t see how it would be achieved, but evidently that wasn’t an expectation.

Did you actually read my comments, Molly?

Yes, but I thought you actually had plans about how that could be made to work, which is why I asked those questions.

When my children first went to school, I, like many today, couldn’t get a job which didn’t involve paying child care costs, which, in addition to tax and deductions would have made it hardly worth working. On DH’s earnings alone, plus family allowance, we just scraped by, but I stayed at home.
Paying tax on my non earnings at that time would have made life impossible, but we weren’t even poor enough to get milk tokens.
Without the nitty gritty mentioned by Dickens, I didn’t see how you would decide how those not on benefits who didn’t have a job, would be assessed for the contribution they needed to make.

I understand that as a matter of principle everyone should contribute but I don’t see how it would be implemented fairly.
Last time a per adult capita was introduced, it brought the government down.

No-one should pay double the tax they owe on their earnings.

This attitude reduces caring for the next generation to a worthless occupation.
Many parents who were forced to return to work would find that childcare costs exceeded their income so it would be a pointless exercise.

As long as anyone is not claiming benefits (pension excluded) they can do as they please within the law.
Of course, and those who are able should be encouraged off benefits via training schemes and back into work.

I believe everyone should be entitled to receive the benefits of a a civilised society at the point of need, whether they have paid or not. That’s the point, it’s free at the point of need. That includes education, medical care, the use of roads, police, fire services etc and includes access to benefits at times if necessary.
What is wrong is the few people who choose to live on benefits rather than work, and I know this happens because I worked in a school in a city centre where we had some families who absolutely did this. Other than this, and I don’t know how this misuse can be stopped, I don’t believe in attempting to force those people who don’t need to work, out to jobs or some sort of national service, to fulfill some sort of political ideology.

Doodledog perhaps one solution to the problem would be what is usually known as "Wages for Housework" but is actually the idea that anyone engaging in caring for family members should be paid a wage. Thus those with paid partners but with home responsibilities would pay their own tax and insurance. There's actually an organisation campaigning for this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework#Relation_with_Global_Women's_Strike

Glorianny

Doodledog perhaps one solution to the problem would be what is usually known as "Wages for Housework" but is actually the idea that anyone engaging in caring for family members should be paid a wage. Thus those with paid partners but with home responsibilities would pay their own tax and insurance. There's actually an organisation campaigning for this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework#Relation_with_Global_Women's_Strike

Sorry I do not agree that anyone should get paid to care for their own children and clean their own house. This is just a benefit by another name.

The only time anyone should be paid to care for a child or parent is if there are mitigating health circumstances.

Casdon

We all have different opinions, and as long as everybody understands the trade offs, okay. In my eyes a society where one partner is entitled to stay at home if the other earns a lot of money, but not otherwise, stinks.

That’s a very curious view I must say.
Women who don’t have to work i.e their partner/ husband earns enough to keep them, have that choice.Women who have a partner/ husband who earns enough to keep them both but want to work, that’s their choice too.If earning a lot they pay more taxes.
Women who have to work i.e me, also pay tax, tho a low-ish amount.
You can’t tax women ( or men) who don’t earn anything themselves.

All so demeaning for women who stay home to care for their children.

I did , husband in police force, elder daughter did with their three children, son in law a carpenter so no high salaries, I
helped my daughter and son in law, she wanted to be home with her children and I wanted her to know that joy.

The suggestion in their documents isn’t just for caring for children, but wages for housework, which is argued against by some in the group.
For parents working outside the home, once the children have started school, they do not require 24/7 care, except when they’re ill or during school holidays where one parent has to take leave, or pay out for childcare. Would there be payments for that under the group’s plan?
It suggests that public funding should be used to pay the parent involved in
wages for housework. It sounds as if the public funding would pay money so that the government could tax that money.
Vast sums would be spent on assessing which people needed to be paid wages for housework which would probably swallow any tax gained by the government.
It’s not quite the same as Robbing Peter to pay Paul, but not much different.

Sorry but such nonsense, will mothers who stay at home have to fill in a time sheet, or stop cleaning when the allotted time is reached