Keir Starmer's definition of working class

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Good point. 👍🏻

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.

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 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".

Dickens I agree with Molly that you have raised some interesting points regarding lack of social mobility and constraints on freedom of speech.

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.

This is supposedly done in the name of 'the taxpayer who pays their benefits', but the same taxpayer is also subsidising those who don't work but are lucky enough not to have to claim. Not in direct payments of cash, but by providing the infrastructure of the country, as well as the literal fruits of their labours. I would like someone who disagrees with me to explain the difference.

When I say that everyone should contribute something to society, I don't mean that everyone should necessarily work for an employer. There are many other ways that people can be useful, and of course many people already are. If young people can be called upon to perform National Service, I see no reason why adults who are not otherwise 'paying in' couldn't be asked to do similar.

Oh, and none of this is to say that 'caring for your own child' is not valuable. Of course it is saying nothing of the sort. To suggest that is to suggest that working parents (who make up most of the workforce) don't care for their children, which is ridiculous and offensive. When children are at school, however, there is no more reason for their parents to be 'supported by the taxpayer' than there is reason for anyone else to get such support if they are capable of making a contribution.

Dickens
Thanks for making these two points.
One is the ever widening gap between the very wealthy and the impoverished. Because I believe that social mobility - advancement - for the individual is what gives people the impetus to strive and I think we've reached the point now where those at the bottom of the heap realise that no matter how hard they work, their horizon will always be the same. With stagnating wages, gig and contract work, they are in a poverty trap. And this causes resentment to the extent that people look around for scapegoats creating division.

Very true and the no matter how hard they work
applies to housing in particular.

The other matter is - and I really hate to say this but I think it's true - political correctness and identity politics. I think we are now so severely limited in what we are 'allowed' to say and what is deemed acceptable to say (I think Doodledog you will know what I am referring to here) that we now have this ridiculous situation where 'group-think' overrides common sense, logic, facts and even biological science, which has created a damaging and even dangerous (to democracy) polarity of wokes on the one hand, and those who tell it like it is on the other. So more division, more scapegoating.

This is very worrying and detracts from focus on the economy.

Doodledog

Sorry, Dickens, we cross posted - I wasn't ignoring you. I'm in the break part of a meeting just now, but will read your post properly later and reply.

... in your own time Doodledog - or even not at all, they are just thoughts for pondering!

Sorry, Dickens, we cross posted - I wasn't ignoring you. I'm in the break part of a meeting just now, but will read your post properly later and reply.

Greyisnotmycolour

I think

... therefore I am?

René Descartes?

The government is interested in making poorer people into ‘hard working families’ who can be taxed, but not in getting taxes from those who can afford not to work.

I’m not interested in forcing anyone to do anything - that really is twisting what I am saying. I am suggesting that there is no difference between someone claiming benefits when not working (and many people also complain about claimants who are working but not earning enough) and those staying at home and getting child benefit and NI contributions paid. When children are babies it’s one thing, but why is it ok when they are at school?

Nobody has answered that. People are defensive and talk about what they did and why, but avoid the central question.

Doodledog

An interesting concept (if that's the right word?) and I do understand the principle of everyone contributing to the society they live in as well as availing themselves of its benefits and services.

GSM has also said frequently that she believes, similarly, that people should work unless they are genuinely too ill or disabled - or too old.

I subscribe to both of you.

But I don't believe Doodledog that your idea would work.

Why? Because it is, to all intents and purposes, a form of adult conscription and I think society generally has become too developed / sophisticated for such an egalitarian system.

I didn't study politics or economics formally (you can probably guess that!), but have taken a great interest in both as a political animal.

However, I think your 'plan' goes against the fundamental ideology of 21st Century Capitalism. It might work in a less advanced society, but not in ours.

Say, for example, a group of us GNetters were together on a cruise and we became shipwrecked on a desert island somewhere - I'm sure we'd all pull together contributing what we could and what we were 'good' at to make life comfortable for all of us until we were rescued. Because we'd be in a primitive set of circumstances and environment, and our survival would depend on such co-operation.

To carry the analogy further - we would not be controlled by the market forces of Capitalism on our desert island - just the vagaries of the weather and the availability of any resources necessary for survival - we'd sit down and among us decide who was going to do what by general consensus.

... I'd be quite happy though for either you or GSM to be the Prime Leader of our little group !

On a more serious note, I think there are two 'issues' that are currently plaguing us as a nation and causing division and unrest.

One is the ever widening gap between the very wealthy and the impoverished. Because I believe that social mobility - advancement - for the individual is what gives people the impetus to strive and I think we've reached the point now where those at the bottom of the heap realise that no matter how hard they work, their horizon will always be the same. With stagnating wages, gig and contract work, they are in a poverty trap. And this causes resentment to the extent that people look around for scapegoats creating division.

The other matter is - and I really hate to say this but I think it's true - political correctness and identity politics. I think we are now so severely limited in what we are 'allowed' to say and what is deemed acceptable to say (I think Doodledog you will know what I am referring to here) that we now have this ridiculous situation where 'group-think' overrides common sense, logic, facts and even biological science, which has created a damaging and even dangerous (to democracy) polarity of wokes on the one hand, and those who tell it like it is on the other. So more division, more scapegoating.

... and hence the rise of those like Tice, Farage et al.

I wish we could put the clock back a bit. To the point where the 'alarm' went off and we just put our hand on it to turn it off, without looking at the time. If you see what I mean.

Ilovecheese

maddyone

If a couple have a child or children and one of them, either mother or father, decides to stay at home to care for them, then I don’t know why this is seen as a problem. Isn’t the care and nature of your own child valuable?

Well it should be valued but all the current and next Government seem to talk about is more nursery places so that both parents can work. The economy and growth are all they seem bothered about, not the care and welfare of children.

Wrong.
The Labour policy for young children is for their development and care if poverty exists, if you read the policy it's made clear first and foremost it's about a better start in life, as well as "childcare" if relevant. It doesnt allude to women having to go back to work etc etc

Can be read here

labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-plan-for-childcare-and-early-education/

maddyone

If a couple have a child or children and one of them, either mother or father, decides to stay at home to care for them, then I don’t know why this is seen as a problem. Isn’t the care and nature of your own child valuable?

Well it should be valued but all the current and next Government seem to talk about is more nursery places so that both parents can work. The economy and growth are all they seem bothered about, not the care and welfare of children.

Sorry,

care and nurture

If a couple have a child or children and one of them, either mother or father, decides to stay at home to care for them, then I don’t know why this is seen as a problem. Isn’t the care and nature of your own child valuable?

When our 3 sons were small, my husband used to go to work for a rest.

Force women who want to stay home to get a job ?

Germanshepherdsmum

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

And there's the rub.

Someone earning enough to pay additional rate tax (higher rate kicks in very low) should be paying more than others. That's how the system works, IMO rightly.

That couple already have the benefit of at least one high salary, which is fine by me, incidentally - I am not a communist. Why should they also get a tax break that allows one of them not to pay for the services they are getting free?

Benefits are there to help those who have paid into the insurance that the welfare state provides. I know not all claimants have paid in, but most will. Again, why should legitimate claimants be treated differently from others who are 'economically inactive' simply on the basis of their differing household incomes? Women are no longer chattels. We should be treated as individuals when it comes to our place in society, and that should mean that capable adults are expected to put something in, in return for all the things we take out.

Doodledog

Sorry, that was in reply to Dickens. I lost track of time when writing the post

Thanks Doodledog - lots to ponder if your reply!