Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’
thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoyou’ll put those savings into a stocks and shares ISA where any gains from stocks are tax free guaranteed.
If you have more than £20k a year to put away into stocks and shares then yeah you need to pay some tax bruv.
nialv7@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That’s not what Keir said originally, he said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working people”. Then people got (rightfully) mad and his spokesperson had to recant for him.
thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
🤡
HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
No he did not.
He said people who own any stock should be excluded from “working taxes"
More accurately, he said they do not fit his definition of working taxes. Because that was the question the telegraph was trying to miss represent.
As does the Tory party and every government since the 1950s. That is why we have capital gains tax as well as income tax.
This whole argument is nothing but absurdly biased reporting from right wing press. Intentionally launched to try and sow division in the electorate. Just like every Tory tactic since the election was announced.
davidagain@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Why are you so cross about this? He only means that he’ll tax their unearned income a bit more, and if they really are working people out won’t affect them much.
The extent to which it affects workers is the extent to which they aren’t workers.
nialv7@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Why am I so cross? Because I am stripped my working people by Starmer despite me working all my adult life and still can’t start buying a house, for putting a bit of my savings into stock, just so he can claim he “didn’t raise working people’s taxes”.
That’s just peak slimey politician behaviour.
Do I think people who own a lot of stocks and assets should be taxed. Yes, let’s tax those motherfuckers. But just be more honest and stop twisting the definition of working people.
davidagain@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So sorry, there’s a typo in your second sentence and I can’t figure out what you meant to say.