Rachel Reeves: People On £60K Income 'are Not Rich'

[Ash4781]

Rachel Reeves: People on £60k income 'are not rich'

People earning as much as £60,000 a year are not "rich" and would not face tax increases under a Labour government, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury said today.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Rachel Reeves said:

“

I think the focus should be on those privileged few right at the top, and that’s not people earning £50,000 or £60,000 a year.

We don’t have any plans or desire to increase taxes amongst people in that band of income.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-20/labour-conference-ed-miliband-2013/

Interesting. So I guess all parties will say no tax rises, and then either back track after the election or let it fall on further spending cuts pushed out into the future. The recovery will always be around the corner. I suppose eventually it will all catch up with us.

edit: removed

Edited September 21, 2013 by Ash4781

[The Knimbies who say No]

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-20/labour-conference-ed-miliband-2013/

Interesting. So I guess all parties will say no tax rises, and then either back track after the election or let it fall on further spending cuts pushed out into the future. The recovery will always be around the corner. I suppose eventually it will all catch up with us.

edit: removed

Hmm, a £60k gross, two adult three teenage child household paying £3k per annum in council tax has an income greater than two thirds of the population.

Lose the children and a couple on £60k are better off than 85% of the population. If it's a single person household that percentage rises into the ninties.

Is Reeves's pronouncement not just another statement/consequence of recent galloping cost of living in the UK?

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

edit clarity/typos

Edited September 21, 2013 by The B.L.T.

[Damik]

http://www.itv.com/n...-miliband-2013/

Interesting. So I guess all parties will say no tax rises, and then either back track after the election or let it fall on further spending cuts pushed out into the future. The recovery will always be around the corner. I suppose eventually it will all catch up with us.

edit: removed

yes; we will never tax houses/land, but we are happy to take away 40% if you earn above £42k pa

as we do not want people to work hard and smart; we want them instead to buy houses and earn less than £42k so they can also collect tax credits, child benefits and other perks ...

[righttoleech]

Translates as 'I Rachel Reeves do not want to pay more income tax'.

The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue, so to be effective 'the many' must be taxed.....not 'the few'. This two faced nonsense of rebates, exceptions and allowances just costs more to administrate and therefore wastes money.

[wherebee]

The older I get, the more I am convinced that pre-tax income is in western societies more and more irrelevant to wealth. Assets = wealth.

If I can own a house with garden to live in and grow fruit and veg, retired, and I have an income of 15k, I am richer than someone on 60k renting and commuting.

[LiveinHope]

The older I get, the more I am convinced that pre-tax income is in western societies more and more irrelevant to wealth. Assets = wealth.

If I can own a house with garden to live in and grow fruit and veg, retired, and I have an income of 15k, I am richer than someone on 60k renting and commuting.

The way to be wealthy is to realise how little you need, and to stop acquiring when you reach that point.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Ah...I wonder how much the average MP earns these days? Rachel should be making like a bandit on her salary given that Leeds is relatively cheap.

[erat_forte]

People on £60k income 'are not rich'

Tomorrow's news, People on £12k income 'are not poor'.

"we need to stop this idea that some people are better off than others. Remember, we're all in it together. Now get back to your foreign holidays / 9-5 job / bedroom tax eviction appeal* and be grateful for your lot"

*delete as appropriate

[Mrs Bear]

People on £60k income 'are not rich'

Tomorrow's news, People on £12k income 'are not poor'.

"we need to stop this idea that some people are better off than others. Remember, we're all in it together. Now get back to your foreign holidays / 9-5 job / bedroom tax eviction appeal* and be grateful for your lot"

*delete as appropriate

Can't help wondering how you'd define 'rich' nowadays anyway. Oligarch billions? Someone with £100K net a year? Someone who can afford to fly first class whenever they like without even thinking about it?

[LiveinHope]

Can't help wondering how you'd define 'rich' nowadays anyway. Oligarch billions? Someone with £100K net a year? Someone who can afford to fly first class whenever they like without even thinking about it?

Someone who can afford to fly first class whenever they like but choose to fly economy

Edited September 21, 2013 by LiveinHope

[Biggus]

She is correct. Sixty thousand pounds is not what is once was. It's probably equivalent to about 30k in 2005. In 2005 Petrol was about 80p per liter and bread was about 80p a loaf. Now bread is about a pound fifty for a loaf and petrol is one pound forty per liter. In 2005 would you have said somebody who is paid 30 or 40 thousand pounds per year rich? Probably not.

It's true to say the people of Britain are now much poorer than they were a decade ago, but that is due to money printing and insanely low interest rates. People will be poorer still in five years time, when Carney has leached their salaries away with inflation.

[goldbug9999]

Well with fuel/food/energy etc at current prices even living alone I seriously struggle to keep my outgoings below 3k/month and 60K is only 3.5K take home.

Below 50K I cant see how anyone can survive without benefits/tax credits.

[debtlessmanc]

Well with fuel/food/energy etc at current prices even living alone I seriously struggle to keep my outgoings below 3k/month and 60K is only 3.5K take home.

Below 50K I cant see how anyone can survive without benefits/tax credits.

That's the issue, benefits and tax credits all cease at £50-60k

On of my colleagues is on around £54k he has four kids and a wife who doesn't work but home schools (they live in the pennines miles from anywhere and suits them, anyway it saves the country a fortune in education fees) he was telling me recently that despite having only a small mortgage having bought ages ago, they are flat broke, holidaying with parents at the seaside, car an old banger given as a gift by a friend etc, growing their own food to safe money.

Contrast that with the lifestyle of someone not working at all with 4 kids, for which he pays 40% tax to feed and educate.

[LiveinHope]

Well with fuel/food/energy etc at current prices even living alone I seriously struggle to keep my outgoings below 3k/month and 60K is only 3.5K take home.

Below 50K I cant see how anyone can survive without benefits/tax credits.

That has to be sarcasm, surely ?

My outgoings are < 1.2k a month and that is housing, heating and feeding 2, and including my car - but not the second car.

Excluding holiday costs, which would probably add another £100 a month

In employment, no benefits, renting small house in the Southwest.

I'd be stashing away tens of thousands on 60k to buy my freedom as fast as possible.

Edited September 21, 2013 by LiveinHope

[credo]

The way to be wealthy in this country is to not buy in to the consumerist culture that we're plague with IMHO.

It's important to also mention how rich we are in comparison to most people in the world. I know you have to take into account the cost of living here but most of us in the UK are VERY rich by world standards, even people on low incomes. .

[durhamborn]

Her party pushed council tax up at 3x the rate of earings growth,petrol tax at 2x the rate of earnings growth hitting people on around £13k hardest who worked.

When she says they wouldn't increase tax on someone on £60k she means we wont increase income tax but we will freeze the tax free bracket,we will let councils rack up council tax again and we will find a way to tax more on fuel.

Looking at the policy details they are letting out today it doesn't look like the front bench have any ideas at all.They have simply picked a couple of areas they think might have a few votes.

[Biggus]

The way to be wealthy in this country is to not buy in to the consumerist culture that we're plague with IMHO.

It's important to also mention how rich we are in comparison to most people in the world. I know you have to take into account the cost of living here but most of us in the UK are VERY rich by world standards, even people on low incomes. .

I suppose there are a few places around the world we are worse off than. The very poor in India and Africa, maybe. But we are catching them up quickly. Living standards are falling dramatically in Britain. People are struggling to buy basics, such as food and clothing. People are going cold in the winter as they can not afford to heat their homes. Rates of home ownership are falling. You can't really get much poorer than someone who cannot afford to eat or keep warm.

As you say much of the poverty is inflicted by the state forcing up prices and destroying the value of money. But whatever the cause the British are poor and getting poorer quickly. The rate at which we are being impoverished is phenomenal. Pay is not going up and money is being devalued by about ten percent per year, regardless of the lies churned out by the thieves in the state. You can feel it in your bank balance and your fuel bills. If things carry on this way, and they almost certainly will, in a few years time even the middle classes will be going hungry. Comparing us to starving Indians and Rwandans will not change this.

[debtlessmanc]

Her party pushed council tax up at 3x the rate of earings growth,petrol tax at 2x the rate of earnings growth hitting people on around £13k hardest who worked.

When she says they wouldn't increase tax on someone on £60k she means we wont increase income tax but we will freeze the tax free bracket,we will let councils rack up council tax again and we will find a way to tax more on fuel.

Looking at the policy details they are letting out today it doesn't look like the front bench have any ideas at all.They have simply picked a couple of areas they think might have a few votes.

Exactly it about garnering votes from champagne socialists who earn 60k a year and are peeved that they cannot afford champagne anymore...

[Bruce Banner]

She is correct. Sixty thousand pounds is not what is once was. It's probably equivalent to about 30k in 2005. In 2005 Petrol was about 80p per liter and bread was about 80p a loaf. Now bread is about a pound fifty for a loaf and petrol is one pound forty per liter. In 2005 would you have said somebody who is paid 30 or 40 thousand pounds per year rich? Probably not.

It's true to say the people of Britain are now much poorer than they were a decade ago, but that is due to money printing and insanely low interest rates. People will be poorer still in five years time, when Carney has leached their salaries away with inflation.

That depends on what percentage of your income you spend on bread and fuel.

[juvenal]

The way to be wealthy in this country is to not buy in to the consumerist culture that we're plague with IMHO.

It's important to also mention how rich we are in comparison to most people in the world. I know you have to take into account the cost of living here but most of us in the UK are VERY rich by world standards, even people on low incomes. .

You've nailed it..

[frank rizzo]

The way to be wealthy in this country is to not buy in to the consumerist culture that we're plague with IMHO.

It's important to also mention how rich we are in comparison to most people in the world. I know you have to take into account the cost of living here but most of us in the UK are VERY rich by world standards, even people on low incomes. .

Surely if you can't buy into consumerist culture then you can't be wealthy? Isn't the nature of wealth that you can have anything you want (materialistically) without worry?

I'd say for most, the way to survive is to not buy in to the consumerist culture

[Mrs Bear]

I suppose there are a few places around the world we are worse off than. The very poor in India and Africa, maybe. But we are catching them up quickly. Living standards are falling dramatically in Britain. People are struggling to buy basics, such as food and clothing. People are going cold in the winter as they can not afford to heat their homes. Rates of home ownership are falling. You can't really get much poorer than someone who cannot afford to eat or keep warm.

As you say much of the poverty is inflicted by the state forcing up prices and destroying the value of money. But whatever the cause the British are poor and getting poorer quickly. The rate at which we are being impoverished is phenomenal. Pay is not going up and money is being devalued by about ten percent per year, regardless of the lies churned out by the thieves in the state. You can feel it in your bank balance and your fuel bills. If things carry on this way, and they almost certainly will, in a few years time even the middle classes will be going hungry. Comparing us to starving Indians and Rwandans will not change this.

I take it you haven't seen much of the 3rd world. So many people in the UK have absolutely no idea of what real, abject poverty looks like.

[wherebee]

It's not just about avoiding the consumerist culture. Basic things like taking your family to the seaside and then paying eight pounds for parking when it was free when I was a kid.

http://www.westwitteringbeach.co.uk/parking.html

This shocked me when I went there this summer whilst in the UK on holiday. Everything has been turned into an income stream.

Again, if you have a big house and a big garden, you don't need to pay these charges - your kids run around the garden all summer for free.

[bristolhunter]

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-20/labour-conference-ed-miliband-2013/

Well, that's gross. So we're talking £40800 after tax. Realistically, pension contributions and council tax are going to take a couple more k out of that. They'll be lucky to be netting £3k a month.

Living by myself, that would afford a very comfortable lifestyle, but even there I wouldn't call it "rich". And as soon as you add in a family - no, it isn't. It would keep them comfortable (down from 'very'), but what trappings of a 'rich' lifestyle would they have? 2 kids, private school fees would be £25k a year - well over half the take home. That would leave £15k for rent/mortgage, car, food, bills, holiday, after school clubs, music lessons, sports - they might just be able to squeeze that lot in depending on where you live, but I can't see anything else. Put the kids back in state school and now you've got a cushion, but you're still down the trappings of 'rich'.

People forget two things: (1) cost of living rises in recent years, (2) just how effectively progressive taxation does its job. I earn twice what I did six years ago, but my take home pay is only 50% higher - the rest, half the increase, has disappeared into taxes and pension.

[bristolhunter]

I take it you haven't seen much of the 3rd world. So many people in the UK have absolutely no idea of what real, abject poverty looks like.

Hear hear. Whenever people in the UK whinge 'we're nearly as poor as India!' I just want to vomit.

The UK is a stunningly rich country. To put the context, by global standards, Romania is a rich country (61st/180). People here have no idea how good we have it.