Copy article

What is a working person?

Journalist: Marc Shoffman, Freelance

ended 28. October 2024

I am writing a piece for MoneyWeek off the back of PM Keir Starmer claiming a working person is someone who doesn't just earn money off assets.

Looking for views on this definition, how would you define a working person? Is the PM right/wrong?

Kind regards

Marc

9 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Dariusz Karpowicz
Director at Albion Financial Advice
It seems Sir Keir has opened a can of worms larger than the House of Commons! His definition of a "working person" is about as clear as a London fog.
By suggesting that earning from assets somehow disqualifies you from being a "working person", he's created a rather peculiar logic puzzle. Does a teacher with a small investment portfolio suddenly become a non-worker? What about a nurse who inherited a rental property, or a plumber who wisely invested in shares?
The reality is that modern working life isn't as black and white as politicians would like it to be. Many hardworking people combine traditional employment with asset-based income to make ends meet or plan for their future. It's not about how you earn, but rather the effort and dedication you put into managing your income streams.
This oversimplified definition feels more like political theatrics than a meaningful contribution to the conversation about work and wealth in modern Britain.
Copy

Editor
Stephen Perkins
Managing Director at Yellow Brick Mortgages
The government definition is woefully lacking and excludes many hard working people. Small business owners who pay themselves in dividends and landlords with scarce rental profits are being unfairly treated. Business owners boost the economy and provide jobs and landlords are crucial to rental housing supply. Both these "non-working" groups will be thinking why bother given they have already been taxed to within an inch of their lives. Personally, what isnt a working person, is one who has someone else buy their wardrobe, glasses and concert tickets for them.
Copy

Editor
Tony Redondo
Founder at Cosmos Currency Exchange
PM Keir Starmer defines a working person as someone who earns income primarily through labor, not capital gains. This definition can be criticized in four key ways:

Divisive Posture: This binary framing alienates those who invest, save, and create businesses, echoing outdated Soviet-style economic ideologies rather than reflecting the sixth biggest economy in the world.

Narrow Definition: It overlooks the origins of invested capital. Many investors begin with labor income, highlighting the hard work behind investment and entrepreneurship, which are crucial for economic growth.

Disincentivizing Progress: Starmer’s stance may discourage individuals from diversifying income streams, as it can devalue their efforts in investing or innovating, which are essential for a thriving economy.

Tax Revenue Implications: The Laffer curve suggests that high tax rates or negative views on investment can reduce entrepreneurial activity, ultimately leading to lower tax revenue.
Copy

Premium
Philip Dragoumis
Director and Owner at Thera Wealth Management
This whole debate is exhausting. surely we can all agree that passive income from capital is not work ? Are people really offended at this idea ?
Copy

Graham Cox
Director at Bridging Hub
In the context of the budget, it seems clear Labour are talking about a person who doesn't earn a significant proportion of their income passively from property, shares or other investments. A working person is someone predominantly trading their time for money. Labour have tied themselves in knots over this and have limited options for raising revenue. But it seems CGT, inheritance tax, pensions and employers NI are firmly in their sights.
Copy

Iain Swatton
Director at Exemplar Financial Services
In defining a "working person" as someone who doesn’t just earn from assets, Sir Keir may have opened Pandora’s box. The line between labour-earned income and asset-based wealth isn’t as clear-cut as a catchy slogan. In reality, today's working people often juggle jobs while owning buy-to-let properties or small businesses, blending active income with investments. If Labour’s first budget aims to support the real working Britain, it may need a definition that reflects the diversity of modern income sources, rather than one that draws arbitrary lines.
Copy

Rebecca Seeley Harris
CEO at Re Legal Consulting
As an expert in employment status, this is an interesting question. Ordinarily, I would be classifying whether someone is employed or self-employed or indeed a so-called 'limb b worker'. This is for employment rights or tax purposes. But, defining who is a working person is a different kettle of fish.

This debate seems to have gone to the heart of a person's workwise worth. If someone makes an income from an asset that they have worked hard to buy, why are they disregarded as a working person?

The PM's definition feels quite archaic. A working person who has a pay cheque at the end of the month and very little savings. Not very aspirational.

In my opinion, it's not so much about whether the person is a 'working person' but, whether it is a 'working income'. It's more about how the income is derived rather than what the person does or doesn't do that defines them.
Copy

David Nicklin
SSAS Consultant at Retirement Capital
Sir Keir’s remark on “working people” as those who don’t earn from assets ignores the reality facing modern Britain. With fiscal policies tightening, many have no choice but to seek extra income from assets to make ends meet. This isn’t about luxury, it’s survival in a high-cost economy.

Labeling asset income as somehow “unearned” is out of touch. The average Brit today might work a job, invest a little, or rent out a spare room, not for wealth, but for security. Hard work comes in many forms; whether it’s a salary or asset income, people are simply adapting to economic pressures. If the government wants fairness, it should support responsible asset use as a legitimate means to resilience, not dismiss it as the privilege of the few.

Ultimately, funding public services is crucial, but this overly simplistic view of “working” only alienates those striving to stay afloat. Financial security and societal contribution can, and should, go hand in hand.
Copy

Patricia McGirr
Founder at Repossession Rescue Network
Keir Starmer’s take on “working people” could use a reality check. Claiming only wage-earners count as “real workers” makes you wonder if he’s visited 2024, where many citizens are hustling just to keep afloat. Funding public services is vital, but pitching an “us vs. them” between wage-earners and asset earners is just lazy politics.

Asset income isn’t some golden ticket; it’s often the result of sacrifice and risk. It’s the Plan B, C, and D people rely on to survive the relentless grind of bills, inflation, and tax hikes.

Dismissing asset income as somehow “less than,” Keir risks alienating people trying to secure a bit of financial breathing room. In the current climate that’s the responsible thing to do. Self-reliance reduces the pressure on many public services. Let’s celebrate that!