What would you be willing to pay more tax for?
Discussion
Whilst we all, in general, want to pay less tax whenever possible, there are of course things that nobody resents tax money being spent on. It's a slightly different matter to actually come up with suggestions for which you'd willingly pay a bit more in tax, so I figured it might be interesting to see who would, what for and why?
To get the ball rolling, I'd be happy to pay a bit more tax to set up a modest non-contributory pension scheme for people on low pay, maybe as a gradually reducing scale from minimum wage up to 25% over it.
Why would I be willing to do this?
Partly, it's because I am self-aware enough to recognise that I'm not a self-made man! Yes, I've worked hard (he says, on PH at 09:50 on a work day!
), and I've saved sensibly, but at the same time I had the fortune that not everyone has of being born into a stable, loving, financially comfortable family who placed a lot of importance on the value of education and hard work. I also recognise that not everyone can sell software and bank nice commission cheques for a living, and without a lot of the people working just as hard as me for a fraction of my salary, my own life would be a lot harder and less pleasant than it currently is.
Partly, it's also because I get frustrated by skint pensioners somehow always being viewed as the noble poor!!! It's really easy for the news channels to go out and find a pensioner saying that thanks to Labour cutting their winter fuel allowance they're now going to have to eat their cat raw because they can't afford to turn the gas on to cook it, but how often do we ever hear the back stories?
Someone might have worked their whole life in low wage jobs that society can't live without, and found themselves reaching retirement age without savings because even living a frugal life, they never had anything to spare, and I really don't mind helping someone in that position, as the goods and services I've bought over the years will often have been cheaper than they otherwise would have been if those people had been paid significantly more for their labour. On the other hand, that skint pensioner may well have earned a perfectly decent job with a mid-range salary then chosen to spunk it all up the wall on expensive holidays, Audis on PCP and multiple nights a week down the pub without giving a thought towards saving for their retirement, and why the f
k should I fund them a penny when they couldn't be arsed to do it themselves?
With a system like that, I think we could then abolish the winter fuel allowance and anything similar because anyone left up st creek as a result only has themselves to blame! I'd be happy to pay a bit more tax for that, as I suspect in the long run it'll work out cheaper anyway, and I wouldn't be left feeling either guilty that someone deserving was suffering, or ripped off that someone deserving wasn't suffering!
To get the ball rolling, I'd be happy to pay a bit more tax to set up a modest non-contributory pension scheme for people on low pay, maybe as a gradually reducing scale from minimum wage up to 25% over it.
Why would I be willing to do this?
Partly, it's because I am self-aware enough to recognise that I'm not a self-made man! Yes, I've worked hard (he says, on PH at 09:50 on a work day!
), and I've saved sensibly, but at the same time I had the fortune that not everyone has of being born into a stable, loving, financially comfortable family who placed a lot of importance on the value of education and hard work. I also recognise that not everyone can sell software and bank nice commission cheques for a living, and without a lot of the people working just as hard as me for a fraction of my salary, my own life would be a lot harder and less pleasant than it currently is.Partly, it's also because I get frustrated by skint pensioners somehow always being viewed as the noble poor!!! It's really easy for the news channels to go out and find a pensioner saying that thanks to Labour cutting their winter fuel allowance they're now going to have to eat their cat raw because they can't afford to turn the gas on to cook it, but how often do we ever hear the back stories?
Someone might have worked their whole life in low wage jobs that society can't live without, and found themselves reaching retirement age without savings because even living a frugal life, they never had anything to spare, and I really don't mind helping someone in that position, as the goods and services I've bought over the years will often have been cheaper than they otherwise would have been if those people had been paid significantly more for their labour. On the other hand, that skint pensioner may well have earned a perfectly decent job with a mid-range salary then chosen to spunk it all up the wall on expensive holidays, Audis on PCP and multiple nights a week down the pub without giving a thought towards saving for their retirement, and why the f
k should I fund them a penny when they couldn't be arsed to do it themselves?With a system like that, I think we could then abolish the winter fuel allowance and anything similar because anyone left up s
t creek as a result only has themselves to blame! I'd be happy to pay a bit more tax for that, as I suspect in the long run it'll work out cheaper anyway, and I wouldn't be left feeling either guilty that someone deserving was suffering, or ripped off that someone deserving wasn't suffering!As someone subject to the 45% rate any more tax would have to be on the lower rate for me to feel comfortable so let's say it's 2% uplift on the 20% rate OK everyone is in it together and then spend it on what you like. Loosing the tax free allowance does make me feel kind of disenfranchised from the whole state system. Healthcare is poor so I pay to go private (an additional cost to me) education is poor so I pay school fees (an additional cost to me). An now you are saying what would I pay more for well if my 2% extra got me better health or education then maybe that. But tax rises should be linked to outcomes. So uplift in tax over a say 2 years if not matched by specific outcome then it should be removed.
Otherwise it's just more tax for same rubbish year after year
Otherwise it's just more tax for same rubbish year after year
As long as it was ring-fenced and used for it's intended purposes, i'd pay extra taxes for
- New prisons with enhanced rehabilitation - also make petty crimes jailable offences. So you get 2 years for stealing from a shop.
- Youth training schemes. Offer young people the possibility to be trained up in various trades, which would hopefully give them a career.
- New prisons with enhanced rehabilitation - also make petty crimes jailable offences. So you get 2 years for stealing from a shop.
- Youth training schemes. Offer young people the possibility to be trained up in various trades, which would hopefully give them a career.
Those on around 15-50k are currently paying historically very low levels of tax.
I wouldn't be bothered if a couple of pence was put on the base rate as I've said before.
Could temper the increase a little by fiddling with the thresholds.
Not sure how much it would raise but I guess a lot. £50bn atleast I'd have thought.
I wouldn't be bothered if a couple of pence was put on the base rate as I've said before.
Could temper the increase a little by fiddling with the thresholds.
Not sure how much it would raise but I guess a lot. £50bn atleast I'd have thought.
I’d pay more tax to have the whole tax system more balanced through the wealth and income deciles. It feels now that far too many cohorts are disenfranchised from the tax system for previous voting intentions.
Taxes should be slightly progressive, but they need to be continually progressive. We have situations where people on incomes of £65k pay higher marginal tax than those on £90k. Again those on £120k paying more than those on £200k.
But then on really big incomes the rates drop again as people find accounting avoidance schemes to pay a lower effective rate.
I disagree with a tax free allowance. Why should you pay zero income tax on income? Perhaps a starting rate of 5%.
Same on wealth taxes. Why such high thresholds on inheritance tax? Make everyone pay, perhaps a lower rate at lower levels. But then wipe out the avoidance loopholes for those with £multi-millions to inherit.
Essentially, make tax payment more incremental with wealth and income.
Taxes should be slightly progressive, but they need to be continually progressive. We have situations where people on incomes of £65k pay higher marginal tax than those on £90k. Again those on £120k paying more than those on £200k.
But then on really big incomes the rates drop again as people find accounting avoidance schemes to pay a lower effective rate.
I disagree with a tax free allowance. Why should you pay zero income tax on income? Perhaps a starting rate of 5%.
Same on wealth taxes. Why such high thresholds on inheritance tax? Make everyone pay, perhaps a lower rate at lower levels. But then wipe out the avoidance loopholes for those with £multi-millions to inherit.
Essentially, make tax payment more incremental with wealth and income.
ChocolateFrog said:
Those on around 15-50k are currently paying historically very low levels of tax.
I wouldn't be bothered if a couple of pence was put on the base rate as I've said before.
Could temper the increase a little by fiddling with the thresholds.
Not sure how much it would raise but I guess a lot. £50bn atleast I'd have thought.
Not if they have a student loan (university tax) - No, I would not give the chancellor a penny more than I am already. I wouldn't be bothered if a couple of pence was put on the base rate as I've said before.
Could temper the increase a little by fiddling with the thresholds.
Not sure how much it would raise but I guess a lot. £50bn atleast I'd have thought.
ChocolateFrog said:
Those on around 15-50k are currently paying historically very low levels of tax.
I wouldn't be bothered if a couple of pence was put on the base rate as I've said before.
Could temper the increase a little by fiddling with the thresholds.
Not sure how much it would raise but I guess a lot. £50bn atleast I'd have thought.
Agree and I don’t see why labour don’t do it. Massive lead just grow a pair couple of pence that we all pay that raises billions. I wouldn't be bothered if a couple of pence was put on the base rate as I've said before.
Could temper the increase a little by fiddling with the thresholds.
Not sure how much it would raise but I guess a lot. £50bn atleast I'd have thought.
s1962a said:
As long as it was ring-fenced and used for it's intended purposes, i'd pay extra taxes for
- New prisons with enhanced rehabilitation - also make petty crimes jailable offences. So you get 2 years for stealing from a shop.
- Youth training schemes. Offer young people the possibility to be trained up in various trades, which would hopefully give them a career.
I agree with this.- New prisons with enhanced rehabilitation - also make petty crimes jailable offences. So you get 2 years for stealing from a shop.
- Youth training schemes. Offer young people the possibility to be trained up in various trades, which would hopefully give them a career.
I'd also happily pay more tax to protect the countryside and pay for concentration camps for fly tippers.
Pay more than enough already thanks, and once the initial payroll bite has been taken then get hit with plenty more.
Having done many projects with the civil service, NHS, police etc. over the years additional tax to fund spending is a pointless approach as won't improve anything, they'll just piss it up a wall as they always have. They're like children, as they don't have to earn their money they have little respect for it.
Having done many projects with the civil service, NHS, police etc. over the years additional tax to fund spending is a pointless approach as won't improve anything, they'll just piss it up a wall as they always have. They're like children, as they don't have to earn their money they have little respect for it.
Enhancing national infrastructure funding & subsidization (see: Nationalise) of transportation.
Not just talking about roads! - Whilst the recent history of "big" infrastructure projects (HS2...) is not amazing, the ROI could be fantastic.
Compared to the continent, and rest of the world, UK infrastructure is still mired in a victorian past and generally feels rather.. knackered.
Enhanced rail capacity, with a focus not only on high speed passenger capacity, but also on cargo transportation - Rail hubs and routes along key corridors have the potential to significantly reduce cost and emissions of transport, with knock on reductions in road haulage requirements (Less traffic!) not to mention the huge efficiency improvements.
Driving along some of the key corridor routes at the right time, you'll encounter huge convoys of trucks stretching miles across two lanes - Many of which will be going to and from the same places - Why there isn't a rail connection (even if it was a "Eurotunnel" style drive on - drive off operation is befuddling.
On that point, Wouldn't it be dreamy to have the Motor-rail service between London & Scotland back?
Much the same with roads - More projects like the lower thames crossing would be nice - And whilst I'm not under the illusion that "Another lane will fix the traffic" - Resolving key pinchpoints and dreadful junction designs would really help get things moving.
Not just talking about roads! - Whilst the recent history of "big" infrastructure projects (HS2...) is not amazing, the ROI could be fantastic.
Compared to the continent, and rest of the world, UK infrastructure is still mired in a victorian past and generally feels rather.. knackered.
Enhanced rail capacity, with a focus not only on high speed passenger capacity, but also on cargo transportation - Rail hubs and routes along key corridors have the potential to significantly reduce cost and emissions of transport, with knock on reductions in road haulage requirements (Less traffic!) not to mention the huge efficiency improvements.
Driving along some of the key corridor routes at the right time, you'll encounter huge convoys of trucks stretching miles across two lanes - Many of which will be going to and from the same places - Why there isn't a rail connection (even if it was a "Eurotunnel" style drive on - drive off operation is befuddling.
On that point, Wouldn't it be dreamy to have the Motor-rail service between London & Scotland back?
Much the same with roads - More projects like the lower thames crossing would be nice - And whilst I'm not under the illusion that "Another lane will fix the traffic" - Resolving key pinchpoints and dreadful junction designs would really help get things moving.
I would be happy if the current state of affairs was laid out by politicians in a cross party fashion. Current infrastructure state, demands, spending commitments and everything balanced against tax takes. Let us see the lot and then if something radical needs doing at least everyone understands. All we get at the moment is sniping back and forth.
The trouble with proposals to increase taxation is that people think that the money raised will just be wasted. They see record funding for the NHS and things just get progressively worse. That includes in Wales and Scotland so it isn't a purely Tory/Labour issue. People also see stupid local authority decisions and conclude that politicians at all levels simply mismanage whatever funds they're given: the more money they have the worse the decisions.
However, if one could ring fence the incremental money, AND spend it wisely, I'd not object to a Criminal Justice Levy and a Social Care Fund.
For the former (including but not limited to), fast track prison building, create more courts/magistrates/clerks, lots more police and a fully staffed CPS.
For the latter (including but not limited to), a special minimum wage for carers with a big recruitment drive to employ Brits to look after our loved ones. Perhaps fund the building of local cottage hospitals to care for those well enough to leave hospital but unable to live unassisted.
However, if one could ring fence the incremental money, AND spend it wisely, I'd not object to a Criminal Justice Levy and a Social Care Fund.
For the former (including but not limited to), fast track prison building, create more courts/magistrates/clerks, lots more police and a fully staffed CPS.
For the latter (including but not limited to), a special minimum wage for carers with a big recruitment drive to employ Brits to look after our loved ones. Perhaps fund the building of local cottage hospitals to care for those well enough to leave hospital but unable to live unassisted.
Of course what tends to happen is the polls say people are prepared to pay more tax if it’s for the NHS or similar good cause.
Politicians from parties believe the polls and say they’ll increase tax for the good cause. It’s makes no difference to them at the polls because in reality people don’t want more taxes and won’t vote for them!
Politicians from parties believe the polls and say they’ll increase tax for the good cause. It’s makes no difference to them at the polls because in reality people don’t want more taxes and won’t vote for them!
we are paying more tax now overall then at any time before.
Less public spending is needed not more, half the civil service, which really doesnt live upto its name anymore.
The nhs waste money like they have won the lottery.
As do local councils , stupid vanity projects instead of repairing whats already there.
Oh and pay mps more but stop all expense claims and perks.
Less public spending is needed not more, half the civil service, which really doesnt live upto its name anymore.
The nhs waste money like they have won the lottery.
As do local councils , stupid vanity projects instead of repairing whats already there.
Oh and pay mps more but stop all expense claims and perks.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff