[Closed] Would you be happy to pay more income tax if...

I'd prefer a comprehensive increase across all services.

I haven’t been to Manchester in 15yrs, so no.

I'd be happy if they hit the tax loop holes first.

No I'm on the breadline as it is. Reduce all their paperwork do they can spend more time on the streets.

I’d happily pay more income tax to fund all public services to a proper level.

Of course the present government won’t ever fund public services properly, there’s no profit in it for them or their private paymasters.

I already pay more income tax to support Police and other services. Yes, I'd be willing to pay more. Yes I voted for a party committed to fairer taxation. Yes there are other tax takes that could be improved - land tax being a good example.

^What he said. A wealth tax would be great.

" 8,000 officers in 2008 to 4,000 today. "

Not quite. There are around 6,400 currently if I remember correctly. Around 900 of those are recruits or student officers though and one issue is that we are seeing retirements and resignations at a higher level than we are going to be recruiting over the next 12 months as many officers from the big increase in staffing levels in the late 80's reach their 30 years.

Reduce all their paperwork do they can spend more time on the streets.

The paperwork is what keeps the wrong uns off the street, it's all part of the job anb just as important as wandering around.
I would be happy to see things like the Trump visit cancelled or at least bill the US for the cost of his little holiday

I think any extra should go to social services so the police can return to policing rather than dealing with all the mental health issues on the street.

I’d happily pay more income tax to fund all public services to a proper level.

That's a pretty daft statement, there's no consensus on what a proper level is, I don't ever remember public services being happy with funding levels under any government. If we spent our entire GDP on public services I don't think it would be enough. We need a defined level of service from the state but that will never happen as there will be many people who feel entitled to hangouts who won't get them and no government will set proper targets they can be measured against.

To answer the OP, no because no funding is ever properly ring fenced and I think there's more fundamental things to be addressed before increasing taxation, like the money wasted on Brexit for example. Secondly no if our government is knowingly perusing a policy that will reduce GDP between 3% and 10% im not making up that shortfall willingly through extra tax.

Sure, charge me an extra £10 a month as long as the proper equivalent is passed on to those earning over £100k

Yes i would happily pay more tax on the proviso it went to front line policing along with health professionals (eg nurses) and other emergency services BUT i would not want to be funding more bureaucracy and pen pushers.

I'd be happy to pay for proper services if I didn't think that the Tories just channel my taxes to their pals in the private sector.

That’s a pretty daft statement, there’s no consensus on what a proper level is,

My point was really that I object to ring fenced funding for stuff like this.
All it becomes is a sticking plaster and a pointless stat to hit like no daily mail reader should go more than 8brs without seeing a friendly bobby on the beat.

And then like above people only wanting visible police not people doing "stuff we don't understand"
If we do want to fund making society safer the conversation needs to go well beyond police numbers too.

Sure, charge me an extra £10 a month as long as the proper equivalent is passed on to those earning over £100k

[Devil’s advocate] But anyone earning over 100k pays an effective rate of 60% tax already by losing their tax free allowance....

Maybe those earning under c40k should pay more tax as they’re net receivers from the state....

Or perhaps the approx 50% of UK adults who don’t pay any income tax could fund some of it, rather than expecting and ever smaller group of people to shoulder the national tax burden...

[/Devil’s advocate]

For me, I already pay a lot of income tax. I don’t have a problem contributing more on a hypothecated basis so long as we can agree the scope, parameters and success criteria. I don’t really have an issue with paying some more on a non-hypothecated basis, again so long as it delivers overall fairness.

https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

[Devil’s advocate] But anyone earning over 100k pays an effective rate of 60% tax already by losing their tax free allowance….

I assume what you mean is you are paying 60% on earnings over 100k as a simple calc has the take home from 100k at about 65k so an overall rate of 35%.

But anyone earning over 100k pays an effective rate of 60% tax already

Which country do you live in where this is the case ?

Which country do you live in where this is the case ?

That's (roughly) the marginal rate here for some salary levels.

That’s (roughly) the marginal rate here for some salary levels.

Which is a little meaningless overall. Its a nice stat to complain about though

The paperwork is what keeps the wrong uns off the street, it’s all part of the job anb just as important as wandering around.

Pure unadulterated shite !!

That’s (roughly) the marginal rate here for some salary levels.

And how is that related to the claimed 60% effective tax rate for £100k earners?

Not at the moment. I wouldn't give our current political leaders a single extra penny.

A change in regime would make me change my mind.

Which is a little meaningless overall

It's not meaningless if you're an individual to whom it applies. In that case, the question "would you be happy to pay more tax" is likely answered "no".

It’s not meaningless if you’re an individual to whom it applies.

True its a good thing to whinge about when your overall tax rate is closer to 35% before you start any tricks.

Apologies, I wasn’t clear: the 60% is the marginal rate paid between 100k-c120k. It’s down to the loss of the tax free allowance. It’s what I’d describe as a nice problem to have. IIRC there are about 1 million people who earn 100k+ in the UK.

If you want to go for pure pecentages, then excluding NI (though let’s face it, it’s just more income tax) and any in work benefits, then the blended rates are:

Gross income of 15k pays c600 tax or 4%.

Gross income of 30k pays c3,600 tax or 12%.

Gross income of 60k pays c13,500 tax or 21%.

Gross income of 120k pays c40k tax or 33%.

So, my point FWIW is that higher earners pay a larger % already. Which we all know. This thread wasn’t about acceptable levels of income but a general willingness to pay more tax.

BTW in picking at my deliberately provocative statements you haven’t addressed the fact that only just over 50% adults pay any income tax or that you need to be earning c40k to stop being a net receiver from the state.

So, back to the question: irrespective of tax rates, should we all pay more for improved public services? I still think yes but it’s a hard sell to a nation where so many feel so squeezed already - How many public sector workers would rather have a pay rise themselves, rather than spend it on new recruits?

Are the Police not also spending more time picking up the pieces of reduced social and mental welfare services.

There’s a lot broken at the moment.

Undoubtedly many of our public services and our infrastructure are in poor shape through a history of underfunding. To change that funding needs to be increased. If we truly are the 5th biggest economy in the world (and frankly I think that's a bit far fetched) we ought to be able to find the money for 21st century standards of services and infrastructure. Of course money for publicly funded services has to be raised through taxation and income tax is part of that, though not the full story. I suggest we are a low taxation nation but also a low income nation. Given a more equitable distribution of wealth and more REAL full time employment as opposed to the trumped-up figures we are presented with, I feel increased taxation to improve services and society itself would not be overly problematical for a government to propose.

However, that is not our current trajectory. We are heading towards an even lower paid, less regulated country to benefit the few not the many. If that happens, things will become even worse than they are now.

Ourman, should include NI really, 60k pays nearer 29%. Good point about the dwindling number of adults actually paying tax, sends a very poor message to many in low income roles that tax is something paid by others.

@ stumpyjon - agree. Was just going for a “pure” comparison to show the % of income tax to clarify a point I’d made. Of course to get a truer picture we need all the stats, incl demographics etc.

As you and slowdman say, there’s quite a lot more to it and I completely agree that we need to be clear on where we want the country to head towards.

And, given the current political crisis (which I can’t see abating after 29th March), now is the time to start to get that right.

If wealthy tax dodgers and tax avoiders were clamped down on first, yes.

No, not because i'm intrinsically opposed to it, but because it won't solve the underlying problems.

I'd be happy to pay more taxes once the hangers on at the top of our public services have their numbers and wages cut to realistic levels.

The number of admin staff in NHS doing nothing more than paper pushing is a disgrace matched only by the ridiculous salaries they are on.

Same with the Police. How many at Chief Constable rank have been sacked for being bent? Far too many, apart from those like Manchester or Lincoln who top themselves when caught out. Same all down the hierarchy. Every week there seems to be a bent copper in court. Think they are above the law.

Local councils spend vast amounts of our money on what are little more than vanity projects and all cost inordinate amounts. Services to local residents come way down their list of priorities.

The public services in this country are all out of control because they know they can call on public sympathy.

In private enterprise they wouldn't last a week because they are little more than hangers on. And I've worked on both sides of the fence and public sector work is a cushy number.

Stop wasting our money and give us value for what we spend and then we will see just where the money goes.

Gross income of 15k pays c600 tax or 4%.

Gross income of 30k pays c3,600 tax or 12%.

Gross income of 60k pays c13,500 tax or 21%.

Gross income of 120k pays c40k tax or 33%.

So, my point FWIW is that higher earners pay a larger % already. Which we all know. This thread wasn’t about acceptable levels of income but a general willingness to pay more tax.

But you then forget that as a % of income, given VAT on goods and services hits everyone equally, and that after non progressive taxation, people on £40k are still very much "richer" and the true % of tax paid overall is very much evened out. And there are still plenty of mechanics for someone on £40k to exploit, not open to £15 earners.

I'd pay a few extra quid to be able to open up a random thread and not have to see mick posting on it.😟

But you then forget that as a % of income, given VAT on goods and services hits everyone equally, and that after non progressive taxation, people on £40k are still very much “richer” and the true % of tax paid overall is very much evened out. And there are still plenty of mechanics for someone on £40k to exploit, not open to £15 earners.

You’re missing the point of the (deliberately simplistic) illustration.

You’re quite right that flat rate, post income tax taxes are a real issue. Fuel tax is another - it’s progressive in that it’s consumption based, but directly impacts rural dwellers more and rural incomes are on average lower than urban incomes.

And all of this discussion assumes that paying more income tax is sufficient contribution to get the sort of society we want. Perhaps the question also ought to be “what else are we doing to build the right sort of society?”.

How many will assume their parents will move Into care when they’re old rather than move in with them like we used to? How many families will give up farming their kids out to nurseries and give up one parent’s income? Who will ditch two cars, take a job they can walk to?

There’s more to it than money. If we think that governments will get this right on their own without our input and intervention, without people taking responsibility and holding each other to account, then we’ll get what we deserve.

What the OP really meant is would you be happy if other people paid more income tax to fund XXXX. Everyone, when asked, answers they’d pay more but universally vote the opposite. Personally, no as I pay enormous amounts already, I’m happy to do so, but as mentioned, there is a complete absence of clarity about where taxation comes from. And the unpalatable truth is that it is disproportionately the higher paid who make the majority of the contributions.

Hypothecation is what lotteries are for. Maybe we need the Policing lottery as an alternative means of taxation 😉 . It works for the NHS, apparently.

Pretty much TiRed says.

I’ve been lucky to have paid some large tax bills. I’d also pay more tax if there was some direct correlation between my extra tax and outcomes (schools/nhs/police). It’s the lack of accountability and direct consequences that pisses people off.

Also I guess that most higher tax payers have either private health insurance, live in low crime areas and/or send kids to private schools so don’t see the benefits to society of paying more tax

As someone who pays circa 43% of his overall income in direct taxation (income tax and national insurance) I’m going to say no, not really.

Everyone, when asked, answers they’d pay more but universally vote the opposite.

Except those that vote for parties that want to raise taxes.

Or those who live in Scotland..

So, my point FWIW is that higher earners pay a larger % already.

It's interesting that high earners rarely mention their reduction in National Insurance contributions.

Sajid Javid has authorised that the policing precept in council tax can be doubled if requested. So we all are going to be paying more towards policing in the coming years.

Except those that vote for parties that want to raise taxes

People who don’t pay taxes vote for parties that want to raise taxes shokka 😉

As someone who pays circa 43% of his overall income in direct taxation

I suppose I might feel the same in that position but it's a position I would like to be in.

Happy? I wouldn't be happy but I'd have no problem with paying more without any conditions. I won't be paying anything voluntarily to the Treasury (although that's possible to do for those who think higher tax is a good idea.)

A better question would be what proportion of GDP should be collected by the state? When we know what we need we have a better idea if we want to pay it. It's been a bit under ~40pc[1]since WW2, and 37pc at the moment which is about the middle of what it usually is. So what's the right amount? I presume if people think that everything is currently pretty bad then 2-3pc isn't going to cut it. Are people thinking it needs nearer to 60pc?

[1] https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/past_revenue

You could take a look at this list and see what conclusions you reach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

You could take a look at this list and see what conclusions you reach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio/blockquote >

I'm asking the people who think we've got it badly wrong what 'right' is.

 

I’ve been lucky to have paid some large tax bills. I’d also pay more tax if there was some direct correlation between my extra tax and outcomes (schools/nhs/police). It’s the lack of accountability and direct consequences that pisses people off.

Very much my mindset too. Over the years I've had some big earning periods where I've paid a hell of a lot of tax, I still pay an awful lot now. Having dealt with several different public sector verticals professionally, I have sadly seen plenty of examples of poor performance culture (both individual and departmental/institutional) that's tolerated and allowed to continue, rather than being sanctioned and poor performers either being retrained or got rid of. I'd be concerned that just chucking more money at things would act as an enabler to continuation of that.

If there were strict SLA's on both individuals and departments, with regular assessment and action on those assessments to ensure performance improvements, then yes I'd pay more as it would result in improved services. Without that caveat, then no.

No , not until the whole government and every sector was stripped down and built back from the ground up. Which will never happen. MP's need to be elected in and not handed a title via a best mate. A chief constable has to work with experience to get the position, not because his/her dad knew some guy at eton, etc. etc.

The whole thing stinks for low earners and the lower middle class, the majority of the people, the world over. Sadly when money and power is involved that is where we see the human races real survival of the fittest instinct kick in. The grotesque and demeaning sights and stories we see or hear about everyday.

While we have achieved and advanced alot in 50 years it could all seem petty and in vain the way current trends are going. Everything is not ok , but we are helpless in what we can do about it. If a dung beetle pushes around for long enough , it will get to a point where it can't roll anymore.

No ones mentioned the black hole that is public sector final salary pensions.
We need a tiered approach to closing final salary pensions, the private sector did it years ago as it’s a stack of cards..

For that reason why should I pay more taxes to fund public sector workers fruitful retirements when many will have little income for basic food and bills ..

I’ve worked in the public sector and saw many obscene ways of spending, I think my biggest gripe, agency staffing in the nhs. Middlemen making huge sums of money for nothing

No ones mentioned the black hole that is public sector final salary pensions.
We need a tiered approach to closing final salary pensions, the private sector did it years ago as it’s a stack of cards..

You're in luck the public sector did too.

whatyodoinsucka
...We need a tiered approach to closing final salary pensions, the private sector did it years ago as it’s a stack of cards.....

We also need to find a way for people to have pension funds that cannot be robbed by the govt or finance sector.

If you have misgivings about the safety of your money in a pension fund you're not going to be keen to be contributing what you should.

Absolutely.

But we don't need to.

The Government can't simply run out of money nor does it need to balance the books. We are being driven by a vicious social programme that is pounded out every day that the Government can be short of money. It's twaddle. Tax is mainly there to take money out of circulation and control inflation not to pay for services.

Please see Stephanie Kelton or Richard Murphy about this.

https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/this-economist-wants-to-change-the-meaning-of-money/86035

Agreed @epicyclo pensions is a mess, so many people are living beyond their means and not saving for the future, I’m in a good place compared to some, but former colleagues in the public sector will be far better off in retirement.

@drac, I’ll revise that comment defined benefit or defined contribution ..
Looking at my local council jobs pages the pensions certainly are defined benefit

As someone who pays circa 43% of his overall income in direct taxation

This is the thing with this discussion. Look at your earnings as net earnings as that is what you are taking from the system rather the worry about taxes as that is what you are giving to the system.
If you are taking a high amount from the system others have to take less as it is not infinite which gives a bit more perspective. I am very privileged and take a relatively large amount and would be happy to take less if the additional money I gave was used properly.

Realise that all sounds a bit like the "I would give to charity if they didn't spend so much on x, y and z" but I really don't believe the Tory party can be trusted to spend any extra money on what is required to make less privileged peoples lives better.

You’re in luck the public sector did too.

Its like bullshit bingo in this thread!

@drac, I’ll revise that comment defined benefit or defined contribution ..
Looking at my local council jobs pages the pensions certainly are defined benefit

How dare they try to make the job more attractive.

I'd happily pay more council tax, my city obviously needs more money considering the closure of public toilets, libraries, social care, social support charity funding, transport etc

But it's been frozen for about 10 years now. Doesn't really make much sense. I'd rather have somewhere to pee when I'm out and about.

The number of admin staff in NHS doing nothing more than paper pushing is a disgrace matched only by the ridiculous salaries they are on.

Of course much better a medic is doing admin rather than looking after patients.

What are these high paid admin jobs you talk about?

Increase duty on alcohol 50%. Increase mental health funding 100%. That would free up the Police’s time no end + the NHS.

How dare they try to make the job more attractive.

Funny how will still have massive shortages of nurses and teachers despite such amazing benefits.

The Government can’t simply run out of money

That's true if you can print money you can never run out of money. Of course that money is worthless, but you can still print plenty of it.

So yeah, we'd be Venezuela, rather than Greece but the consequences are identical. Greece can't print money, so ran out of money, Venezuela can print money so it's money becomes worthless. IN terms of spending power it's the same thing.

Can someone answer my question from above. If ~40pc of is a disaster, what is the right amount? ~60pc? ~80pc? Without an answer to that it's a completely futile debate. If we're talking about 0.00001pc extra we'll all be happy to dip in to our pockets, if we need to double revenue to have adequate services that's a bit harder.

Also I guess that most higher tax payers have either private health insurance, live in low crime areas and/or send kids to private schools so don’t see the benefits to society of paying more tax

This is laughably wrong

... For example...universal state education benefits society as a whole producing an educated workforce who can undertake higher value work which generates greater national wealth etc etc. Just because I don't have kids or someone else chooses to privately educate doesn't mean we don't benefit massively from education spend.

The way to generate more taxation isn't really about raising or lowering bits of taxation at the margins- that is more about social engineering and perceptions of fairness/unfairness. Tax take increase with increased GDP.

Austerity over the last 10 years has been a massive drag on the economy and growth - a real failure or economic thinking. This has created a downward spiral of cuts in services and public spending/investment leading to weaker growth and so greater spending constraint

I’d happily pay more, but only if they could convince me that they wouldn’t waste it.

Hugely unpopular opinion here, but while their pensions are grossly out of proportion with what the average population gets in terms of contribution and age of retirement, I’d argue that more funds isn’t the last role of the dice.

Two friends are coppers, both retired this year in their early 50s. Neither are anywhere close to being too old for the job, and if they’d be asked (forced) to do a few more years the savings would be massive. It’s not like either were over-worked during their time in the job, frankly (or underpaid during it)...

It’s interesting that high earners rarely mention their reduction in National Insurance contributions.

Try reading back earlier in the thread, taking NI into account bumps up the overall percentage tax take quite considerably for someone on 60k.

I am very privileged and take a relatively large amount and would be happy to take less if the additional money I gave was used properly.

And that rather sums things up in a nutshell, if you take less you're not giving it to the government, it wasn't yours in the first place.

It's an indisputable fact that most higher earners pay (alot) more actual tax and more in percentage terms, net that off against benfits and there is an even more marked line between net contributors and recipients.

The big argument is over how much of GDP should be taken, the net recipients always expect more from the contributors. Our welfare state scope has expanded so much from it's original intent, it can't keep doing that.

The way to generate more taxation is really about raising or lowering bits of taxation at the marhins- that is more about social engineering and perceptions of fairness/unfairness. Taxes increase with increased GDP.

Austerity over the last 10 years has been a massive drag on the economy and growth – a real failure or economic thinking. This has created a downward spiral of cuts in services and public spending/investment leading to weaker growth and so greater spending constraint

No doubt to a degree this is true. (Although, blatantly obvious so you have to assume there's a very good reason the Treasury didn't choose to do this. That's what the USA did, they talked the Austerity talk but kept spending. I'm thinking the UK didn't have the strength in depth to risk a progressive gambling strategy while the USA did.)

Of course, stimulus is current news right now, Trump is using stimulus at this point in the cycle, never been done before. On the face of it Corbynomics is looking like a disaster:
https://www.ft.com/content/c059d13b-e3d4-4fe2-85c9-d55bd6494fec

Funny how will still have massive shortages of nurses and teachers despite such amazing benefits.

I know despite it being easy work for lazy people, 51 weeks of holidays per year and able to retire after 10 years on full pay.

So yeah, we’d be Venezuela, rather than

Greece but the consequences are identical. Greece can’t print money, so ran out of money, Venezuela can print money so it’s money becomes worthless. IN terms of spending power it’s the same thing

No, this is often cited.

The general rule of thumb is that if your economy is already screwed you sure can't just keep issuing money.

Venezuela for instance suffered from the value of their oil, which under pins everything in their economy.

So you can issue currency but you have to have the resources to match.

Give this a watch:

Once the loopholes for large corporations are tightened maybe.

Two friends are coppers, both retired this year in their early 50s. Neither are anywhere close to being too old for the job

Exactly how it should be but you'll be glad to hear that younger coppers will have to work until they're too old for the job.

@rone: You're saying "The Government can’t simply run out of money" I'm saying they (effectively) can and explained how. I'm not an economist, so you might be right, you just have to explain why. (and thanks, I'm familiar with MMT. The wikipedia page is a far better than your youtube link.)

The general rule of thumb is that if your economy is already screwed you sure can’t just keep issuing money.

Sounds like running out of money to me.

Taxation. The questions that underpin everything are:

1) What percentage of GDP is required for adequate services?

2) Is there a point on the laffer curve that achieves that?

https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm

Link above has a chart as tax as % of GDP for oecd countries if you scroll down the page.

In terms of what is appropriate depends on whether you are Denmark or USA.

Sounds like running out of money to me.

How so? The fed / boe can issue the money whenever it wants.

The issue is hyperinflation. And matching resources to the spend. That's not the same as running out of money.

Taxation is about destroying money in circulation, it's not about raising money to spend.

A government can spend before it taxes. When the Government runs a deficit (normal) it's a way is saying the private sector has a positive balance.

The economy has to be productive, you can't just issue currency into any economy.

Sorry I posted over the link as it's a nice layman Q&A and Stephanie is at the forefront of this stuff.

The fact that the majority on this topic are pedalling the line of successive governments tells you that we need to re-think our understanding of how money works.

The strongest argument against MMT is governments are politically concerned about what the electorate will ask for so it's easier to say we haven't got enough money.

Not really that complex. Government issues into the economy, towards the consumers/workforce. Resources are matched, economy is matched to the swap and kick started. Taxation then removes money out of circulation to control inflation.

We then don't go on about deficit...

I was listening to local radio the other day, and they stated that an additional 4% of our council tax would be directed toward the police. However, the majority of this would be to used to cover the pensions deficit in the force.
(Oh , and that 4 % would need to be cut from other services in order to pay for it 🙄)

We don’t want that sound economic reasoning here! We want tax the rich. Till the pips squeak! They can afford it. Tim Hartford had a nice podcast on sources of taxation that was very enlightening.

It’s inidicative of the overall state of the economy, failure to grow and economic uncertainty in the future. Sadly the general population are economically illiterate.

Why Drac? Both of them could have done an extra few years, and neither are in roles where age is a limiting factor in their ability. Quite the contrary, their experience makes them a better copper in their role than somebody coming in with less experience.

I thought the new age for retirement is 60. Is that too old?

Why should they work to they are broken let them enjoy their retirement. It’s possible to have experience and not be in your 50s

Yes it’s 60. Yes it’s too old.