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

Sadly the general population are economically illiterate.

Twenty odd years ago inmy final year at uni I did an economics class (made a nice break from all the engineering) and at the start the lecturer said something similar about a lot of politicians. I didn’t believe him at the time but I did twelve weeks later.

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.

So every Government there has ever been in the world (except Trump) is failing to take simple actions that would make them and their countrymen better off and make them massively popular. That's quite a conspiracy.

Twenty odd years ago inmy final year at uni I did an economics class (made a nice break from all the engineering) and at the start the lecturer said something similar about a lot of politicians.

Economists at the treasury *far* outnumber the politicians. The Treasury is not economically naive.

Why should they work to they are broken let them enjoy their retirement.

Because, given - as this thread shows - 99pc of us won't pay more tax - resources are finite and paying healthy people to pay golf full time at 55 [1] is less important funding the disabled and children's homes.

Regarding the 'can states run out of money' debate. The answer is yes. I've explained how.

[1] As nice as that would be.

We have very different opinions, Drac.

I'm not sure why you'd presume working them until 60 will break them, any more than a person who chooses any other physical job like a builder, mechanic, joiner, labourer or shop worker who stands on their feet all day. If it's being mentally broken, then again I'd argue there are just as many mentally tough jobs who don't have provision for early retirement.

I think most people, in most jobs, would expect to retire around 60 - I don't think it's inappropriate to expect it as a standard provision.

As for struggling to recruit (not your point, I know), I think that's very real but I think it's very real for a lot of jobs. Immigration has been necessary for all kinds of industries from police, nursing to fruit pickers, builders, caterers and drivers to keep the industries going. It's not limited to the emergency services, but it's a whole different thread...

There's often a slight tone of whoever questions this stuff disrespects the job the emergency services do. So, to be clear, half my family have been/are in the emergency services and I massively respect the job they do. As I do anybody who gets out of bed to go to work to serve the general public.

Because, given – as this thread shows – 99pc of us won’t pay more tax – resources are finite and paying healthy people to pay golf full time at 55 [1] is less important funding the disabled and children’s homes.

I think you need a recount and take into consideration the other suggestions of closing tax loop holes.

I’m not sure why you’d presume working them until 60 will break them, any more than a person who chooses any other physical job like a builder, mechanic, joiner, labourer or shop worker who stands on their feet all day. If it’s being mentally broken, then again I’d argue there are just as many mentally tough jobs who don’t have provision for early retirement.

I'm not you made that up. The answer isn't to punish those that currently have that option.

take into consideration the other suggestions of closing tax loop holes.

Ahhh, so you think that Policemen should work until 60, *until* tax loopholes are closed to the point where so much cash is gathered that retiring policemen early is the most useful thing that can be done with the cash. Ok, that's reasonable, I'm happy with that, most people would be.

That’s not what I said.

I made up that you thought working them until 60 would break them? It was in response to:

Premier Icon
Drac

Subscriber
Why should they work to they are broken let them enjoy their retirement.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you - I'm not trying to win you over. I know your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it. I'll maintain I'd happily pay more if I thought the budgets were truly at a breaking point with no options left.

Why it's taken NHS England so long to issue consultation on the over-prescription of over the counter drugs for example, is just scandalous. Estimates anywhere around £200-400m a year in savings here alone. It was announced about a year ago, has anything changed yet?

That's the kind of speed of change and waste that stops any tax payer, regardless of income level, committing more to the public purse. What's the average dispensation cost of paracetamol, wasn't it about £35 including GP time (the drug itself being charged to the NHS at 5 times the cost vs Boots).

I made up that you thought working them until 60 would break them? It was in response to:

No, the part about "anymore than...."

Why it’s taken NHS England so long to issue consultation on the over-prescription of over the counter drugs for example, is just scandalous. Estimates anywhere around £200-400m a year in savings here alone. It was announced about a year ago, has anything changed yet?

That’s the kind of speed of change and waste that stops any tax payer, regardless of income level, committing more to the public purse. What’s the average dispensation cost of paracetamol, wasn’t it about £35 including GP time (the drug itself being charged to the NHS at 5 times the cost vs Boots).

Absolutely agree there's many other things looked at additionally to tax loop hole issues.

I'm a higher rate tax payer. I have no problem paying tax and I'd pay more tax to provide better public services (be they schools/police/bin collections or whatever).

I do however think that everyone should pay tax (even at a very low level) - the reason being that you need to feel part of society and contribute to it. There seems to be a lot of people who think everyone else should pay more tax...

Of course, one of the problems with my plan is that the cost of collection may actually outweigh the value of the actual tax so I suspect it is a non-starter for a practical reason however my point still stands - we all need to feel part of society and contributing via taxes is just one part of this.

Can't you contribute to society by providing labour? Pay everyone enough and they'll be happy to be taxed.

I do however think that everyone should pay tax (even at a very low level) – the reason being that you need to feel part of society and contribute to it. There seems to be a lot of people who think everyone else should pay more tax…

You might need to deliver some serious pay rises to people then or is this something we should be bundling in with universal credit?

Just to add everyone does pay tax, just some pay it in different ways.

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 pay 32% on my standard rate earnings and 42% on my higher rate earnings. Not quite the gulf that some would like to make out. I also get 40% tax relief on higher rate pension contributions.

I'm a higher rate tax payer and have been for ages. Whilst I don't pay more tax than I have to, I'd not really have much problem paying more tax. It's not going to make my day, but I believe in progressive taxation. An extra 5% tax or whatever wouldn't really make any odds to me. And that's kind of the point - tax those who are lucky enough to be able to afford to pay more, more. (and it is luck to a larger extent from my experience...)

Yes
And what's more that's what the Scottish government has done. I pay a bit extra tax. I can afford it. I hate seeing the poverty we now have as a direct result of tory ideology

Privatisation of schools so parents pay or if the grades are 5hit, send them on to vocational skills.

Good grades= scholarship for poor kids.

Privatisation of schools so parents pay or if the grades are 5hit, send them on to vocational skills.

The Education System wasnt kind to you was it!!

With reference to the discussion further up the page, I'd like to say:

If Y is some general problem that will never be 100% solved in a complex society, like "tax loopholes" or "inefficiency" then saying "let's do X, but do Y first" is not support for doing X, it's just an evasive and dishonest way of saying "I don't want to do X".

You also need the right government to actually do X and use the money from X in the right places and not just ignoring X and doing more Y