Talk

Advanced search

to wonder where this idea has come from, that no one pays enuogh tax to cover the services they use?

(87 Posts)
StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:19:47

Where do these people think the money actually comes from? hmm

LemonDifficult Thu 15-Sep-11 22:20:43

Who thinks that?

emsyj Thu 15-Sep-11 22:22:05

From the top slice of earners, apparently. Although I don't know where the statistics are. I have heard it in quite a few places though, so there must be info on it somewhere. A huge proportion of taxpayers are actually net beneficiaries of the system as the services they use and benefits they claim exceed the tax they pay in.

Would be interested to see the actual statistics too, but too lazy to look for them.

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:24:30

But are they not counted in "someone" then?
Is this semantics?

ColdSancerre Thu 15-Sep-11 22:28:26

It's not the belief that no-one pays enough tax to cover the services they receive that rankles with me, as clearly some must otherwise we'd be bankrupt as a nation so posters can't think that (so goes my logic anyway) But I wonder if there's an assumption that women can't earn enough to be in that magic percentage that pays more tax than services received? That women must always be net beneficiaries.

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:29:01

think I am maybe overthinking this.
Would be a neat trick if you could do it - go on holiday with a few other people, start a drinks kitty and you all drink more than your fair share of the kitty!

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:30:12

thank you CS. Finally someone gets it.
i hadn't thought about that angle. Don't know if it is that.
But I have been told to come back when I am prepared to have a grown up conversation about economics hmm

LemonDifficult Thu 15-Sep-11 22:33:37

I'm not sure what the personal tax vs business/VAT/customs tax ratio is. Obviously, though, there are net contributers. How could there not be? Sir Phillip Green is hardly going to be troubling the local library or over-using his bus pass.

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:35:58

Yes exactly

I suppose what they mean is 20% are net contributors and 80% are net users (if that's the right term) [figures my guess] - so that's the majority of people. But not "everyone" hmm

SurprisEs Thu 15-Sep-11 22:38:40

I don't know economics at all but I know I received more in childcare element tax credits than what I have ever paid in tax. So I suppose it's true for some of us. But my daughter won't be a child forever so I won't need that benefit forever which meens one say I'll give that money back. I think...

SurprisEs Thu 15-Sep-11 22:39:40

One day, not one say.

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:42:03

but you might have done, but somewhere out there there is someone putting in that extra money, surely?
Or are people saying this is one of the contributors of the debt?

bumbleymummy Thu 15-Sep-11 22:45:25

SPB - Don't the high earners make the biggest contribution to the 'tax jar' even though they are the smallest percentage? I think it boils down to semantics - clearly it's not no one paying enough tax to cover themselves but I would say it's a minority subsidising the majority.

northernruth Thu 15-Sep-11 22:45:47

It doesn't matter. To each according to his needs, from each according to his means. It's basic socialism but it's also basic human kindness. Everyone has a right to live above the poverty line and as a society we have a moral obligation to ensure that happens.

Me and Dh are both higher rate tax payers. I baulk at the 50% tax rate tho, as that means that some earners are paying out more than half of their income above a certain level once you take NI into account.

There is an argument to be had about the level of tax credits/ benefits etc if as a nation we can't afford it. Fundamentally we need to reduce the level of tax paid by lower income families rather than requiring them to claim for "benefits" that are really just tax rebates.

spiderslegs Thu 15-Sep-11 22:46:06

Who said this???

Who could possibly say this? Where do they think the magic money comes from?

Surely higher rate tax-payers are net contributors as they are less likely to use public services on top of paying a healthy whack of tax?

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:46:50

yes I agree bumbley

It's either about semantics or it;s about debt

But the pedant in me can't stand the first one grin

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:47:11

Pedant's not so bothered about punctuation and typos

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:49:25

spiders, tbh I've just realised the main person saying this is displaying some rather trolly interesting behaviours, so maybe I'm over reacting. However a few other people seem to be saying similar things, although with less conviction.

LineRunner Thu 15-Sep-11 22:51:11

Oh it's stuff that's been said on other threads.

But you have to understand the revenue streams of taxation and expenditure.

spiderslegs Thu 15-Sep-11 22:51:59

Ohh, interesting Stealth, so, point me in their direction.....

Whence do they dwell?

ColdSancerre Thu 15-Sep-11 22:52:40

I would imagine that actually there are quite a few net contributors, I think i probably earn enough to be a net contributor, OK at the moment no children but assuming no change in my income I'd never get benefits like child benefit etc and even with say 2 children being educated by the taxpayer I assume on my own I would pay more tax than that consumes. And that wouldn't be uncommon in a lot of the people I am friends with/work with.

I think it is just is that apart from a few gobby 'I pay your benefits' type posters people don't bang on about it. Because many accept it is what our society is about?

ColdSancerre Thu 15-Sep-11 22:53:47

Oh sorry that post took ages, where are the posts you are referring to SPB?

BetsyBoop Thu 15-Sep-11 22:54:25

Can't be bothered to look the stats up, but it is something along the lines of the top 10% or earners pay 60% of the tax, the top 50% or earners 90& of the tax (Therefore the bottom 50% only 10% of the tax). On top of this is corporation tax etc, which individuals don't pay.

If we assumed that the total tax-take covered the cost of public services (which it hasn't done for many years, hence the deficit, but that's a whole other story) then it is still true that most people pay less in tax than they use in services.

The ideal would be that everyone pays whatever is deemed a "fair share" of tax depending on the ability to pay & that tax-take covers the cost of public services. Even in this situation it would still be true that most people would get more out than they pay in over their lifetime.

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:55:33

CS I've been thinking about that - not sure if it would be your children's education or your own education that would be used in the calculation. Would seem sensible to have a "whole life" view - so costs and taxes paid from cradle to grave, not taking anyone else into account.

StealthPolarBear Thu 15-Sep-11 22:56:14

BB that's most though, not all. I have no problem with what you describe grin

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now