Is your household contributing net tax ?

Yes. £15 a packet now apparently. Most of which is tax. Thank God I gave up - over £100 a week! 😱

ASH - Action on Smoking and Health disagree with you. https//ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes

Full break down of the costs of smoking to England
Total cost to England = £49.2 bn made up of:
Productivity costs = £32.0 bn

• Smoking related lost earnings = £9.3 bn
• Smoking related unemployment = £7.3 bn
• Smoking related early deaths = £1.8 bn
• Reduced GVA due to expenditure on tobacco = £13.6 bn

• Cost of domiciliary care = £644.3 m
• Cost of residential care= £588.1 m
• Cost of informal care by family & friends= £8.4 bn
• Cost of unmet care need= £5.4 bn

• Cost of deaths due to smoking attributable fires = £137.2 m
• Cost of injuries due to smoking attributable fires = £84.4 m
• Cost of property damage due to smoking attributable fires= £98.2M
• Annual cost to fire and rescue services due to smoking attributable fires = £8.3 m

If we're going to go down this road, how about the billions that smokers cost the NHS?
Dont smokers pay a load of money to smoke?

The people who avoid tax.. like Rishi's wife...

it’s perfectly legal though. Lots of people reduce their tax burden eg paying more into a pension, reducing inheritance tax etc

plus I thought Rishis wife is now paying tax that she doesn’t need too?

Such a cliché.

They don’t. Tobacco revenue now exceeds the cost of treating smoking related diseases. Smokers are in profit, especially now they can no longer buy tobacco in bulk from Spain or Italy on a day trip.

A lot less than 1% then. If you listen to the people who bang on about benefits fraud you'd think it was more like 50%.

Tax avoidance is a much bigger problem.

Obviously some military expenditure is essential, people could argue it’s also essential that some taxpayer money going towards MP expenses and banking and the other things I mentioned. My issue is with the amount of funding going to these things, along with other areas which don’t align with my morals, ethics and politics. I wouldn’t want my taxes to be raised if it meant more money going to the military, my feeling is our military spending is already way above what is necessary. Obviously others are free to disagree, just as people disagree on how much taxes should fund free healthcare and benefits etc. I was just outlining my view, and in my view the current UK military model is outdated and wastes an unnecessary amount of taxpayer money that could be spent elsewhere.

Literally the only benefit we get personally are the NHS prescription pre-payment certificates for £9.99 a month as we each have multiple prescriptions a month. However, we make a point of buying any additional pain meds etc ourselves rather than rinse the certificates for all they’re worth.

with 300k income I think you should be rinsing the certificates tbh!

That raises an interesting point of what people are legally entitled to and what is morally right. Lots of people on MN are proud of not making even a small provision for their old age/other services because they are entitled to the State picking up the tab. Morality vs entitlement is an issue across all wealth classes.

You often see on here people saying they will spend everything so if they do need care the state will pick up the tab because “the boat people” get it free or whatever. I find it a strange attitude tbh.

The people contributing net tax aren't all richer people swanning about in expensive cars with huge houses.

who do people think are the “rich”? Are net contributors the rich?

That raises an interesting point of what people are legally entitled to and what is morally right. Lots of people on MN are proud of not making even a small provision for their old age/other services because they are entitled to the State picking up the tab. Morality vs entitlement is an issue across all wealth classes.

What you don't seem to realise is that many baby boomers have no pension other than the state pension. Nothing at all. The 'gold-plated' pension is a myth for the majority of boomers.

Where did I infer every baby boomer had a private pension? I said many schemes are less generous today than they were in the past eg public sector ones. Are you disagreeing with that?

So those starting work today, contributing even 5% + 3% employer+ tax relief will be hugely better off.

I disagree todays youngsters will be better off than todays pensioners, housing costs are a different ball game today.

Exactly! Those rich people on state pension will pay back all their pension back in tax anyway. Taking away their pension will just reduce their tax liability by the same amount

This is very poor understanding of tax! If you reduce their pension it will reduce their tax liability by at most 45%, unless they go into the personal allowance clawback.

We are, and i am ok with that. I'd be ok with paying more too.

But the wage gap is a big issue in the uk. Too much of our wealth as a nation is flowing to a small minority. We over value capital ownership.

Exactly! Those rich people on state pension will pay back all their pension back in tax anyway. Taking away their pension will just reduce their tax liability by the same amount

That’s a bit of a generalisation. Believing you work hard and deserve your salary is different to looking down on people who earn less. My own experience with high earners, is that they don’t give too much thought to what other people earn. They are more interested in improving their position.

We cannot afford to interfere with the infrastructure of other countries when our own has fallen apart.

Military expenditure is essential. Wars are not a thing of the past.

How thing works and how things should work are an essential part of any discussion.

The people contributing net tax aren't all richer people swanning about in expensive cars with huge houses. Many of them are everyday working people who don't have children or health needs (presently) and who don't happen to be the victims of crime. I lived in a houseshare with 4 other full time working professionals, all earning between 23 and 35k, none of us had children and as far as I know none of us had major health concerns that required treatment. There are many people like this supporting the economy,. Do you think that's the ideal, for no one to have children or health needs? That's not how society works, people have to come from somewhere and the majority of people were children once 😂
The people avoiding tax are the problem.

Society has definitely become less equitable over the past 14 years - the very richest are far wealthier than before, and the poorest are poorer.

However, taxation is very complicated, and there's more to it than income tax rates. I do think rich folk should pay a higher proportion of their wealth, and that loopholes ought to be closed that allow them to pay minimal tax. I also think we as a society need to consider what we can afford when it comes to pensioners and the disabled - the trajectory we are on currently is unaffordable, with an ageing but unhealthy population.

The whole picture needs considering holistically - education, lifestyle, healthcare are all inextricably linked to the wealth and the economy. It needs real long-term focus and cross-party commitment, which is unlikely in the current political climate of one-upmanship.

My point is that people who are rich (like a banker) say that they have worked really hard and deserve every penny and look down upon people who have also 'worked really hard' (like a coal miner / road digger).

I completely agree