To happily pay an extra £2000 per year to....

I don't know where we'd find 2k per year.
I think if I had it though I'd put it towards getting some support for my son rather than waiting on camhs.

An autism assessment that's properly recognised can be about 4k.

Fact checker analysis interrogates Tory assumptions on £2k and surprise surprise gives them misleading in the extreme https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-sunaks-claim-labour-would-raise-taxes-by-2000

But some of those aren’t central government issues. Potholes for example. So you’re also relying on central government increasing local authority spend

if it walks like a brexit bus advert and talks like a brexit bus advert it probably is.

In rural areas of Denmark people don't have a GP but go to ER. The country lacks doctors and nurses.
Schools are in rapid decline. Not enough teachers. Lots of 20 yo TAs teaching classes on their own. Don't expext SEN care at school. The aim is 97% of children in mainstream school with inclusion as main idea.
Care homes, nurseries and hospitals understaffed and staff underpaid.
Children wait for years on autism/ADHD assessments and treatment and hospital treatments list are long. Waiting to see a specialist the same in psychiatry and most other fields equally for adults and children.
Cuts all over the line in public service.
People are also homeless in Scandinavian. Lack of adforable housing for ordinary people too.

It's not the paradise a lot of Brits think.

The government waste so much money, that I think that needs to stop first before raising taxes.

I don't trust the Tories but Starmer never actually answers a question. Too much time as a barrister evading and obscuring the truth. There is no money to do anything without raising the cash somewhere. Then there is the issue with immigration and women's safe spaces/rights. I have never been facing an election before when I really don't want to vote for anyone but I can't vote for a man who thinks 1% of women have a penis.

I agree OP. Plus the money generated would benefit different groups differently- ie. those in need of any of those services more, and will create jobs in those areas.
Where does the income currently generated go? Certainly not to those in need. This is about additional tax income too, so under Labour they'd allocate the existing pot differently as well as this additional income.
I think it demonstrates that things really would be different under Labour - and this being discussed now will help them achieve it if they get in, cos they can say we all knew about the tax required to deliver their plans.

If there was certainty that this would happen then I would consider it. However experience tells us that the money rarely goes to where it is needed most and it would probably be frittered away or allocated elsewhere and we would be none the wiser.

70isaLimitNotaTarget · Yesterday 22:2

VED should be paying to repair potholes , not coming out of that £2,000.

VED isn't ring fenced and much of it goes to the general pot. Sumak promised to reserve it for roads, then U-turned on it.

Whitesapphire · Yesterday 20:09

Speak for yourself, I already pay a huge amount of tax. Countless people are not paying any income tax at all. It’s those who need to start paying in so we can have better public services.

I'm a higher rate tax payer and don't object to a bit more tax. We need a functioning country with good infrastructure; hospitals, schools, roads, care, the whole lot.

Do you mean people on low wages, or non-working people?

This.

The tax money we already pay is wasted on inefficient systems. If the existing money was managed efficiently and in the public interest, it might well be enough.

I would happily pay more if I thought it would actually achieve the things you say, but it won't.

“They pay higher taxes” is ALWAYS the objection but Denmark's TOP statutory personal income tax rate is 55.9 percent, Norway's is 38.2 percent, and Sweden's is 52.3 percent. The U.K. is really not far behind this. And if you look at what we pay extra for in the U.K. as a result of failing systems then overall you are taxed more here These are some of the happiest countries in the world precisely because they are welfare states and there is a cost to that. Furthermore, the cost of living in the U.K.since Brexit has made this country MORE expensive than most countries in Europe so there is a hidden tax there.

can I live in your fantasy world please?

I'm all for taxing to ensure good services but as someone who lives alone this seems unfairly balanced. It's already crazy expensive to live alone.

And taxes are high in Scandinavian. And people still stuggle.
Scandinavian is not at all the paradise people think It is.

But we shouldn't have to because the government has mismanaged our contributions!

This is the problem with every election and why I’ve stopped voting.

We get told our public services need more money as if underfunding is the only problem with them. The way they are run is perfect they just need more money. Which I don’t think is true.

The NHS is trying to do healthcare in 2024 based on a funding model devised in the 1950s and was originally insurance based. I’m not suggesting we move to an insurance based system but at least this was a sustainable funding model.

We need to have a grown up conversation about how the NHS is funded. If we want the Rolls Royce of healthcare then that’s fine but we need to pay for it.

A couple of people have mentioned inheritance. The way this is taxed needs to change too.

In my opinion the Australians have a good model for both these things that we should be looking at.

None of this will happen though because these are difficult conversations that don’t get votes for politicians. So we’ll continue to be told that we can have the best of everything but that someone else will pay for it and nothing will change or improve.

Well the £2k figure is wrong anyway, but yes I totally would.

Decent things are worth paying for, as those who fork out for private schooling, private healthcare, business class travel etc know very well.

No point expecting decent services for nothing.That’s what investment means - giving money to something that will pay dividends init!

Firstly, 2k a year (let alone over 5 years) won't even touch the sides of the issues you've listed. Secondly, even if it did, it won't be 2k a year per household, it will be nothing for a large percentage of households and the higher rate tax payers will foot the majority of the bill, just like now. Would you still be happy to pay £10k? I'm not.

Can you enable voting @Fatcish ?

Let's put it to the people . . .

I think most people would agree OP but The reality is 2k won’t touch the sides and there aren’t enough people paying in. I agree that if the parties properly taxed corporations and didn’t waste so much the uk would be in a better position.

I'm in education (20 years a primary teacher). The problem is now that you don't need to have a qualification in your name to be a teacher (England) the whole system is screwed. How are a new government going to claw this back? I'm off in July to retrain as are many, many others.

It’s per household I think but not sure 🤔 I’ve seen both “families” and “households” used . I wish they would use more accurate, and frankly more inclusive, language and stick to “households” .

Many households are one person incomes whether that’s because it’s one person living alone or just one person working.

@Scalextrix thank you for this post. As a part time single parent I find these kind of statements so confusing. Presumably my primary school aged DC is not expected to contribute so do they mean households with two adults and two DC? When I think of my family I think my DC, parents and sister with her husband and DC but we live in 3 homes with separate finances. The message is always lost on me as I try to work out to what extent the statement might apply to my household.

They won't be able to do all of that with £2k a year per family

Appreciate the view that those in poverty should pay vastly more tax. Are these coming from the same people who view it as an absolutely awful hardship that middle class families might have to pay little bit more for their precious darlings to go to private school?