Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

211 replies

Fatcish · 07/06/2024 20:04

  • see a GP f2f without a wait of 4 weeks and efficient onward referral as needed to sort the issue
  • have my children taught by subject teachers and supported by TAs
  • drive my car without hitting numerous potholes and missing road markings
  • enable my elderly disabled neighbour to have more care at home (1 hour a week at the moment)
  • ensure my son doesn't languish on the CAMHS waiting list for two years getting more and more broken
  • pay public sector workers properly so they are not run ragged covering endless vacancies and schools and hospitals are viewed as aspirational and supportive places to work
  • support government led, empowered oversight bodies of our water, rivers, trains and buses
  • help the MNs on here with heart breaking experiences of seeking support with their SEN children

And on and on...all for £2k a year per FAMILY. I assume I will pay more as a higher earner. FINE. let's make it fair not equal.

OP posts:
Temushopper · 07/06/2024 21:23

Cotopoxy · 07/06/2024 21:14

Tax advisor here. Give me 3 tax avoidance loopholes that you’d close to raise serious money. Can’t name any? Guess what, they don’t exist! These are some things you could do tinkering around the edges. Put inheritance tax on pension pots. Disallow AIM investments from IHT relief. But there is no way this would raise serious cash. But the politicians trot out ‘close tax avoidance loopholes’ whenever they have an uncosted policy that they want the gullible to believe we can afford.

If you really wanted to hit tax avoidance, ban cash, just get rid of it totally, and drop the VAT rate to £10k. Not popular policies but would help close the tax gap.

How about having an estate have the same tax free allowance as a person (so £12.5k ish currently) & everything above subject to same rate of tax as income. I don’t know what the numbers would be but surely that would make a significant amount of money. It seems like you’d always get more overall by upping taxes that hit the majority vs those that only hit very high earners.

Jeannie88 · 07/06/2024 21:22

If in a position to do so, so less than £200 a month I would. Not necessarily fair of course but if affordable a no brainer. Xx

Swingingvvoter · 07/06/2024 21:20

Definitely not we are not earning enough we are just at a point where we have a tiny bit of slack. In a few years sure but after all the covid issues, col, cc etc 2 grand is a hell of a lot too us

Temushopper · 07/06/2024 21:20

I’d be all for taking another 3% off NI and adding 5% onto basic rate of tax. That shift would slightly increase what is paid in tax on earned income and bring in additional revenue on unearned income. Also would make inheritance tax payable much more broadly applicable and I’d raise capital gains tax as well.
I think it would cost us more to do the above than pay £2k over 4 years but I’d be more in favour of it if there were clear signs wealth would be taxed alongside income

Ereyraa · 07/06/2024 21:19

Nope, I pay enough.

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 07/06/2024 21:19

Yes, I would, but it’s also not true

Bluevelvetsofa · 07/06/2024 21:17

Yes, I’d make that sort of contribution, but I’d want to be confident that the money was not frittered.

Funding for clinical staff not administrators.
Funding for teachers and support staff,
funding for repairs to school buildings and funding per pupil. No money for academy CEOs or Ofsted.
LAs to work efficiently to repair the infrastructure of council owned property, including roads.

I know it won’t happen, but we can dream.

ByBrightSloth · 07/06/2024 21:17

You think this is possible if tax payers pay an extra 2k?

BurbageBrook · 07/06/2024 21:16

Firstly.i would but secondly that figure is bullshit so please don't give it airtime!

SnapdragonToadflax · 07/06/2024 21:14

Cotopoxy · 07/06/2024 21:09

Then we’ll not have better public services then will we? We are a real outlier compared to other European countries in having such a low basic rate of tax. If basic rate of tax went from 20% to 30% we would get better public services. That’s how the rest of Europe does it. But in the UK we prefer to think that there are mythical ‘wealthy’ that we can milk further to pay our tax for us, someone ‘not me’. These people don’t exist. If we want better public services we ALL have to pay for them.

I didn't say wealthy? I'm certainly not wealthy, we're very much middle earners but we're comfortable. People on minimum wage or very low wages - who are struggling to buy food and heat their homes - should not have to pay more tax.

I agree that as a society we should pay more tax, but we need a better basic income first.

Cotopoxy · 07/06/2024 21:14

TimeFlysWhenYoureHavingRum · 07/06/2024 21:07

Yes. We need to pay what things cost. In addition to closing tax avoidance loop holes and getting what's owed and more from the energy companies and all other big businesses. There is enough for everyone if politicians choose to make it so.

Tax advisor here. Give me 3 tax avoidance loopholes that you’d close to raise serious money. Can’t name any? Guess what, they don’t exist! These are some things you could do tinkering around the edges. Put inheritance tax on pension pots. Disallow AIM investments from IHT relief. But there is no way this would raise serious cash. But the politicians trot out ‘close tax avoidance loopholes’ whenever they have an uncosted policy that they want the gullible to believe we can afford.

If you really wanted to hit tax avoidance, ban cash, just get rid of it totally, and drop the VAT rate to £10k. Not popular policies but would help close the tax gap.

NosyJosie · 07/06/2024 21:14

The reason the Scandinavian example given above works is that have LOADS of political parties so every government is essentially a coalition government, not 2 main parties and a handful of weak wannabes.
Their countries are not as elitist and everyone has equal opportunity. Starting from the ground up, children have better conditions, more choices of directions in education and everything is unionised. With more parties and unions, there are constant checks and balances, so their version of the Labour Party for example would have 2-4 similar thinking parties competing for the Labour votes. Keeps them on their toes.
We have over half a million unemployed 16-24 years old and that number grew 6% in the last year. We are laying the foundations for disaster in years to come.

Cotopoxy · 07/06/2024 21:09

SnapdragonToadflax · 07/06/2024 21:02

I agree. We're very fortunate that we could afford it, and I would far rather pay a bit more tax and have a functioning public sector.

Whatever tax rises there have to be, it won't be on everyone. The higher paid pay more, as it should be.

Then we’ll not have better public services then will we? We are a real outlier compared to other European countries in having such a low basic rate of tax. If basic rate of tax went from 20% to 30% we would get better public services. That’s how the rest of Europe does it. But in the UK we prefer to think that there are mythical ‘wealthy’ that we can milk further to pay our tax for us, someone ‘not me’. These people don’t exist. If we want better public services we ALL have to pay for them.

TimeFlysWhenYoureHavingRum · 07/06/2024 21:07

Yes. We need to pay what things cost. In addition to closing tax avoidance loop holes and getting what's owed and more from the energy companies and all other big businesses. There is enough for everyone if politicians choose to make it so.

FrancisSeaton · 07/06/2024 21:06

Gofastboatsmojito · 07/06/2024 20:58

You do realise this isn't a flat £2k oer household being proposed don't you? Forgetting the £2000 over 4 years or whatever detail. This is the average amount per household, so low income households paying low/no tax would see no increase, but instead households with higher incomes would shoulder the cost. As a householder with an income of approx £150K I'd be paying considerably more than the £2k (or a quarter of this per year) and i say yes please - very happy to contribute towards improving the country i live in and undoing some of the damage done by the tories

For those saying it won't get spent on those things, what are you basing this on? Look up eg NHS waiting lists under Labour vs Tory rule, the evidence is pretty clear.

Labour don't get everything right, far from it. But Tories have got just about everything wrong, lying and cheating and being unashamedly corrupt and siphoning off billions to their mates in the process. It's time for a change.

Of course you'd be happy when you are on the famous Mumsnet six figure salary and live comfortably ....like they say, the trouble with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money

Whenwillitgetwarm · 07/06/2024 21:05

No I wouldn’t even though I can afford it. The Tories need to explain why taxation is at a 70 year high but services are shit. Where’s the money going? Mates? PPE VIP Lanes? Where is our money today?

I’m sick to death of being asked to throw more money into an ever expanding black hole.

All I see is more demands that higher earners on PAYE like me get shaken down for more and more. And not only are we asked for more but we are insulted at the same time.

No more until a full independent audit is done.

Theweepywillow · 07/06/2024 21:02

Alright daddy warbucks, you splash that cash.

SnapdragonToadflax · 07/06/2024 21:02

I agree. We're very fortunate that we could afford it, and I would far rather pay a bit more tax and have a functioning public sector.

Whatever tax rises there have to be, it won't be on everyone. The higher paid pay more, as it should be.

palalamama · 07/06/2024 20:59

Public services were way better under the last labour govt vs now. admit it people.

Gofastboatsmojito · 07/06/2024 20:58

You do realise this isn't a flat £2k oer household being proposed don't you? Forgetting the £2000 over 4 years or whatever detail. This is the average amount per household, so low income households paying low/no tax would see no increase, but instead households with higher incomes would shoulder the cost. As a householder with an income of approx £150K I'd be paying considerably more than the £2k (or a quarter of this per year) and i say yes please - very happy to contribute towards improving the country i live in and undoing some of the damage done by the tories

For those saying it won't get spent on those things, what are you basing this on? Look up eg NHS waiting lists under Labour vs Tory rule, the evidence is pretty clear.

Labour don't get everything right, far from it. But Tories have got just about everything wrong, lying and cheating and being unashamedly corrupt and siphoning off billions to their mates in the process. It's time for a change.

LeggyLinda · 07/06/2024 20:56

No.
We already have the highest tax burden for god knows how many years.

I share your frustrations with the things you mention. And if a little extra money could solve the problem, then perhaps you have a point. But, in most cases, it’s not lack of funds it is mismanagement.

I also worry that increasing taxes for improved services will be the thin end of the wedge where more people will pay more tax and see no benefit at all; whereas a small number of people will see a better service for a short time. This will make society more decisive in the long run.

Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember other promises of “extra penny in the pound” for this or that. It’s just turned out to be the extra penny.

User2460177 · 07/06/2024 20:46

Fatcish · 07/06/2024 20:04

  • see a GP f2f without a wait of 4 weeks and efficient onward referral as needed to sort the issue
  • have my children taught by subject teachers and supported by TAs
  • drive my car without hitting numerous potholes and missing road markings
  • enable my elderly disabled neighbour to have more care at home (1 hour a week at the moment)
  • ensure my son doesn't languish on the CAMHS waiting list for two years getting more and more broken
  • pay public sector workers properly so they are not run ragged covering endless vacancies and schools and hospitals are viewed as aspirational and supportive places to work
  • support government led, empowered oversight bodies of our water, rivers, trains and buses
  • help the MNs on here with heart breaking experiences of seeking support with their SEN children

And on and on...all for £2k a year per FAMILY. I assume I will pay more as a higher earner. FINE. let's make it fair not equal.

You won’t get that for some people paying an extra £2k per year. That’s just magical thinking

DiscoBeat · 07/06/2024 20:45

Yes I would. But lots of people wouldn't be able to.

Bumblebeeinatree · 07/06/2024 20:45

Stungbyabee · 07/06/2024 20:39

Absolutely. £2000 a year is a bargain.

Pie in the sky, how many families would pay it, only a fraction of people (most would want to be beneficiaries) and it would be nothing like enough

Stungbyabee · 07/06/2024 20:39

Absolutely. £2000 a year is a bargain.