Would you pay more tax to boost defence spending

He’ll be history. His love affair with Trump puts him at odds with the vast majority of the population.

If Starmer and Reeves keep talking about defence spending and not increasing it by at least £30 billion a year

I thought it was 80bn so it's not as bad as I thought.

I don't want my tax money spent on killing anyone, Russians Ukrainians, or anyone.
War is not the answer.
If you feel so strongly about killing Russians, go and volunteer on the front

I already don't shop at Starbucks.

Presumably the odd person does though?

other countries didn't deter the US from enacting FATCA

we aren't the US though.

Looking at the polls, Nigel probably.

Really. After 7 months. Who’s gonna win then ? Nige ? Kemi ? 😂

Really. After 7 months. Who’s gonna win then ? Nige ? Kemi ? 😂

Really. After 7 months. Who’s gonna win then ? Nige ? Kemi ? 😂

People saying 'No' to increased defence spending need to read the room.

Putin, Lavrov and Peskov may look like smart businessmen in suits but underneath they will push and keep pushing until they get what they want. Now Putin is saying that NATO must roll back its borders to the pre 1997 line. Now Trump's administration is saying the US can cut its defence spending by 8% pa compound. That is a significant reduction and the lines are drawing together for the US withdrawing from NATO.

In the meantime Russia is on a military war footing spending almost 50% of its GDP on weapons. Post any settlement of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the spending may slow down but in real terms it will continue at a pace not seen since the cold war. Putin wants the old USSR back and if he is successful he may want more. He is the most dangerous man on the planet, more dangerous than Trump.

The Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 8 frigates. The two assault ships are being retired in two weeks. We have 100 Typhoons, many of which are also being retired in a few weeks plus about 40 F35s. Then the army is about 70,000 of which no more than 20,000 have front line fighting roles. We are hollowed out.

If Starmer and Reeves keep talking about defence spending and not increasing it by at least £30 billion a year - starting with the mini-Budget next month - it will be too late. Taxes are going to rise, spending is going to be cut. The welfare bill is huge. Benefit spending increased by 15% to £275billion in 2023/24 so that is a good place for Reeves to start.

There is no sense in spending vast resources on those late in life, if it results in tens if not hundreds of thousands of our younger people getting called up and fighting in a WW3 that could have been avoided with a proper deterrent.

Time is of the essence.

People saying 'No' to increased defence spending need to read the room.

Putin, Lavrov and Peskov may look like smart businessmen in suits but underneath they will push and keep pushing until they get what they want. Now Putin is saying that NATO must roll back its borders to the pre 1997 line. Now Trump's administration is saying the US can cut its defence spending by 8% pa compound. That is a significant reduction and the lines are drawing together for the US withdrawing from NATO.

In the meantime Russia is on a military war footing spending almost 50% of its GDP on weapons. Post any settlement of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the spending may slow down but in real terms it will continue at a pace not seen since the cold war. Putin wants the old USSR back and if he is successful he may want more. He is the most dangerous man on the planet, more dangerous than Trump.

The Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 8 frigates. The two assault ships are being retired in two weeks. We have 100 Typhoons, many of which are also being retired in a few weeks plus about 40 F35s. Then the army is about 70,000 of which no more than 20,000 have front line fighting roles. We are hollowed out.

If Starmer and Reeves keep talking about defence spending and not increasing it by at least £30 billion a year - starting with the mini-Budget next month - it will be too late. Taxes are going to rise, spending is going to be cut. The welfare bill is huge. Benefit spending increased by 15% to £275billion in 2023/24 so that is a good place for Reeves to start.

There is no sense in spending vast resources on those late in life, if it results in tens if not hundreds of thousands of our younger people getting called up and fighting in a WW3 that could have been avoided with a proper deterrent.

Time is of the essence.

Here is a breakdown of current spending. Brace yourself.

(it’s 2022-23 but I don’t think it would’ve varied wildly since then - more recent stats aren’t readily available)

I agree. Labour should have realised by now that they've no chance of winning the next GE so they may as well finally do something worthwhile for the good of the country rather than sucking up to their union paymasters.

In fact, to be absolutely "fair", a 1% rise in income tax, 1% rise on VAT, 1% rise on all other indirect taxes (fuel, air passenger, insurance premium tax, etc), 1% rise on capital gains tax, etc. The broader the net, the less affected individuals will be

@taxguru I agree it would have to reach the vast majority to be acceptabl

No need to pay more tax, just divert the money from green initiatives, most of which are hogwash, to defence.

Yes, I would.

Sadly, I think we need to. We can't just make more and more cuts - the very last thing we need is austerity 2.0.

I guess we could borrow more, but that brings its own risks. Especially after the last government had to borrow so much to get us through the pandemic.

So tax is probably the best option. As a higher rate tax payer, I accept that those who have more will need to pay more. Those who are struggling to get by already won't be able to take much more of a hit.

In which case seven months into a new parliament is the ideal time to increase income tax because nobody gets to vote for at least another four years.