Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Would you pay more tax to boost defence spending

494 replies

trainermush · 20/02/2025 17:42

Obviously we are now in a more precarious position & defence spending has been underfunded for some time. RR had just said we need to spend more money & she will but without breaking her fiscal rules,

"So we will stick to our fiscal rules. But recognising the priority of defence spending in the world that we live in today means that we will have to make difficult choices so that we can spend that money that is needed to keep our country safe."

Mulling it over & even though I think I pay enough tax I would pay more each month towards this (cut back in other areas) as opposed to labour cutting back on something else. I guess thinking about my dc & other loved ones has changed my mind somewhat now things appear more bleak. What do others think?
Conscription of young people terrifies me even though my dc are too young.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
MissConductUS · 21/02/2025 16:39

Papyrophile · 21/02/2025 16:33

Falmouth was (in the 1960s) going to be the main submarine base for the UK, but it was eventually relocated to the west coast of Scotland and Faslane. We would definitely need to upgrade to a much faster motorway or A road to Falmouth though.

I though Stoltenburg had retired and been replaced by Mark Rutter as SecGen of NATO?

Stolteberg did retire, but stayed on for a year until a consensus was reached about Rutte taking the job.

Alexandra2001 · 21/02/2025 16:36

seebiscuit1 · 21/02/2025 16:30

Bombing ethnic Russians in the Donbass isn't peaceful.
Actions have consequences

Show quote history

But that started when a Russian led unit started attacking Sloviansk, should the Ukrainians have done nothing at all about that?

& what about Russia taking Crimea, Crimea was Internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory.

The conflict in Ukraine is 100% on Putin, he could end it today.

Papyrophile · 21/02/2025 16:33

Falmouth was (in the 1960s) going to be the main submarine base for the UK, but it was eventually relocated to the west coast of Scotland and Faslane. We would definitely need to upgrade to a much faster motorway or A road to Falmouth though.

I though Stoltenburg had retired and been replaced by Mark Rutter as SecGen of NATO?

seebiscuit1 · 21/02/2025 16:30

BIossomtoes · 21/02/2025 15:26

Quite. It’s a bit hard to give peace a chance when your country’s just been invaded. 🙄

Show quote history

Bombing ethnic Russians in the Donbass isn't peaceful.
Actions have consequences

RedHelenB · 21/02/2025 15:57

No.

TwinklyPearlPoster · 21/02/2025 15:55

DetectiveSleuth · 21/02/2025 11:37

For all the people saying ‘absolutely not’, I can 100% bet you’d change your tune if we went to war and there wasn’t enough money for us to have an effective defence. I work in the MOD and know that we’re massively underfunded yet people still expect to be protected. Can’t have it both ways 🤷‍♀️ There’s plenty of things that can be cut back on that will mean we won’t pay more in tax but defence can have more money.

It’s a false dilemma.

Apart from removing some of the waste in our military, we could also raise funds by selling of things we don’t need.

For example the Chagos islands

Obviously we offer the Donald first refusal and then invite tenders from India and China.

They must be worth tens of billions to the right buyer

The aircraft carriers are probably worth something also, if only as scrap

Andwhoisasking · 21/02/2025 15:54

taxguru · 21/02/2025 15:26

I'd rather income tax was raised to "spread" the load of tax rises over the entire population rather than hike NIC which is just another tax on workers. Either that or extent NIC to ALL income sources, including pensions, rental income, interest, foreign income, capital gains, etc for ALL age groups. We can't keep hiking taxes only on the workers and working age population.

Show quote history

This.

BIossomtoes · 21/02/2025 15:54

Fluffyholeysocks · 21/02/2025 15:50

No. Reduce the 22bn going to net zero policies.

Sounds like you’re hellbent on destruction one way or another.

Fluffyholeysocks · 21/02/2025 15:50

No. Reduce the 22bn going to net zero policies.

ScholesPanda · 21/02/2025 15:47

Yes, absolutely.

Talonz · 21/02/2025 15:36

Alexandra2001 · 21/02/2025 08:39

So an 10bn extra for defence spend isn't welcome? would take us above the Tories target of 2.5% of GDP.

Whats your solution?

Oh and on your knowledge of UK deep ports, its Falmouth

Edited
Show quote history

You don't get humour? I know where our very few deep water ports are. Cornwall was a tilt to you.

BIossomtoes · 21/02/2025 15:27

It wouldn’t be a tax hike, it would be a reversal of an unaffordable tax cut.

taxguru · 21/02/2025 15:26

BIossomtoes · 21/02/2025 08:14

Reversing those NI cuts would make perfect sense, it was stupid not to do it when they first took office. It was blatantly obvious that cut was an only made to salt the earth.

I'd rather income tax was raised to "spread" the load of tax rises over the entire population rather than hike NIC which is just another tax on workers. Either that or extent NIC to ALL income sources, including pensions, rental income, interest, foreign income, capital gains, etc for ALL age groups. We can't keep hiking taxes only on the workers and working age population.

BIossomtoes · 21/02/2025 15:26

MissConductUS · 21/02/2025 14:46

How did that work out for Ukraine?

Show quote history

Quite. It’s a bit hard to give peace a chance when your country’s just been invaded. 🙄

MissConductUS · 21/02/2025 14:46

seebiscuit1 · 21/02/2025 14:41

Absolutely not. Give peace a chance

Show quote history

How did that work out for Ukraine?

Alexandra2001 · 21/02/2025 14:44

seebiscuit1 · 21/02/2025 14:41

Absolutely not. Give peace a chance

Show quote history

If you want Peace, Prepare for war!

Putin understands nothing but strength.

seebiscuit1 · 21/02/2025 14:41

DetectiveSleuth · 21/02/2025 11:37

For all the people saying ‘absolutely not’, I can 100% bet you’d change your tune if we went to war and there wasn’t enough money for us to have an effective defence. I work in the MOD and know that we’re massively underfunded yet people still expect to be protected. Can’t have it both ways 🤷‍♀️ There’s plenty of things that can be cut back on that will mean we won’t pay more in tax but defence can have more money.

Absolutely not. Give peace a chance

HRTQueen · 21/02/2025 11:49

No

If we become more involved it will not just be extra tax we pay directly but indirectly too

dontcryformeargentina · 21/02/2025 11:45

Nope.

DetectiveSleuth · 21/02/2025 11:37

For all the people saying ‘absolutely not’, I can 100% bet you’d change your tune if we went to war and there wasn’t enough money for us to have an effective defence. I work in the MOD and know that we’re massively underfunded yet people still expect to be protected. Can’t have it both ways 🤷‍♀️ There’s plenty of things that can be cut back on that will mean we won’t pay more in tax but defence can have more money.

EasternStandard · 21/02/2025 11:30

trainermush · 21/02/2025 10:40

This has been an insightful thread & I feel a lot more positive today. they are discussing the defence cuts/spending needed on lbc now if anyone is interested.

Cuts are being floated in the press so it's likely more that than taxes

Dotjones · 21/02/2025 11:09

I would if they eliminated waste and redirected other streams to defence first. Things like foreign aid and taking in asylum seekers should be scrapped, the money from that going to defence.

There are two main areas I'd be happy to contribute on. First is more nuclear weapons, our nuclear deterrant is very limited these days. We need more nuclear weapons that can be fired from a variety of sources. The submarine system is fine but should only be part of the deterrant, we need intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be fired from the UK and overseas territories and we need an aeroplane based system for dropping nuclear bombs. You might think that's a bit archaic but the only successful use of nuclear weapons in anger was when they were dropped from a plane, it's a useful part of an overall scheme of defence.

Defence spending shouldn't just be on a bigger army with better technology either, citizens need to be armed and trained for when we are invaded. We need firearms obviously, but also urban guerrilla warfare skills like hand-to-hand combat, making improvised weapons and molotovs, maybe first aid as well.

The trouble is the government is so reactive to crises. As with the previous failure to plan properly for the pandemic, they seem clueless about the forthcoming war and prefer to bury their heads in the sand. When war comes, it will be too late to start issuing weapons and training people.

Original poster
trainermush · 21/02/2025 10:40

This has been an insightful thread & I feel a lot more positive today. they are discussing the defence cuts/spending needed on lbc now if anyone is interested.

OP posts:
Esmeraldaemerald · 21/02/2025 09:55

ThymeScent · 20/02/2025 21:17

Errr so you want more defence but not at the expense of your own DC…???

Show quote history

It’s about informed choices - I’ve already got a DN in the forces and a DS interested in cyber security

lonelyplanetmum · 21/02/2025 08:59

Sorry I don't know why the charts came out black in my above post but you can see the charts on the link too. Up to 2015 the conservatives quite quietly initiated a significant contraction of our military capability, that decline and trend continued from 2015 for the next decade as well.

So increased spending is only going to put us back to where we were a few years ago, but yes I would pay more taxes to do that. It's only a slight security blanket but is needed with Putin dominating the world stage.