To think Reeves is missing a trick here?

I think you are wrong about people wanting to pay more tax.
I think you need to challenge individuals on threads who say they are happy to pay more tax to see if they mean just them or everyone. You might find they mean everyone.

Your use of the word gleeful in your OP suggest that you are not that respectful of people who say they want to pay more tax.
If I have taken you up wrong, and you do actually mean this as a genuine policy, then I think you need to do some more checking of the happy to pay more tax people before taking it further.

"It was more of rhetorical question than one I expected you to answer regarding personal wealth."

It didn't seem like it.

"I also don't know why you assumed only the poor would volunteer to pay tax and the rich wouldn't."

Probably because I've met a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people. The difference is poor people generally have nothing to give. Whereas rich people choose not to give it.

"The tradesman accepting cash only."

If you think tradesmen generally are poor then try hiring a few.

"Tax fraud could be tackled alongside a voluntary scheme. It's not an either/or scenario."

The difference is tackling tax fraud actually takes some government - organisation and effort.

"To be honest I do find your stance hypocritical. I think you know that the very rich could never truly be compelled to pay a lot of tax. No country in the world has really cracked this and certainly no country like the UK. You can therefore make sweeping statements about paying more tax in the full knowledge that the conditions you demand to do this will never be met."

I agree. Very rich people can't be compelled to pay lots of tax. The tax raising always comes from the middle class. The working class have no money. For the very rich it makes sense to pay people to come up with schemes to avoid paying it. The middle class are the only segment of society where significant amount of tax can be raised and the government goes after them every time because there is nowhere else to get it from. End of story. The flip side of this is that the middle class and rich people have often largely accumulated their wealth because the country did not charge them enough tax and decided to run up debt instead. This situation is now changing. There is no more putting it on the tab. So we are going to have to pay.

I agree. 100% naiveity to think only "the poor" indulge in the black economy through necessity. It costs the UK tens of billions per year. The people involved (both as service users and sellers) are your friends, neighbours, relatives, etc. It's certainly not just restricted to those due to necessity, in the same way that shoplifting isn't the sole preserve of the poor/needy either. Lots of people are greedy, including those on average incomes.

Being so poor that you can't afford to pay full price for items and are forced to buy them on the black market in not the same as a millionaire not paying their fair share of tax .HTH

I don't see how any individuals personal wealth is relevant to the discussion.

Some people who are enormously wealthy are also extremely greedy and miserly and will always refuse to pay their share, even though they benefit the most from society.

They will always find some way to justify to themselves why they shouldn't pay.

And thus we would get back to where we are now, with the poor volunteers paying while rich people avoid paying.

Actually clearing up the problems with tax fraud would be a lot more sensible way to raise taxes than voluntary contributions. Joined up IT systems will eventually stop this, but for now the government loses large amounts of money because some people are greedy and will not pay their fair share. They should accelerate the process of hunting these people down and making them pay. And employ more people as well to do it.

Yes, I agree although gender specific, so women give more frequently but less than men, presumably because men earn more so when they do donate they donate bigger sums
www.statista.com/statistics/292929/giving-to-charity-in-england-by-gender/?srsltid=AfmBOoorbDb51IZpwymzQC0EhAf6E6Th6NsRskfC-ols36rOGpMP7NbB

This. If we want to take children out of poverty then we could start with making sure fathers pay 50% of the cost of raising all their kids - including childcare. Obviously this would take hard work and political balls but once society accepts that’s the case then hopefully fathers just start contributing properly rather than finding ways round it - there should be no ways round it.

I think actually this might be the case. We know men are the higher earners as a group and they are the ones who give to charity the least. Women are the lower earners and volunteer time and money more frequently.

I didn’t say it is a well known expression. I said it was an expression. Usually delivered within a wider conversation or context.

No. The example I gave was of the expression being in a more specific context. The specific nature being that of a discussion about public services in this case. Equally it could be about, say, the NHS in particular. What I am saying is the the expression you say you’re hearing and reading so much is unlikely to be said in isolation of a wider discussion.

I am happy to pay more tax, on the basis that I know people who are wealthy will be paying much more.

If they aren't paying much more, I don't see that my drop in the ocean will make much difference, so I don't see why I should pay it.

A 1% wealth tax on me personally wouldn't raise much money for the country or make a significant difference. A 1% wealth tax on everyone would, and I'd be happy to pay my 1% if everyone else was paying theirs.

Not the current taxation. I think we agreed taxes need to rise further up the thread. But you're right, I had forgotten it was an extra. Still, I think as a concept it could work for mandatory taxes too to make rich people feel better about paying them. You could have it as an additional title, eg 'platinum taxee Sir James Dyson'

Let me help you make sense of what I’m saying then.

It is an expression. A general sentiment. Likely in the context of a conversation about something more specific. For example. A conversation about the state of our public services. Or whatever you like that is funded from taxation. The person (and this will not be exclusive to higher tax payers already) might say “Yes, I agree that our public services need more money spent on them, I would happily pay more tax if that would help improve this”.

You are referring to broad, sweeping, non-specific, standalone declarations from an individual, with no context. That is what I think is an unlikely scenario.

@ CoffeeCantata-
“I'm frankly not concerned about unemployment in the Mediterranean due to a few super-yachts being let go.”

You would be if it were your livelihood at stake. You are talking shipyards, specialist ship-fitters, painters, massive amounts of tax to buy the thing, docking fees, to say nothing of the crew and staff. I know someone who captains such yachts - these days, there aren’t that many jobs going in the navy as we only have about two and a half ships. The point is that everything is connected to everything else - and some of those yachts will be sailing under a British flag and paying tax to our exchequer.

As for paying more tax than I need to, I think I can spend my own money infinitely more efficiently than the government, thank you. As Boris said, there is much spaffing of taxpayers’ money up the wall.

I think that would mean that essential but really boring stuff would be massively underfunded. That's why you get the tax badge so the government has enough money -- and vote for the government with a similar set of values to you.

OP is deliberately twisting what people have said about paying higher taxes. She doing it to sneer and be sarky - pathetic.

Evidence??