Page 4 | To think Reeves is missing a trick here?

SkipAd · 17/10/2025 11:55

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:38

But you know already there is a greater need for taxation or a requirement to cut spending. This is why there is a deficit. You could proactively volunteer to contribute what you can sensibly rather than hope Reeves targets someone else.

Show quote history

Where did I say I hope Reeves targets someone else?
I said I am willing to pay more tax as part of society. As part of a societal contract that impacts those who have more, not those who don’t.
The conversations I have with certain higher earners are not really that they want to pay more tax, more that they would understand and accept it, if their tax was increased.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:52

Poppingby · 17/10/2025 11:48

I think the vast majority of very wealthy people self-reporting giving to charity is very like our planned tax-badge scheme. Needs a snappier name though and actual figures rather than 'gave to'. And no decisions about who counts as the deserving poor! Much better.

Your certificate or badge can say exactly how much you paid. That way people are incentivised to give more to look like you're not being stingy. People like Gary Neville will have to volunteer quite a lot to not look like a hypocrite.

OP posts:

Swiftie1878 · 17/10/2025 11:50

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 10:25

Every single thread on taxation has numerous posters gleefully asserting that they would be delighted to pay more tax. Why on earth doesn't Rachael Reeves publicise the fact that anyone can volunteer to pay more tax if they are that way inclined and that there are already mechanisms to do this? You could even give everyone that donates additional tax a little sticker or certificate so that they can prove they're morally superior to the rest of us and just how much of a better citizen they are.

I would expect to raise at least a few billion from this if everyone put their money where their mouth is and the donors would be in a far better position to preach about the virtues of high taxation if they could prove that they were actually walking the walk.

AIBU?

Great idea!

LeanToWhatToDo · 17/10/2025 11:50

Lovely idea.
I'd like her to sort out fathers who stop paying full tax in order to stop paying child maintenance first though. We know most men have the powerful jobs and wages yet CMS seems to have the opinion more men who have children on the breadline than HMRC are aware of - the math aint mathing. If they start there and go after the cash in hand crew I think the people on PIP might be safe.

Poppingby · 17/10/2025 11:48

I think the vast majority of very wealthy people self-reporting giving to charity is very like our planned tax-badge scheme. Needs a snappier name though and actual figures rather than 'gave to'. And no decisions about who counts as the deserving poor! Much better.

Sidebeforeself · 17/10/2025 11:46

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 10:25

Every single thread on taxation has numerous posters gleefully asserting that they would be delighted to pay more tax. Why on earth doesn't Rachael Reeves publicise the fact that anyone can volunteer to pay more tax if they are that way inclined and that there are already mechanisms to do this? You could even give everyone that donates additional tax a little sticker or certificate so that they can prove they're morally superior to the rest of us and just how much of a better citizen they are.

I would expect to raise at least a few billion from this if everyone put their money where their mouth is and the donors would be in a far better position to preach about the virtues of high taxation if they could prove that they were actually walking the walk.

AIBU?

OMG yes! I always tell people this when they bang on about being willing to pay more tax. Go on then, nobody is stopping you! But in my experience as soon as you point out that’s is possible to do so they usually say something like “ but only if I could be sure it would go to xxx” . So they didn’t mean it really.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:45

parietal · 17/10/2025 11:42

To add, @Marshmallow4545' s suggestion that people should be acknowledged for paying extra tax or get to be smug about it would make me NOT want to pay extra. While some charity donations are done to get social approval (think of the number of buildings named after big donors), there are also people who want to give anonymously and not get told they are "morally superior".

And those of us who do give extra, tend to give to charity because it is the governments job to fund the governments work through general taxation which is fair and equal across everyone.

So I support taxing the rich and taxing them all.

So you would actively deter people from voluntarily contributing additional tax? I'm sorry but that seems crazy considering the financial mess we are currently in.

OP posts:

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:44

DEAROP · 17/10/2025 11:43

That's because they lose money trying to hoard more.

Show quote history

That absolutely isn't why they lose money. You need to look into the research into this area.

OP posts:

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:43

LarkspurLane · 17/10/2025 11:42

Do you have a feeling that there are enough people who want to pay more tax, i.e. most of the country, or are you just going by a few posters on mumsnet?

If it became a voluntary thing, then I'd like my extra taxes to go on things I cared about, probably things local to me. My local hospital, for example, rather than defence.

I'd be ok without a sticker in that case.

I think there are enough that it could make a difference. Would it close the deficit? No, but none of the individual policies Reeves is looking at will do this anyway. She is fiddling around the edges with taxation anyway.

OP posts:

DEAROP · 17/10/2025 11:43

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:34

The statistics just don't support your statements. The vast majority of wealthy families lose their wealth over three generations. They don't do a great job of hoarding their wealth in the long term. The vast majority of very wealthy people (98%) donate to charity.

Show quote history

That's because they lose money trying to hoard more.

parietal · 17/10/2025 11:42

To add, @Marshmallow4545' s suggestion that people should be acknowledged for paying extra tax or get to be smug about it would make me NOT want to pay extra. While some charity donations are done to get social approval (think of the number of buildings named after big donors), there are also people who want to give anonymously and not get told they are "morally superior".

And those of us who do give extra, tend to give to charity because it is the governments job to fund the governments work through general taxation which is fair and equal across everyone.

So I support taxing the rich and taxing them all.

LarkspurLane · 17/10/2025 11:42

Do you have a feeling that there are enough people who want to pay more tax, i.e. most of the country, or are you just going by a few posters on mumsnet?

If it became a voluntary thing, then I'd like my extra taxes to go on things I cared about, probably things local to me. My local hospital, for example, rather than defence.

I'd be ok without a sticker in that case.

Poppingby · 17/10/2025 11:41

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:37

Run the voluntary system initially and see what the uptake is. The champagne socialists will be called out If they aren't seen to be volunteering enough cash whilst posting left wing sentiments on social media etc. The pressure will be on for people to put their money where their mouth is.

Then work out the gap and raise taxes and cut spending accordingly.

Show quote history

I think if you applied a precious metal metaphor to the badge it would help the more -ahem- prestige-conscious among those who could afford it. So instead of a 'higher rate' tax payer you could become a 'gold member' tax payer or platinum, diamond etc to infinity. You could have little badges for your rolls royce window so it doesn't look like you think you're morally superior, just superior.

In fact you could do this even while the taxes are mandatory! I think you would find that rich people actually do have money to spare to fund tax rises as long as they get a Gold/platinum in front of their name so everyone knows how special they are. They could also enjoy public services too so it's a win-win.

EasternStandard · 17/10/2025 11:40

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:37

Run the voluntary system initially and see what the uptake is. The champagne socialists will be called out If they aren't seen to be volunteering enough cash whilst posting left wing sentiments on social media etc. The pressure will be on for people to put their money where their mouth is.

Then work out the gap and raise taxes and cut spending accordingly.

Show quote history

Not raise taxes, that has already happened despite this.

“Our manifesto is fully costed and fully funded and requires no further tax increases.”

And then £70bn in borrowing and tax hikes. Now softening people up for more tax hikes despite saying it was a one off.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:38

SkipAd · 17/10/2025 11:34

I don’t think anyone is saying they would love to pay more tax.
People are saying that they recognise that a fully funded society needs a high level of taxation.
I obviously don’t want to make myself worse off but if as a society, there is a need for greater taxation, I would accept my part in it.

But you know already there is a greater need for taxation or a requirement to cut spending. This is why there is a deficit. You could proactively volunteer to contribute what you can sensibly rather than hope Reeves targets someone else.

OP posts:

poetryandwine · 17/10/2025 11:37

I agree with @parietal and @Poppingby

I want to see a plan for using taxes well. In the meantime I prefer to contribute directly to charities and let HMG help via Gift Aid. Sorry, @hattie43 , but some of those gifts support refugees.

I also agree with @ElizaMulvil that utilities should be renationalised. Let HMG find the balance between fiscal responsibility - which private providers have failed to do - and making a reasonable profit for the nation.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:37

Poppingby · 17/10/2025 11:32

Ok great, we're agreed. Raise taxes in a formal way because we need it and allow people to pay more tax if they can and want to as a kind of 'elite points' system. Perfect.

Show quote history

Run the voluntary system initially and see what the uptake is. The champagne socialists will be called out If they aren't seen to be volunteering enough cash whilst posting left wing sentiments on social media etc. The pressure will be on for people to put their money where their mouth is.

Then work out the gap and raise taxes and cut spending accordingly.

OP posts:

EasternStandard · 17/10/2025 11:36

Yanbu there’s plenty of takers on here going by posts.

Badbadbunny · 17/10/2025 11:36

Because it's a load of crap. All virtue signallers saying they'd pay more tax, but when the day dawns, they won't. They want someone else to pay more tax, not themselves, but claim they would to make themselves look good.

To think Reeves is missing a trick here?

SkipAd · 17/10/2025 11:34

I don’t think anyone is saying they would love to pay more tax.
People are saying that they recognise that a fully funded society needs a high level of taxation.
I obviously don’t want to make myself worse off but if as a society, there is a need for greater taxation, I would accept my part in it.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:34

DEAROP · 17/10/2025 11:29

The fact that rich people are loath to open their wallets isn't about political ties. It's about the type of attitude you need to have generally to hoard money.

Show quote history

The statistics just don't support your statements. The vast majority of wealthy families lose their wealth over three generations. They don't do a great job of hoarding their wealth in the long term. The vast majority of very wealthy people (98%) donate to charity.

OP posts:

TMMC1 · 17/10/2025 11:33

She wants fairness and flat line so why isn't she stopping civil service pensions with immediate effect?

Poppingby · 17/10/2025 11:32

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:28

I completely agree. I think being morally superior is a good thing, that's why I think they should be able to receive formal acknowledgement for doing the right thing. This would also play to people's vanity which always helps.

It's hard to argue that volunteering to pay more tax will ever be a bad thing. I do though think that it is hypocritical and wrong though to insist that you would love to pay more tax and then not actually do it.

Show quote history

Ok great, we're agreed. Raise taxes in a formal way because we need it and allow people to pay more tax if they can and want to as a kind of 'elite points' system. Perfect.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 17/10/2025 11:31

DEAROP · 17/10/2025 10:50

We could do that as well as taxing the wealthiest. It would put pennies on top of the pounds.

Show quote history

Yes, you could do both if you were sure you wouldn't fall victim to the Laffer curve effect. A big positive of the voluntary approach is that this wouldn't necessarily impact behaviours in adverse ways which is what we risk with most tax rises

OP posts:

DEAROP · 17/10/2025 11:29

hattie43 · 17/10/2025 11:26

I also think anyone who subscribes to open borders should pay more tax , the rest of us can have our taxes go where needed . Let’s see then how their liberal attitudes have the courage of conviction directly to the wallet .

The fact that rich people are loath to open their wallets isn't about political ties. It's about the type of attitude you need to have generally to hoard money.