AIBU to question people claiming they would happily pay more tax?

I'm happy to pay more as part of a society where all those who can are also paying more so that a significant amount is raised that can make a difference. The only way of achieving this is compulsory tax.
I'm not going to make a voluntary contribution that would be as good as useless if there was only a handful of us doing it, as I feel in this case, my money is better spent donating to charities.

Theirs is a difference between wanting to pay more ( who does ? ) and believing that paying more is essential if we want the kind of country , health service and education , that people also want.

And some people even recognise that they are at the upper income end and so the burden should fairly fall on them even if they can think of better ways to spend their money

but the basic trouble with this country is too many people beleive that tax money is wasted in vast amounts , and too many people get the £££ eyes when money comes their way

the whole “tax money is wasted “ goes back to dear old Maggie who convinced everyone that private industry was way more efficient that government and public and so gave away water and gas and trains and all these things that we now can see are not better run in private hands - big do tend to cost a lot more. The idea of a wasteful government has stuck however

Firstly, most people don't know that that option exists. I had never seen or heard of that page until today.

Secondly, governments plan in advance how to allocate their budget. A tiny drop in the ocean into the voluntary tax bucket will not make the government change their spending decisions because they can't plan around sporadic voluntary donations. The only way to force the government to increase spending is for them to know the amount coming in, which means an increase in tax for everybody (or, preferably, higher earners who are currently under taxed compared to their wealth).

I pay more by donating to charities through monthly subscriptions, but I don't think those charities should have to exist. I think all or most of us should be paying more tax and the government should start fulfilling its responsibility towards its people by covering the services that are currently, shamefully, filled by charities surviving off the goodness of people's hearts.

I would agree with this ^ 100%.
No way on God's green earth would I want to pay any more tax. I am up to Pussy's Bow seeing how my money is squandered.
We need to cut Foreign Aid to the bone. At present we give to Ukraine, Afghanistan, Ethiopea, Syria & Somalia.I don't have a problem with Ukraine - we need to support them as, unfortunately, they are a buffer between us and Russia.
Ethiopia was never colonised by Britain. Syria gained independence in 1945, Somalia in 1960. We should never have got involved with Afghanistan and certainly shouldn't be paying for it now.
Benefits need to be cut, (I don't class Pensions as a "benefit" btw as most of those folks will have made some contribution in their lifetime.)
Those young able-bodied NEWTs (not in education, work or training) need to have all benefits cut so they are forced to get off their scrawny a*s and get a job. NI contributions for employers need to be cut to encourage more job creation.
Please don't tell me there are no jobs because where I am there are lots of jobs in the hospitality sector, cleaners, sales persons, hotel staff, bingo callers, pub work - all jobs that don't require any qualifications.
Migrants need to be put in basic accommodation, warehouses on camp beds, no free mobile phones, no free dentistry, prison-style food, do their own laundry. that should stop the pull factors.
Well, that's made a start - are you listening Andy?

Because doing it on a voluntary basis won't work. So few people will do it that the ones that make significant personal sacrifices will see no benefit

I'd happily pay more tax for better services, if everyone else did the same. I've seen first hand how much better public services are in countries with high tax

Have just been cycling through a part of my town where brownfield sites have finally been redeveloped. There’s patch of land near me that had a petrol station on it, has been just a cleared site of years but I assume the land is heavily polluted and it may also still have fuel storage space underground. Only very expensive (or very large) developments would tip that one into the black bur not everywhere is like that.

I always thought people meant it in the sense of not minding if the government raised taxes and everyone paid more, not in the sense of individuals paying a bit more off their own bat - otherwise it would just a drip in the ocean unless you are a lottery winner/movie star etc!

If I had a bit of spare money I wanted to do some good with, I would donate it to something local where it would be enough for their needs.

The Netherlands has them. What I means is not shit build quality and poor design. One of my work colleagues is complaining about housing being built near her because it’ll all 4 bed villas and not what the local area needs. The housing will attract people from out of the area and the places those people come from might benefit as their old properties become available but if the new people to the area are commuters who mainly spend elsewhere and more school places aren’t made available then it’s crap for the locals and they will NIMBY their head off.

@Meandthegherkin Where are the “right” places? Everyone is a NIMBY! Ang Rayner says the right place is near stations. Those in villages with stations disagree! No one agrees with housing. High quality? Great, it puts the price up - lot? More than the local market will stand quite often. Like developing Brian field sites. Huge costs attached to this too so it doesn’t happen and councils maintain old employment sites as just that. Designated for employment so no homes. It’s all bogged down in zoning and not modern life.

The tone of the OP is what I thought was most interesting about the thread.

Which is precisely why they presumably rush to offer - nothing more than a PR exercise for those in the public eye and a meaningless gesture for the anonymous virtue signalers on here

I'd pay more tax,but I think the most important thing is to get all the cash-in-hand workers paying their fare-share, estimated £2 billion a year evaded by local tradesmen under-declaring ( stealing from everybody else and often their children).

I have deliberately not said what tax level I would suggest was right.

@concertinacornflake why not?

My view is we have way too much money tied up in housing - unproductive and kill the economy. Trouble is when house prices fall then it currently means the economy is in a mess, borrowing costs are high and people still can’t afford to buy/others stop selling. When people
move house it helps the economy as they spend on white goods, carpets etc. I would like to see a lot of good quality well designed high density building in the right places with services to match. Where I live, living in a flat is very desirable but that’s only good in the right place and the right type of property.

You you you you you you you... So many assumptions.

Whether different households could afford any tax increase is an important consideration in any discussion.

We spend way more as a country than we pay in and borrow huge amounts to make up the difference. Bond rates have gone up so the price of our borrowing has gone up, we can’t not borrow as we’d have to slash public spending on the spot. We need more money to pay the increased interest rates on our debt just to stay as we are. If your mortgage rate goes up and you can’t remortgage (or you can but only at a higher rate than your previous fix) then it costs you more but does your house simultaneously improve? No, same house and less disposable income to spend on everything else.

Even with that last lead they didn’t try.

Perhaps they will go for more taxes, I’m not sure the public will reflect the keen to pay more on mn.

If I personally paid an extra 1% it would make absolutely no difference. If we all paid an extra 1% it would make an enormous difference. Do I have to find another way of explaining collective action to you?

It’s the way it’s sold to the nation ultimately. If they sell it as “we need you all to pay a bit more because we need to fund x, y and z” I think most would be ok. There’d be some complaints but there always is, you can’t please everyone.

And yet Labour didn’t run on higher taxes. Apparently higher taxes wouldn’t happen.

I’d be happy to pay more if everyone paid more- how is me on my small income putting in a donation going to help?

having said that I did turn down SEISS because I didn’t need it. So I guess I literally did put my money where my mouth is by turning down a government freebie that I was entitled to but didn’t need.

Well, I'm in Scotland, and as a household we pay ~3k more per year in tax than we would south of the border (1.5k each).

I broadly support it, though I wouldn't support any further increase.

But for that, I know I am getting:

• free bus travel for the kids
• free prescriptions
• free uni tuition
• an NHS dentist for the whole family (not guaranteed, but you are more likely to find one. I've never had trouble.)

I wouldn't voluntarily throw that money into a black hole and hope for the best.

I was at the PSA conference down in Oxford a few months ago and a political economist said it’s been proven and well evidenced that most people in the UK genuinely don’t care about higher taxes provided services e.g NHS, schools, emergency services are running well.