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

But by that happening, it creates a 'look at me I'm so generous with my taxes and I shouldn't have to be' as has been seen on this thread, rather than a recognition that a person earning 250k + a year isn't some magnificent super human that we should all be grateful has graced us with their presence in the country (often, putting huge amounts of money off shore and/or paying people to hide as much as their income as they can get away with)

Can I ask where you live in Scotland? You don’t have to answer as I realise it’s intrusive but I was just wondering.

They can certainly tax their way out of it.

If there is a bailout (unlikely) then the conditions imposed as a result of that are generally both increasing taxes and decreasing spending.

At the moment it seems far more likely they want to erode debt through inflation, which is why the markets are holding a cosh over them.

Inflation is just another (fairly insidious) tax that they can use without the public being up in arms about how their wealth is being eroded.

Put a penny on income tax there is outrage, but let inflation run hot at 8% for a year and there seems to be relatively little complaint.

Exactly. If you want to feel less jealous of very high private sector wages just think of it as being the wealthy employee gets half of their salary, and the state gets the other half. Win-win all around.

Nurses, doctors and teachers are paid fine. If we had a more free market for healthcare and not a crappy NHS they'd actually make lots more. US nurses and especially doctors make a lot more.

Someone on £250k generates enough value or revenue for their firm to justify that pay. Their firm WANTS to pay them that way. It's usually due to delivering value and revenue for the firm. They are more skilled and knowledgeable.

Or stop punishing success?

@Itchthescratch Although a Labour MP (quickly deleted) put up a post about how it is the public sector spending their wakes that means the private sector can exist/ thrives….

People in the NHS do both private and BHS work and make hundreds of thousands.
Some consultants are exceptionally well paid. They also have great NHS pensions that they pay no administration fees for.

Those people that do say finance or law jobs in the private sector don’t get the great pensions that are part of the NHS so need the high pay to save for retirement. For every 100,000 of savings you get only say 4500 per annum pension and also you usually pay a 1.3% admin charge.

Because someone who works in the city can play a huge role in wealth creation. This is absolutely vital for the UK as it boosts our GDP and ultimately drives the economic growth that everyone bangs on about. This is what will pay doctor's salaries and everyone else who works in the public sector.

You also completely ignore the role of risk. There is a reason why lots of families want their children to be lawyers and doctors even though their salaries are much lower than entrepreneurs etc. We need to reward innovation and economic risk taking as again this drives economic growth.

The idea that public sector worker should be the best paid and most revered is partly how we have got ourselves in this mess. Look at their pensions and other elements of their employment package including job stability. They also wouldn't exist at all without the private sector generating wealth.

Growth is stalling and has been for the past two decades. The government keeps turning to higher earners to keep funding high, and they cannot squeeze any more out of them. They can’t borrow more. They have to slash spending while putting all effort into a desperate bid to drive growth if we are going to escape a bailout.

Because if you try to cap those bankers earnings they will leave elsewhere where they can do exactly the same job, pay less tax and the tax they do pay goes to another government.

These jobs aren’t teaching or being a Dr. They can be done anywhere on the planet. It’s wonderful that we have these jobs here in the UK as bankers pay masses of tax. Banks are absolutely paranoid about being seen to shirk tax and ensure every single penny of tax due is paid to HMRC.

It was lefty tax guru Dan Neidle who said the banker bonus limit ought to be abolished so that bankers in the UK could earn big bonuses - and HMRC could reap the income tax benefits.

Well the way it will end is going cap in hand to the IMF for a bailout and then we will find out what austerity feels like

they can’t tax and spend their way out of this mess

I don’t think there are enough rich people/highest earners to tax to meet the demands of the general population, vast majority of whom aren’t paying their way. I think that is simple Economic Reality. So the way the political landscape is going to be working will be a function of economic realism going forward and the era of the Progressive Liberal thinking and globalisation seems to be largely over. And on a State level individual nation states are very self interested.

Would a penny on income tax make much difference to most people? And it would raise billions. I think that's what most people mean when they say they wouldn't mind paying more. But why should some people donate that amount if most people won't tax is meant to apply to everyone.

I don't see any individual is so much more valuable that they should be paid multiple times more than a nurse/doctor/teacher, so I don't agree that you should reserve the right to spend it on tat if you wished. I'm sure you work hard, but I don't believe someone in the city on 250k a year works say, 7 times harder than someone in the NHS, so why should they get such crazy renumeration in the first place?

If a government wants to fund a new initiative it only has 4 options:

1. borrow more to fund it - not an option. We’re already maxing out our credit card.
2. cut back somewhere else.
3. raise taxes. Taxes can’t get much higher on middle or higher earners. As the SNP’s experiment has shown in Scotland we are close to the peak of the ladder curve in England.
4. grow the economy - Labour are doing pretty badly here too.

I don't see anything here that is objective.

News flash, I don't see anything where I mentioned 10x as much.

£1 is worth more to someone who earns £20K per year than to someone who earns £1 million. Hence progressive taxation. That's pretty self evident without even going into things like discretionary income.

Ultimately the electorate will decide what they want in terms of taxation.

The only thing I wish is that the politicians tell the truth when they propose taxation policy/services.

At the moment it seems to be "no we're not going to increase taxes and you're going to get great services with us" and then go on endlessly about "efficiency savings".

This isn't the truth and leads to manifesto promises being problems to be managed rather than pledges to be fulfilled.

We get the politicians we deserve, and the services we deserve too I guess.

Whenever there are threads about tax and people point out Scottish rates, there will be a n SNP supporter claiming they don’t mind paying more tax as they get free prescriptions / dentistry / baby boxes and you know it’s complete nonsense as the taxes for good earners are vastly more here, and services are vastly worse.

I’d pay even more in tax here in Scotland if the violence in schools was addressed so my child - traumatised through so many unaddressed physical attacks - could attend but the Scottish government couldn’t care less so I’ll have to spend my money on alternative provision.

What a bizzare statement! The basic rate tax is much lower than the Scandinavian average. Those on lower pay there pay far more than they do here. It’s just a fact. That’s why they have far better public services than us.

Your paying less than people pay in Scotland.

What are you referring to? I linked figures for you already. Did you read them?

My DH said he would but it doesn’t work in isolation. He paid six figures in tax and he meant higher earners. So I stead of a 45% cap it would go up to 50% for those earning, say, over £250k and 55% on those earning over £1m. But that still wouldn’t raise a significant amount. Best to increase other taxes for very high earners like CGT and high earning dividends, closing tax relief on certain estate planning and reduce relief on high earner pensions etc. Just taxing ever higher earners on income isn’t going to do enough.

So as predicted, you are willing to pay a bit more if other people (I.e those richer than you) pay a lot more. I will pay £500 if someone else that is already paying far more tax than me in real terms and as a percentage of income pays ten times as much. Newsflash: the system already works like that and those paying the most are already paying way more tax than high earners in Scandinavia etc. They are paying their share already.

If you work hard and earn good money then the bulk of it should be yours to spend as you please even if it is on tat as you call it. It certainly shouldn't be taken by the government to redistribute how it seems fit often on those that have actively chosen to not not work as hard as you. Honestly the entitlement is insane. You and the state don't own other people's money and you don't get to tell people that they shouldn't be decorating their house or having a holiday.

The reason no major political party is campaigning on a high tax ticket is because it isn't economically viable and the public consistently state they don't want this. They are happy (like you) to tax the rapidly fleeing and very small minority that are rich but they personally don't want to pay more tax. You need a broad tax base to raise serious money and there simply aren't enough rich people in the UK willing to stick around and pay crazy taxes.

Yes I know. Awful.

It honestly doesn't bother us.