Which taxes should Burnham put up?

I don’t know anyone who uses private health who has “offshore accounts” etc. they all either get it through work as a taxable benefit, or are self employed and prioritise access to rapid, effective treatment because they don’t get sick pay.
I would bet the NHS could save £130m a year by not posting letters!

I do see that changing as people live longer but the social care support isn't there these days as it was in the 90s, so if people have one issue it will impact them more than it used to and result in worse health for longer. Falls for eg which usually lead to isolation. Prior to this, upstream there are too few DEXA scans, resulting in osteoperosis not being diagnosed until too late as a prime example of science not being used for preventative care where it easily could and should. For a start they should be getting everyone who was on depo-provera and other meds that cause it when taken for years in for scans in their 40's.

I’d rather see people charged for NHS appointments they don’t turn up for. My GP practice has hundreds every month. And then people can’t get appointments. I don’t know the answer but many people have no respect for things they perceive as being free.

Closing the loopholes would be good but when it come to the NHS the general public need to do their bit too. They need to be as healthy as they can for as long as they can.

Thinking further on the potential tenner per private visit - £130m pa, he could kill 2 birds by using that to pay for 3k extra midwives and begin to resolve some of these terrible outcomes we have in maternity care.

Water companies, the super rich

I agree 100% with this.
The deadbeat father of my kids manages to lie his way into paying next to nothing for them -
less than one pound per day per child!
He owns two properties outright and has a job.
Whereas I lose my child benefit for earning over the threshold (ok, I get it, maybe I should but I’m still raising four kids alone - it would come in handy!)
Obviously I recognise their Dad should be paying, not the state, but the Government are very quick to take the money off me and he enjoys his carefree lifestyle without being made to face up to his obligations.

Amazon only pay about 7%, they should be paying 25%.

The others you state that all underpay - should not be able to underpay.
They are all mega profitable companies that should be contributing, any loopholes should be closed.

I think my issue is that a lot of high earners don't pay full tax - offshore accounts and various loopholes, who are more likely to use private. I don't want a 2 tier health service so I want the NHS to actually see something from it as a thank you for all of their help in research and progression of our health to date. They need money not retrospective what if costing. 13 million private appointments last year, so could have earnt NHS £130m. It's the same consultants taking time out of working for NHS anyway.

VAT. Just put it on everything like they do in Denmark. No more silly rules on VAT on biscuits but not cakes (or the other way around). Kids clothes aren't actually any cheaper for being zero rated, the shops just make more money.

But get rid of stamp duty too.

I don’t think it’s a gotcha. As I said, I don’t mind paying more tax if it goes hand in hand with welfare reform. If it doesn’t I’ll cut my losses. I’m self employed. My job wouldn’t necessarily be automatically replaced by another taxpayer.

To be honest, I’ve got to the point where I’m more interested in putting my own interests first. I never thought I’d think like that. But many people are tired of feeling that they are being taxed more for less.

I have used private healthcare and wouldn't mind paying a tenner for each visit to help NHS. It's hardly thousands like the VAT!

Amazon and BP paid over £1b each in taxes last year. Google and Vodafone far less but for different reasons. Meta, Apple and Starbucks plus Vodafone and Google all underpay and that is mostly linked to taxing profits and not turnover and the way allowances and things are calculated.

This has been put in place but it's a cliff edge tax that creates perverse incentives. Instead of spending a bit extra (anyone want growth?) then you're incentivised to spend less so you avoid this cliff edge tax.

EVERYONE should pay tax.
There should be a tax-free allowance like we currently have, and any income above that - regardless of where it comes from - should be taxed.
So salaries, diivdends, maintenence. UC, PIP - as soon as the income goes over the allowance, tax is payable. Ironically, this only currently happens with workers and pensioners.
At the moment we have a ridiculous situation where someone earning £15k pays tax and another getting £15k benefits doesn't.
We also need to get rid of the expensive rule that allows single parents to claim full benefits then recieve maintenence on top, not even paying any tax.
Abd get rid of the triple lock on pensions.

So, relieving pressure on the NHS, not utilising the services that you actually pay tax for…..should be taxed more?
Because, as I said upthread and no one answered, that’s worked so well for additional tax on private education?

Reduce taxes to encourage investment resulting in more jobs and an increased tax take.

Amazon, BP, Google and Vodaphone.

That should raise the billions our country needs so that we can look after the elderly, create a British green power grid and give farmers a boost to produce enough organic food to feed the nation.

I think any car that costs more than 50k should be taxed in some way. All of the people driving like idiots on the road seem to be in the most expensive cars and I can only imagine they cost the public a lot in accidents wherever they go. ETA I also think the Australian system of vetoing under 20's from certain powerful cars should be enforced.

Obviously Amazon, Starbucks etc etc but they won't. Ditto offshore account holders.

I think private healthcare should have a small additional tax per visit, something like £10 that can go straight to NHS.

I also think that anyone arrested for drunken damages needs to pay for the clean up costs, ditto with crimes where they make money out of other people's misfortune. Proceeds of crime are slowly being got to for some crimes but not others where the public still has to fork out for clean ups.

Yes, but they won’t necessarily be paying higher rate tax.

But are you saying there should be a tax even if the student doesn't take the loan? No point in parents contributing if so, Government would have to cover greater costs.

A loan is fair and straightforward. Other countries manage it, so it clearly isn't impossible. Compared with financing and managing a 25-year infrastructure project, administering a fixed-term student loan should be a breeze.

The current system isn't great, and neither is a graduate tax. They simply distribute the burden differently. I'd much rather see a fixed-term loan on reasonable terms than an open-ended graduate tax.

I also think we need to set the bar higher than "most graduates don't repay the loan". That's not aimed at you; it's just an argument that gets repeated time and time again. To me, it simply gives a really poor system a free pass instead of asking how it could be improved.

It seems to me that we never break the cycle of replacing one poor tax policy with another. Instead of fixing what's broken, we just replace one disproportionate tax burden with a different disproportionate tax burden, rather than designing a system that is fair, proportionate and robust.